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 4th March 2008, 06:27 AM   #12321
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by zooman63 View Post
Gentlemen..Let's suppose for a moment we are back in 1967..We are constructing a monkey suit in our garage, in an attempt to fool alot of people when we film our buddy walking in the suit in the middle of no where, in an area that Bigfoot has been reported..Fine a plausible, distinct possibility that this may have happened. Now, as they are constructing this suit, did Patterson say to Gimlin, "Hey Bob, whatta ya say, let's throw a cuppla tits on this thing,..." Absolutely NOT... Reason #1. Why complicate matters. Fabricating fake breasts takes time, money and a high degree of difficulty. Reason # 2. Why dress up like a female Bigfoot, if there was the possibility that a Male might show up..could be a very painful event for the guy in the suit, if you get my drift. I sure as hell wouldn't wear a female gorilla suit while strolling through the jungles where male Gorillas may be present.
Zooman, this line of thinking you present has been addressed many times in the past. Both reasons you list do not work when trying to reverse the breasts to helpful for the veracity of the film.

1.You should have a look at the book Patterson published only the year prior to the his creation of the PGF in which we can see his hand-drawn illustration of a female bigfoot not unlike the PGF subject. This illustration was related to the illustration of the large-breasted, pointy-head bigfoot from the alledged William Roe encounter. When we look at the PGF subject we can see certain similarities to both illustrations. We know Patterson had female bigfoot's on his mind. The kind of incredulity that someone would think to make a female bigfoot would certainly be on his mind when designing such a hoax.

2. This is highly problematic thinking. For one, we have to accord the possibility that Patterson has no worries about encountering a real bigfoot whatsoever. The other is that if he was following some type of Chuck Jones logic, he'd have really scored if he made a girly bigfoot get-up and a horny male showed up. He can go ahead and film it as it tries to violate BH or whoever's in the suit or go ahead and spare Bob the ordeal and just shoot the thing. Either way, if you really wanted to prove bigfoot's existence then the aforementioned choices just become secondary.
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 07:14 AM   #12322
WinstonCountyWildman
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 25
maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs
WinstonCountyWildman 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 4th March 2008, 07:15 AM   #12323
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,727
Bill,
A couple questions I have for you
1. Do you have a vested interest in Bigfoot being accepted as real by a percentage of the population? i.e. upcoming TV shows, a book, etc...

2. If you saw something on the Patty film that stood out to you as a standard flaw of costumes of that era, would you publicly admit that Patty was a man costume?

3. As an expert on Costumes, your opinion is valued here, but do you think your opinion would be accepted on BFF if you did find evidence that it was indeed a costume?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 07:39 AM   #12324
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 20,790
Originally Posted by WinstonCountyWildman View Post
maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs
I would add to that the possibility that he figured breasts would be easier to carry off than male genitalia.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 4th March 2008, 07:41 AM   #12325
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,444
Quote:
maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs
Yep. Quick way to cover that up and account for lack of height.

Then when you talk about filming the beast, you keep claiming that the breasts were floppy, pendulous, droopy, etc., even thought they weren't, to sell the "female" idea.

Quote:
"because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved."
Quote:
She was covered with short, shiny, black hair, even her big droopy breasts.
__________________
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; 4th March 2008 at 07:44 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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 08:34 AM   #12326
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by WinstonCountyWildman View Post
maybe he put the breasts on to cover up the obviously easily recognised chest of most gorilla suits?

also to account for it being female to appear smaller than the usual around 8ft plus height attributed to BFs
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I would add to that the possibility that he figured breasts would be easier to carry off than male genitalia.
Excellent points which alone or together make short work of the oft-repeated "Who'd think of breasts?" question.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yep. Quick way to cover that up and account for lack of height.

