Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[DennyT]

I see Munns is writing me "open letters" over at the BFF; too funny!

he explains his demands for money from kitakaze by equating it to a public appearance. Maybe he can flesh that out for us because it sounds a little bogus; is the suit viewing going to be a public appearance, happening in front of 150 people? I thought it was going to be research on the PGF? like he's getting paid to do by the grant? is the suit less important to explaining the PGF than the naked women* stuff he bragged about, and invested so much grant money in? How much went into the naked women thing? He says he isn't getting 50,000 bucks. How much is it? The grant was for 61k, right? Has he talked to Meldrum about the nude/suit comparative value? And how busy is he that he claims he can't take a day to go the PNW to view the suit that the bleevers have been demanding for what? 40 years? Time management, folks...

*partially nude

My money says he'll never show up. In my book, "can't" means "doesn't want to."
I could be wrong. For example, I didn't think Pablo Sandoval could hit a ball that almost hit him in the foot, over the wall.

 

[GT/CS]

Munns knows that Kit found the Patty suit and he's got himself into quite a difficult position.
Remember when he started analyzing the PGF then abruptly stopped and switched to the lens nonsense?

I'm 100% convinced that he convinced himself he was looking at a suit, not an ape, so he had to go in another direction to find his fame and fortune.

Finding the suit won't convince the BFF believers, but who cares what they think. What the suit will do is convince the typical couch potato TV viewer that Patty was a bloke in a suit.

IMO if Kit makes his documentary and it's aired by one of the networks, (even if it's just History, Discovery, or NatGeo) the response will be huge.

 

[Cbengalensis]

In going back to the foundation, it may be helpful to look at the controversy itself and not just the film. Why are we even discussing this film 40+ years later? Is the controversy fabricated?

That's a common topic in this thread and there are others devoted specifically to the marketing and commercialization of Bigfoot. Spend some time observing coverage of the PGF in mass media, and note how they devote the vast majority of airtime to the minority of experts who endorse the film, like Bill Munns, rather than the majority who do not. Have you been lead to believe that the film is a stronger piece of evidence than it really is? Are you being sold a false controversy?

Kilaak:

Again, excellent questions, and I find dialogues with you quite refreshing.

I’ve seen the thread on “Bigsploitation” and would readily agree there is an element that exploits (and sometimes even invents) controversies simply to exploit public fascination with the idea. So this concern is a very worthy line of reasoning to consider. I’m not impressed with the pure intellectual quality of the documentaries I’ve seen.

But as I’ve noted before, it’s the lack of a solution which intrigues me, and if there were a solution, I don’t think a false controversy could hide it. Now there are people on each side with a passionate belief is has been solved, and member Rockinkt seems to be one such individual, (and I’m addressing one of his comments next). But while I do see individuals who seem to have an absolute confidence that a solution exists, I don’t see a larger consensus of a solution. And for the person here I mentioned who does see a solution, his explanations seem to be flawed on examination, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in his perceived solutions gaining a larger consensus if subjected to critical inspection.

As to the question of Patterson’s movie and how strong a piece of evidence it is, and could people be misleading us into thinking it is stronger than it actually is, as evidence goes, I certainly would not claim to have an answer (at this point), but I will agree it’s a valid concern to consider and give more thought to the issue of.

rockinkt:

Where you say above:

"The original film is not available for analysis. Since the original is not available - any analysis of the copies is moot as there is no way to show that it has not been altered from the original. Therefore, anything seen on the copies should be considered discredited evidence and useless for any factual discussion.
Not only that, there is nothing in the film that can be shown to be impossible for a human in a suit to replicate and the vast majority of FX people whose opinions are public state that it is obviously a human in a suit. "

Did any of these experts examine the original film? As much as I’ve read, all such experts examined copies. So if we accept your statement that all copies are discredited as evidence and useless, then it follows that FX experts using copies for analysis are basing their opinions on useless and discredited evidence and thus their opinions are useless as well.

If we accept your argument that the opinion of these FX experts has merit or weight in supporting a conclusion of a hoax, then we must accept that copies are useful and reliable evidence.

