ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 film , bigfoot , patterson gimlin

Closed Thread
Old 2nd March 2008, 04:57 PM   #12201
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You just posted three idiotic questions.
Well is Dr. Goodall an idiot for her romantic idealism that yes there is no reason for Bigfoot not to exist? Or is she an enlightened professional steeped in the rigors of scientific method? Honestly William in one of your recent posts you have more or less demoted her to being just a Footer. Idiotic is 300+ pages of this stuff ans no end in sight. I'm perfectly happy to read all about Indian wigs, flipped frames, who cast what and who pulled who's leg. But the good Dr. Goodall is more likely one of the very few posters or people mentioned on this thread that has is actually earning a living from primate science.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 05:17 PM   #12202
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,592
Quote:
.... But the good Dr. Goodall is more likely one of the very few posters or people mentioned on this thread that has is actually earning a living from primate science.
And probably knows less about Bigfoot ( lore ) than I do ..

Your point? Other than a lame appeal to authority ?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 05:27 PM   #12203
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
But the good Dr. Goodall is more likely one of the very few posters or people mentioned on this thread that has is actually earning a living from primate science.
And what is her expertise in bigfoot? Has she been presented with the scientific (or lack of) evidence and made a careful evaluation or was she just making a snap opinion based on what she heard? This appeal to authority is not valid unless Dr. Goodall has presented the evidence (or had others present it) that supports the claim that Bigfoot exists. So far, all I have seen is some of her offhand comments made in one interview and no great scientific effort such as papers submitted for review in scientific journals.

This kind of "quoting experts" is common in pseudoscience. You see it a lot in UFOlogy. Astronauts, pilots, government officials, etc. are all quoted to lend credence to the study of UFOs. However, some of them are misquoted and others are just making offhand comments in single interviews. When pressed, they often back off and state that their words were taken out of context. This seems to be the case here. Goodall is not an idiot but she should know better.
Astrophotographer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 05:31 PM   #12204
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
This one...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ts/Gsuit4a.jpg

....is more realistic, in that it has body/muscle contour, without all the folds and wrinkles, of the cheap type....but does it have the flexibility/apparant muscle movement that Patty's "heavily-padded" hide has?....
You could always check out the Sonoma video. As I recall, they used that costume for the video and that it was good enough to fool Rick Noll.
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 05:50 PM   #12205
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
And probably knows less about Bigfoot ( lore ) than I do ..

Your point? Other than a lame appeal to authority ?
Well maybe if you keep on the straight an narrow you'll get to sit down with Ms Goodall and enlighten her with your knowledge someday.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 06:12 PM   #12206
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by Astrophotographer View Post
This kind of "quoting experts" is common in pseudoscience. You see it a lot in UFOlogy. Astronauts, pilots, government officials, etc. are all quoted to lend credence to the study of UFOs. However, some of them are misquoted and others are just making offhand comments in single interviews. When pressed, they often back off and state that their words were taken out of context. This seems to be the case here. Goodall is not an idiot but she should know better.
.
Carl Sagan mentioned something along those lines in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, when he said,

Quote:
"I'm frequently asked, "Do you believe there's extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments -- there are a lot of places out there, the molecules of life are everywhere. I use the word billions, and so on. Then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it.

Often, I'm asked next, "What do you really think?"

I say, "I just told you what I really think."

"Yes, but what's your gut feeling?"

But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in."
.
His book was a welcome addition to my home library.

