Sasquatch Coffee

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot From One Million Years B.C.?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 16th, 2009

perez small

The editor of The Bigfoot Times passes this one along:

“Aaron Swepston, the person I invited to the Yakima meet, pulled this up [see below], after buying the DVD of One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch, so his kid can watch it. It was released in the UK in 1966 and in the USA February 21, 1967.

All the time I watched this movie I paid more attention to Raquel Welch than the creatures, so I was amazed that these critters were even in the movie. Aaron e-mailed me out of the blue earlier this year and I have met him one time, in Yakima in May.

I am sure this will cause considerable discussion….” ~ Daniel Perez

Click on the image to increase viewing size.

Click on the image to increase viewing size.

The hairy apemen appear to be visible in this clip at exactly the 1:00 minute mark.

In creating One Million Years B.C. (1966), no doubt, the objective of the film’s producers was for people to pay “more attention to Raquel Welch than the creatures.” For example, the Archelon (a giant turtle) is three times the size of the actual prehistoric extinct Archelon.

One Million Years B.C. is an adventure film/fantasy film starring Raquel Welch as “Loana the Fair One” of the Shell Tribe set – loosely – in the time of “cave people.” The film was made by UK’s Hammer Film Productions, and was a remake of the 1940 Hollywood film One Million B.C..

It portrays dinosaurs and humans living together, even though the last dinosaurs became extinct roughly 65 million years before present, and Homo sapiens (modern humans) did not exist until about 200,000 years BC.

Special effects creator Ray Harryhausen stated in a commentary of the unfinished film, Creation, found on the King Kong 1933 DVD, that he did not make One Million Years B.C. for “professors” who in his opinion “probably don’t go to the cinema anyway.”

I admire greatly the art of Harryhausen, but I beg to differ with his characterization of “professors” on the above point, needless to say. :-)

Professors, retired professors, students, and former students love Harryhausen films, but don’t look to this “B.C.” movie to be “P.C.” (“paleontologically correct” or “paleoanthropologically correct”).

More significantly for our purposes today, did the film have something to do with the Patterson-Gimlin footage? It is worthy of further investigations, that’s for sure.

Movie credits include,
Costume Design by Carl Toms;
Costume and Wardrobe Department
Ivy Baker (wardrobe mistress);
Special Effects by George Blackwell (special effects);
Visual Effects by Ray Harryhausen (special visual effects creator), and Bob Cuff (matte painter, uncredited).

No easy reference to the source of the “apemen” outfits shown above that appear to be similar in appearance to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot can be found.

Cinema history has mostly overlooked John Richardson and the costumed anthropoids. It may be time to remedy this oversight, at least for the “hairy apemen.”

Appreciation to Daniel Perez for sharing the comparative Bigfoot/movie images.

Daniel Perez

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


75 Responses to “Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot From One Million Years B.C.?”

  1. DTK responds:

    The One Million Years B.C. movie costume is really very different from Patty in a number of ways.

    1) The shins and feet are excluded from the picture, making the arms appear longer than they really are.
    2) The costume resolves a half or foot or more above the shoulders and above the neck, making the arms appear longer than they really are.
    3) There’s a concluding seam above the back of the neck as well as at the wrist, and there appears to be a waist belt around the hips.
    4) The figure is lankier and does not display the overall bulk of the Patterson creature.

    In the second image, patches of fur seem to be missing, making the movie costume look mangy, unlike Patty, who’s fur appears to be fairly consistent overall, aside from a few wear areas under the arms where they would be expected.

    Also, the shoulders of the movie costume are narrower and more within the human range, where Patty’s shoulders appear to be almost outside of natural human range.

  2. Craig York responds:

    Interesting. I remember the scene, and the suits are
    never seen at close range, or in good light. Anyone
    with access to IMDB Pro will probably be able to
    get a little closer to the maker of the suits. ( That
    is, assuming the filmmakers didn’t get real ape-men
    for the parts :> )

  3. cryptidsrus responds:

    The “creature” in the movie still looks for all intensive purposes like a man in a “suit.” Moves like a human. Acts like a human. So and so forth. The PG Bigfoot does not act “human.”

    I also don’t think the person inside the costume is 7’4″, like Bill Munns says the PG creature (i.e., “Patty”) approximately is.

    Bill Munns also made a good point about the stretchable fabrics that were not present in pre-1980’s movies. This still looks like a stiff fabric encasing a normal-sized human. Not so for the PG movie. Unless some FX people of the time had a “secret formula” for “ape costumes” they decided to keep secret from the public until years later. :)

    All said, I don’t see much of a comparison. MY opinion, of course. Some may want to disagree with that, and that’s fine by me.

    Ray Harryhausen WAS one of the greats, regardless.

    My favorite of his “creations” is still the Kraken from Clash of the Titans.

    The line from that movie has become a catch-phrase in some circles for something amazing—“Release the Kraken!”

