Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

...And have you managed to obtain real a bigfoot specimen so we can compare it with Patty and BBC's bigffot? If not, what are your "understandings" based in?....

I have not obtained a sasquatch specimen.

I base my understandings on the eyewitness testimony that I have read.

...Are you sure that this is the single reason?...

No, but it is a very likely reason. We know what type of camera/film Patterson used. We do not know what type oc camera/film the BBC used, but I suspect it was a newer and better camera/film combo.

...Now, considering the smaller definition of PGF when compared with BBC's, the fact that flaws (check Dfoot's posts to find a list of them) in Patty costume can be seen is a testimony that it was not as sophisticated as claimed. If PGF had a better definition, the hoax would be even more clear....

I do not acknowledge the flaws that Dfoot has listed. I simply don't see them.

...Patty's weird anatomic details have already been discussed. Scroll the thread and you'll find them....

Certainly one or two come to your mind, since you have mentioned them. I prefer not to go back reading pages of posts, and a search of "weird anatomic details" yields nothing.

Please mention one or two.

....Hmmm... No you are bringing bears... Patty's diaper butt has already been discussed, and the bear argument was also used. You are missing a point here -again, the same you missed at the very start of you post. Want a clue? Here it is: 4X2. Patty's butt is an unlikely anatomical feature. It's not hard to figure out why...

Actually, the gluteus maximus is key to bipedalism.

...Gluteus maximus is superficially the largest
muscle of the body. This important muscle is
distinctive in comparison with other primates due
to evolutionary postural changes from quadrupeds
to bipeds. In the human, gluteus maximus has
increased leverage due to its superior attachment
on to the dorsal ilium (Marzke et al., 1988) and
in a morphological study comparing baboon hind
legs with human legs, it was found that gluteus
maximus has a larger relative weight in humans
(Ito et al., 2000). This single joint muscle allows
for increased force production to maintain an
upright position needed for bipedalism.....

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

 

[Hitch]

Who said Patty's suit would be easy to reproduce?

Clearly there were suits like it long before the P/G film. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, as has been shown numerous times.

I don't recall any claims about the suit being easy to reproduce, just that suits like that had been around for a while already, countering the claim that the suit couldn't have been made in 1967.

It could certainly have been made in 1967. Easily? That's a matter of opinion and money, I guess.

I don't think a suit like the one most likely seen in the P/G film would be very hard to produce at all. It would, however, be nearly impossible to get a bigfoot woo to admit you had reproduced it. No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film.

 

[Huntster]

Who said Patty's suit would be easy to reproduce?....

I say that if Roger Patterson did it, the motion picture industry should be able to reproduce it easier than it was for him.

We have a quote above credited to Chambers that he could have done it better, yet we haven't seen it, and his apes in "Planet of the Apes" (as has been noted) was more remarkable in the faces, not the bulk and movement of the body, and certainly not the feet.

...Clearly there were suits like it long before the P/G film. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever, as has been shown numerous times....

Name a pre-1967 motion picture ape suit that was like the Patterson film subject. I'll rent and watch the movie. I'd like to see it's feet. I'd like to see it walk, step into a depression, and see if I can see the thigh muscles move.

...I don't recall any claims about the suit being easy to reproduce, just that suits like that had been around for a while already, countering the claim that the suit couldn't have been made in 1967

It could certainly have been made in 1967. Easily? That's a matter of opinion and money, I guess....

Yup. Enough money can do just about anything. The lack of financial investment in sasquatchery by science/academia certainly demonstrates what a lack of money can mean.

I suppose we'll need another rich rodeo rider in order to produce a film like what Patterson shot.

 

[Huntster]

I don't think a suit like the one most likely seen in the P/G film would be very hard to produce at all.....

Here you go, LTC8K6. Here's one who is bold enough to talk the talk.

So, Hitch; why hasn't it been done?

... It would, however, be nearly impossible to get a bigfoot woo to admit you had reproduced it. No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film...

Let's see someone produce a sasquatch suit that has muscle movement like this.

It hasn't been done yet, and it won't be done, either.

 

[LTC8K6]

No suit is going to have the anatomical detail they claim to have seen in the P/G film.