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 06:35 PM   #12207
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 508
I would like to read an explanation regarding what makes the Hoffman "creature" obviously a "man in a suit", also. What is taking so long? What is delaying the individual that Sweati Yeti is relying on, for an analysis?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
...As for attributing Joyce's sighting report to something....I can't easily attribute it to both Joyce and her daughter being screwy enough to make-up the sighting...given the fact that her husband supports her story (did she decieve her husband, too...or are all 3 of them in on the deception?)...
How long have you known them? Family members tend to reinforce or participate in delusions and/or hoaxes, when dealing with outsiders. It is an expected response, even if the family members are dubious about the claims, or even flat out don't believe them. The family is a mutual support co-op, by nature.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
...and the fact that years after-the-fact, she called me to tell me about it (what did she gain by making the call?)...
Attention? A place in Bigfoot lore? A sense of inclusion? Cults can possess a strong pull on those in need of a sense of belonging. A major factor that plays out in Bigfoot belief is a caste system. At the lower end are the "believers". Elevated above them, by mutual reinforcement, are the "Knowers". Being able to enter Bigfootism, and jumping straight into a higher caste is enticing enough to produce an exciting account.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Kitakaze can easily attribute it to some explanation like that...but I can't.
Why? When logically, it is obviously a story, a misidentification, or she/they were punked?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
There should be a scientific method involved in it.
Agreed. But not pseudo-science. The investigation of the Bigfoot/Yeti mystery (at this stage, still a myth), requires the dumping of all hoaxes, tainted "evidence" and evidence rendered dubious by contamination.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
There is, though, very strong evidence for it's existence, in the way of sighting reports, footprints, the PG film, the MD Video, hair samples, and vocal and wood-knocking sounds at night.
Is this the sum total of Bigfoot "evidence"? About the PGF... Is this the "best evidence"? A question about the PGF has to be asked. Apologies if this has been asked before, straight out, and answered adequately. If it has, I must have missed it (which is possible).

With the indications presented by others, over the years, but particularly the recent ones, regarding editing of the film, and discrepancies involved in the timeline of events, how can the PGF be even considered potential evidence?

Where is the original? Without the original, it is worthless. All copies are worthless, by themselves. Who examined the "original"? Of those that are supposed to have examined the "original", how can it be verified that they were not checking a copy, presented as "original"? It requires more than old school Bigfoot hunters/researchers, associated individuals, or even nebulous supposed "skeptic" academic/s, back in the 1960's, to "vouch" that what was supposedly "examined", was in fact, untampered, non-edited, original developed film rolls.

What exactly can be verified, about the supposed "original" film, and it's validity as an unedited original developed set of rolls? When was the last time anyone but an enthusiast/proponent examined it? How can it be verified that even this nebulous set of rolls was an original developed set? Where are they now?

How can the PGF be expected to be taken seriously, without an original to examine?
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 06:44 PM   #12208
tube
Muse
 
tube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 916
Please forgive me if this has been posted before. I just found it myself today.

I've seen the work of MK Davis on various Internet boards, but he seems to spread his theories around, and some of these links have gone dead. I think he would be better served by buying a domain name and hosting for himself, and keeping everything on one site. But such is the nature of Bigfootery and the Internet, always in constant flux.

Anyway, here is an interesting link:

http://www.monsterhunter.us/newslett...20Addition.htm

The last part intrigues me: "Look closely, you can see the crack of the butt as it goes down on all fours with arms extended for support".

Yes, Davis is able to glean this information from the very blurry frames he includes...
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6

(Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling

The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily.
tube is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 06:57 PM   #12209
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Well is Dr. Goodall an idiot for her romantic idealism that yes there is no reason for Bigfoot not to exist?
William Parcher didn't imply that Goodall is an idiot. Is it possible for someone to be wrong without being idiotic?

Quote:
Or is she an enlightened professional steeped in the rigors of scientific method?
The appeal to authority fallacy is always wrong, but when the subject is bigfoot, it's hilariously wrong.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 07:18 PM   #12210
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Members of this Forum:

My name has been thrown about in this thread for the last two months, by people who profess to be critical thinkers and logical investigators. They have discussed my activities on the internet, and asked questions about me, while never thinking to simply go to the source and ask me directly, despite knowing exactly where to contact me.

Mr. William Parcher, in particular, you stated (in your post #11765) "The BFF is safe harbor for him, but how can he take his "Patty-Is-Real" dog & pony show outside of that forum? Uh oh! Once he steps outside of BFF, the whole world is Thunderdome. Much better to stay close to the Patty cult, or drop the whole affair entirely. "

I'm stepping outside that forum. I'm entering this one. I'm meeting you on your "turf", along with Correa Neto and AtomicMysteryMonster and in coming days, I will correct your collective errors posted the last two months, answer your questions and state the facts which apparently you fail to perceive in my writings.