    Will always remember Lawrence Olivier mouthing that line. And Harry Hamlin’s barely-there acting and Judy Bowker looking FINE as Andromeda. And Medusa—my second favorite Harryhausen creature.
    Good post.

  4. korollocke responds:

    I’ve heard repeatedly it was a movie prop. It looks exactly the same. A shame really. A lie can only run till the truth catches up to it.

  5. jayman responds:

    I watched it. Couldn’t see the “creatures”. Watched it again and paused exactly at 1 minute. All I could see is one of the “cave men” from a distance and in shadow. The appearance of a “fur suit” seems to be just poor resolution.

  6. AlbertaSasquatch responds:

    korollocke responds:
    July 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
    I’ve heard repeatedly it was a movie prop. It looks exactly the same. A shame really. A lie can only run till the truth catches up to it.

    Sorry to burst your bubble korollocke but that is what we call hearsay and unfortunately hearsay doesn’t count in the realm of science. I heard the PGF was real but does that actually make it real? No! Not unless I can provide science with Patty’s corpse or with a specimen that is almost exactly like her. As for the costume looking exactly the same as Patty, I couldn’t disagree with you more. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

  7. korollocke responds:

    The only thing that burst my bubble is the fact that as time goes by the odds of the harry object of our interest may be just a long and well played hoax. I watched several stabilizations of the patty flick and it move very man like and isn’t nearly as tall as claimed. I still hold out thinking perhaps there might be a north american moutain gorilla or arctic apes yet to identified, but with hominds sadly i’m losing faith.

  8. korollocke responds:

    Look at the pics, the arms hang the same, they both have the same slouch and hanging of the head position. maby that guy who claimed he wore the suit in the patty film was telling the truth….

  9. tropicalwolf responds:

    Sorry, I lost all interest in comparing the PGF creature ( I HATE the name “Patty” for the creature) with the “beasts” in OMYBC once I saw Raquel. After seeing her, nothing else could get my attention back….

  10. hudgeliberal responds:

    Sorry,just dont see it. Patty was a real sasquatch and that is the only reason no other “suit,prop or gimmick” can hold up.

  11. kittenz responds:

    “A lie can only run till the truth catches up to it.”

    Wrong. A lie can run for as long as there are people willing to believe it.

  12. Asherz_Carrion responds:

    The only similiarity that I can see in the first picture is the position they are both set in. But that looks more like coincidence.

    The proportions aren’t the same. The fur of on the creature is more patchy than patty. The creature from the movie actually LOOKS like a costume.

  13. DWA responds:

    Korollocke:

    “The only thing that burst my bubble is the fact that as time goes by the odds of the harry object of our interest may be just a long and well played hoax. I watched several stabilizations of the patty flick and it move very man like…”

    This commits a couple of pretty basic errors, to wit:

    1. “As time goes by,” the evidence that Patty was a real, non-human animal increases. That’s the rational conclusion; people keep on seeing similar animals, and keep on finding trackways similar to the one Patty left, in circimstances that make human manufacture quite unlikely; and we won’t go over again here that yes, anecdotal evidence from observers of good repute counts and any honest scientist, honoring his science, can tell you that. What counts for nothing is evidence that doesn’t exist. There has never been one scrap of evidence unearthed that Patty’s a fake, which is of course the only other possibility. That someone pulled something like this off, and every scrap of evidence and perpetrators utterly disappeared…well, that stretches credulity to the breaking point.

    Just like Raquel Welch. ;-)

    2. Patty’s motion is human-like. So’s an orangutan’s face; and a penguin looks like a guy in a tuxedo smoking a cigar. But Patty’s motion has been shown, by experts in biomechanics, to be different from the human norm. Which is to say, not human. I have never, in a lifetime of seeing people walk, seen one who walks like that. So while the biomechanical evidence stacks the deck for the proponents, it’s not strictly required.

    If people want to continue to believe things, I guess I can’t stop them. But evidence would be nice. I mean, the proponents are coiming up with tons of it.

  14. DWA responds:

    tropicalwolf:

    I hated “Patty” too. Until I realized that I could label the scoftical take on her: Pattyfake.

    I’d far prefer a common name for the animal (bigfoot and sasquatch do nicely).

    Another key piece of evidence, if you ask me, given treble emphasis when one sees the pale imitations such as the ones on display with Raquel: the staying power of the film. Patty frame 352 is easily one of the greatest icons in American popular culture; when did you see a man in an ape suit that elicited more than a chuckle and, nice costume? I’d like to see an analysis of history’s great hoaxes, and which ones went on the longest without being punctured. Patty’s one of the more recent, and is already of championship caliber despite undying scrutiny for 42 years. Highly unlikely if Patty was a hoax. Humans are not good at hoaxing animals at all. Paintings? We’re great. Money? None better. But those are things humans make. Animals? Can’t do it worth nothin’. (Never saw one that fooled me.)