Then when you talk about filming the beast, you keep claiming that the breasts were floppy, pendulous, droopy, etc., even thought they weren't, to sell the "female" idea.
It's really interesting that Patterson stresses this point so much when we see it is non-existant in the film. The description is more in line with the illustration of the female bigfoot he drew for his book the prior year. It is rather like he was trying to dramatize for effect an aspect that was already established in his imagination but was unable to execute on film. Of course footers will invent some reason to dismiss this but no matter what they say, they can't deny that this is consistent with Patterson's shown, proven, factual, undeniable flare for the dramatic.
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 08:40 AM   #12327
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
Aepervius wrote:
Quote:
The 'scientific method' involve far more , it involve falsification. And this is where you process of elimination fails utterly.
'Scientific analysis' is science...pure and simple...whether or not it involves falsification.


Quote:
*ALL* you can say after your process of elimination is "I eliminated a bunch of possible explanation".

What that "process of elimination" does allow.....is a better assessment of the weight of the evidence which has been analysed.
Whether or not it proves something is irrelevant. It should, at the very least, indicate a greater or lesser probability of Patty being a guy-in-a-suit.

Let the analysis continue!
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 4th March 2008 at 08:42 AM.
SweatyYeti 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 4th March 2008, 08:51 AM   #12328
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
What that "process of elimination" does allow.....is a better assessment of the weight of the evidence which has been analysed.
Whether or not it proves something is irrelevant. It should, at the very least, indicate a greater or lesser probability of Patty being a guy-in-a-suit.

Let the analysis continue!
Sweaty, I've already posted a list of some of the established facts that make the PGF far, far more likely to be a person in a suit. I've already asked you to address that. Neither you or anyone else has offered any information that makes a person in a suit less or as likely as living bigfoot.

It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 09:02 AM   #12329
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF? Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.

Last edited by Crowlogic; 4th March 2008 at 09:10 AM.
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 4th March 2008, 09:21 AM   #12330
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF?
There have been a completely negligible amount of reports mentioning any aspects of female anatomy or characteristics. I can dig up a report on an old hag lady bigfoot who was talking trash to her bigfoot family that I posted here sometime ago.

Quote:
Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical(archetypal) regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender nutural(neutral) would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.
I have taken the liberty of correcting some of your spelling, just to help. Now could you please clarify what it is that you are trying to say? You are saying a female Patty was beyond Patterson's imagination? You've not read the immediately previous posts on the subject?

On a side note, William earlier made a post with some questions, all of which you answered except for the last which was about if you thought Chico being at the film site was important. Could you please answer that?
__________________
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; 4th March 2008 at 09:23 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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2008, 09:32 AM   #12331
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Kit

Patterson clearly did imagine female Bigfoot as wittness in his drawing. However sketching one out cost him only the paper and the writing impliment. Selling a female suit to a bunch of rodeo riders of which one of those riders would be called upon to wear would have needed a lot more effort than sketching. Not that this this isn't a suit. But it didn't come from Roger Patterson and his band of merry men.
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 4th March 2008, 09:33 AM   #12332
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,444
Quote:
The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.
Nope. The story was about a family in the area, and about being afraid the male would show up. This is the reason given for stopping Gimlin's immediate pursuit of Patty on horseback with the reloaded camera. The story of the filming revolves around the encounter being with a female bigfoot.

A male bigfoot would have presumably defended his family aggressively, according to the story. The idea was that a female would calmly lead P & G away from her youngster. This is presumably why she supposedly sat on the hill and watched.

Only an encounter with a female fits the stories told, imo.

Don't forget that Patterson was making a documentary. The female fits perfectly into that, along with the suit chest problems.
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 09:45 AM   #12333
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Kit

Patterson clearly did imagine female Bigfoot as wittness in his drawing. However sketching one out cost him only the paper and the writing impliment. Selling a female suit to a bunch of rodeo riders of which one of those riders would be called upon to wear would have needed a lot more effort than sketching. Not that this this isn't a suit. But it didn't come from Roger Patterson and his band of merry men.
log,

DeAtley.

At least we agree that it's a man in a suit.

(How smart is she now, Sweaty?)
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 10:17 AM   #12334
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 16,838
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Mr Parcher: from your post #12282

(Quote) "Bill, from what I gather in reading your many posts, you seem to want to approach this using scientific methodologies. I'd say that it a good thing. Peer review is a very important part of this process. That means presenting a concise and coherent hypothesis to the community of costume designers. The members of BFF and JREF probably do not constitute proper peers for this sort of review."

