Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You have offered nothing of substance to support your bigfoot beliefs, and all I ask for is acceptable evidence before I consider the plausibility of an impossible thing.

When you came here you must have thought that you had something that would compel the nasty skeptics to accept your view of the world... at least when it comes to bigfoot. And yet you have fallen conspicuously short.

Like I said, I don't want to pick on you, but you have offered nothing useful to support your opinion that bigfoot exists, and I doubt very much that this situation will improve.

You have very emphatically not taken this place by storm, if this was your intention. You need to back yourself up here if you want to assert impossible things, and you have not even begun to do that.

Your implication that I have some kind of belief regarding bigfoot that I'm required in any way to defend is false. I just follow where the evidence leads.

No, I didn't come here with an agenda to convert all skeptics into bigfooters. I came here to view the discussion on the P/G film. To see what the take was on the Munns presentation. To my surprise, it seems alot of folks here have not seen it.

But, I got exactly what was expected though, alot of self serving opinions, no facts and a pile on. I have a stronger back than most.

I see RayG pop up with very clever snips of my previous postings. Thanks Ray for an out of context experience. I just may be a nut job, but also consider you may be wrong. I've not tried to convince anyone to take my word for anything. Now that'd be silly.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

So OS says bigfoot's anatomy shouldn't behave like a human and Chris says he believes Munns is onto something because Patty's anatomy behaves like a naked human.

Give me a ******* break!
Maybe these two should debate each other.

Don't get me wrong, Patty is in many ways human-like. I'm saying it wouldn't be fair to expect her to look and move exactly the way we do in every way, much like how it wouldn't be fair to expect a chimp or gorilla to look and move the way we do. With hominids that are closely related to us, there are going to be aspects that are very similar and aspects that aren't. Much of Bill Munns' analysis focuses on aspects of her body that are human-like and can't be replicated artificially, but also aspects that aren't human-like. It's in his presentation.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

And I think you're confused as to what incompetent is. That is, despite the utter lack of even a single piece of actual Bigfoot evidence that should have come about from any one of the billions of humans who have populated the earth over an untold number of centuries, you still "think he makes a good case for a Biological creature" based on his amateur, self-serving 'analysis' of a dubious 20 second clip of film that was not coincidentally produced by a known and well established con-man and hustler? Even knowing that same type of easily identifiable 'creature' has never been filmed clearly again in the nearly 46 years since? And...that you will only believe what Bill Munns says until proven differently?

Would you believe there's a call for you on line two from some Nigerian official who's got some really great news?

Seriously, the only "good case" he's making is showing how easy it is to fool folks like you for fun and profit. You really do believe so he simply takes you where you already want to go. The thing is, if he really were the skilled Hollywood costumer he pretends, you would probably hate him. He'd have long ago made a comparable PGF suit, filmed it à la Patterson and then slammed it down on Disney's front desk and yelled "Now THAT'S how you do that mutha *******!" See, that's what people who genuinely do things do. Often especially so when it's something they 'care so passionately about' like Munns apparently, umm, supposedly does about the PGF. The sad part for him is his fame and fortune would have been secure and legitimate had he done so. As opposed to his not doing so and instead writing literally walls of self righteousness disguised as text where he goes over the endless list of excuses as to why 'the suit' just can't be made in any known universe he's aware of.

The truth is he's not really one of those savvy, clever Hollywood sorts like he pretends. Not even close. He's a ne'er-do-well 'incompetent' who knows just enough to be dangerous. I mean, where in all of gawd's green earth would he get the authority to declare so many cosmic truths about things he has absolutely no business declaring cosmic truths about? Himself maybe? Of course. I don't doubt for a second he's a true legend in his own mind.

Maybe if we're lucky he 'knows just enough to be dangerous' to that Bigfoot gravy-train he's perpetually trying to milk! No?

Wow, talk about aggression. Did Bill Munns run over your family pet or something?

I don't care who designed those tests, they're pretty slick. And what most here seem to deny is that those tests show a similar movement of soft tissue on the models and on Patty.

So now the argument says "So Patty moves like a human huh?" Let's be clear and please snip this so as not to change my point, The soft tissue of the models breasts moved like the breasts on Patty.

I suppose you could argue Patterson using a large lady with hair on her to make the film, but one thing that impressed me most was that the prostetic breasts shown during the presentation made from the material that was available then, did not move at all like the subject's breasts in the film.

 

[JTF]

Worthless

In essence, what we have is Munns attempting to replicate the attempts by Patterson to replicate Roe's description of a smelly, female Bigfoot. The biggest problem with this parlor game is that Roe was never interviewed face to face nor was the location of his alleged sighting ever visited by John Green or any other investigator.

So, what we are left with is Munns validating the claims of a con man who culled his ideas from a man with wild claims, but no face. This doesn't come close to passing the smell test and once you add the ever-changing timelines of Patterson/Gimlin, this film becomes a worthless evidentiary item.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

And what most here seem to deny is that those tests show a similar movement of soft tissue on the models and on Patty.