Further, I will qualify that my intent, on other forums and this one, is to apply my 30 plus years of experience as a film industry makeup effects fabricator to the direct question, "can the costume suit technology and processes of the 1967 era have been capable of producing a suit that would appear as the figure in the PG Film does?" All my study and research effort is applied to this issue, given my experience in such technologies. It is not applied to other issues.

Let's begin with Mr. Parcher's full post #11765 of February 20, reading:

Oh yes, that Bill Munns rode a white horse into the BFF. This white horse is named, "I Believe That Patty Is A Real Bigfoot."

Critical thinkers (PGF skeptics) just get to watch his painfully ridiculous analysis of 1967-era costumes and the Patty costume - which is all designed to arrive at the foregone conclusion that this is not a hoax. He tries to act as an objective and impartial 'expert' observer, but he wears his belief and credulity on his sleeve. This man has Bigfoot woo blood flowing through his veins.

Don't think for a moment that his sudden appearance on BFF is coincidental or accidental. Now watch the future to see if he is contracted outright or becomes encouraged to seek profit$ as related to his 'expert Hollywood status' and obvious belief that Patty is real. But then again, maybe he is coming to terms with his own ridiculous situation.

Munns has been rather quiet lately on the BFF. He recently got the LMS : DVD and he may find himself watching a guy in a suit. Now what? Maybe he takes some notice of the few Patty skeptics on BFF (Walas is long gone but his posts remain, Dfoot is now gone but his posts remain), and maybe he reads JREF. The BFF is safe harbor for him, but how can he take his "Patty-Is-Real" dog & pony show outside of that forum? Uh oh! Once he steps outside of BFF, the whole world is Thunderdome. Much better to stay close to the Patty cult, or drop the whole affair entirely.

Maybe he can't sleep at night after seeing the hands (or whatever they are) on LMS. If he decides that Patty is a fake after all, how will he extract himself from the credulous mire he has already created for himself on BFF? He painted himself into a corner surrounded by fawning Patty sychophants. Is that what he really wants after all? Poor Bill Munns. What will he say and do next?


Mr. Parcher, your first two paragraphs simply demonstrate a propensity for literary distraction, not critical thinking. And they contain a conspicuous contridiction, stating "critical thinker (PGF skeptic)" which implies the one must be the other. So you specify the intellectual agenda a critical thinker must adhere to, your view on a subject, to quality. Sounds like dogma, alligence to your view only, because real critical thinking doesn't specify an agenda as a qualifier.

Then you say, in the beginning of the third paragraph:

"Don't think for a moment that his sudden appearance on BFF is coincidental or accidental."

You haven't a clue why I'm there. A critical thinker would never indulge such pure speculation, with no other basis than personal insecurity. You are just inventing suspicion. My introduction to the BFF was in fact accidental. I was doing a Google image search for a bigfoot image, and the search engine took me to a Chris Walas thread in that forum. Pure accident, nothing more. I liked what I read. I joined and participated.

Then you recklessly say:

"He recently got the LMS : DVD and he may find himself watching a guy in a suit. Now what?"

This is factually incorrect (sometimes called a lie or mistake, depending on intent). I do have a LMS book, not the DVD (my video sources come from other researchers), but perhaps you cannot tell a book from a DVD (the round shiney one is the DVD). Or you feel such factual distinctions have no bearing on your agenda of criticizing me. The truth is, You have no idea what references I have, or when I got the ones I have. You haven't got a clue about my research sources and library. As a critical thinker, I would say your statement was either a failure to distinguish material facts, or a rash assumption, or a malecious falsehood. But I won't suppose to know your intent as you do suppose to know mine. I can say categorically that your statement is false. Disagree? You pro-offered the statement, Now prove it true!

