Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[Northern Lights]

Ummm. 50 minutes of Bill? really? you are not going to at least give us a starting point?

Take your pick. He starts his presentation at the head and works his way down basically explaining why it isn't a costume. I would encourage watching the whole thing, if possible.

I think it's excellent, but that's just my opinion.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Some of what Bill says is debatable, but overall I think he did a good job with the presentation. If there's one thing I've learned about him, it's that he genuinely believes Patty is real.

 

[Resume]

I think it's excellent, but that's just my opinion.

What do you think is excellent about it, other than it supports a conclusion you like? I think the skeptical analyses of the PGF are excellent whether it's from a biological viewpoint or from a costume design angle. It would seem we're at an impasse except there is no biological evidence for the creature in question. Not before the PGF and not after. None. Zero.

This is a problem proponents have to battle and choosing to try and shift the burden of proof by asking skeptics to recreate a suit is just dishonest.

 

[William Parcher]

Bill is trying to convince you that a nonexistent animal was captured on film.

 

[Resume]

If there's one thing I've learned about him, it's that he genuinely believes Patty is real.

You can't possibly know that.

 

[William Parcher]

Take your pick. He starts his presentation at the head and works his way down basically explaining why it isn't a costume. I would encourage watching the whole thing, if possible.

I think it's excellent, but that's just my opinion.

If showing that Bigfoot exists is as simple as posting a link to a Munns talk - then showing that Bigfoot doesn't exist ought to be just as simple.

Have a look at this. I would encourage reading the whole thing, if possible. I think it's excellent, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Northern Lights]

What do you think is excellent about it, other than it supports a conclusion you like? I think the skeptical analyses of the PGF are excellent whether it's from a biological viewpoint or from a costume design angle. It would seem we're at an impasse except there is no biological evidence for the creature in question. Not before the PGF and not after. None. Zero.

This is a problem proponents have to battle and choosing to try and shift the burden of proof by asking skeptics to recreate a suit is just dishonest.

I think it's excellent because he explains his methodology on his analysis. He is able to show why he has come to the conclusion it isn't a person in a costume. His approach is well documented and repeatable.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

The list includes only known organisms, so it can't be passed as some be all end all that somehow disproves Bigfoot or other possibly real, but uncataloged species. Going back to the PGF, I believe that at least theoretically, the PGF can be disproven by the same standard footers use if it's indeed a hoax. With if being a big if

 

[Resume]

I think it's excellent because he explains his methodology on his analysis.

And others have approached this in the opposite.

He is able to show why he has come to the conclusion it isn't a person in a costume. His approach is well documented and repeatable.

His approach is based on a 40+ y/o film full of artifacts, purposely shaky and of low resolution. The proponent's problem once again is to produce the primate and that hasn't happened.

Excuses, there are plenty.

 

[William Parcher]

Munns said something really bizarre lately. He said that he isn't necessarily saying that Patty is a Bigfoot but he is saying that Patty isn't a person inside a costume.

Whaaaa? Is this some sort of word game he is playing to distance himself from Bigfoot as a real wild creature?

 

[GT/CS]

Take your pick. He starts his presentation at the head and works his way down basically explaining why it isn't a costume. I would encourage watching the whole thing, if possible.

I think it's excellent, but that's just my opinion.

Have you read this entire thread, or the three that preceeded it?
If not, then you may want to start. They will help counter the one-sided video of the lunatic Munns.

 

[William Parcher]

Going back to the PGF, I believe that at least theoretically, the PGF can be disproven by the same standard footers use if it's indeed a hoax.

If the PGF disproving were to be done as society normally works then it would be all different.

The claim is that the PGF is a fake and is essentially a fraud.

What would normally happen is that search warrants and subpoenas are issued for Patricia Patterson, Bob Gimlin and maybe a few others. Federal Marshalls enter their homes and seize anything that might support the claim of fraud. They will look at all personal correspondence, computers, photos, physical objects, etc. The idea being that somewhere in the realms of Mrs. P and Mr. G are items which essentially prove that a fraud (hoax) occurred or admissions or confessions. Friends and relatives would be interviewed and maybe more search warrants looking for received letters containing admissions, confessions or other information to implicate. There remains a possibility that these people have already confessed and confided in certain close relatives and maybe friends. Then of course you interrogate and examine the relevant parties under oath and with penalties for telling lies.

That's how you really start to go after the PGF. Not this silly get nowhere stuff about seeing muscles or costume folds.

 

[William Parcher]

The list includes only known organisms, so it can't be passed as some be all end all that somehow disproves Bigfoot or other possibly real, but uncataloged species.

But you don't seem to appreciate or place into perspective the many thousands of people and many centuries and extraordinary work that was necessary to create that list.

We somehow miraculously missed Bigfoot? It's much easier and sensible to believe that you and some other guys are just simply wrong about this Bigfoot beast.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here you go: http://youtu.be/O0a5eaoR1U0

Yeah, I've never heard of Munns...is he some kind of expert?

And why would you want to torture me like that?

Where are the owners of the PGF rights? Why aren't they defending their property?

 

[LTC8K6]

You know, an expert like Munns analyzed the PGF in detail before...spent a lot of money...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think it's excellent because he explains his methodology on his analysis. He is able to show why he has come to the conclusion it isn't a person in a costume. His approach is well documented and repeatable.

Repeatable by whom?

There is no other Hollywood ( or anywhere else ) FX person; most with far more expertise and credentials than Munns, who thinks the subject of the PGF is not a costume..

 

[Northern Lights]

Repeatable by whom?

There is no other Hollywood ( or anywhere else ) FX person; most with far more expertise and credentials than Munns, who thinks the subject of the PGF is not a costume..

Have any of them had more than a cursory look at the film? Have any of them done the type of analysis performed and documented by Bill? If so, I would really enjoy reading about their work.

 

[GT/CS]

I would like to know what it is about Bill's analysis you think proves Patty is a bigfoot. Just linking to a video is lame so please provide your understanding of his analysis.
My guess is that you don't really understand it but like how it sounds scientific and you want to believe so you buy it.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

WP, I don't really see much of the TV campaigns. I always just thought he seemed too into it to not believe. I got Cliff Rolled

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Have any of them had more than a cursory look at the film? Have any of them done the type of analysis performed and documented by Bill? If so, I would really enjoy reading about their work.

Hi Bill.