So now the argument says "So Patty moves like a human huh?" Let's be clear and please snip this so as not to change my point, The soft tissue of the models breasts moved like the breasts on Patty.

In Munns presentation at around ~21 minutes is the breast demonstration (naughty bill )

He does not demonstrate to my satisfaction that Patty's breasts even move. Do you also believe that Patty's mouth moves? The fingers bend? Calf muscles flexing? Useless



Gods help you Bill Munns ... now you are truly lost.

 

[eerok]

I came here to view the discussion on the P/G film. To see what the take was on the Munns presentation. To my surprise, it seems alot of folks here have not seen it.

It doesn't matter what Munns says, and no one needs to rebut him in order to dismiss the PGF. I've already asked you what you expect from us, and I still wonder.

But, I got exactly what was expected though, alot of self serving opinions, no facts and a pile on. I have a stronger back than most.

I want to see some evidence for bigfoot, and there is nothing anywhere that's even close to good enough. The PGF fails to convince just about everyone, because it looks so fake. How is anything that I say self-serving?

Do you think that I have an interest in the nonexistence of bigfoot? I couldn't care less either way, but if you want to convince me that bigfoot exists, you have to show me, and it seems very clear that you cannot even begin to do that.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Chris, I feel that HarryHenderson's post is worth reading again. Do you think he is spiteful just because? Just feels like being hostile to Bill? Try to diffuse yourself from his remarks and just consider what Harry is saying and what Bill is doing.

You claim that you have read both Bob H threads, and the previous three parts of the PGF megathreads. You must then know that the claim that Patty is some kind of masterpiece suit is a hollow one, because there are numerous examples of suits that are just as good, from the same time or earlier. You must also know that there is good reason to reject any claims of discernible tissue movement because of the limitations of the film.

So, what gives?

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Much of Bill Munns' analysis focuses on aspects of her body that are human-like and can't be replicated artificially, but also aspects that aren't human-like. It's in his presentation.

one thing that impressed me most was that the prostetic breasts shown during the presentation made from the material that was available then, did not move at all like the subject's breasts in the film.

The Munns issue doesn't come down to whether he's competent or not because he's not even making an honest attempt at competence. The role he's chosen for himself is well-defined at this point. He's the plant in the audience, the guy the magician calls up on stage to swear that by golly, he can't see any strings holding the lady in the air even as the strings hang right in front of his face.

An effect artist's job is a highly creative and improvisational one. They invent whatever solution is required to produce the desired effect. Bill isn't even trying. He makes a half-hearted attempt, fails, then passes it off as if it were the only way to do it. It's feigned incompetence. He's taking a dive, throwing the fight. I'm sure he could find a hundred potential ways to produce faux breasts.

 

[The Shrike]

The Unabomber's manifesto was never refuted either.

Chris, I explained to you that the limitations of the film are so great that the knee pit appears to be rotated impossibly outward. While it *looks* that way, it can't be that way and match the movement seen in the film. Ergo, it's exceedingly problematic to discern fine structure or subtle movement in the film. This means that the entire premise of the "breast motion" analysis rests on the subjective interpretation of breast movement in the film. For Bill's jiggle-analysis to have any validity, the first thing he'd need to do would be to publish a paper in a reputable journal that could demonstrate that movement. Otherwise it's just another case of hooters looking at blurry photography and cherry picking artifacts they think they see to prop up their conviction while blithely ignoring other features that contradict it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, there is a point in the film where the right boob bounces and the left one doesn't.

Another flaw that is easily spotted, is that as the right arm swings back, it should pull the breast ( pec muscle ) back with it.. It doesn't . I'm not sure how Munns explains this, if at all..

Putting together a visual would be a waste of my time, besides we have been over it all before and even pointed these things out to Munns, which he manages to dismiss for one reason or another..

Chris, Did Munns explain the disappearing upper thigh ?

Did he explain why patty has do-nut like shapes circling the arms, instead of long muscles that run the length of the arm like every other animal on the planet that has arms and legs ?

Did Munns explain why the shoulders have the underlying shape of shoulder pads, instead of the shape that real deltoid muscles have..

Chris, if you will give me the time-stamp in the Munns' presentation where he explains these things, I will give it a look, and we can discuss further..


P.S.


Here is another illustration that indicates the shape of shoulder pads under the fabric of the costume..

 

[Correa Neto]

Whoever thinks Patty's boobs look natural is not used to seeing real boobs. That's the tl:dr version.

Go to youtube, check Monty Python's the Meaning of Life sequence with the topless women chasing a guy. Check shapes, movement (of the women's breasts, of course). Its not p0rn, btw. Now compare with Patty. That will be the long version.

Or just go to the beach and enjoy the scenery - the pleasant version.

Patty's boobs natural? Haha. Only if your standards for natural are some p0rn actresses boobs. Well, maybe bigfoot females already used breast implants back in the late 60's... Its an unknown species, after all.