Then you say:

"Maybe he can't sleep at night after seeing the hands (or whatever they are) on LMS. "

It also speaks volumes of your obcession with me that you waste forum resources speculating about what I watch, how I sleep, or anticipating what I may do in the future, instead of focusing on your own efforts and devoting energy to some constructive endeavor you can put on your resume (unless of course your ambition is simply to criticize others for having different opinions than yours, a prospect a critical thinker would reasonably wonder about you).

You finish with:

"What will he say and do next?"

The answer is I'm here, and I'm ready to address all your questions with direct and factual answers. Now the question is, what will you say to me, person to person, with all the forum watching, to see if you are, in fact, a responsible and fairminded critical thinker.

Bill Munns
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 07:30 PM   #12211
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
William Parcher didn't imply that Goodall is an idiot. Is it possible for someone to be wrong without being idiotic?

The appeal to authority fallacy is always wrong, but when the subject is bigfoot, it's hilariously wrong.
The environmernt with which questions are asked or responses rendered are of prime consideraiton with me. From nearly everything I've read on this forum if one is not in line with the dominant point of view then those opposing points of view are viewed and hailed as idiotic and those maintaining opposing points of view are idiots. But one must be wary of guilt by association around this place. Bigfooters are considered idiots by most here and are for the most part treated as such and assigning Jane Goodall into the Footer modality is, unless dispensation is offered, assigning her as idiot. Furthermore I was not appealing to aurthority concerning Dr. Goodall. I was considering whether or not her detractors within the context of this thread were of a higher or more accomplished aurthority. I for one am not but is there anyone here who is? Lastly Ms Goodall and myself do not share the same view as to whether Sasquatch/Bigfoot exist.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 07:48 PM   #12212
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 508
The suit and it's "details" are moot, when the film itself is suspect. Subjective interpretations of a poor image, lends little to a movie. Like a conjurer's misdirection, the hand waving about the "realism" of the suit, keeps the eye off the film itself. Who has vouched for the film?
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 07:50 PM   #12213
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,107
Quote:
The answer is I'm here, and I'm ready to address all your questions with direct and factual answers.
What new evidence can you offer in support of the existence of 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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:03 PM   #12214
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
LTC8K6;

Did you read my statement of intent?

"Further, I will qualify that my intent, on other forums and this one, is to apply my 30 plus years of experience as a film industry makeup effects fabricator to the direct question, "can the costume suit technology and processes of the 1967 era have been capable of producing a suit that would appear as the figure in the PG Film does?" All my study and research effort is applied to this issue, given my experience in such technologies. It is not applied to other issues. "

Did I say i will prove a bigfoot real? No. I said i would study the potential of a suit to do what's in the film.

Got a question on my premise?

Bill
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:14 PM   #12215
Creekfreak
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 796
Tear them a new one Bill !
Creekfreak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:27 PM   #12216
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,056
Hi Bill! And welcome!

My simple question is this: you appear to have worked on (to some degree) 2 movies that I can find (1 in 1984 and 1 in 1985). What other movies have you worked on in the last 30 years as a makeup effects man?

Just trying to find a sampling of your work.

thanks, and again welcome!
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:30 PM   #12217
drapier
Critical Thinker
 
drapier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 273
Hi Mr. Munns,

On The Let's Talk Bigfoot podcast you mentioned that you helped someone cheat in a horse show (this was in connection to why the Patterson costume could not have been made out of horsehide). Did you accept money for this help?

Thanks for answering my question.


Oh, and by the way, did the horse win?

Last edited by drapier; 2nd March 2008 at 08:34 PM.
drapier is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:31 PM   #12218
Creekfreak
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 796
Btw Bill I have had 3 face to face encounters with the creatures if you ever diside to do a bigfoot like you did the giganto I would liove to work with you on it .
my first encounter was with a young one a foot away and the second with a grown male less then 15 feet away I got a good look at both of them .
# 3 was face to face but at a distance but I still got a good look at him to .
Ive had many other sightings but not as close as these I think I could be a big help if you diside to build a bigfoot . welcome to the forum or as I like to call it the gutter .
Creekfreak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:34 PM   #12219
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
I'm stepping outside that forum. I'm entering this one. I'm meeting you on your "turf", along with Correa Neto and AtomicMysteryMonster and in coming days, I will correct your collective errors posted the last two months, answer your questions and state the facts which apparently you fail to perceive in my writings.
Welcome to the forum! I'm looking forward to your future posts.
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

Last edited by AtomicMysteryMonster; 2nd March 2008 at 08:37 PM. Reason: drapier beat me to it
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:42 PM   #12220
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,107
Quote:
Got a question on my premise?
No, and it's silly to try to attempt to limit the questions we can ask you.
What have you got to fear?