You are correct. And I don't plan on offering any final conclusion without such peer review. But I'm still formulating the research agenda and looking at logistics of accomplishing same. So peer review is a ways off.

On your appraisal of the BF community, I am becoming more aware of people's agendas and their attempts to take my work and bend it to their own advocacy (for or against BF). You, in all fairness, were the worst (gotta call it as I see it). But you are now demonstrating yourself to be a reasonable person willing to talk, and I thank you.
Bill, you seem to be an old-school cryptozoologist with a self-promotion thing going on. The BFF is perfect for you as you give them what they want. Why on earth do you think the world will care about your 'final conclusion' on the Patty suit. Do you think that people in general have been waiting for such an analysis, or that maybe they deserve it coming from a professional costume designer?

Calling me "the worst" is a high compliment, as I give special skeptical attention to Bigfootery and cryptozoology in general. Your 'work' on BFF is a prime target for skeptical attention. After all, you are talking about the subject in the PGF. Whether you know it, or can even imagine it, Bigfoot is really quite a joke outside of the cult of Bigfootery. If your pending thesis converges upon Patty being a real Bigfoot, you should prepare yourself for blazing public criticism and a whole lot of ridicule. I can't imagine how you would find any refuge from that within the community of 'Hollywood' costume designers. These people are real people after all, and are not burdened with quasi-religious fantasy beliefs in Bigfoot or Patty. However, if you stick closely to the Bigfooter circles, they will ask you for your autograph and buy you a beer. That is unless you change your present course.

For example: You have a thread on BFF titled, "Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab". The term "flab" was a good and safe choice over there. Flab denotes visible fatty deposits on a living animal. Had you chosen something like "material folds or bunching on Patty", you would have put up a scare situation and caused fervent actions from the crowd. OMG, Bill is not saying he sees costume flaws is he? We thought he wasn't going to go there with us. We thought he was a good guy. We thought he was a Patty believer.

Bill, it's really hard to read your posts here because you are not using the quote function. It looks like you don't use it on BFF either. It really helps readers if you use that function to put the words of others (which you are responding to) into the light blue quote boxes.

Quote:
But you are now demonstrating yourself to be a reasonable person willing to talk, and I thank you.
I was never not willing to talk.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 4th March 2008, 10:40 AM   #12335
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?


Quote:
Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?

It's part of the question of "Patty's realism", isn't it?
I'm working on a post, explaining why I think there is a high degree of realism to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti 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 4th March 2008, 10:45 AM   #12336
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 62,889
Are those yeti discussion threads STILL going on ?

Kitakaze, fill me in. Has Sweaty made ANY progress whatsoever in the last 6 months ?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon 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 4th March 2008, 10:47 AM   #12337
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
It seems that you were unable to handle the debate I had with you on page #305 and have chosen to abandon it. That is not a surprise.

Things are not always what they seem...are they, kitty?

Do you know that I'm "unable to handle the debate", and that I'm evading questions.....or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?


Quote:
Just tell me, Sweaty, if the Hoffman video is easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit, why are we moving into months of you not explaining why?
I'm working on a post explaining why I think there is a high degree of 'realism' to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti 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 4th March 2008, 10:55 AM   #12338
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF?

How many bigfeet (bigfoots? what is the plural?) have been filmed since PGF that is accepted by the bigfoot proponents as "authentic"? Feel free to list them. I don't think there are any and the lack of any films better than PGF makes one begin to question the authenticity of PGF. As I have stated previously, why hasn't the technological advancement in the past four decades allow us to record a bigfoot clearly on film or video that does not turn out to be a fake? Is it because PGF is a probable hoax or is there a better answer? Any other answer requires one to assume things like:

a) There was only one bigfoot and Patterson got very lucky
b) Bigfoot creatures are very smart and can avoid being caught on film (but somehow always leave tracks/impressions/feces/nests/etc. for bigfoot proponents to find).
c) The population of bigfoot creatures is very small and a rare sight. Filming one takes a great deal of luck.
d) Researchers aren't very well equipped and just don't know how to go about recorded bigfoot creatures. Yet, they are very good at setting bait to record bigfoot impressions in mud.
e) Bigfoot creatures (like UFOs) emit e/m energy that makes cameras and video equipment go dead at the time they are used.
f) etc. etc. etc.