You have just discredited the opinions of the very FX experts you then rely upon to support your argument for the film being a hoax, or you have discredited your argument that copies are useless. Discrediting your own argument with another of your own arguments does not inspire confidence in your reasoning skills, or confidence that the other arguments you offered have merit.

CB

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting. Gimlin seemed to drop out early on, only to come back years later as the darling of the Bigfoot public. This suggests (to me, anyway) that he may have anticipated the film to be exposed as a hoax. When that didn't happen and instead it was championed by the likes of Krantz and Meldrum, Gimlin decided to partake in the limelight (as such it is) of ascending Bigfoot interest.

The more recent revelations about Patterson's character (after decades of ignoring the issue by the Bigfoot pros) led, I think, to the re-dubbing of the film as the "PG". Meldrum favors Gimlin over Patterson in his SASQUATCH to the point of giving Gimlin an entire chapter: "The Wrangler and the Wildwoman: Bob Gimlin's Encounter with Bigfoot." This has to be seen as an attempt to deflect attention from the author of the film in order to clean up the film's reputation in light of the Long revelations. Also, it suggests, but only suggests, that Meldrum was attempting to so enshrine Gimlin in Bigfoot lore as to discourage Bob from recanting.

Very good observations...

There wasn't a lot going on with this until the advent of the internet as we know it today, so that has a lot to do with the emergence of Gimlin as a Bigfoot darling..

 

[DennyT]

Munns knows that Kit found the Patty suit and he's got himself into quite a difficult position.
Remember when he started analyzing the PGF then abruptly stopped and switched to the lens nonsense?

I'm 100% convinced that he convinced himself he was looking at a suit, not an ape, so he had to go in another direction to find his fame and fortune.

Finding the suit won't convince the BFF believers, but who cares what they think. What the suit will do is convince the typical couch potato TV viewer that Patty was a bloke in a suit.

IMO if Kit makes his documentary and it's aired by one of the networks, (even if it's just History, Discovery, or NatGeo) the response will be huge.

even the footers have noticed his aversion to the very obvious "foot as ruler" territory, which shows the subject to be either a) small man sized or b) a fraud, depending on whether or you believe those feet made the tracks Patterson casted. Every time that subject is brought up he suddenly remembers he has to go pick up his dry cleaning, or has bouncing boob footage to review.

 

[Correa Neto]

Do I really need to see the original Star Wars film to know Chewbacca and the droids were just guys wearing costumes?

 

[jhunter1163]

even the footers have noticed his aversion to the very obvious "foot as ruler" territory, which shows the subject to be either a) small man sized or b) a fraud, depending on whether or you believe those feet made the tracks Patterson casted. Every time that subject is brought up he suddenly remembers he has to go pick up his dry cleaning, or has bouncing boob footage to review.

Where does one apply for this job?

 

[Correa Neto]

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life has a very informative section on bouncing boobs...
Mandatory research material for this topic...

 

[demonunderyourbed]

Munns knows that Kit found the Patty suit and he's got himself into quite a difficult position.
Remember when he started analyzing the PGF then abruptly stopped and switched to the lens nonsense?

I'm 100% convinced that he convinced himself he was looking at a suit, not an ape, so he had to go in another direction to find his fame and fortune.


IMO if Kit makes his documentary and it's aired by one of the networks, (even if it's just History, Discovery, or NatGeo) the response will be huge.

100% he has.why invite the one person who if he said no its not ,every footer would have the perfect ammo to shoot kit down for good,but kit wants him there,not hard to work out why.
Because it is the suit no question.Kit hasn't posted oh it could be lets see what bill says,Kit is saying yes its 100% the suit.bill do you want to examine the pgf suit.
The final piece in the jigsaw will be when its revealed who had it all this time.

 

[River]

Where does one apply for this job?

Doing photography can be nice sometimes. Getting paid to do it can be nice too. Here is a link to some photography work of mine that was featured on a popular website that might help the natural breast study for the PGF.

