Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[idoubtit]

I would recommend the new Loxton/Prothero book. It describes the Roe situation with a bit of new information. It IS damning.

http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/07/new-cryptozoology-book-released-its-a-whopper/

 

[William Parcher]

So are you saying that they cannot be hip waders?

FWIW, I'm almost certain that BH did not say that the costume pants were hip waders but rather that they were like hip waders.

Same with the feet. He said they were like bedroom slippers (the ones with toes) but did not say that they were bedroom slippers.

Same with the headpiece. He said it was like an old time (leather) football helmet but did not say that it was an old time football helmet.

These are important because it is very common for Patty believers to say that BH said those specific items were used instead of things like them.

 

[William Parcher]

Here's one post showing the waders.

Here's one I put together. You can click it to enlarge.

 

[EHocking]

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

And his methodology is unscientific. Otherwise, he would have used actual photogrammetry software to analyse and model the scene, rather than the artist's modelling tool that he used.

... His approach is well documented and repeatable.

It is neither well documented, nor repeatable.
This was pointed out to him when he started out on his "analysis", right here on JREF when he was still answering posts. He pointedly ignored any suggestions that would have helped a scientific analysis, in favour of his a priori position that the "animal" was real.

 

[William Parcher]

I've been out on BFRO expeditions where just about everyone is saying they are seeing "eye shine" and hearing whoops, and attributing every twig snap to squatches and I'm just shaking my head in amusement.

So nobody shook their head in amusement when you saw the Bigfoot on night thermal vision on a BFRO outing?

I honestly try to have squatches end up as the last possible explanation, instead of the first. So yes, I'm absolutely open to alternative ideas and explanations.

But not the alternative explanation that Bigfoot doesn't exist, right? I mean you'll say that this or that is not Bigfoot but the one you saw through the scope solidified your belief for life, right? Your belief is the kind you get bronze plated and then put up on the shelf, right?

Look how solid Bart's belief is. Dude got the foot tattoo. He saw a Bigfoot on thermal too. He knows.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'm not even sure how anyone could "know" that Bigfoot exists based on a thermal image, essentially another blobsquatch.

 

[mustbeso]

I have, for some time now, thought that skewing the argument towards bigfoot being almost totally nocturnal was a ploy on the part of those that make money on this subject to make it easier to do just that. With thermals you don't even need a suit; just some guy running around in the woods. The Mike Green thermal is a prime example and one he tried to make money with. I guess I don't think that these guys(professional footers) communicate on a regular basis but there is enough to gey everybody at least near the same page. Northern Lights appears to have been suckered by the leader in this ruse, the same group that presents us with a tv show called Finding Bigfoot but somehow never does. Northern Lights, if someone from Scientology tries to chat you up run!

 

[rockinkt]

OK, just to recap, we are talking specifically about the concave impression that can be seen in the hip region on the film. The claim by Bob H. is hip waders were worn and that was the cause of the impression.

At 34:30, Bill starts discussing whether that type of impression is feasible on a suit or whether it can be a naturally occurring feature on a biological creature. He goes into detail about how the impressions are natural and shows many examples where it occurs in humans. He said for those to show on a suit, it would have to be specifically designed so they were there.

As I indicated previously, I found his explanation to be reasonable.

Why do you think Bill Munns is an expert on creature suit making?
Have you researched his credentials and history in the Hollywood film industry?

 

[Resume]

Munns begins with the premise that bigfoot exists, a creature for which there is no objective biological evidence, for whose existence cannot be explained rationally.

His presentation then is merely a reacharound for believers, which may be pleasing initially, but must lack sustained satisfaction.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

OK, just to recap, we are talking specifically about the concave impression that can be seen in the hip region on the film. The claim by Bob H. is hip waders were worn and that was the cause of the impression.

At 34:30, Bill starts discussing whether that type of impression is feasible on a suit or whether it can be a naturally occurring feature on a biological creature. He goes into detail about how the impressions are natural and shows many examples where it occurs in humans. He said for those to show on a suit, it would have to be specifically designed so they were there.

As I indicated previously, I found his explanation to be reasonable.

Did Bill explain why the upper part of the thigh disappears into the hip region?

Did he show examples of this feature in humans and animals?

When Munns has been confronted with this in the past, he pretty much says he can't account for it, or it must be artifacts in the film.

Ask him if he is familiar with the woo practice of counting the hits and ignoring the misses..