Again, the more likely scenario continues to be a person in a suit until proponents provide better evidence that bigfoot exists. In forty years since the PGF, proponents/researchers haven't advanced their research beyond the PGF.
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 4th March 2008, 11:01 AM   #12339
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?
I know that I've been given no reason to think otherwise. Feel free to prove me wrong and pick up the debate from where we left off. For one thing, I've shown that what you called a lengthy explanation as to why your position regarding bigfoot is not based on belief was scarce on content and erroneous in its reasoning.

Quote:
It's part of the question of "Patty's realism", isn't it?
I'm working on a post, explaining why I think there is a high degree of realism to Patty's so-called "suit". It'll include something about the Hoffman video.
Let's keep them separate. How you define the 'realism' you attribute to the PGF subject is a separate question. Let's talk about the Hoffman video. It's a simple question. Just go to the part about the Hoffman video in this big post you've been working and copy and paste it at the end of this:

What makes the Hoffman video easily identifiable, instantly recognizable as a man in a suit?

Again, simple question, Sweaty. People wanna know. If it's so easy, so instant, then it should be a very simple matter for you to answer that question above. Of course, if you haven't been able to think of an answer for that question yet, you're free to admit it. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 11:09 AM   #12340
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Kitakaze, fill me in. Has Sweaty made ANY progress whatsoever in the last 6 months ?
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 11:21 AM   #12341
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,405
I wouldn't be suprised if Bigfoot understood the electric sun theory...
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 4th March 2008 at 11:21 AM.
Dancing David 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 4th March 2008, 11:36 AM   #12342
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,213
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
For example: You have a thread on BFF titled, "Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab". The term "flab" was a good and safe choice over there. Flab denotes visible fatty deposits on a living animal. Had you chosen something like "material folds or bunching on Patty", you would have put up a scare situation and caused fervent actions from the crowd. OMG, Bill is not saying he sees costume flaws is he? We thought he wasn't going to go there with us. We thought he was a good guy. We thought he was a Patty believer.
You know, the bag of chips analogy was very apt. I notice that while Munns drops the requisite fine print disclaimers here and there, his posts at the BFF are littered with language and statements that in no way show an unbiased individual. The fine print may say "...if a suit was used..." but the bold, zesty goodness that footers eat up and lick their fingers after goes like this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=444833

Quote:
So the probability issue, as related to the real thing, remains a question we can't answer yet. All we can say is that as the probability of a suit goes down, the probability of a real creature goes up as the most credible alternate explanation.

And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket.
Now here's the thing. If you're trying to develop your ideas in a scientific manner and have some kind of consistent protocol, if you want to have any semblance of objectivity, would you choose a huge bigfoot forum as the environment in which to carry out your inquiry. What kind of peer scrutiny are you going to get there? I don't know about you but I would consider the cheerleading section a detriment and a distraction.

Bill, where can we take your writing excercises to be reviewed by people who would qualify as your peers? That seems like an important thing to do.
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 12:43 PM   #12343
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Bill, where can we take your writing excercises to be reviewed by people who would qualify as your peers? That seems like an important thing to do.
This is very important. Any expert can provide their analysis but it takes a pretty good consensus of experts to agree that the analysis is valid. Having one expert opinion is a start but I, for one, want more expert opinions and analysis. It is too easy for one opinion to be considered the sole basis for establishing something as fact because that is what you want to believe.
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 4th March 2008, 03:22 PM   #12344
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Replies
Starting with Mr. Parcher's question about my lack of using the quote function:

I compose my statements and replies in Wordpad, on one screen, while having the forum page I'm responding to on the other screen. I write a first draft with my mind going a bit faster than my typing, and spelling never was my best skill, so I take time to proof and check spelling. The "quote" copies into WordPad only as text. Once I've done a first draft, I prefer to think things through, re-read for clarity, and try to make the most responsible statement, not just an off-the-cuff impulse statement. So the "quote" function get lost in the process. Sorry for the inconcevenience.