NSFW LINK

http://totallycoolpix.com/2012/01/in-the-picture-ben-river/

That said, I was a little surprised to see Munns undertake that study route and those type of experiments. But hey, he is still getting paid to do it. (score!)

In all seriousness though, the study of real human breasts while doing an analysis on the PGF. Genius. How much data can come from the experiments? Who cares! haha. I'm sure that tight budget is well spent doing such experiments as this.

Seems like a huge waste to me...

 

[Chris L]

Kilaak:
Did any of these experts examine the original film? As much as I’ve read, all such experts examined copies. So if we accept your statement that all copies are discredited as evidence and useless, then it follows that FX experts using copies for analysis are basing their opinions on useless and discredited evidence and thus their opinions are useless as well.
CB

Are you suggesting that there is something inherent in the copying process that would make the figure look more like a man in suit? If so, what would that be?

 

[LTC8K6]

Do I really need to see the original Star Wars film to know Chewbacca and the droids were just guys wearing costumes?

Han shoots first...

 

[Cbengalensis]

Are you suggesting that there is something inherent in the copying process that would make the figure look more like a man in suit? If so, what would that be?

Chris:

corrected. Was distracted while writing.

No, I am not suggesting anything in the copy process would make the figure look more like a man in a suit. I simply remarked that if copys are crappy evidence, then makeup artists using copies can't be relied on for a good analysis because their information source is crappy. Garbage in, garbage out.

Now I don't personally endorse the idea the copies are worthless, but member Rockinkt made that claim. He then made the claim about the FX people saying the movie is a fake or whatever. I was pointing out a contridiction in his logic.

CB

 

[Cbengalensis]

Kilaak:

I did some more thinking on your fine question, quoted as follows:

“In going back to the foundation, it may be helpful to look at the controversy itself and not just the film. Why are we even discussing this film 40+ years later? Is the controversy fabricated?

That's a common topic in this thread and there are others devoted specifically to the marketing and commercialization of Bigfoot. Spend some time observing coverage of the PGF in mass media, and note how they devote the vast majority of airtime to the minority of experts who endorse the film, like Bill Munns, rather than the majority who do not. Have you been lead to believe that the film is a stronger piece of evidence than it really is? Are you being sold a false controversy?”

The mass media thing is fairly recent, and the reality TV trend has all but destroyed TV as a credible information resource, and clearly it does exploit controversies like the Bigfoot/Patterson Movie thing (sometimes shamelessly).

But It got me thinking, if we went back before the reality TV invasion, was there a valid controversy then? Was there a solution or concensus then?

I looked at David Daegling’s book, “Bigfoot Exposed” (2004) and he acknowledged Mr. Heironimous and Mr. Long’s book so we can’t say he was not factoring them into his thinking, yet he wrote (page 143) “While the film’s authenticity cannot be established, even the skeptics must concede that a smoking gun has yet to be found.”

So while his book is emphatically skeptical, he can’t endorse or claim a solution. Lacking a solution is controversy.

Then I went to “Unexplained” by Jerome Clark, (1993) where on page 31, describing the Patterson encounter, said “As they passed it and veered to resume their original course, they saw, or would claim they saw, something which would engulf them in a controversy which, nearly three decades later, has yet to end.”

Finally, I checked out the Time-Life series on “Mysteries of the Unknown”, the edition on “Mysterious Creatures” (1988) and the book on page 124 described Rene Dahinden bringing the film to Hollywood for examination and the book text reads “ Neither the Disney people nor any other analyst of the film has been able to find conclusive evidence of fraud, what movie people would refer to as the “zipper in the suit”.

The author then closed the chapter with the remark, “If they have yet to prove their case (proving bigfoot like creatures exist, my addition for context), it is also true they have yet to be proven wrong.”

So a controversy, a mystery without a clear and compelling solution, does seem to be acknowledged before the exploitation mentality took over the media and inflated the issue.

It’s more fiercely argued now, and the internet has empowered many people to make many claims, but I think the controversy is real and the solution is elusive. And why the solution eludes us is what fuels my personal curiosity.