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Amazing how Bigfoot is the only bipedal creature on earth whose buttocks don't work in conjunction with it's legs as it walks.

 

[GT/CS]

Did Bill explain why the upper part of the thigh disappears into the hip region?

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/waderline_zps108b59a3.gif?t=1374842838[/qimg]

Did he show examples of this feature in humans and animals?

When Munns has been confronted with this in the past, he pretty much says he can't account for it, or it must be artifacts in the film.

Ask him if he is familiar with the woo practice of counting the hits and ignoring the misses..

He doesn't address the line going away, only that it is there in old fat humans, only in old fat humans.

 

[jhunter1163]

I personally would love for Bigfoot to be real. I grew up in eastern Washington and probably walked 10,000 miles on the Forest Service roads out there. I have three brothers, and we all spent many a warm summer evening outside regaling each other with stories of the Boss of the Woods and his doings. Bigfoot being real would validate a huge piece of the folklore of my childhood. But all I've seen evidence-wise is blobsquatches and various suits and obviously human-produced sounds and GIGO DNA tests. No one would be happier if someone showed them the monkey (figuratively speaking) than me. But it ain't gonna happen, and, frankly, that makes me a little sad.

 

[GT/CS]

I personally would love for Bigfoot to be real. I grew up in eastern Washington and probably walked 10,000 miles on the Forest Service roads out there. I have three brothers, and we all spent many a warm summer evening outside regaling each other with stories of the Boss of the Woods and his doings. Bigfoot being real would validate a huge piece of the folklore of my childhood. But all I've seen evidence-wise is blobsquatches and various suits and obviously human-produced sounds and GIGO DNA tests. No one would be happier if someone showed them the monkey (figuratively speaking) than me. But it ain't gonna happen, and, frankly, that makes me a little sad.

Same here. Grew up in the same general area (Okanogan Valley) and the only time we saw bigfoot was when we drank way too much and one friend decided to pull a prank on another friend.

 

[William Parcher]

His approach (Munns) is well documented and repeatable.

That's a word which Munns knows has no application in the real world. It's not repeatable because nobody will be given access to the source material. He has already said that Patricia Patterson gave him exclusive access to filmstrips and enlargements and won't be giving it to anybody else. That means it isn't really repeatable in any meaningful sense. Skeptics aren't going to be given access to good early versions. It probably needs to be common knowledge that you are going to approve the PGF before you are allowed to examine it.

It was already very obvious that Munns would never look at anybody's coveted film copy and then say "Oh my, after I saw this good version I decided that it was a hoax after all." No, everybody knew that that was never gonna happen.

Nobody will ever really know if Munns cheated because nobody will get their hands on the evidence he used. But he still wants to call it science. People like you get on the Internet and say it is repeatable.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Footers wouldn't know science even if it threw rocks at their cabin & stole their dried salmon. Unless u mean 'Squatch Science!

 

[tsig]

That's a word which Munns knows has no application in the real world. It's not repeatable because nobody will be given access to the source material. He has already said that Patricia Patterson gave him exclusive access to filmstrips and enlargements and won't be giving it to anybody else. That means it isn't really repeatable in any meaningful sense. Skeptics aren't going to be given access to good early versions. It probably needs to be common knowledge that you are going to approve the PGF before you are allowed to examine it.

It was already very obvious that Munns would never look at anybody's coveted film copy and then say "Oh my, after I saw this good version I decided that it was a hoax after all." No, everybody knew that that was never gonna happen.

Nobody will ever really know if Munns cheated because nobody will get their hands on the evidence he used. But he still wants to call it science. People like you get on the Internet and say it is repeatable.

Do we know for sure that there is a Patricia Patterson version? We can discount Munns as a known liar so that just leaves PP.

 

[tsig]

Footers wouldn't know science even if it threw rocks at their cabin & stole their dried salmon. Unless u mean 'Squatch Science!

In the case of rock throwing they would follow accepted Bigfoot Protocol and curl up in the middle of the cabin with their eyes closed, turn off all lights and cameras and wait for it to go away.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

If you can't see it, it can't hurt you. It's a bit like science to the average Footer, if you don't get it, it doesn't apply.

 

[Drewbot]

In the case of rock throwing they would follow accepted Bigfoot Protocol and curl up in the middle of the cabin with their eyes closed, turn off all lights and cameras and wait for it to go away.

Probably because they are already asleep dreaming that Rocks are hitting the cabin.