Quote:
Did I say i will prove a bigfoot real? No. I said i would study the potential of a suit to do what's in the film.
Aren't you claiming Patty is real?

What's in the film that a man in a suit can't do?
__________________
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; 2nd March 2008 at 08:47 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:44 PM   #12221
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Devnull:

Other films and shows of mine are:

Blackenstein
Savage Harvest
The Boogins
Dead and Buried
Swamp Thing
Beastmaster
Where The Boys Are 1984
Blind Date
Teddy Ruxpin TV special
Munsters Today TV Pilot
The Chimp Channel
Paradise
Brainstorm
AST Computer Commercial
Kraft Chees commercial
Budweiser frogs for 1997/8 commercials
Hostess Twinkie and Cupcake commercials
Burger King "Quest for Burger" commercial

Plus museums

National Museum of nat. history Paris
Workd T-Rex Exhibition, Tokyo
San Diego Museum of Man
Archaen Archaeological Park in Holland


Robotics
Excalliber Hotel Dragon, Las vegas
San Rio Dinosaur show 1992 and 1993



Drapier:

I was hired by a lady who breeds horses. She had a swayback horse and wanted me to make a prosthetic for it, to restore it's normal back posture. I was paid and i did deliver it as contracted. She said it was for a horse show, but I have no knowledge if it was ever used or if it was her true intention. So I can only say with factual certainty that she hired me to make the prosthetic and I did. Her true intent is conjectural and I have no knowledge of any eventual use.

Creekfreak:

Congratulations.

AMM
Thank you.



LTC8K6

I have no fear of your questions. As long as you understand my intent. I am not a "Bigfoot investigator" and I am not offering any evidence to specifically prove they exist. But if the film figure were proved to be impossible with materials of the time, by process of elimination, a real cerature might be the alternative. Would you agree?

Last edited by Bill Munns; 2nd March 2008 at 08:49 PM. Reason: addition
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:48 PM   #12222
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
My simple question is this: you appear to have worked on (to some degree) 2 movies that I can find (1 in 1984 and 1 in 1985). What other movies have you worked on in the last 30 years as a makeup effects man?

Just trying to find a sampling of your work.
You can find some more of his work noted here. But, as Dfoot noted in the past, the IMDB is fraught with problems, doesn't list commercials, etc. Hopefully Mr. Munns can tell us how accurate the IMKDB page devoted to him is.
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:54 PM   #12223
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,107
Mr. Munns claims Patty is a real creature. He will have to defend that position here, imo.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 08:57 PM   #12224
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,056
AMM: Yes, IMDB seems sorely lacking..... some of Bill's work is also listed as 'prosthetics constructor' which sounds interesting.

Bill: Anyway, am I to understand it is your contention that the PGF is real because 1960s effects technology could not have produced the level of realism on the film?

If this is correct, my question is: how would you rate the level of realism of Patty? To my untrained eye, she looks like the world's worst halloween costume

thanks
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:08 PM   #12225
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
LTC8K6

Missed your two lower questions.
You say: "Mr. Munns claims Patty is a real creature. He will have to defend that position here, imo. "

Prove I ever said that. I didn't. Other people foolishly think I said that.

Am I claiming patty is real? No, I'm not claiming that. I haven't offered any conclusion yet, my research is still ongoing. Some people on this forum have misconstrued my notes and simply offered their intrepretation of what I have stated. Perhaps you were mislead by somebody here confused about what I've said.

"What's in the film that a man can't do?"

