IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , bill munns , Patterson-Gimlin film

Reply
Old 13th August 2013, 03:12 AM   #521
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
I agree. I think it laid out an excellent overview of the history of the Bigfoot phenomena. I appreciate very much his coverage of the alleged native lore, the JW Burns history, the Ray Wallace hoaxing at the beginning of the modern Bigfoot, and the William Roe story which is what the PGF was based on.

I know both Bill and Daniel personally. Daniel and I share the same hometown (Victoria, BC) which has a special place in Bigfootery history. He and I discussed a number of things during the writing of his new book. Bill I know well and also had lengthy communication with before and after my departure from Bigfootery and North America. I was somewhat surprised how vehement his objections to the book were, but I also understand why he objects when I apply his perspective.


I think on two levels it's basically "Why wasn't I consulted?" and that he believes not entirely unfairly that it's hypocritical to say anecdotal evidence is unreliable and then to reference Long's work which used a lot of it. The issue is more complex than that and I haven't yet read the PGF section of the book. This is basically something Bill and I have debated at length and in depth, particularly in a thread at the BFF I created called The Stick-to-the-Film Mantra: Ignoring the History of Hoaxing in Bigfootery.

Bill's basic issue is to insist that we stick to the film and in doing so that is the only way to determine the truth of the film. My problem with Bill's methods is what I think is the transparency of the effort to show the film real and find design conclusions to fit that. Of course, on the flip side, Bigfoot enthusiasts will say the same as me, since I made it my mission to prove the film a hoax (which was a mission I aborted when I pursued a life not steeped in Bigfoot insanity). A key difference is that I started out thinking the film genuine and being a strong proponent of it. I think Bill more than anything is incensed that Daniel would write from a position of knowledge on the subject of the PGF yet nowhere reference his work and what he sees as his advancements regarding the film. Bill does deserve credit for a number of things regarding the film. I think more than anything his championing of the film has given him access to material that would not have come forth otherwise.

We've always come back to this: Bill thinks it's correct to focus on the film and set aside focusing on the source. I think it's a complete failure to ignore the source, particularly when there is so much key crucial information that forever takes the film out of the realm of reliable evidence. I think Bill's ultimate mistake is to seriously think that he can get acceptance of the film outside of Bigfootery with his current manner of efforts while essentially setting aside and serious scrutiny of the film source. That's not to say Bill hasn't privately looked into some of these things. The same in that all of us skeptics have examined the film to death.

Bill can no more prove the film real with alleged breast movement than I could prove the film a hoax with Patterson's beard. The best I can do is show Gimlin is making up lies when claiming Dahinden and Patterson filmed the cast display a year after Patty Day on one of many return visits to Bluff Creek.

Bill wants to have the people at Columbia University Press disavow the book, or at least Daniel's writing on the PGF. To think this would ever happen based on what he wrote I think is misguided. If anyone at Columbia even made it part way through all of what Bill wrote, they would and should rightly be asking, "14,000 words later, and what have you done to show the film to be genuine?"

If Bill wants to convince people outside of Bigfootery that writing it off as a hoax or unreliable is wrong, I believe his efforts are going to have to include things better than doing something like using static materials in something I have a hard time calling a genuine effort to create breast movement using prosthetics.

Basically all I can really add to this is that Bill genuinely believes the film to be real. He aspires to be a renaissance man and broaden his palette with scientific pursuits regarding the film. He knows Roger lied, he knows Gimlin lied. He knows Roger filmed Heironimus at Bluff Creek. He knows the suit exists. He knows the film timeline is not possible as Patterson, Gimlin and DeAtley described it. What he basically does is to say whatever all that was, was some other film, the PGF is "biologically real", and stick to the safe and productive waters of promoting it as such.

The minute he suggests otherwise is the minute Patricia cuts him off. The minute he catches Gimlin in a lie and goes public with it, that's the minute he loses that access and his support base. Sticking to the film is best for Bill because it's what he's best capable of and doing otherwise will cut him off from being able to do what he is best at.

One thing I will not agree with is that Bill promoting the film is something he does for financial gain. Having had my own experience trying to do things on my own, you end up spending way more money than you can hope to make.

