Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[sgoodman72]

Still missing the point.

Bigfooters claim humans can't walk like "Patty."

The fact that "Patty's" walk can be duplicated means that particular bigfooter claim isn't worth squat.

I am not missing the point sir.

I fully understand what those original researchers contend and again I say that I don't care what the "other" BIGFOOTERS claim in terms of the walk. I am myself, and this is what I claim. I claim that the walk, just because it can be replicated, shouldn't be used as evidence against. And if anything it might stand to reason that it is somewhat humanlike IF bigfoot are a closer relative than other primates.

AGAIN, do not lump me into the mindset and ideology that those other claims stake. Those are not my claims. I do not and never originally said that it was impossible to copy, so don't put those words in my mouth.

 

[Drewbot]

Chimps, Gorillas, Orangs do not walk like humans, you may have seen some walk on two feet before, but they did not walk like humans. They do not have the Achilles heel development to do so. I do know of a human that walks just like Patty though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZN9S5IfBCQ

 

[Hitch]

Okay, we'll forget about the walk. (Though you're the one who brought it up.) We'll address the first question you asked: (as far as I can find)

I definitely do believe in bigfoot, after all what's so hard to believe about a large primate other than human living in North America, they live in Africa right?

The fact that there is absolutely no compelling evidence for their existence. None whatsoever.

And that's where this discussion always starts and never ends. If you want any skeptic to accept the possibility of bigfoot being real, you must present any good evidence. No one has.

 

[mangler]

sgoodman72,

..."but if there is a creature that potentially exists"...

I agree with this.


m

 

[William Parcher]

William, first let's get 1 thing straight, I don't want you to get hung up on the money aspect. I appreciate your efforts on fueling that discussion and finding that production value of the DVD, however I'm not debating that. I was merely just pointing out that it was being spent. Again you're belaboring issues that don't really matter. I've tried a few times to steer away from that and obviously you won't let it go, so this is for you. Congratulations, I concede this fact to you, I don't care, next topic.

You mean you no longer want to pursue the money aspect because it turns out that this place really is Thunderdome. Your intent was to seek agreement that huge amounts of money have been spent on recreations attempting to show that it was a hoax... and that those expensive attempts have not resulted in showing that it was a hoax. You thought it was going to be a no-brainer slam dunk agreement that might not even need attempts to tally the actual expenditures.

OK, you concede. But what are you conceding? Surely you don't want to go as far as conceding that a very small amount of money has been spent. That's going too far with the concession. Do you have anything specific to say at all about the costs of recreation attempts?

Concerted "Patty walk" recreation attempts that could have a dollar amount designated to them:

1) Erik Beckjord attempt using a man in a Bigfoot suit. This was filmed using the same type of 16mm camera used by Patterson. Cost: ?

2) BBC production showing Bob Heironimus walking in a suit made by Philip Morris. This is video. Cost: ?

3) Steindorf digitally-animated skeleton showing Patty walking. This is CGI. Cost: $75,000.

Are there others that would qualify for this list?

 

[sgoodman72]

You mean you no longer want to pursue the money aspect because it turns out that this place really is Thunderdome. Your intent was to seek agreement that huge amounts of money have been spent on recreations attempting to show that it was a hoax... and that those expensive attempts have not resulted in showing that it was a hoax. You thought it was going to be a no-brainer slam dunk agreement that might not even need attempts to tally the actual expenditures.

OK, you concede. But what are you conceding? Surely you don't want to go as far as conceding that a very small amount of money has been spent. That's going too far with the concession. Do you have anything specific to say at all about the costs of recreation attempts?

Concerted "Patty walk" recreation attempts that could have a dollar amount designated to them:

1) Erik Beckjord attempt using a man in a Bigfoot suit. This was filmed using the same type of 16mm camera used by Patterson. Cost: ?

2) BBC production showing Bob Heironimus walking in a suit made by Philip Morris. This is video. Cost: ?

3) Steindorf digitally-animated skeleton showing Patty walking. This is CGI. Cost: $75,000.

Are there others that would qualify for this list?

William, I am going to be perfectly honest with you. It was merely filler in a first post to get into the mix of conversation, I didn't expect to be discussing in depth what I happened to mention in passing. No, I have no cost back-up, yes I realize I need to substantiate every claim I make in the future, and no I am not going to look this up because I feel it's a moot point. This should be case closed.

