Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[bruto]

Disinterested skepticism ? That's a good one..

Trying to imagine how to pull that off...

Maybe, start a thread on a skeptical forum and never post again ?

I don't understand why it should be hard to be disinterested and a skeptic. They seem to go together. That is, if you do mean disinterested and not uninterested.

 

[Roger Knights]

Yup, I had in mind the original, purists' definition of "disinterested": unbiased, dispassionate, impartial, neutral, unprejudiced, non-partisan.

To request pure non-partisanship from ones opponent would be disingenuous. Disinterest is a matter of degree, along a sliding scale. A person shouldn't be disqualified, by a demand for "disinterest," from strongly (and even sarcastically) maintaining a position. Disinterestedness implies things like having a reasonable amount of detachment, looking at things from a variety of angles, being flexible, avoiding knee-jerk rejection of unwelcome material from the opponent, refraining from debater's tricks and similar-in-spirit slipperiness, etc.

 

[Roger Knights]

Oops: I just checked back on BFF and found that Dfoot hadn't previously made the claim he made here a few days ago: that Mondor had said he knew RP had hoaxed the film. The statements that I and others had requested him to cite sources for were similar sorts of Yakima-insider anecdotes though, such as that Pat Patterson had been raking in large royalties from the PGF, etc.

 

[Huntster]

...A great many skeptics in this thread have never even suggested that an escaped ape may account for a single sighting, let alone "all of sasquatchery."...

The world's only skeptics are participants on this thread?

I've read many "explanations" in various news "reports" that sasquatch sightings are likely escaped apes.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The definition of “woo”:
1. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.
2.
a. To seek to achieve; try to gain.
b. To tempt or invite.
3. To entreat, solicit, or importune.

v. intr.
To court a woman.

Guess what?
You are wrong. Here's the propper meaning of the word "woo" within the current context:.....

I am wrong?

What you mean is that the dictionary is wrong. I simply quoted to you the defininition that was in the dictionary, complete with link.

(BTW, you spell it like this: proper. Maybe you should spend a bit more time studying the dictionary rather than pompously declaring it "wrong".)

...Myths about hairy men living in the woods are common. Thus, they are not exactly a strong pro-bigfoot evidence. Whoever thinks the opposite should try to learn more about mythology.

Myths regarding hairy men living in the woods are common, but the repeated discovery of giant footprints and even a videotape of such a creature are not.

Know of any giant footprints found on a regular basis in, say, Romania?

 

[Huntster]

....I am quite honestly suprised the thing (Patty) wasn't shot and given over to the scientific community for examination.....

Yeah. The scientific community has made many friends among sasquatch researchers.

Makes those in sasquatchery really want to bend over backwards for science.........

...And to comment on what Huntster said, a hunter won't shoot a bigfoot because he's hunting for deer or whatever, and not bigfoot? That is a rather poor excuse.....

Obviously coming from one who doesn't hunt.

How about this one?:

It's against the law to kill one.

Anyone familiar with hunting law and regulations knows that you can't just go out and shoot everything that moves. Usually you have a permit for a specific species in your pocket, and can't "blast" anything else.

Also, anyone familiar with hunting law and regulations knows that violations can be very expensive and punitive.

It is specifically illegal to shoot a sasquatch in Alaska.

Not to mention the legal danger of shooting an idiot in an ape suit..........

....I'd certainly take aim and fire and drag the thing back to civlization. Yeah I'd take my chances, if it were only to solve this mystery once and for all....

Ever pack a moose out of the woods?

How did you do it? If you've got any tips that I haven't tried, I'd like to read about them.

 

[Huntster]

The majority will shoot at everything which move in the underbush, even if it has bright blue color (true story of somebody which got shoot at while going on in the wood during hunt season). So that hunter will not shoot at big foot is PURE BUNK......

That's a damned lie, or propaganda from an anti-hunter.

... Especially in regard of cheney shooting other human (sorry could not resist this one)....

Bird hunting accidents like that, where hunters are swinging around focused on flying birds, are very common. I got shot in that same way.

It wasn't the majority shooting at everything that moves in the underbrush.