Seriously, it's Bigfoot.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 13th August 2013 at 03:13 AM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:39 AM   #522
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
http://www.sasquatchforum.proboards....-damned?page=2

You can read the entire 7 page letter he sent to the Columbia University Press and the Board of Trustees here. Scroll down to the post dated Aug 7, 2013 at 7:13pm
I was checking back to see if there was an original letter and saw this in the OP...

Quote:
This should get interesting. No way will they pull the book, no matter how reasoned your arguments. You are already an infamous figure on JREF, and I imagine a dog fight with you about this chapter would be something the authors, and maybe the publisher, would relish.
LOL, this is the kind of weird thinking one finds in subcultures like Bigfootery.

1) Bill is not infamous on the JREF. The JREF is a huge forum in which Bill is largely unknown. Bill is known amongst us weirdos who talk about Bigfootery. We are the weird uncle at the skeptic dinner table.

2) Neither Donald Prothero, Daniel Loxton, or Columbia University Press would relish a dogfight with Bill about the chapter on the PGF.

They don't care!

Donald and Daniel will almost certainly not hear of Bill's objections and the last people that will care will be Columbia. Bill's letters will be junked after a cursory skimming, more than anything because for all the fist shaking about Daniel's writing, where is there anything in those letters to make any non-enthusiast take the film seriously?
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 04:19 AM   #523
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
OntarioSquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 04:30 AM   #524
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
You can't see the folds and the diaper? Sheesh.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:27 AM   #525
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
How long do you think it would take to track Patty for 3.5 miles in that terrain?

How long do you think it took to ride to get plaster in that terrain? They claim not to have gone by road then, either. They went cross country because it was "a little shorter" than the 2 miles by road.

So they claim to have ridden somewhere around 11 13 miles total after catching the horses and reloading the camera with film.

Since the filmed trackway includes a cast, logically they had already ridden back and forth to get the plaster before filming that.

They still had to ride back to the truck, so it's actually around 13 miles.

~7 miles of tracking, ~4 miles for the plaster, ~2 miles back to the truck. All after 1:30pm.

And they still have to catch the horses, reload the camera, film the trackway/stomp test, do the casting, and pack up their stuff to leave, so they can get back to the truck and then drive to a phone and an airport.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 13th August 2013 at 07:00 AM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 07:03 AM   #526
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
The part I bolded is absolutely untrue. Shall we review your posts here and on the BFF?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:05 PM   #527
Chris L
Graduate Poster
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
So no matter how much Patterson might have been lying about everything else, he must have been telling the truth about the monkey walking in front of his camera?
__________________
"The lie is different at every level."
Richard C. Hoagland
Chris L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:09 PM   #528
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Essentially, yes. That is all irrelevant because the "filmitself" shows us a real honest to gawd Bigfoot. Insert claims about musculature, facial expressions, bendy fingers, lack of comparable suit (when presented with examples : play dumb and pretend like you don't see, or that Patty looks much more "realistic") where needed.
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:10 PM   #529
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by Chris L View Post
So no matter how much Patterson might have been lying about everything else, he must have been telling the truth about the monkey walking in front of his camera?
Clearly. have you not seen the film? It is impossible to have built a suit of that caliber in 1967.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:37 PM   #530
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Something like Patterson's beard might be indicitive that there is a mistake in the timeline, but claiming it disproves the PGF might be a bit of a jump. Same thing with some of the other stuff. Do these inconsistencies really prove that Patty herself was a hoax? I think not. A more objective approach might be necessary if one is to really debunk the film. I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion. Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
I see the film was mistaken in the details but true overall.

You know what would point to a true biological entity? A body.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 01:45 PM   #531
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
I'd love nothing more than for the PGF to be debunked if it indeed is a hoax, but it doesn't seem to be happening in any reliable fashion.
It's impossible to debunk the PGF in the sense that you mean because bigfoot fans simply ignore or handwave away every fact or criticism they don't like. In the ordinary sense of what is acceptable as evidence for the existence of bigfoot, the PGF is not even a contender. It is ignored by science because it fails to rise to a level of quality that would interest anyone but an eccentric. So in the world at large, it's essentially debunked just by watching it.