But seeing as how this rubbed you the wrong way for whatever reason, and given your excessive vehemence I will say that the $75,000 alone that you've quoted is quite sufficient. By no means is $75,000 "conceeding a very small amount as you put it." It actually comes close to my original "hundreds of thousands." Afterall, only $25K more and you're at my original marker. I will ask again can we please put this issue to rest and discuss what my real point was.

Yes, I'm in Thunderdome - yes I can take the heat - but no I don't feel like bickering over something that wasn't my main argument.

 

[sgoodman72]

Okay, we'll forget about the walk. (Though you're the one who brought it up.) We'll address the first question you asked: (as far as I can find)



The fact that there is absolutely no compelling evidence for their existence. None whatsoever.

And that's where this discussion always starts and never ends. If you want any skeptic to accept the possibility of bigfoot being real, you must present any good evidence. No one has.

Hitch, I was torn about bringing up that question because I know this is a PG footage SPECIFIC thread, and I have seen others get told this in previous posts. However, I would still obviously like to respond. Without going into too much detail (because I'd like to discuss PG), I think there is potential evidence. First, the mere fact that we're even on here discussing this is good enough for me that something MAY be out there. I think the PG footage is a hell of a place to start, because it can't just be outright brushed off as a hoax like almost everything else. How about the unconfirmed DNA evidence from blood on trap up in Canada that is almost identical to human DNA, however it varies slightly in a very similar way to where the Chimpanzee and other primates differ from humans. And to this day it is out in the open and is confirmed as not human, nor any other known species. That may be a good area to start too.

But anyway, please, let's talk PG footage as per the thread, I'd be happy to discuss other things in other posts.

Drew, I know that Chimps, Gorillas, and Orangs don't walk exactly like humans, but walking on 2 feet is a heck of a lot closer than how a turtle walks, yes? Again, I said human-like, not human.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How about the unconfirmed DNA evidence from blood on trap up in Canada ...

How about it ?

 

[William Parcher]

William, I am going to be perfectly honest with you. It was merely filler in a first post to get into the mix of conversation, I didn't expect to be discussing in depth what I happened to mention in passing. No, I have no cost back-up, yes I realize I need to substantiate every claim I make in the future, and no I am not going to look this up because I feel it's a moot point. This should be case closed.

It shouldn't be closed because your "filler" actually bring up a good question for PGF researchers like myself. I want to know as much as I can about the PGF and things related to it. Actual costs of Patty walk recreations (which sometimes includes a suit) is something that is potentially knowable.

But seeing as how this rubbed you the wrong way for whatever reason, and given your excessive vehemence I will say that the $75,000 alone that you've quoted is quite sufficient. By no means is $75,000 "conceeding a very small amount as you put it." It actually comes close to my original "hundreds of thousands." Afterall, only $25K more and you're at my original marker. I will ask again can we please put this issue to rest and discuss what my real point was.

I suspect that the $75K Steindorf animation (SA) wasn't a part of your imaginary grand total spent by all recreations. I also suspect that many Pattycakes would not count the SA on the list of recreation atempts. Why? Because when asked for a list of attempts, I suspect that many would only count attempts made by PGF skeptics. The SA was commissioned by a pro-PGF production called "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science". The SA concludes that Patty was not a man in a suit. The shown skeleton and its dynamics is entirely inhuman. Put this aside for a moment...

What if I had actually agreed with your filler comment about huge amounts being spent? Would you have responded by saying my agreement is inconsequential and the whole point of it all is meaningless anyway? We both agree but lets forget the whole thing because it's just filler.

But what if I agreed and disagreed at the same time in a provocative manner? "I agree that huge amounts have been spent, but the actual expenditures are over $2 million." At that point, it would be entirely reasonable for you to be amazed and ask me questions about that figure. Do you have any information to substanciate that claim, William? All of a sudden you could begin to act like I am, and rightfully so. Show me the money Parcher. If you are correct, I will revise my filler comment to say that millions have been spent on recreation attempts. Or would it be back to saying the whole issue does not deserve discussion anyway?

 

[William Parcher]

I think the "they retracted it after realizing how bad it was" theory is quite possible, although it's also possible that it's being held up for Kal Korff's planned documentary.

