Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then you must have an issue with actual primate anatomy.

If not, perhaps you could discuss why you don't have an issue with the examples I showed you..


[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/newone4.gif[/qimg]

Do you have any examples of other primates that have do-nut shaped biceps/triceps and fore-arm muscles?

You're actually judging the shape of the deltoid muscle under the fur.
I can't do that, if you can then you're one up on me. Maybe if I could, I could share the opinion that it's all a hoax, but I can't based solely on an opinion.

As far as donut shapes: Like this guy? Looks round to me.

 

[Resume]

Funny you mention this but it was recorded that Daniel Boone did shoot one.

Well, a number of folks have claimed something similar but yet no bigfoot body, not a single one. Ever. This in a continent where every available animal resource was exploited to the fullest extent possible. Passenger pigeon gone, bison nearly so. Wolves, brown bear, deer (whitetail, mule, Sitka, etc.), beaver, all manner of fur bearers and migrating waterfowl. Millions of examples of native wildlife but not one single example anywhere of this primate you folks claim to see just about everywhere in North America. Do you think this is reasonable?

 

[kitakaze]

Please tell me how the "breast movement" is any different from this group of frames which show Patty's head morphing. Or this post by Romano at BFF which I believe you were directed to earlier, which show the same thing over a different set of frames.

Seems to me that there is a better case for Patty being a shape-shifter than there is for her breast movement.

This is exactly something that has been pointed out time and again. Believers of Patty endorse perceived movement in film artifacts as long as it will rule out a man in a suit in their mind, but when you show the exact same thing happening in places that should not be moving, such as Patty's skull, it's ignored. They will have thing like Patty doing complex facial expression changes happening in the milliseconds between single consecutive frames like Patty going from grimacing to animated pant-hooting in like fractions of a second, then back to grimacing again. They basically have her something akin to Jim Carrey's The Mask.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I don't think anyone mentioned " 2001: A Space Odyssey "

Released in 1968, but certainly in production well before then..

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/What_zpsb99e0a46.gif[/qimg]


My, my .. Shot a little bit closer than 200 feet, we might note..

There was a rumor that the ape suits were passed over for an Oscar nomination because the powers that be, did not realize they were costumes...

The suits used to 2001 were great examples of a chimpanzee-like ape guy/man. There was alot of shaggy fur to hide the lack of the muscle suit. (Maybe not available at that time?)

I think Patty's suit would have been created on the basis of a gorilla though, it shows a more muscular frame (as you point out). That example is not shown or demonstrated in the 2001 movie. I think if we saw one of the suits from 2001 stroll across the creek bed , it wouldn't be near as bulky as Patty. It'd probably look like a skinny guy wearing a suit.

I love that movie though.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Well, a number of folks have claimed something similar but yet no bigfoot body, not a single one. Ever. This in a continent where every available animal resource was exploited to the fullest extent possible. Passenger pigeon gone, bison nearly so. Wolves, brown bear, deer (whitetail, mule, Sitka, etc.), beaver, all manner of fur bearers and migrating waterfowl. Millions of examples of native wildlife but not one single example anywhere of this primate you folks claim to see just about everywhere in North America. Do you think this is reasonable?

No, it's not reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[tsig]

Not at all, neither pic is of any resolution to determine much of anything. I don't claim to see everything that everyone else does. Mouth movement is not beyond the realm of a film defect or shadow trick IMO.

Bill's pics are taken from high resolution scans made from primo P/G film stock. I'd put more value in studying those than those found elsewhere on the net. Even then as I said before, shadows or film defects make alot of the claims invalid IMO.

I'm not "on board" with all the claims made of the P/G film. In fact I had several reservations that pointed to a suit. The presentation Bill Munns made addressed some of the biggest issues I had with the film.

The biggest issue for me now is the Patty's nose shape. I have a real problem with what is shown but I only have my personal experiences to draw from on that.

How do you know this?