My concern is that what's in the film, furcloth of the time cannot do. My notes explain this, and people in this forum have quoted from those notes repeatedly over the last two months, so apparently those notes are easy enought for anyone here to find and read. no need to repeat them here.



AMM:

I don't think IMDB's listing of me is even remotely complete. The above list I submitted it better.


devnull:

My contention is that i have grave doubts that suit technology, especially of 1967, could do what I see. The furcloth of a suit then is my primary concern. If it cannot be a suit, it must be something else, shouldn't it? Maybe a real animal? Just a thought.

Each person has their own opinion about what they see. I try to focus on the material capabilities that can be studied and tested.
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:09 PM   #12226
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,107
Mr. Munns, could Patty be a man in a suit?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:14 PM   #12227
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,107
Mr. Munns, were you misquoted here?

Quote:
In 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, two Bigfoot enthusiasts, filmed what Meldrum and others believe is a female Sasquatch, complete with hairy breasts, striding away across a loamy streambed on Bluff Creek in Northern California. While some have since claimed that the film is a hoax, longtime Hollywood special-effects creator Bill Munns said it would have been impossible in 1967 to fake a creature suit like the one depicted in the film. "With today's technology, yes, you could fake a fur suit like that," said Munns, who did just that when he built a life-size model of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus blacki - a possible evolutionary link to Sasquatch - for University of Iowa anthropologist Russell Ciochon. "But in the 1960s, short, dense stretch fur was nonexistent." Meldrum thinks that, at a minimum, fossils of Gigantopithecus show that evolution could have produced a Sasquatch-size ape that lived in temperate forests. "It's tempting to draw the line between the two, but so little is known about either," Meldrum said.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:24 PM   #12228
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
LTC8K6

"Mr. Munns, could Patty be a man in a suit?

That is the premise I had to start with, yes, and then attempt to review exactly how such a suit might be made in 1967, and then evaluate if such a suit could do what the film shows. I've stated repeatedly I still have unresolved issues with the lines around the waist/pelvic area, that keep me undecided. And i have been trying to think through what kind of experiemnts might bring new data to help resolve the issue.

No, I am not misquoted, in the newspaper article you listed. The appraisal was predicated on the lack of short, dense, stretch fur at the time (1967), a truthful condition. That interview was around 2000, 8 years ago.

Once i began studying this in January of this year, I chose to erase all expectation or presumption and start from scratch, and retest all my understanding of the materials and processes, and try to do so in a manner that rises above opinion into studied testable fact. I'm still in that process.
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:25 PM   #12229
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Hi Bill, quick question for you -- any particular reason your Gigantopithecus model is standing upright instead of knuckle walking?

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/comp.jpg

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:27 PM   #12230
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,215
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Mr. Munns, could Patty be a man in a suit?
I would ak the same question if worded slightly differently:

Given the established facts, the PGF is far, far more likely to be a man in a suit. Is this not true? If not, why?

Mr. Munns, welcome to the JREF. I'm sure as you may well expect, you will find this to be a very different place than the BFF. If you perform a search on your name, you will find that we have criticised some of your arguments as being from a flawed personal incredulity. Your comments regarding the completely unnatural breasts are an example of this.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:37 PM   #12231
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Ray G.

Giganto was presumed to be a knucklewalker quadreped, but I suggested posing him standing and reaching for some kind of fruit in a tree, to show off his height. That's why one arm is up.

Kitakaze

My notes do explain why i find the suit unlikely. I know you've read them, becase you've quoted from them. They stand as my best argument to date. on your question.

I am aware you have criticized me on the issue of the breasts. I'm curious, did you read my lengthy explanation of exactly how they could be fabricated, either still or fluid, with 1960's technology? If you think it's a suit, why not enbrace my arguments of how they can be made for a suit, which I offered?
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:51 PM   #12232
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,215
I will take the liberty of reposting Correa's last post addressing your arguments, Bill:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
I said I would write some lines on Bill Munn's posts at BFF.Well, here they are. As other posters pointed out before, his reasonings have the core flaw of being based on personal perceptions (what Patty looks like in his opinion) and an argument on incredibility – not unlike the “I can’t be fooled” line we see quite often. He shows that he knows how to build a gorilla costume, but as soon as he tries to apply his knowledge to PGF, personal bias (and what seems to be a previously reached conclusion) ruins his work. I think his lines on Patty's breasts were an outstanding example of this (we'll be back to this later). I haven’t seen his latest contributions, so I may be missing something.