How could Korff have that kind of control over the BBC program? AFAIK, the program has never been available on the Internet. Where did all the different still frames come from? I think they may have come from a news clip (was it KTVB, KIMA, or Yakima-Herald?) about BH confessing and they showed bits from the BBC program. However, that news clip has been missing from the web for years now.

It seemed to me that Morris didn't try checking his costume against the film and just sent over the first attempt.

Did you listen to him speak on the Biscardi radio show where he explained why the costume doesn't end up looking like a great recreation attempt? Why it is brownish instead of blackish?

 

[sgoodman72]

It shouldn't be closed because your "filler" actually bring up a good question for PGF researchers like myself. I want to know as much as I can about the PGF and things related to it. Actual costs of Patty walk recreations (which sometimes includes a suit) is something that is potentially knowable.



I suspect that the $75K Steindorf animation (SA) wasn't a part of your imaginary grand total spent by all recreations. I also suspect that many Pattycakes would not count the SA on the list of recreation atempts. Why? Because when asked for a list of attempts, I suspect that many would only count attempts made by PGF skeptics. The SA was commissioned by a pro-PGF production called "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science". The SA concludes that Patty was not a man in a suit. The shown skeleton and its dynamics is entirely inhuman. Put this aside for a moment...

What if I had actually agreed with your filler comment about huge amounts being spent? Would you have responded by saying my agreement is inconsequential and the whole point of it all is meaningless anyway? We both agree but lets forget the whole thing because it's just filler.

But what if I agreed and disagreed at the same time in a provocative manner? "I agree that huge amounts have been spent, but the actual expenditures are over $2 million." At that point, it would be entirely reasonable for you to be amazed and ask me questions about that figure. Do you have any information to substanciate that claim, William? All of a sudden you could begin to act like I am, and rightfully so. Show me the money Parcher. If you are correct, I will revise my filler comment to say that millions have been spent on recreation attempts. Or would it be back to saying the whole issue does not deserve discussion anyway?

William, I agree that if you had said it's over $2 million that I would probably be reacting in the same manner that you are acting right now. However, since that is as implausible as $0 dollars is, statistically speaking, both 'outliers' should be disregarded. Which leaves us in between at somewhere at least at the $75K you quoted, which I contend is a large figure regardless.

Now if you had simply acquiesced and agreed with my filler comment, I would NOT have said your agreement is inconsequential, it would have just been point taken - move on to the discussion that I intended.

 

[sgoodman72]

How about it ?

Yeah, how about it indeed. Quite a find I would say.

Forgive me, but you may have misunderstood what I was alluding to in my post. The actual DNA itself is confirmed, however the source or creature from which it came from is actually what is unconfirmed. Again, probably for a different thread.

 

[William Parcher]

I found a Spanish-dubbed version of that "Best Evidence" program where a guy in a Bigfoot costume does the "Patty walk" in front of Dr. Meldrum. However, the segment was split into two

Watch the feet at 1:30-1:33.

I never saw this view before. They look very fake to me. Big rubbery fake BF feet.

 

[William Parcher]

Again, probably for a different thread.

We have a thread titled "Meldrum Gets Bigfoot DNA?"

 

[sgoodman72]

We have a thread titled [ ... ] "Meldrum Gets Bigfoot DNA?"

Excellent, I'll check it out. Thanks.

 

[Avindair]

Avindair wrote:
Yeah.....shaky, streaked, over-exposed image....with a teeny-tiny subject, somewhere in it.

Been drinkin, Avindair???

So, you're denying:

1. That the range to the subject was much closer than expected, given the size of the subject in frame, per the findings of the BBC special?
2. That the only way that the BBC recreation achieved the amount of camera shake was to consciously shake it?
3. That the subject is incredibly small in frame? Not as blown-up; as it is in the original frame.
4. That photographers have referred to the film as being over-exposed?
5. That the footage had to be stabilized to be studied?
6. That such stabilization would, by itself, could introduce new artifacts into the footage?

Before you get all huffy about the BBC re-creation, understand what Dfoot and others have been saying for a long time: The program wasn't re-creating the suit; the program was re-creating the event to determine such things as range, "creature" behavior, camera movement, and the like. In that way, the BBC special was very, very helpful.

If you're willing to look past all of those elements -- to say nothing of the obvious earmarks of the subject being a man in a suit -- no amount of evidence is likely to sway your conviction.