... For me the fact that no hunter brought a big foot back is FAR MORE suspicious than anything else in this story, more suspicious than a blurry film or bad foot imprint cast. Heck, look at the overgrown cat story. If big foot was so prevalent as the story make it, it would have been shot down many time. I am sure some hickbillies have already searched week long for it, in hope to get a carpet-skin out of it. Think of this : *some* BF believer will want to hunt and kill it for fame ! Still this elusive animal has a high enough population to reproduce and have so many form and color, and be sighted so much, but not enough to be hunted ??? Hello ??? The only rational explanation I can think of , is that in reality those are not BF, but human with costume wanting to take no risk at being shot at....

More opinion from someone who is obviously not a hunter.

 

[Huntster]

Just as an aside, I beleive it was Huntster who earlier said that by reports male Bigfeet ranged from 6 to 9 feet tall and then there was a report of a 12 footer. Anyone know of any other primate with a 6 foot height variable in the species?....

Skeptics like to point out that misidentification is an explanation for sasquatch sightings, but now want to regard a sighting estimate of 12' as gospel, then use it as a tool to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ever suspect that the 12' estimate was off by a couple feet?

... Also Huntster while Hollywood may never have made a suit as 'good' as Patty (cos they never had a reason to) a quick look at the ape suits made by Rick Baker for 'Greystoke' and 'Gorillas in the Mist' would quickly disabuse anyone of the notion they were unable to do so....

Clearly, Hollywood can or should be able to reproduce a suit allegedly built by a rodeo rider, or the argument that the rodeo rider built the suit is false.

Why hasn't Hollywood done it?

...cos they never had a reason to....

The BBC produced such a reproduction. Dfoot claims it was a half-assed production of someone's fantasy, not a real attempt to reproduce the suit.

I find it hard to believe that it would be so expensive or difficult that a reproduction wouldn't be a money maker. Various run-of-the-mill sasquatch documentaries are repeatedly produced. Why not an honest attempt to reproduce the realism of the PG film?

 

[Huntster]

I hate to have to keep explaining this....

It is not up to the skeptics to justify anything......

.....Including their outrageous accusations regarding Patterson's hoax?

That certainly seems to be par for the course.

 

[Huntster]

....I just spoke to Mondor and he tells me that he "knows nothing about" the Patterson film or any hoax involving it, and that has never made any statements that he has. He says that he was misquoted to that effect in the Fortean Times article by Kal Korff, who (he says) must have been quoting Mike Heironimus (who does live at the location you described) and gotten the source garbled......

Those are the kinds of outrageous accusations that skeptics shouldn't be required to substantiate.

Why?

Because they say so.

...Dfoot was asked a couple of times months ago on BFF to supply a source for statements like this, but he sailed serenely onward, ignoring those of us who engage in "wishful fantasy-think....

Just like the crap we get from the mass media, including such players as The National Geographic Society.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth (at least for those who don't know any better, regardless how intelligent they think they are).

 

[Yeah_Right]

Simple reply to Hunstster, Oh brrrrrrrrrrrother.

 

[RayG]

It's against the law to kill one.

Is that in writing somewhere? While it's true that Skamania County in Southern WA has a law against shooting a squatch ($1,000 fine and up to 1 year behind bars -- (1984-2)), I hadn't heard that it was specifically illegal everywhere to shoot a squatch.

Anyone familiar with hunting law and regulations knows that you can't just go out and shoot everything that moves. Usually you have a permit for a specific species in your pocket, and can't "blast" anything else.

Aren't permits usually issued for proven species?

It is specifically illegal to shoot a sasquatch in Alaska.

Is there a link to that info?

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

The world's only skeptics are participants on this thread?

I've read many "explanations" in various news "reports" that sasquatch sightings are likely escaped apes.

Your exact phrase was "the skeptics." Since you didn't qualify that broad description with anything, I felt obligated to point out that there were in fact a great many skeptics who had never said any such thing. I have this thing about letting sweeping generalities go by unchecked, as you've probably guessed by now.

I would love to see some examples of these "explanations" by "the skeptics" of which you speak.

 

[Huntster]

Is that in writing somewhere? While it's true that Skamania County in Southern WA has a law against shooting a squatch ($1,000 fine and up to 1 year behind bars -- (1984-2)), I hadn't heard that it was specifically illegal everywhere to shoot a squatch.