At a previous post I commented on his cost analysis. Now, I will focus in what I consider to be three big flaws in Munn's reasonings (there are others, but these are, I believe, enough to expose my points and start a discussion):

1. It would be exhausting to perform as Patty and several helpers would be needed. Sorry, but not necessarily. Here in Brazil, when it’s Carnival, people wear fantasies that are heavier, hotter and more cumbersome during samba school "parades"- and they last for 90 minutes! This is official parade time; you must also take in to account the time needed for the preparation (gathering and organizing the thousands of people that compose each school, as well as mny other things) and the end (dispersion, move people and cars away from the avenue, for another school is coming). It’s not impossible to find people using very hot and cumbersome costumes for two hours. And they will not be just walking along the Sambadrome. They will be dancing. Note also that most of these people make no special preparations for this- actually, usually the preparation is of the alcoholic type. Some if them pass out? Of course, but the vast majority of them manage to do it somehow. Now, remember that Paterson, Gimlim and Hieronimus were cowboys; these folks probably were used to pretty hard work. Wearing a hot gorilla suit would be a piece of cake for them compared to much of the works they previously made. Bob (if he was the bloke in the suit) needs assistance o wear the costume? Patterson and Gimlim could help him put and remove the costume. Then he starts walking, Paterson or Gimlim quickly grabs the camera and starts shooting. Bob Acts as he was told before as soon as someone says “action” or something similar. Was it hot? Here, have some cold water from Bluff creek now; I’ll pay you a couple of beers later at the bar.

2. The seams and fake hair issue. It’s clear for many of us that given the resolution and exposure, seams and an artificial aspect of the hair would quite likely not be seen. But lets advance a bit more on the seams issue. A basic rule of miniature making is that if you can make it look good at small scale, you will be able to make it look even better at a larger scale. What this has to do with a gorilla costume? Simple. Ever seen the work of Ray Harryhaussen? No, I am not saying Ray Harryhaussen built Patty or was somehow involved with it. I just want you to check his stop-motion monsters and animals. Can you see any flaw or seam line at his saber-toothed tiger, Pegasus, baboon or Cyclops? So, if you can’t see the seams at a small miniature, filmed in focus, and filling the whole screen, why would you be supposed to see them at a life-size gorilla costume filmed at distance with a shaky camera? I fail to see how a person with experience in FX would not realize this. There’s no need for expensive hair or fur. And regarding the skill level required to build Patty, one must never underestimate the skills and the will of amateurs; remember also that time was in their side. Patterson may have had plenty of time to test and improve the costume. Probably more than a movie’s time schedule.

3. Patty's breasts… Munn saying they look natural for him raised a huge red flag regarding his objectivity. It’s the very same bias exhibited by many a proponent who claims they look natural or like the breasts of a female hominid or great ape are supposed to look like. A great amount of anatomic knowledge (even if "instinctive" or empirical) is needed to build realistic costumes, sculptures, etc. Heck, its pretty basic requirement- you need to know anatomy if you want to place a person inside a costume or a fantasy. How come someone consider Patty's breasts natural looking? Heavy bias or complete lack of understanding of female (human and great apes) anatomy. Lack of anatomic understanding/knowledge is not expected in an individual whose work is costume making and building animal replicas. So, we are left with…
As for myself, I am just stepping out the door to work but I will get back to your response to me this evening and I will thoroughly reread your comments on the breasts before doing so.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 09:59 PM   #12233
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Perhaps we can put an end right now to at least one myth concerning the PGF. And that myth is the one Sasquatch Bob Heronimous claimd about "Roger skinned out a dead red horse." A dead red horse hide lashed together by a cowboy wouldn't have even qualified as a bad Halloween costume. I for one am crossing off horse hide as proper Patty material. Farewell ol paint happy trails!
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:02 PM   #12234
kannon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
kannon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:06 PM   #12235
kannon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2
Patterson himself admitted it was staged

I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
kannon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:18 PM   #12236
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Kitakaze:

I have read Correa Neto's critique, so I've replied with just highlights to reference my replies:




Correa Neto Post #11276

On Bill Munn's Patty analysis...