Now to Aepervius Post #12318

I ask you, "so your contention is 'process of elimination' is not a scientific method" Fascinating" and you reply "No it is not. It allows you to form an hypothese at best. But that is it. The scientific method involve far more "

So, if process of elimination only allows you to form a hypothesis and is not a part of the scientific method (Your exact words, "no it is not!"), than forming a hypothesis is not part of the scientific method. Your reasoning is truly fascinating.

I am forming a hypothesis. I've said that repeatedly. I still have experiments and studies to do, I've said that repeatedly. Falsification of the hypothesis will be factored into the study. I have not offered any final conclusion yet, I have said that repeatedly. My notes are a work in progress, I've made that clear. And I've stated repeatedly that I am studying material physical properties and dynamics, as my principle emphasis.

If you are studying something specific made of plastic, for example, you study what that plastic compound can or cannot do, in physical property terms. You do not need to study every specific item made of that plastic.

Similarly, IF it can be shown that furcloth materials of the time do not have some physical properties necessary to do what is seen on the film, and it is the inherent physical character of the material that is causing the lack of capacity, than any costume fabricated with such material is included, and does not need to be tested seperately.

And I repeat, which you clearly fail to grasp, I'm not trying to prove a real criptid exists. I even offered an option of a real human that might satisfy the "real" and not involve a cryptid, if the suit were (hypothetically) not possible.

I can offer conclusions to specific questions in the larger matrix of study. If you ask me if standard furcloth can stretch like new spandex based furcloths, I can say categorically (conclude) they do not. They lack the physical dynamic to do so.

Let me repeat. My notes are a work in progress.


Drewbot;
to your questions:

1: "1. Do you have a vested interest in Bigfoot being accepted as real by a percentage of the population? i.e. upcoming TV shows, a book, etc...

Answer: No. None.

"2. If you saw something on the Patty film that stood out to you as a standard flaw of costumes of that era, would you publicly admit that Patty was a man costume?

Answer: Yes. I've already stated all issues of the breasts can be fabricated 100%, thus refuting any claim that anything seen in the film may "prove" the breasts or creature is real.

"3. As an expert on Costumes, your opinion is valued here, but do you think your opinion would be accepted on BFF if you did find evidence that it was indeed a costume?"

Answer: I don't speculate on who will or will not accept any evidence I eventually fine. Good science tries to follow the data and see what it reveals or can determine. That's where I'm going. Somebody won't like what I find, but I won't speculate who that might be.

Mr. Parcher # 12334

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I may care about a final conclusion simply because I want to understand better what's in that film? And I put notes and thoughts into a public forum so it may be criticized by others, forcing me to re-examine my facts, premises, and logical reasoning methods.

You say " That is unless you change your present course." The sad thing about this whole dialogue is you cannot comprehend my course. You truly do not know anything about my life thus far (59 years of it, to date) what I've learned, what I've invented, what I've proven, and what challenges I have faced for the actions I've taken.

Do you think you must warn me about being ostricized by my profession or community because I take a stand on a matter that the prevailing opinion or dogma opposes. I've been there, done that, and I'm still standing, so, trust me, I can deal with somebody not liking me if I come to a conclusion that person or persons bitterly oppose.

You must take risks if you truly want to learn, and you must be willing to face the most withering criticisms from people of all intellectual plateaus, whether the most lucid and logical or the most deranged and naive. You must be willing to criticize yourself, and not fear to even prove yourself wrong if the data leads there. But most of all, you must value understanding above winning, because if "winning" becomes your goal, then you start refusing facts, twisting logic, and denying ideas of merit. And all you win is ignorance.

I want to understand what's in the PG film. It mystifies me and I would like an answer. That is my goal, my ambition, my intention. Do you find that so hard to grasp? And would you please give it a rest predicting my future if I pursue my "present course". Spend more time predicting the course of your own life.

Focus on your own real accomplishments, instead of simply being a commentator of others lives (past, present or future). Don't you want to walk away from the computer sometimes, and look out at this splendid, majestic, intricate and astonishing world we live in and feel like you understand it, a little better each day, because you opened your mind to exploration and discovery, choosing to walk down a road even when you don't know where it leads, to see what's at the end of it?