I don't think it's illegal everywhere to shoot a sasquatch. However, it's my experience that there is a federal law that prohibits virtually everything. If you cannot legally remove stones from federal lands, or even possess and use a metal detector on federal lands, I find it difficult to imagine that shooting a sasquatch is perfectly legal.

Here in Alaska it is illegal to hunt anything that doesn't have a specific open season. It's a catch all. Sasquatches are protected right along with unicorns, dragons, and werewolves. On page 7:

...If the species is not listed, you may NOT hunt that species.....

Of course, in a state where bear attacks occur on a regular basis (several per year), DLP (Defense of Life or Property) shootings are legal (Emergency Taking of Game, Page 21). You must simply report the shooting and fill out the paperwork. They are usually investigated by the State Troopers. So if the sasquatch tried to harm you, you can shoot it.

However,:

...Game animals taken in defense of life or property are property of the state....

However, one of the wonderful thing about lawyers is that the more they talk and write, the more they fluck up. On page 16 is this:

...Big game means black bear, brown/grizzly bear, bison, caribou, Dall sheep, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, mountain goat, moose, musk ox, wolf, and wolverine....

So, even though the sasquatch species is not listed and may not be hunted, if one is shot in defense of life or property, since it is not a listed "big game animal", the carcass does not belong to the state?

...Aren't permits usually issued for proven species?...

Yes.

 

[Aepervius]

Huntser this is bunk

Ever heard of smuggling and unlawful hunting ? People using unlawful trick to hunt game ? And do not get me started on people which will do ANYTHING to earn a bit of money...

Do you realize HOW MUCH would be worth a dead sasquash ? And I ain't talking about the side money to be earned : book, interview, etc... 1000$ of fine BAH!!! Peanuts money ! Up to 1 year of prison ? "He attacked me ! I shooted in defense" And now the burden of proof is on the prosecution side to prove the sash did not attack the poor hunter. Good luck on that.
Law against hunting big game is with CERTAINTY not an obstacle for the sort of people hunting after money.

This sash things is about the same veracity/process as UFO : blurry film which could very well be using the trick of the epoch, non existant corpse and physical proof, and an extrem variety in the sighting (which would mean many many different specy in the case of sash, or in the case of UFO, that we are the center of an intergalactic UFO-crossway). And I would bet that since the first legend / sighting way before PGF, the popular "form" of bigfoot evolved just like typical alien evolved in popular conscience.
This above has the same quality as "counter proof of existence" than the proof offered by bigfooter : none and thus as much valid.

 

[Roger Knights]

Reply to Parcher's Critique of the Patty Statuette--part 1

Another example of contemporary modification of Patty to make her look authentic.

This statuette is not contemporary, but was created in 1973 in Moscow by Igor Bourtsev, with the assistance of his wife Alya, as described in pages 46-51 of Dmitri Bayanov’s book, America’s Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. Of the differences alleged between the statuette and frame 352, some do not exist, some are trivial or non-nefarious, and some represent an attempt to more accurately represent the creature.

This is a sculpture of Patty as shown in frame 352. Notice that the creasing of the suit (thigh hernia) is gone …

Only when viewed from the rear. Looking at her sidewise, as in the picture on p. 96 of Chris Murphy’s Meet the Sasquatch, which I would have posted below if the file-size limit had been higher, the crease/hernia (pick one) is visible.

… the butt is made to look more natural, …

There are two differences in the butt: One is that the two dark “jock-strap” or “diaper” lines (one around the waist and one angling down from the forward half of the waist to the gluteal fold) are shown in the sculpture as indentations, which has the effect of “defining” and separating the butt from the thigh and the upper torso. (These lines are strikingly evident in all four frames shown on p. 54 of Murphy’s book.) But the statuette’s highlighting of these lines, which most people had been only subliminally aware of until the large color images in Murphy’s book were published, could not reasonably be described as an attempt to make the creature “more authentic.” On the contrary, it’s hard to find a natural explanation for them. (My guess is that they were marks left by her sleeping on wet or foul sticks in a nest.)