Good point. They describe a lot of detail that they really cannot see due to the film's low resolution and poor quality, then they use that detail to claim the suit is good.

Of course we skeptics are sometimes guilty of using objects that we "see" in the film as well. I think we have been more careful to use only those things which are large and obvious, though. Still, I wouldn't let a skeptic off the hook.

 

[Starrman]

Here you go, LTC8K6. Here's one who is bold enough to talk the talk.

So, Hitch; why hasn't it been done?



Let's see someone produce a sasquatch suit that has muscle movement like this.

It hasn't been done yet, and it won't be done, either.

I too would like to see a real animal whose thigh fur dissapears up into a butt-diaper. Seriously - you can see the seam between the butt and the thigh in that animated gif. I really don't understand how ANYONE can take that seriously as evidence of a real animal.

 

[Huntster]

.... Seriously - you can see the seam between the butt and the thigh in that animated gif......

Ummm....No, I can't. Even with my reading glasses on.

 

[Huntster]

From Wikipedia

....Recently, Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature, wrote that "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold"

The article.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....Recently, Henry Gee, editor of the journal Nature, wrote that "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold"

Uhh, did you miss the part about ' mythical ' ?

Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

 

[Huntster]

.....AFAIK most bigfeet are not supposed to be black.....

Interesting what one can learn with a little effort.

A participant on BFF read through the published BFRO and TBRC reports with fur color in mind. His results are posted here:

...For one thing the perecentages of the four groups (black/brown, red/brown, tan/blonde, and grey/white) are amazingly consistant from region to region....

Sasquatch hair color distribution
Data from BFRO and TBRC

East of the Mississippi

The Southeast, (including all states as far north as TN, KY, and NC.)
Black/brown 100 66.2%
Red/brown 22 14.5%
Tan/blonde 8 5.3%
Grey/White 21 14%

The Middle Atlantic (VA, WV, MD, and DE)
Black/brown 22 71.0
Red/brown 1 2.2%
Tan/blonde 3 9.7%
Grey/white 5 16.1%

The Northeast. (New England plus PA, NY, and NJ)
Black/brown 61 67.0%
Red/brown 8 8.8%
Tan/blonde 8 8.8%
Grey/white 14 15.4%

The Rust Belt (OH, IL, IN, WI, and MI)
Black/brown 115 66.5%
Red/brown 22 12.7%
Tan/blonde 7 4.0%
Grey/white 29 16.8%

West of the Mississippi

The Arklatex (Ark, LA, TX, and OK)
Black/brown 99 51.8%
Red/brown 48 25.1%
Tan/blonde 10 5.2%
Grey/white 34 17.9%




The Upper Midwest (KS, MO, NE, Iowa, ND, SD, MN, &WI)
Black/brown 39 60.0%
Red/brown 12 18.4%
Tan/blond 7 10.8%
Grey/white 7 10.8%

The Mountain West (AZ, CO, ID MT, NM, UT, and WY)
Black/brown 76 74.5%
Red/brown 6 5.8%
Tan/blonde 9 8.8%
Grey/white 11 10.8% (no grey/white reported MT, ID, or WY)

The West Coast (CA, O, WA, and BC)
Black/brown 206 75.5%
Red/brown 39 14.3%
Tan/blonde 14 5.1%
Grey/white 14 5.1%

Canadian Provinces east of BC

Black/brown 31 73.8%
Red/brown 2 4.8%
Tan/blonde 4 9.5%
Grey/white 5 11.9%

Grand Totals, all regions

Black/brown 749 66.9%
Red/brown 160 14.3%
Tan/blonde 70 6.3%
Grey/white 140 12.5%

 

[Huntster]

.....Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

And...........

So............

Sasquatches likely exist or existed.

 

[Correa Neto]

I have not obtained a sasquatch specimen.

I base my understandings on the eyewitness testimony that I have read.

So, you don't really know how a bigfoot looks like. Have you ever bothered to look how many differences there are in bigfeet eyewitnesses' descriptions? I guess not, otherwise you would have noticed that there are descriptions of skinny bigfeet... So, the reports are... I'll be condescendent this time... Not enough to say if Patty or BBC's bigfoot is more similar to the real things-assuming they exist.