I do.

kitakaze:

Isn't there a discussion in this forum as well as BFF? Didn't many of you discus me and my notes for two months before i arrived? An I stopping you or anybody from taking the notes to anybody in the industry for review or comment? Or do you make the rules of how I have to go about this, specifying which forums I can go to, or when I must get peer review?

I'll get peer review on my schedule.You can take the notes for peer review to anybody you like, if you choose. Fair enough?

Astrophotographer:

Is anyone stoping you or Kitakaze or anybody else here from copying my notes and taking them to somebody for review? If you put the burden on me, it'll happen in my time, my schedule. If you're impatient, you may take the initiative and speed it up yourself.

Either way, works for me.

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 4th March 2008, 04:30 PM   #12345
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Critical thinking should not be allowed to become critical of thinking!
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 4th March 2008, 04:55 PM   #12346
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF? Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.
Doubtful that Patterson would be constrained by trendy marxist sociological dogma. Works for cultists though.
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 4th March 2008, 05:00 PM   #12347
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,915
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?


I know that I've been given no reason to think otherwise.

Feel free to prove me wrong and pick up the debate from where we left off. For one thing, I've shown that what you called a lengthy explanation as to why your position regarding bigfoot is not based on belief was scarce on content and erroneous in its reasoning.

Actually, kitty...you've been given two reasons to think otherwise.

One is simply that I've SAID I've been too busy to answer all of the many questions that I'm asked here.

The other reason is that I told you that you could send Lu a PM, and ask her if what I've been saying is the truth....but apparantly you didn't.

I ask you again....and don't be a "scaredy-kitty"......

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti 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 4th March 2008, 05:05 PM   #12348
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Over 300 pages and still no closer to proving the existence of a large, biped primate living in the Northern Hemisphere. Go figure! (Anyone else surprised?)

Last edited by cloudshipsrule; 4th March 2008 at 05:05 PM.
cloudshipsrule 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 4th March 2008, 05:08 PM   #12349
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,147
Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
Doubtful that Patterson would be constrained by trendy marxist sociological dogma. Works for cultists though.
Too bad I'm neither a Marxist or a cultist. I've come to bury Roger Patterson not to praise him!
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 4th March 2008, 05:15 PM   #12350
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Followup to my prior post
Mr. Parcher:

You seem very concerned for my future, and the prospect of my being somehow hurt if I finally offer a conclusion that somebody doesn't like. I thank you for your concern for my future.

That said, I want to ask you a hypothetical question, which you may think about, respond to, or ignore as you choose. That question is: If you are in a circumstance where some social injustice (job discrimination, for example) is widely practiced by the prevailing community, and you believe that injustice should be opposed by a proactive action of justice, would you just accept the injustice and stay in the good graces of the prevailing community, or would you choose to stand for justice even if ostricized by the community, in effect, punished for "doing the right thing"?

The reason I ask is that in the late 60's when I started as a makeup artist, women were not allowed into the profesion by the Hollywood establishment. I believe one woman got in through a technicallity, but essentially, women were refused any chance to be in the apprentice program, and union makeup artist were prohibited from teaching anyone but a union apprentice, resulting in women not being taught so they could enter the profession. Blatant job discrimination by gender, sad but true.

In the 70's, I was director of a school training makeup artists, and I trained women as well as men. In 1979, I chose to leave the school and resume my own movie work. On my jobs needing crews in the lab or on set, I hired many of my former students, men and women alike, because I felt they were equally qualified.

By the mid 80's, I had done quite a few movies, every time giving women as much opportunity to work and gain experience in the profession as men, because I believed it was the right thing to do.

The result:
I was told by a friend who was willing to say what others were saying behind mt back, producers, directors, and executives. They were saying, "Bill is good, but he doesn't use first rate crews, so he's not giving us his best effort. Maybe we should hire somebody who is giving their best effort."