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Instead there's a bunch of things that point towards a real biological entity. While some of Bill's analysis isn't trusted here, I think he may be onto something very interesting.
It's all been said, and of course all ignored. Just no.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:48 PM   #532
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Roe story...

I could just see the top of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw that it was not a bear.

This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly towards me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide and probably weighing somewhere near 300 pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown, silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female.

And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

...

The shape of this creature's head some-what resembled a negro's. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of its hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man as I had ever seen.

...

Finally, the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through on opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.


http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/william_roe.html

Patterson story...

Patterson said the creature stood upright the entire time, reaching a height of about six and a half to seven feet and an estimated weight of between 350 and 400 pounds.

"I moved to take the pictures and told Bob to cover me. My gun was still in the scabbard. I'd grabbed the camera instead. Besides, we'd made a pact not to kill one if we saw one unless we had to."
Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

"It's arms hung almost to its knees and when it walked, the arms swung at its sides."
- o -
PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

"She never made a sound. She wasn't hostile to us, but we don't think she was afraid of us either. She acted like she didn't want anything to do with us if she could avoid it." Patterson said the creature had an ambling gait as it made off over the some 200 yards he had it in sight. He said he lost sight of the creature, but Gimlin caught a brief glimpse of it afterward.

"But she stunk, like did you ever let in a dog out of the rain and he smelled like he'd been rolling in something dead. Her odor didn't last long where she'd been."


http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm

The top image is the illustration from the very first piece of writing on the subject that started Patterson's obsession with Bigfoot, a December 1959 article in that month's issue of True! magazine. It is a depiction and detailing of the Roe story by Ivan Sanderson. This article was of key impact and influence on Patterson. The encounter story that got him into Bigfooting and his description of the events of his filming a female Bigfoot match nearly verbatim...

A man encounters a silver-tipped short, dark brown hair from head to foot female creature with hairy breasts, bare nose and cheeks, flat broad nose, 300-400 pounds in a clearing by a downfall tree in October. It walks away from him heel-toe gait looking back at him with an expression of not wanting anything to do with him. It then later observes him from a ridge in the distance.

Patterson plagiarizes this depiction in his book only the year before his film, then finds his own female Bigfoot in a fateful encounter almost exactly the same as the one that started his obsession with Bigfoot...



In the forum Drew linked to, LAL opines...

"Roger drew far more male sasquatches than female and even sculpted a male head. Why wasn't "Patty" male?"

The answer is quite simple for anyone not entrenched in belief culture and a simple consideration of logistics...

Patterson was selling people on the idea that male Bigfoots were absolute massive giants that dwarfed men. If you are going to fake an encounter with a real Bigfoot, do you need to find a 12 ft human? No, you make it female, which you show as being in human range. Then you get the bonus of covering the gorilla suit chest piece and make the credulous wonder why you would ever choose a female.



__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 13th August 2013 at 03:50 PM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 05:35 PM   #533
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
But all female Bigfoots are going to have breasts, so assuming they are real, there may be a 50% chance of seeing one that looks like that when you sneak up on one. With such a high likelyhood of encountering one that looks like that, the picture can't rightfully be used as evidence of a hoax.
OntarioSquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:11 PM   #534
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
High likelyhood?

How high could that be, when the likelihood of seeing one at all approaches zero ?
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:24 PM   #535
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
The likelihood of seeing a female bigfoot walk across your bow, in broad daylight, in 1967, in a random spot in the woods, next to a logging road, and you have a movie camera with you, and the movie camera is set and ready to go, and no one else in the area saw that bigfoot anywhere around that time period, and your quick filming effort looks okay when developed, and you are also selling a bigfoot book...?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:29 PM   #536
Chris L
Graduate Poster
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
But all female Bigfoots are going to have breasts, so assuming they are real, there may be a 50% chance of seeing one that looks like that when you sneak up on one. With such a high likelyhood of encountering one that looks like that, the picture can't rightfully be used as evidence of a hoax.
It wasn't just the boobs that Patterson copied. The drawing he made is a duplicate of the one in the magazine, as is the language he used to describe the experience.
__________________
"The lie is different at every level."
Richard C. Hoagland
Chris L is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:47 PM   #537
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
OS, no'one could've debunked this hoax any better than P&G! Their version of events is clearly a load of crap, but you buy it!
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