No, but it is a very likely reason. We know what type of camera/film Patterson used. We do not know what type oc camera/film the BBC used, but I suspect it was a newer and better camera/film combo.

Quite conveniently for P&G, their movie is shaky, the subject is quite small, few frames are sharp...

I do not acknowledge the flaws that Dfoot has listed. I simply don't see them.

Couldn't you be demonstrating prejudice here?
FYI, I can see them.

Certainly one or two come to your mind, since you have mentioned them. I prefer not to go back reading pages of posts, and a search of "weird anatomic details" yields nothing.

Please mention one or two.

Feet, seams in the costume, the diaper butt, the head crest, folds in the skin the look like loose costume...

Actually, the gluteus maximus is key to bipedalism.

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

You are wrong.

Are bears bipedal?
No.
So, you comparsion between butts from bigfeet and bears is invalid. And its not the first time I read it. And its not the first time I write why I think its wrong.

The diaper-butt is too big. Patty would have to be a fat bigfoot to have such a butt. And I think we both agree that fat animals don't live too much in the wilderness...

No, Patty could not have been accumulating fat to hibernate, since according to "bigfoot experts" they do not hibernate, since they avoid caves in order not to compete with bears.

Footers may try to find excuses, but still the fact remains that Patty is an unlikely animal and a likely hoax. Sure, since humans are animals, and a human was wearing a Patty suit, one could say that it was an animal, actually a bipedal primate, after all...

Footer analysis is full of prejudices...

 

[Correa Neto]

Uhh, did you miss the part about ' mythical ' ?

Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?

 

[Correa Neto]

So, Huntster, you see a black/brown female bigfoot in PGF?

Funny, I see a person wearing a black costume...

 

[Huntster]

.....So, the reports are... I'll be condescendent this time... Not enough to say if Patty or BBC's bigfoot is more similar to the real things-assuming they exist....

Apparently, by your own admission, there are widely different descriptions by eyewitnesses.

Therefore, skinny sasquatches with long legs, short arms, long, flowing red hair are occasionally seen.

So, the BBC recreation is just as accurate as the PG sasquatch, and all sightings are accurate.

Thanks for straightening me out.

...Feet, seams in the costume, the diaper butt, the head crest, folds in the skin the look like loose costume...

I don't see the seams.

The feet are as theorized by Krantz and Meldrum, with a more protruding and broad heel than humans. We can see the toes very clearly in a few frames.

The large butt is, I again stress, what should be expected in a mature, female sasquatch. Many eyewitnesses have described females in this way.

The sagital crest is unusual in female apes, but there's nothing that dictates that this cannot be so.

I do see the "folds" in the hide as she walks. I don't see how that establishes that it's a suit.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Actually, the gluteus maximus is key to bipedalism.

It should be expected that a sasquatch should sport such a feature. And the female of the species should also be expected to be wide and the waist.

Are you demonstrating skeptical analysis, or more prejudiced denialism?

You are wrong.

I am wrong?

The quote was provided with a link. Are you professing that:

Judy Wilson, MEd, Dip PhysEd, Dip Physio
School of Physiotherapy, University of Otago
Emma Ferris BPhty*
Anna Heckler BPhty*
Lisa Maitland, BPhty*
Carol Taylor BPhty*

are wrong?

Are bears bipedal?
No.
So, you comparsion between butts from bigfeet and bears is invalid. And its not the first time I read it. And its not the first time I write why I think its wrong....

The butt on bears, humans, gorillas, and (I will speculate) become larger with age.

The butts of female humans and gorillas become larger after bearing young, even at a relatively young age. I will speculate that the same is true of sasquatches.

...The diaper-butt is too big. Patty would have to be a fat bigfoot to have such a butt. And I think we both agree that fat animals don't live too much in the wilderness...

I think you've been watching too many dietary commercials.

Again, bears (North American omnivores) do, indeed, become quite fat, especially during October (autumn).

...No, Patty could not have been accumulating fat to hibernate, since according to "bigfoot experts" they do not hibernate, since they avoid caves in order not to compete with bears....