And do you know their definition of "not giving the films my best effort?" I was not hiring an all male crew, and of course, everybody knew an all male crew was first rate while a crew of equal men and women was a second rate crew. (their thinking)

I lost jobs because I believed discrimination against women was wrong, and Hollywood was an "old boys network" still determined to blatantly discriminate against women in many of the film professions, and I wasn't playing ball with them by their rules. Did I suffer, from those lost jobs. Certainly. Do I regret what I did? No. And today, the president of the makeup union is a woman, a former student I helped to learn and enter the profession. Job discrimination based on gender or race is not longer practiced in the makeup profession, and I helped make that happen.

If you believe something is right, you do it even when it may cause some hardship in your profession, your earning or your acceptance from your peers. If you have to choose between being part of the problem or part of the solution, I truly hope you will choose to be part of the solution, despite any potential for hardship along the way. I did. I would do so again, if faced with that choice. So you may rest assured and stop worrying about any hardship in my future because of my "current path". But I appreciate your concern.

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 4th March 2008, 05:32 PM   #12351
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
Too bad I'm neither a Marxist or a cultist. I've come to bury Roger Patterson not to praise him!
Fair enough. The statement was not actually directed at you. Have heard the same reasoning a number of times before. Apologies if it came across as an accusation.
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 4th March 2008, 06:26 PM   #12352
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Is anyone stoping you or Kitakaze or anybody else here from copying my notes and taking them to somebody for review? If you put the burden on me, it'll happen in my time, my schedule. If you're impatient, you may take the initiative and speed it up yourself.
I am somewhat confused. I assumed you would want to do it yourself since you seem to think people misquote you. If your research is incomplete, then you should not be making claims. If it is complete, feel free to publish. As for your "notes", I think that is all they are..."notes" and I don't see them collected in any form any where with any conclusion whatsoever. Maybe it would be best if you published them in a journal with peer review of some kind. Spending your time arguing with people in some forums on the web just isn't going to get it done though.
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 4th March 2008, 06:35 PM   #12353
staunch
Scholar
 
staunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 110
To address the issue of the foot, and the claim that it has no toes:

In Dr. Jeff Meldrum's companion book to "Sasquatch Legend Meets Science" he explains why the bottom of the foot on the Patterson creature looked white and not dark like other primates.

The foot was angled in a way that the smooth surface of the sole was in direct sunlight causing overexposure on the film. When Meldrum visited the film location he noticed the sand was a dark gray and not white like in the film. In other words the sand was overexposed in the film also. Because of this over-exposure the toes would be less distinct. They would be washed out. When the film was scanned frame by frame and the details brought out better, the toes were more visible.

Who scanned the film? What process was used to detail the toes. Does anyone have the frame exposing the toes. I follow the thread but I don't recall seeing it posted. I may have mist it. Following the thread causes Cluster Headaches.
staunch 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 4th March 2008, 06:43 PM   #12354
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Astrophotographer

"I am somewhat confused. I assumed you would want to do it yourself since you seem to think people misquote you. If your research is incomplete, then you should not be making claims. If it is complete, feel free to publish. As for your "notes", I think that is all they are..."notes" and I don't see them collected in any form any where with any conclusion whatsoever. Maybe it would be best if you published them in a journal with peer review of some kind. Spending your time arguing with people in some forums on the web just isn't going to get it done though."

Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?

I'm here merely to defend myself from the reckless remarks of others about my work. Others introduced excerpts of my notes to this forum.

I'd love to get back to just working on my research, but if people criticize me in a public forum, I must defend myself and offer my side of the argument.

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 4th March 2008, 06:47 PM   #12355
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 506
Strike- Off topic.

Last edited by captain koolaid; 4th March 2008 at 07:08 PM. Reason: off topic
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 4th March 2008, 07:21 PM   #12356
Geno
Scholar
 
Geno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 69
Mr. Munns, thanks for joining the forum. My question is what percentage of your peers who have seen the film think this could not be a man in a suit? I have read some interviews with Winston, Baker etc and they all say it is a guy in a suit and not an unknown creature. If I can find that 90% of suit makers think it is a guy in a suit then that would throw the weight against the film's authenticity at least in my mind.