 

[Resume]

No, it's not reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course it's not true. If such a creature existed in NA, we wouldn't be having this conversation, it would be taken for granted.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is exactly something that has been pointed out time and again. Believers of Patty endorse perceived movement in film artifacts as long as it will rule out a man in a suit in their mind, but when you show the exact same thing happening in places that should not be moving, such as Patty's skull, it's ignored. They will have thing like Patty doing complex facial expression changes happening in the milliseconds between single consecutive frames like Patty going from grimacing to animated pant-hooting in like fractions of a second, then back to grimacing again. They basically have her something akin to Jim Carrey's The Mask.

And many skeptics endorse that same belief in film artifacts as long as it helps them prove Patty is not a biological creature. AKA the "top" of the waders. Which is addressed in Bill's presentation.

Do you think the two frames that show breast movement on Patty are actually moving or do you think those are also film artifacts and show no actual movement as Patty is stepping?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Something that's often overlooked by people of both sides of the debate is the general description of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. They allegedly look a lot like people in fur suits. When the body proportions and gait are that similar, it creates a lot of difficulty in separating real from fake.

 

[kitakaze]

I see movement of the breasts, some do not. To me it's there and that's why I would like to have seen a comparison of moveable prosthetic breasts instead of the rigid material prosthetics that were used.

However IMO it was probably the desire to make the "fakes" out of the available materials of the period that led to what was seen. I'm not second guessing the intent or the presentation. There will be many opinions as to why Bill used those materials.

I think it was a clever test and comparison but to satisfy every angle it may have been better to use some sort of moveable prosthetic breasts as Kit and I had discussed above. Surely something holding water or Gel could have been considered? Admittedly, I cannot do a better job than Bill Munns has. For what was shown, I personally am impressed.

Only one right one. He picked whatever he thought would give his argument the best chance and ignored everything else.

He's doing the same thing the fundies do. Making your mind up regardless of the facts, then cherry picking and twisting arguments to support your position and ignore everything else to the contrary.

He's not doing an investigation or engaging in science. He's engaging in a fundraising activity via the sale of snake oil.

That's it.

I know Bill. I know he's far too clever to settle for slip rubber, polyurethane, and latex foam as being "what was available at the time."

Setting aside for a moment that you haven't even demonstrated realistic breast movement to people that haven't already complicitly given you their trust that they will see what you guide them to see, you've basically said, "See the work I've gone through here to try and do this thing, and it may as well be concrete!"

If an FX artist really wanted to make floppy prosthetic breasts out of materials available in 1967, there are any number of solutions a clever artist could do.

Sand, oil, gel, lard; these are nothing new. A construction made of skin and lard is going to flop like skin and lard, and that's not going to be the desired result for "look how I failed at doing this thing."

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

How do you know this?

I've seen them. The most impressive scans IMO are the ones that show Patterson at the trackway. You can almost count the threads on his shirt.

 

[GT/CS]

Something that's often overlooked by people of both sides of the debate is the general description of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. They allegedly look a lot like people in fur suits. When the body proportions and gait are that similar, it creates a lot of difficulty in separating real from fake.

HJFC, I can't believe you actually wrote that!!!

 

[William Parcher]

The suits used to 2001 were great examples of a chimpanzee-like ape guy/man. There was alot of shaggy fur to hide the lack of the muscle suit. (Maybe not available at that time?) .

But we don't have to examine the details of the 2001 costumes to know that they aren't real creatures. If they really existed we would have confirmed them by now. This would be true even if a single one was filmed exactly like Patty and with the cameraman insisting it is real.

 

[Resume]

Something that's often overlooked by people of both sides of the debate is the general description of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. They allegedly look a lot like people in fur suits. When the body proportions and gait are that similar, it creates a lot of difficulty in separating real from fake.

To separate the real from the fake all you need is a bigfoot carcass. But there aren't any anywhere. Ever. There is no difficulty save for the more fervent enthusiasts to give up on their fantasy.

Patty isn't real because there is no representative biological entity.