And what do you base that amazing knowledge on? (Here's where I pull out the weapon you so regularly use on me

Do you base this on the observation of a real live sasquatch?

 

[Huntster]

Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?

Twisting and spinning again, I see.

The quote was well linked to both the entire article and Wikipedia's entry on it's originator:

Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Now, can we go back and discuss that, or are you and Diogenes going to continue to twist his statement by pulling the word "myth" out of context?

 

[Huntster]

So, Huntster, you see a black/brown female bigfoot in PGF?...

Yes.

...Funny, I see a person wearing a black costume...

Well, that just goes to show that my eyesight isn't as bad as I thought it was getting.

 

[Huntster]

....Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.....

I'm not familiar with the details of many of them, because my study of aboriginial American legend and folklore is limited.

I am very impressed with what Richard Nelson recorded in "Make Prayers to the Raven", mostly because I've hunted extensively in the area near Huslia, Alaska, where Nelson studied Koyukon culture.

I wouldn't say they are "real". I'd say that they have a basis in truth.

(BTW, the Koyukon belief in sasquatch is also well recorded in the book. I give a book report here.)

One excerpt I'd like folks here to consider carefully:

...Coming into Koyukon society from a very different background, I was suddenly confronted by the power of this reality. Although I had lived for several years among other native Alaskan peoples, I had never found access to this element of their lives. Among the Koyukon, my teachers clearly perceived in the fullest measure a different world than I did, or than people from my culture could perceive. Each of them was also rational and intelligent by any measure, biculturally fluent, and acutely observant. The great difference in our points of view was something I had been prepared for intellectually; but I was entirely unprepared for it emotionally, unready of the impact of living it.

My clear and certain comprehension of the natural world was ended. Fundamental assumptions I had learned about the nature of nature were thrown into doubt. I must emphasize that I underwent no great conversion and emerged no less an agnostic than before. But now I had to face an elemental question, as an anthropologist of course, but even more so as someone who had always been deeply involved with nature: Is there not a single reality in the natural world, an absolute and universal reality? Apparently, the answer to this question is no.

The issue that perplexed me is far from new in anthropology, though it was certainly new for me to deal with it as a direct personal experience. Anthropologists and linguists have written at great length about the different realities that humans perceive as members of different cultures and speakers of different languages.....

....The basic premise underlying anthropological writings on this subject, as I understand it, is this: Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see. In other words, my Koyukon teachers had learned through their own traditions about dimensions in nature that I, as a Euro-American, had either not learned to perceive or had been explicitly taught do not exist....

 

[UrsulaV]

Yes, myths do have a basis in truth... And ?

Hey, now, that's a pretty broad statement...

I would suggest that a lot of myths have a basis in...mmm...made-up stuff as well. I would be hard pressed to locate the grain of truth behind humanity being licked into existence by the tongue of a giant cow, nor do I believe there's any grain of truth behind the story that there's a giant serpent encircling the world.

And I'd seriously question the basis in truth to the Cherokee story that the Bay-kok, a skeleton with translucent skin stretched over it, roams the woods, rattling, and when it finds a sleeping brave, makes a tiny incision in him and eats part of his stomach, whereupon the brave sickens and dies. (There's a Native American story that I'd bet Huntster doesn't believe. 'Course, I could be wrong...)

I don't think we can say with any kind of certainty that myths neccessarily have a basis in truth, and I don't care whether the editor of Nature believes otherwise.

 

[Huntster]

....I would be hard pressed to locate the grain of truth behind humanity being licked into existence by the tongue of a giant cow, nor do I believe there's any grain of truth behind the story that there's a giant serpent encircling the world....

It's like the Genesis story. It's a story written based on the oral traditions handed down over many, many generations who didn't have the benefit of modern science with which to explain the beginnings to today's woos of skepticism.

And, of course, you fail to notice or accept the general similarities among many of these legends.

...I don't care whether the editor of Nature believes otherwise.

Of course you don't. I would never expect most on this board to even accept the words of science after they've so boldly proclaimed what is and what isn't.

(I should have prophesized that before you wrote it; then you could have challenged my powers of prophesy).