Last edited by Gilbert Syndrome; 13th August 2013 at 06:55 PM.
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:50 PM   #538
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
If Patterson had filmed a real Bigfoot, then why would he need to add fake drama? The Stirrup Story is a clear smoking gun.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 06:51 PM   #539
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
The inability to create a believable tall bigfoot with really big feet is the most likely reason the PGF features a female bigfoot.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 07:06 PM   #540
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
The horses were spooked, Roger was thrown off + The horses were fine, Roger dismounted with ease = Obvious Bollocks.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 08:00 PM   #541
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
But all female Bigfoots are going to have breasts, so assuming they are real, there may be a 50% chance of seeing one that looks like that when you sneak up on one. With such a high likelyhood of encountering one that looks like that, the picture can't rightfully be used as evidence of a hoax.
High likelihood? You funny. Any picture of any bigfoot anywhere is possible evidence of a hoax because there ain't any bigfeets.

Last edited by Resume; 13th August 2013 at 08:06 PM.
Resume is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 08:14 PM   #542
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Oh yeah, well what do you think of these crystal clear photos, Mr. Skeptic???
http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 09:47 PM   #543
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
...<brevity snip>...

In the forum Drew linked to, LAL opines...

"Roger drew far more male sasquatches than female and even sculpted a male head. Why wasn't "Patty" male?"


The answer is quite simple for anyone not entrenched in belief culture and a simple consideration of logistics...

Patterson was selling people on the idea that male Bigfoots were absolute massive giants that dwarfed men. If you are going to fake an encounter with a real Bigfoot, do you need to find a 12 ft human? No, you make it female, which you show as being in human range. Then you get the bonus of covering the gorilla suit chest piece and make the credulous wonder why you would ever choose a female...
It's my opinion that last bit is one of the best paragraphs (and hard to refute rebuttals) in the entire thread. You at least win the thread for a day.

Just as a BTW, I don't think Roger Patterson in his wildest dreams ever thought his little hoax, no matter how clever, would last more than a couple years, if even that. Fuhget about 46. I bet he thought he'd milk the gravy train as far and fast as he could, and when the time came to come clean, he'd simply come cleaną. Perhaps especially so after the first 12 months, which I'm pretty sure is where his largest chunks of cash came from. And when it ran longer than that, oh well, he just went with it. Then once he learned of his own impending demise, there was absolutely no reason to come clean about it. Let it run under its own power and if his family could still profit from it somehow, so much the better.

Much to Bill Munns' chagrin, Patterson was a lying hoaxer, not an unskilled, unsavvy idiot.

ą For purposes of morality, not necessarily legal. What he was doing with the PGF presentation was hardly fraudulent (criminally), even if it was fiction being touted as reality. He was simply charging (by the head) for a glimpse of his own curious little 'act' - the precedent of which having been set hundreds of years earlier - and he didn't promise anything more.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 11:02 PM   #544
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
The likelihood of seeing a female bigfoot walk across your bow, in broad daylight, in 1967, in a random spot in the woods, next to a logging road, and you have a movie camera with you, and the movie camera is set and ready to go, and no one else in the area saw that bigfoot anywhere around that time period, and your quick filming effort looks okay when developed, and you are also selling a bigfoot book...?
Not only this. In my discussions with Jim McClarin, he told me that Patterson was not even present for the first viewing at DeAtley's. This film, developed in an impossible timeline, who knows what's on it, but they are so confident as to bring the major Bigfoot chasers of the time to come all the way to Yakima to view it, not knowing what will be seen?

Patterson and DeAtley knew exactly what they were going to show Dahinden, Green and McClarin when they came to Yakima. These men were their shills ready to pay for play.

Green's own words on the film...