CB

 

[Correa Neto]

Nope. You are comparing apples too oranges.

Not having the original PGF means, for example, we can no longer:

1. Have access to the full original resolution of the film.
2. Know the complete original contents of the rest of the reel.
3. Know exactly what were the original's colors hues.
4. Know for sure what film was used.

A partial copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original Star Wars would have similar issues, but still one would be able to see Chewbacca and the droids were just guys wearing costumes. And of course that Han Solo shot first, as LTC8K6 pointed out.

 

[River]

Kilaak:

I did some more thinking on your fine question, quoted as follows:

“In going back to the foundation, it may be helpful to look at the controversy itself and not just the film. Why are we even discussing this film 40+ years later? Is the controversy fabricated?

That's a common topic in this thread and there are others devoted specifically to the marketing and commercialization of Bigfoot. Spend some time observing coverage of the PGF in mass media, and note how they devote the vast majority of airtime to the minority of experts who endorse the film, like Bill Munns, rather than the majority who do not. Have you been lead to believe that the film is a stronger piece of evidence than it really is? Are you being sold a false controversy?”

The mass media thing is fairly recent, and the reality TV trend has all but destroyed TV as a credible information resource, and clearly it does exploit controversies like the Bigfoot/Patterson Movie thing (sometimes shamelessly).

But It got me thinking, if we went back before the reality TV invasion, was there a valid controversy then? Was there a solution or concensus then?

I looked at David Daegling’s book, “Bigfoot Exposed” (2004) and he acknowledged Mr. Heironimous and Mr. Long’s book so we can’t say he was not factoring them into his thinking, yet he wrote (page 143) “While the film’s authenticity cannot be established, even the skeptics must concede that a smoking gun has yet to be found.”

So while his book is emphatically skeptical, he can’t endorse or claim a solution. Lacking a solution is controversy.

Then I went to “Unexplained” by Jerome Clark, (1993) where on page 31, describing the Patterson encounter, said “As they passed it and veered to resume their original course, they saw, or would claim they saw, something which would engulf them in a controversy which, nearly three decades later, has yet to end.”

Finally, I checked out the Time-Life series on “Mysteries of the Unknown”, the edition on “Mysterious Creatures” (1988) and the book on page 124 described Rene Dahinden bringing the film to Hollywood for examination and the book text reads “ Neither the Disney people nor any other analyst of the film has been able to find conclusive evidence of fraud, what movie people would refer to as the “zipper in the suit”.

The author then closed the chapter with the remark, “If they have yet to prove their case (proving bigfoot like creatures exist, my addition for context), it is also true they have yet to be proven wrong.”

So a controversy, a mystery without a clear and compelling solution, does seem to be acknowledged before the exploitation mentality took over the media and inflated the issue.

It’s more fiercely argued now, and the internet has empowered many people to make many claims, but I think the controversy is real and the solution is elusive. And why the solution eludes us is what fuels my personal curiosity.

CB

Smoking gun found November 5, 2011. The solution only eludes those that wish it so. Perhaps you should've said "me" instead of "us".

 

[rockinkt]

Chris:

corrected. Was distracted while writing.

No, I am not suggesting anything in the copy process would make the figure look more like a man in a suit. I simply remarked that if copys are crappy evidence, then makeup artists using copies can't be relied on for a good analysis because their information source is crappy. Garbage in, garbage out.

Now I don't personally endorse the idea the copies are worthless, but member Rockinkt made that claim. He then made the claim about the FX people saying the movie is a fake or whatever. I was pointing out a contridiction in his logic.

CB

Since your your poor argument regarding my supposed contradiction was easily and completely destroyed by others - I will not bother to repeat their excellent points.

However, you seem to be at a loss for even a poor argument regarding the other points I made.
Since they strike at the heart of the matter - I am waiting for you to destroy them so you can keep being a bleever while feigning having an open mind.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

The mass media thing is fairly recent, and the reality TV trend has all but destroyed TV as a credible information resource, and clearly it does exploit controversies like the Bigfoot/Patterson Movie thing (sometimes shamelessly).