"1. It would be exhausting to perform as Patty and several helpers would be needed. "

I explain exactly why suits, in general need helpers. I've worn them for movies. And I explained how people can condition themselves to more endurance in a suit. And I explained how amateurs can wear them as well. I explained about padded suits and suits that allow for air circulation inside (like stroller costumes for theme park employees. I covered all the considerations. You just failed to read them.

"2.(edited for brevity) The seams and fake hair issue. . . .A basic rule of miniature making . . I fail to see how a person with experience in FX would not realize this. "

The principle difference in technologies, between stop motion animation and real time filming is that the fur can be groomed before every single frame of film is taken (for a stop motion model). In live performance filming, one can groom a suit only until the camera roll, then the suit and the motion of the actor inside may ruffle the fur and expose seams, and the assistant grooming the fur has no potential to step in during filming to correct it. Live filming represents an entirely different set of rules about how fur can or cannot be groomed. Comparing it to stop motion work is truly apples and oranges, in terms of seam hiding processes and potential.

"3. Patty's breasts… Munn saying they look natural for him raised a huge red flag regarding his objectivity. "

Curious that you feel one person's expressing his opinion is a "red flag regarding his objectivity". Don't every one of you here in this forum express your opinions in nearly every thread. I said the breasts tend to be more humanistic than apelike, and that I didn't see anything about them which I felt was particularly unnatural in that context. And I discussed at leangth exactly how a person could fake them, with 60's technology. Did I base any conclusion on a perception of "looking natural"? No.

Frankly I don't think they're an issue that determines true or false. They could be real, they could be fabricated. Arguments can be advanced either way. Neither would be conclusive in my opinion.

"Lack of anatomic understanding/knowledge is not expected in an individual whose work is costume making and building animal replicas. "

Interesting criticism, considering I won two "Best In World Recreation" awards at the World Taxidermy Competition, 1988 and 1992, for my anatomically perfect sculptural figures of real animals, including primates. I was invited back in 1995 and 1997 to judge and lecture at that event. And Breakthrough Magazine published over a dozen articles on my realistic wildlife sculptures and techniques. Correa Neto, may I ask your resume of anatomical study or expertise as well, so you can verify that you have anatomical understanding and knowledge. Or must I presume yours while defending mine?

Kannon:

I don't base anything of my analysis on what Patterson may have said. too much hearsay. I base my study simply on suit technology.

Bill
Bill Munns is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:22 PM   #12237
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,592
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Perhaps we can put an end right now to at least one myth concerning the PGF. And that myth is the one Sasquatch Bob Heronimous claimd about "Roger skinned out a dead red horse." A dead red horse hide lashed together by a cowboy wouldn't have even qualified as a bad Halloween costume. I for one am crossing off horse hide as proper Patty material. Farewell ol paint happy trails!
Check your facts Crow, or do you prefer ' Mr. Logic ' ?

BH never made such a claim ..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
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 Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:32 PM   #12238
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by kannon View Post
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
If you can quote the source then please furnish it. I do hope that the usual posse of critical thinkers will endevour to seek confirmation as well.
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 10:41 PM   #12239
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
Check your facts Crow, or do you prefer ' Mr. Logic ' ?

BH never made such a claim ..
Well then take it up with these folks. Its just one of the places where the quote can be found. Please don't waste my time!

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like big rubber boots and that went to his waist.

He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.”
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2008, 11:14 PM   #12240
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 14,592
I don't have to take it up with them ..

Since you are making an unsubstantiated claim, that would be up to you ...

The BFRO ?!!

The same group that claims this is a Bigfoot ?



__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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

Bookmarks

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 11:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.