Tell you what. Send me some money. Say, 10K dollars. I will carry on a study on female breasts shapes and movements. You can then compare with Patty's.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'd be interested in knowing the precise anatomical name for that Patty diaper, the one that looks just like a Gemora Ape butt

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Right.. Munns needs to post this shot:

......And explain precisely from his professional, and undisputed expert point of view, why Patty and Charlie Gemora appear to have been getting their furry diapers from the same place, but were never formally introduced..

 

[tsig]

Wow, talk about aggression. Did Bill Munns run over your family pet or something?

I don't care who designed those tests, they're pretty slick. And what most here seem to deny is that those tests show a similar movement of soft tissue on the models and on Patty.

So now the argument says "So Patty moves like a human huh?" Let's be clear and please snip this so as not to change my point, The soft tissue of the models breasts moved like the breasts on Patty.

I suppose you could argue Patterson using a large lady with hair on her to make the film, but one thing that impressed me most was that the prostetic breasts shown during the presentation made from the material that was available then, did not move at all like the subject's breasts in the film.

Well at least Munn$ got to look at some tits on the believers dime, that's a win for sure.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

That single photo beautifully shows, with absolute clarity, just how easy it is to spot this hoax, nevermind P&G's blunders.

 

[eerok]

[...] one thing that impressed me most was that the prostetic breasts shown during the presentation made from the material that was available then, did not move at all like the subject's breasts in the film.

It would actually be crazy for hoaxers to spend money on medically viable prosthetic breasts when bags of gelatin or even oatmeal would do just as well. For crying out loud, they only had to last for an afternoon.

This is a great example of the broken logic and shabby pseudoscience used by Munns and his ilk.

 

[Mister Earl]

Ah, so he's not qualified? What qualifications would he require? Looks like he did a heck of a job establishing a test, building test stands, obtaining test subjects, and also filming the results of said test.

That speaks to alot IMO. I mean I've never had a guitar lesson in my life but I have sat in for bands in the past. Being self taught, is that really a negative?

That doesn't make him a qualified bigfoot expert. It makes him an experienced test stand maker. That makes him just as qualified to weigh in on the bigfoot issue as a used car salesman from Toledo. After all, he's packed trunks of cars with camping equipment. And both have found the exact same amount of monkey: Zero.

 

[eerok]

Bill Munns is a professional PGF evangelist, which is in effect a euphemism for career failure. I suppose that an expert on leprechaun toe jam might be considered more pathetic, but it's a tough call.

The certain thing here is that Munns has nothing to offer to support the claim that bigfoot exists. His show offers smoke, mirrors, and bad logic wrapped up in a two-bit media presentation to sell to the rubes. At least with honest vaudeville you can laugh out loud without ruffling feathers.

Chris, and anyone else who thinks Munns is more than a joke... you are wrong.

 

[GT/CS]

That is a great analogy and IMO the believers should be angry with Munns, in stead of flocking to him, because he has no respect for them. As a PGF evangelist he is plying is trade to the lowest common demoninator of the bigfoot world, and sadly it works on that group.

 

[kitakaze]

The Munns issue doesn't come down to whether he's competent or not because he's not even making an honest attempt at competence. The role he's chosen for himself is well-defined at this point. He's the plant in the audience, the guy the magician calls up on stage to swear that by golly, he can't see any strings holding the lady in the air even as the strings hang right in front of his face.

An effect artist's job is a highly creative and improvisational one. They invent whatever solution is required to produce the desired effect. Bill isn't even trying. He makes a half-hearted attempt, fails, then passes it off as if it were the only way to do it. It's feigned incompetence. He's taking a dive, throwing the fight. I'm sure he could find a hundred potential ways to produce faux breasts.

In Munns presentation at around ~21 minutes is the breast demonstration (naughty bill )

He does not demonstrate to my satisfaction that Patty's breasts even move. Do you also believe that Patty's mouth moves? The fingers bend? Calf muscles flexing? Useless



Gods help you Bill Munns ... now you are truly lost.

The two things I would ask is first, where can we see a woman with natural (no implants), comparable size and shape breasts walking demonstrating the same level of rigidity? Second, Bill used first slip rubber, then polyurethane, then latex foam. All of these things in producing prosthetic breasts is going to make something that is rigid and unmoving. Bill would know this.

Problem 1: You haven't even established natural breast movement in the PGF. The 2 frame gif shown in his presentation either represents tiny movement or a change in light pattern, which we see all over Patty throughout the film. You can show gifs that make it appear that Patty's skull moves. Does Patty's skull move? Well here's a presentation for that...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/?p=83860

Problem 2: If you want to make prosthetic breasts that move, why not use something that... wait for it... moves?

I'm not a costume artist, but if I thought like a cowboy conman with no understanding of primate anatomy, I would make hairy missiles and if I wanted to make them move, I would use some loose material like sand, sawdust, etc.