__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 04:34 AM   #545
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Plus, there was a pre-loading of the idea that a bigfoot family was in the area. This idea is prominent in the story of the filming of Patty.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 05:35 AM   #546
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
But all female Bigfoots are going to have breasts [...]
Says who? Once again, without a convincing specimen, bigfoot talk is all hot air and empty speculation.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:12 AM   #547
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
OK, we need to get OS to a beach, stat!
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:14 AM   #548
OntarioSquatch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
I don't think it's empty speculation that hominids have visible breasts. Especially if we're talking about ones that are closely related to humans.

Women with low body fat don't count

Last edited by OntarioSquatch; 14th August 2013 at 06:16 AM.
OntarioSquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 06:24 AM   #549
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
Please, OS, do yourself a favor. Go to a warm sunny beach, relax and enjoy the scenery. As we told you before, it will be easy to see Patty's breasts are nothing like those from real women, regardless what Munns says... Unless the only examples he knows are p0rn actresses with oversized silicone gel breast implants. Even their position in the chest are wrong.

Or do me a favor and send me money. For about 10K dollars I can present you a good report with lots of pics and movies comparing real boobs, with and without implants with Patty's.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:26 AM   #550
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch View Post
Especially if we're talking about ones that are closely related to humans.
Are we? Hint : Bigfoot is not real.

Seeing as Bigfoot is not real.. I'm curious how you came to that conclusion.
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:54 AM   #551
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
OS, 1st Patty is like us, but when muscle flaws are pointed out, she's not like us, now with the bewbz she's like us again?
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 10:57 AM   #552
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
You can't pick and choose when Patty is akin to humans, and when she's not, OS. What on earth is wrong with you Footers?
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 11:03 AM   #553
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
You can't pick and choose when Patty is akin to humans, and when she's not, OS. ...
Sure you can.. Look at Chris' replies in the PGF thread regarding Munns' presentation and my observations of PGF anatomy ...

Quote:
What on earth is wrong with you Footers?
Clue here:

http://www.bfrpky.com/PICS.html
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:04 PM   #554
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
Chris has also pretty much outed himself as a bit of a hoax imo. Here, he shuns those pics, on his site, they're good evidence?
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:08 PM   #555
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
That's some cherrypicking madness right there. I wonder if Squatch weaves huge baskets for these ppl to stash their cherries in
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:16 PM   #556
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
The fact that he was shown side-by-side shots of the Patty/Gemora diapers and didn't care cos they weren't in Bills 2 pics? lol
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:20 PM   #557
STRONG LIKE BEAR
Thinker
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
That's some cherrypicking madness right there. I wonder if Squatch weaves huge baskets for these ppl to stash their cherries in
It's a sad truth. I am not saying Chris is mentally ill, but it is possible. It seems to be a quite common explanation for outrageous sightings.. One easy example is " Dr. Johnson " who has to be mentally ill, or one of the biggest liars on the earth. I'd rather believe that he is mentally ill. You can see other examples of outrageous stories in outrageous places on the BFF..

How does this all get built and Bigfoot doesn't get bagged?

Last edited by STRONG LIKE BEAR; 14th August 2013 at 01:25 PM.
STRONG LIKE BEAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:29 PM   #558
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
I honestly have to agree, while I don't dislike the vast majority of ppl like that, I do question their sanity and integrity.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 01:55 PM   #559
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by STRONG LIKE BEAR View Post
It's a sad truth. I am not saying Chris is mentally ill, but it is possible. It seems to be a quite common explanation for outrageous sightings.. One easy example is " Dr. Johnson " who has to be mentally ill, or one of the biggest liars on the earth. I'd rather believe that he is mentally ill. You can see other examples of outrageous stories in outrageous places on the BFF..

How does this all get built and Bigfoot doesn't get bagged?
And don't forget Janice Carter, Henner Fahrenbach, Melba Ketchum, et al.

I wonder how much longer before Munns claims to be hangin' out with the 'foots.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 14th August 2013 at 02:24 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2013, 02:12 PM   #560
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
That reminds me of the "faries in my garden" thread we had here a while back. That's something beyond pareidolia to me. Wishful thinking? Pretending?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.