Having observed the PGF-fan following since 2003, I've reached the conclusion that it's a piece of evidence that can never be debunked. Not because it's true, but because it has an entire belief structure built up around it.

Seriously, if nice, clear, black & white photos were unearthed tomorrow, showing Bob getting into the suit, Roger and Gimlin pointing and giggling, and even a shot of Roger shooting Bob in the suit, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Some Pattyphiles would remain utterly convinced that the image in the film is of an unknown hominid, and would perform the mental gymnastics required to put the signs of a hoax "in their proper context".

Avindair

 

[Avindair]

Originally, the response was that he had years to practice the walk. Nowadays, they say that it only matches at a few points

Yes, a Pepsi bottler had nothing better to do with his time than to practice walking like the guy in the PGF.

Oh, wait; that would ignore those family members who have stated very clearly that he's always had an odd gait.

So much for that theory, huh?

I think the "they retracted it after realizing how bad it was" theory is quite possible, although it's also possible that it's being held up for Kal Korff's planned documentary. ... However, I should note that mangler did a really great comparison picture showing that the Morris suit wasn't as far off as it would seem.

I'll have to dig for the picture.

The proof in the pudding for many, though, would be seeing Bob walking in the suit. Seeing it in motion should be the final nail in the coffin.

Pity Dahinden died without revealing what was said between he and Patterson's widow after the Bob H. claims came out. "Let sleeping dogs lie..." was an awful big teaser to go out on.

They seem to be under the impression that padding would be difficult to move smoothly in, failing to realize that a pro football game disproves that pretty easily.

Then they'll just cherry-pick the look of the pads and drop the ease of movement from the argument.

Well, until the next argument, where others haven't called them on it.

Round and round we go...

Because they have the nerve to say the the film isn't real.

Blasphemers!

Heretics!

The second excuse is that the Roe drawing doesn't look exactly like Patty, so they can't be a match.

Would that you were kidding...

Not even Roger Knights' conclusion that the timeline didn't work was able to sway this opinion.

Even Roger reached that conclusion, huh? Mister "Tale-of-Two-Suits" (Roger? Occam. Know him. Love him.) himself?

Neat.

I love the BFRO's "They're rare and nocturnal. Besides, encounters are usually over before someone can grab a camera" argument.

Let's not forget "...and they can sense trailcams."

What, do they carry tricorders now?

Wanna hear the sad part? I would love to be wrong about Bigfoot. Really, I would. The stories are a fun read. Heck, I know one person who claimed a sighting, and another who swears he tracked them.

Neat, right?

Well...

The guy who saw one in his youth admitted it had been during a rebellious phase, and that he'd been doing drugs, so that's out.

And my friend who "tracked" one? Now he admits that it was probably a bear.

My point is this: I would love if a crystal clear photo and film of an unknown, mostly erect hominid showed up on TV tomorrow. I'd be the first saying "Cool! Show me more!" But the simple fact of the matter is that all real research into the matter has turned up nothing but frauds, hucksters, and nonsense.

Sadly, Virginia, in this case there just doesn't appear to be a Santa Clause.

Avindair

 

[William Parcher]

9. How, exactly, did the film make it off the mountain, to a developing lab, and onto a projector in record time?

Good question. As I recall, the common excuse is that although such a thing would be difficult, Patterson and Gimlin did everything just right and were able to have enough time to do so as a result. Not even Roger Knights' conclusion that the timeline didn't work was able to sway this opinion.

Even Roger reached that conclusion, huh? Mister "Tale-of-Two-Suits" (Roger? Occam. Know him. Love him.) himself? Neat.

You guys are talking about Knight's essay on the film development issue.

The responses were few and the whole thing was dropped in July 2004.

Ok, so the film wasn't taken on October 20. So what? All that matters is the film, not the date it was taken.

 

[William Parcher]

Hollywood makes a 'South American' Bigfoot costume.

Hello, yes I would like to start with an order of raw agouti livers as my appetizer. Do you have any real ginger ale?

 

[Dfoot]

Anyway... I was asked to show suits that made legs look shorter. Here's a couple of oldies. I've compared the heels to those of various chimps and found they appear similar. Must be alive then according to Bigfoot research logic.

btw Sweaty -- The guy in that earlier gorilla suit photo I posted is NOT bending his legs. He's just standing there straight. It's just reality.