Second, the statuette’s upper thigh shows considerably less widening out along its lower edge up to the point of the thigh-indentation. According to my measurements, the lower edge of the statuette’s thigh angles up from the ground at about 50°, whereas the angle is only 35° for the image in frame 352. This makes the statuette’s butt less massive. But a thinner thigh is the reverse of an authenticating feature, because it is more human-like.

… the breasts are more natural by moving them higher …

Higher is not more natural, after adolescence, so moving them upward would not have helped to “sell” the film. (My guess is that, because the breasts were quite dark, there was room for interpretation in deciding where to place them, and that placing them higher was either an unconscious act of gallantry, or that Bourtsev, who’d never previously sculpted (Bayanov, 50), let himself be guided in their placement by an artist’s (idealized) handbook on figure-drawing.)

… and changing the shape …

If there is any significant difference in shape, it should have been explained what it is and why changing it would make the creature more natural. It’s hard to say what sort of shape would be more natural for a Bigfoot, in the absence of a type specimen. The only difference I see is that the statuette’s are smaller.

… and the head/face is given various modified treatments.

Bourtsev chose to base the face on the ape-like profile-view provided by frame 344 (see Bayanov, 47), rather than the human-like full-face view of frame 352. Owen Caddy’s recent photo enhancements to frame 352, based on a newly processed version of the film by Rick Noll, support the authenticity of Bourtsev’s version. (Because of copyright restrictions, Caddy’s enhancements can for now be seen only at his slide-show presentations at Bigfoot conferences.) The only other noticeably different feature (to me) were the prominent ears on the statuette—but they are so trivial an authenticating detail that it’s hard for me to view them as evidence that the sculpture was created with salesmanship in mind.

Try to imagine what this figurine would look like if it really matched Patty in frame 352...

They wouldn’t be much different. Compare them in the side-by-side pictures on p. 96 of Murphy's book.

 

[LTC8K6]

It is specifically illegal to shoot a sasquatch in Alaska.

"It came at me, officer."

Including their outrageous accusations regarding Patterson's hoax?

Where? Who are "they", exactly? IIRC, only a few skeptics here have said the PGF is a hoax. Some have certainly left the door open, even if only a crack.

 

[UrsulaV]

Where? Who are "they", exactly? IIRC, only a few skeptics here have said the PGF is a hoax. Some have certainly left the door open, even if only a crack.

I'd certainly question whether saying "I think it's a hoax" constitutes an "outrageous claim."

To me, an outrageous claim is something, y'know, outrageous. "There's a giant paisley squid eating my car!" "Allergies are a government conspiracy to distract us from the international ragweed cartel's involvement at Roswell." "Elvis is alive, has undergone surgery, and is now Brittany Spears."

"This looks like a guy in a suit to me," is not particularly outrageous, as we know of the existence of hoaxes, guys, and suits, and the field is riddled with known and exposed hoaxers. It may or may not be a correct assessment, mind you, but it's hardly outrageous to suggest it. Hell, I'd probably say in a field subject to known hoaxers, while a claim that something is faked may be wrong, it's hardly an outrageous claim to make in the first place--"outrageous" would imply to me something a lot wilder than merely incorrect. "The PGF film is a hoax," is a claim, but "The PGF film is a hoax perpetrated by aliens so that we're afraid to go for hikes in the PNW and they can land their spaceships in the woods with impunity," is an OUTRAGEOUS claim.

But I suppose some of us are more easily outraged than others.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sometimes they attack your spelling or grammar instead. Even for posters who don't speak the same language. They usually make the same sort of error themselves, and get outraged if you point out the hypocrisy.

I won't bother to do it, though.

 

[Huntster]

New story:

...At first glance it might have seemed like nothing. A four-inch impression in the mud of the Malaysian rainforest. On closer inspection, however, it seemed as if it might be the astounding find the expedition had been hoping for. A footprint of the creature known variously as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, the tropical Yeti or - to locals - the Mawas. ....

....The Mawas appears to have grabbed for support when it teetered off-balance, because tree branches 11 feet overhead had been damaged, directly above the spot where the animal's left heel had sunk four inches into a muddy puddle. A stick had snapped beneath one of its toe depressions.....

....For the excitable team of Yeti hunters, mainly a mix of Singapore enthusiasts and volunteers from the capital Kuala Lumpur it was vindication. Even the sceptics, including this reporter, were secretly impressed.....