 

[Vortigern99]

The suits used to 2001 were great examples of a chimpanzee-like ape guy/man. There was alot of shaggy fur to hide the lack of the muscle suit. (Maybe not available at that time?)

I think Patty's suit would have been created on the basis of a gorilla though, it shows a more muscular frame (as you point out). That example is not shown or demonstrated in the 2001 movie. I think if we saw one of the suits from 2001 stroll across the creek bed , it wouldn't be near as bulky as Patty. It'd probably look like a skinny guy wearing a suit.

I love that movie though.

The Star Trek Gorn suit from 1966 opened my eyes to the existence of a (latex?rubber?vinyl?) muscle suit pre-PGF. As a semi-realistic representation of human anatomical detail, it was the first nail in the coffin for me with regard to the PGF, and I saw it right here on the JREF in an earlier incarnation of this thread.

Subsequently I've been shown stills of other pre-PGF muscle suits, such as the chimp suits from the MGM Weismuller Tarzan films of the 1930s. I had seen those movies many times, but due to the wonders of videotape the detail of those suits had been long obscured. Seeing a high-resolution picture of a realistic muscle-suit was, for me, like having the scales peeled back from my eyes. I had always thought the first truly realistic, muscled ape suit had originated with Rick Baker's awesome 1976 King Kong suit. But that just isn't the case. They've been around at least since the 1930s. There's pics of them in one of these threads, if you search long and hard enough you'll find 'em.

Good luck in your quest.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

This is exactly something that has been pointed out time and again. Believers of Patty endorse perceived movement in film artifacts as long as it will rule out a man in a suit in their mind, but when you show the exact same thing happening in places that should not be moving, such as Patty's skull, it's ignored. They will have thing like Patty doing complex facial expression changes happening in the milliseconds between single consecutive frames like Patty going from grimacing to animated pant-hooting in like fractions of a second, then back to grimacing again. They basically have her something akin to Jim Carrey's The Mask.

Unless they are really dedicated, like MK Davis, note the name of the .gif image in the first link "top-knot-shot"

I believe that is one of M.K. Davis' pieces of evidence for Patty's hair-knot-braid

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

But we don't have to examine the details of the 2001 costumes to know that they aren't real creatures. If they really existed we would have confirmed them by now. This would be true even if a single one was filmed exactly like Patty and with the cameraman insisting it is real.

Did you ever consider the Cross River Gorillas? A fairly recent discovery of another large primate.

Why weren't they documented sooner? Did they not exist? If you agree they were there, then all that was lacking was the finding part. The locals had known about them for years. They left them alone because they thought they were "hairy people".

Is it too much of a stretch to admit the possibility of another primate out there somewhere? If you're wrong about a new species of Gorilla, isn't it possible you could be wrong again?

 

[Resume]

Is it too much of a stretch to admit the possibility of another primate out there somewhere?

Depends, but certainly not in the habitat of the alleged sasquatch.

 

[kitakaze]

And many skeptics endorse that same belief in film artifacts as long as it helps them prove Patty is not a biological creature. AKA the "top" of the waders. Which is addressed in Bill's presentation.

Do you think the two frames that show breast movement on Patty are actually moving or do you think those are also film artifacts and show no actual movement as Patty is stepping?

I think you are misusing the term "prove." I don't think any serious student of the film would rightly select any feature seen on film and realistically call it proof of anything, expecting that it could be conclusively accepted in general terms. If she suddenly suddenly let fecal matter fly or a glove fell off, OK, but we don't have anything so convenient.

I think that a single two frame gif is not enough data to say one way or another. I know for sure that there is enough detail to see some very unnatural features at Patty's waist and legs. I know that Patty hairy missiles that just from the torso look nothing like real ape breasts. But what is that worth? You see natural breasts, I do not. Patty is a rorschach on legs.

 

[William Parcher]

If the Cross River Gorillas were the only gorillas in all of the world would we not have confirmed them to exist until recently? Or would something else have happened?