But It got me thinking, if we went back before the reality TV invasion, was there a valid controversy then? Was there a solution or concensus then?

I looked at David Daegling’s book, “Bigfoot Exposed” (2004) and he acknowledged Mr. Heironimous and Mr. Long’s book so we can’t say he was not factoring them into his thinking, yet he wrote (page 143) “While the film’s authenticity cannot be established, even the skeptics must concede that a smoking gun has yet to be found.”

So while his book is emphatically skeptical, he can’t endorse or claim a solution. Lacking a solution is controversy.

Then I went to “Unexplained” by Jerome Clark, (1993) where on page 31, describing the Patterson encounter, said “As they passed it and veered to resume their original course, they saw, or would claim they saw, something which would engulf them in a controversy which, nearly three decades later, has yet to end.”

Finally, I checked out the Time-Life series on “Mysteries of the Unknown”, the edition on “Mysterious Creatures” (1988) and the book on page 124 described Rene Dahinden bringing the film to Hollywood for examination and the book text reads “ Neither the Disney people nor any other analyst of the film has been able to find conclusive evidence of fraud, what movie people would refer to as the “zipper in the suit”.

The author then closed the chapter with the remark, “If they have yet to prove their case (proving bigfoot like creatures exist, my addition for context), it is also true they have yet to be proven wrong.”

So a controversy, a mystery without a clear and compelling solution, does seem to be acknowledged before the exploitation mentality took over the media and inflated the issue.

I wouldn't say that the media exploitation is a recent thing. You'll find a steady stream of books, documentaries, and television shows since the PGF was filmed. Many of us here were fans of the seminal "In Search Of". Then you had "Unsolved Mysteries" running in prime time for many years. The running theme for all of them is that the mystery is the selling point, complete with scary music. Look at some of the books you quoted.... "Unexplained" and "Mysteries of the Unknown".

And even though the same mysteries keep popping up, that doesn't lend them credibility. The Loch Ness Monster is still a popular subject, yet look how thoroughly and repeatedly it's been investigated with no hint of a monster to be found. They've done everything shy of draining the Loch. There's nothing there but a good story. But a good story it is, so let's devote an episode to it...

As far as Daegling's "smoking gun" comment, if he's waiting for the final nail in the coffin, that's fine even though it may never come. But that coffin isn't lacking for other nails.

 

[Resume]

Finally, I checked out the Time-Life series on “Mysteries of the Unknown”, the edition on “Mysterious Creatures” (1988) and the book on page 124 described Rene Dahinden bringing the film to Hollywood for examination and the book text reads “ Neither the Disney people nor any other analyst of the film has been able to find conclusive evidence of fraud, what movie people would refer to as the “zipper in the suit”.

The author then closed the chapter with the remark, “If they have yet to prove their case (proving bigfoot like creatures exist, my addition for context), it is also true they have yet to be proven wrong.”

It's mythology, not biology.

 

[demonunderyourbed]

post from kit at the BFF

Frankly, I don't think Bill could make that conclusion when he's there in the room, him knowing whose roof he is under , and seeing the suit in front of him. It's obvious to even the most casual layman. I imagine a person could attempt to argue that the suit was a replica made in honour of the film's achievement by the principals, but this would only be swept aside by the person owning the suit confirming it was the suit.

The history of Bigfootery has been sustained by hoaxes, people deceiving believers, those people often believers themselves. It can be for money, for love of Bigfootery and the myth and belief in it, for notoriety, or purely for personal entertainment. It's happened all along. The PGF was a hoax for money by Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson of which Gimlin and Heironimus, two friends, were manipulated minor players. Hoaxes were at the very begininning of Bigfootery and hoaxes are sustaining it now. The most significant event then and the most significant event now in Bgfootery are both hoaxes and it is just a matter of time before both are exposed. If I am not the one to do it, someone else will.

as iv'e posted before..this is kit's ace up the sleeve. who has the suit.kit's found it 100% people are just going to have to live with the fact.