Last edited by Geno; 4th March 2008 at 07:22 PM.
Geno 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 4th March 2008, 07:28 PM   #12357
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
 
Astrophotographer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,843
Originally Posted by Bill Munns View Post
Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?

I'm here merely to defend myself from the reckless remarks of others about my work. Others introduced excerpts of my notes to this forum.

I'd love to get back to just working on my research, but if people criticize me in a public forum, I must defend myself and offer my side of the argument.
I am not sure what your problem is then. First of all, I have never commented on anything you have done until you made some comments here. I have just took the stance of being critical of bigfoot 'research', which I find very shoddy and totally worthless because it has proven nothing after 40 years since the PGF was recorded.
If you find yourself misquoted, then you should correct it. If you find people critical of your work, then they have that right and you have the right to defend yourself and the work.
As for your research, I am not sure what you expect if you publicly present it when it is incomplete. Most scientists/researchers don't published half works publicly until they are sure their work is correct. It seems to me you have opened yourself to such criticism by presenting your work in the manner you have chosen.
If you want to continue your research, then go right ahead. It seems you spend a great deal of time in here and, apparently, in other forums arguing/commenting endlessly. It is your time that is being wasted and not mine. However, do not ask me to publish things for you in some sarcastic comment simply because I am taking the position that I would like to see greater analysis by more than one expert on the subject.
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 4th March 2008, 07:31 PM   #12358
Bill Munns
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
Astrophotographer:

You seem like a nice person. Your question is sincere and without sarcasm. So Let me try to answer you more fully, with respect and equal sincerity.

People on this board brought my name and portions of my notes here. Then they got increasingly sarcastic, personally critical, and demeaning of me as I continued to post in another forum where people welcomed my notes and commented and contributed to those in a constructive way.

Why did the very existance of my notes on another forum so intimidate these people here that they felt they had to gossip about me here? And if they did to you what they did to me these last two months, wouldn't you want to defend yourself?

In the matter of the notes, here are my thoughts, again, respectfully answering your sincere question.

During any research effort, you can make conclusions on singular issues within the larger research framework. And you may show your reseach work in progress to others if you choose, or operate in secret, as one prefers. Allowing others to read, review and comment on a work in progress does have merit in helping shape the further direction of the effort. It did with mine.

I never forced anyone to read them or talk about them. Anyone can just say, "well, he's not done yet, so I'll just wait till he's done and published and then maybe I'll have a look."

The notes will only be talked about on this forum as long as forum members choose to talk about them, because I'm not planning on posting any notes here, except segments to counter arguments made by others to defend myself. Perhaps you should ask those who brought my name and discussion of the notes over here, why they did so, why they felt they were necessary to discuss. I frankly wish they hadn't, but done is done.

I hope that answers your question better.

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 4th March 2008, 07:38 PM   #12359
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Geno View Post
Mr. Munns, thanks for joining the forum. My question is what percentage of your peers who have seen the film think this could not be a man in a suit? I have read some interviews with Winston, Baker etc and they all say it is a guy in a suit and not an unknown creature. If I can find that 90% of suit makers think it is a guy in a suit then that would throw the weight against the film's authenticity at least in my mind.
I'd like to piggyback off Geno's post and note this short video, in which Stan Winston discusses why he feels the P/G film is a hoax. I'm interested in how he feels Mr. Winston's comments on the nature of fake fur compare/contrast with those of Dr. Heuvelmans.

Okay, back to my reply to Mr. Munns' responses to my comments on his notes...
__________________
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 4th March 2008, 07:48 PM   #12360
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 18,444
Quote:
Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?
Please support that or quit saying it. How many people are you talking about?

Personally, I'm certain there's not enough detail in the film to say much of anything about the fur involved. There could be 11 zippers and it would be difficult to spot them in this grainy, blurry, low resolution, poorly exposed strip of film.

On top of that, we are not even looking at originals, but enhanced and enlarged copies, which further degrades what little detail there was in the first place.

No one can say anything much at all about the fur or hair involved imo, except in broad terms.

All such talk about details is just noise, which is what's on the film when you try to see details.
__________________
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; 4th March 2008 at 07:55 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
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 10:44 AM.
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.