  15. RandyS responds:

    Having recently watched “One Million Years B.C.” again, I have to say that trying to draw parallels between the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film and the ape creatures in 1MYBC based on a couple of still frames from each film is meaningless. Viewed in their entirety, the two films reveal numerous differences in appearances — some of which have already been noted here. Most telling, though, is the fact that the ape creatures in 1MYBC display none of the obvious weight or mass of the creature in the P-G footage (an this can even be seen in the selected stills above). The movie apes hop and scamper around — clearly average-sized human actors in masks and segmented costumes.

    If you want to make comparisons, you’ve got to compare full footage to full footage, not two random stills selected because they present the subject from similar angles.

  16. korollocke responds:

    What evidence pointing to the pg film showing a real animal are you talking about? Other than people who want it to be real saying so. I really do wish it was real, that would rock! So would the book soon to be a movie the Flock, being real. Incase you were wondering it’s about a surviving population of terror birds with near human intelligence in florida getting riled up by a theme park developer.

  17. DWA responds:

    korollocke: there have been a number of analyses done. Web it, looking for names like Meldrum, Grieve, Bayanov, Donskoy. I found it, you can too. But here’s a start.

    Note that no one who has negative thoughts about the film bases those thoughts on evidence.

    Those folks are as well versed in their fields as most people whose scientific word the public accepts without question. And they don’t seem to think that this was easy to fake; and a few of them think it was almost, if not totally, impossible.

    What do the scoftics have? Attacks on Patterson’s character that have no bearing on what’s on that film or what would have been required to do it. Stories by alleged principals that bear no relation to one another. No shred of evidence relating to anything that can be found in the film.

    That’s it. Proponents have the P-G debate on points. As in “murder rule.”

    Evidence is all I care about. You have no argument without it. And if I had to bet on the reality of the sasquatch, based on P/G alone, I know where my chips would go. There just happens to be so much additional evidence that my opinion wouldn’t change if P/G didn’t exist.

  18. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Yeah, there are superficial similarities between still-frames and still-frames, but even those are full of holes. For instance, Patty’s head was not as long front-to-back as those of these costumed-guys, and she didn’t slouch like that. Her arms didn’t look that stupidly long, because they weren’t that disproportionately thin – next to Patty’s arms, Mr. McCostume’s arms look like twigs!

    In short, Mr. McCostume resembles Patty about as much as an orangutan resembles a fully-grown male gorilla.

  19. kittenz responds:

    “Note that no one who has negative thoughts about the film bases those thoughts on evidence.”

    My negative opinion of the P/G film is based on my own observation after viewing the film itself. It screams “fake”. As to Patterson’s character, I never knew the man so I have no opinion of that. I can only base my opinion on what I see, and I see a large male Homo sapiens in furry drag.

  20. DWA responds:

    “My negative opinion of the P/G film is based on my own observation after viewing the film itself. It screams “fake”. ”

    A belief, unbacked by any evidence, and no more valid than the experience of someone who saw one – except that they tend to describe, in graphic and obvious terms, how the thing they saw most certainly wasn’t fake to them.

    And contradicted, forcibly, by people with strong and directly relevant scientific chops to whom it strongly indicates the opposite.

    I chuckled when I first saw the P/G film in motion. But over 35 years of looking at those stills said to me: wait. You chuckle at the humanlikeness of a penguin too. But you know it ain’t human. So I kept looking. I reviewed every image I’d ever made had or seen of people walking against what I saw there. That thing is far heavier than a human and uses a subtly – but quite distinctly – different manner of locomotion. Know who agrees with me? Experts in biomechanics who have looked at it. I. E., the evidence backs M.E.

    But there it is. The skeptical “case” against the sasquatch – as Peter Matthiessen put it so well only he was talking about the yeti – is totally speculative, and no more scientific – actually far less so – than the case for it. It’s just a whole bunch of people determined to believe something, no matter what. They don’t really want to examine the opposing view.

    Which has been built on EVIDENCE.

    I believe in Raquel Welch, baby, big time. And I know that, although she may be an ape, she’s no ape-man.

    How?

    EVIDENCE. ;-)

  21. jerrywayne responds:

    I would not suspect any connection between the awful 1MYBC movie and the P/G film. Perhaps, with the John Chambers rumors that surfaced years ago, some may still want to pursue a Hollywood connection. As for me, I would not dream of witholding full credit from Patterson for his film.

    (BTW, for the younger cryptos, Raquel Welch was America’s reigning sex goddess, post Monroe/Mansfield and pre Farrah. I saw her once at a movie premier for “Bandalero” and she was surprisingly petite. Well, at least most of her was.)

    As for the assertion that skeptics have no evidence that would falsify the Patterson film, may I ask, for the sake of clear thinking, what kind of evidence would P/G film advocates accept which would cause them to change their minds?

  22. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne: “As for the assertion that skeptics have no evidence that would falsify the Patterson film, may I ask, for the sake of clear thinking, what kind of evidence would P/G film advocates accept which would cause them to change their minds?”

    Fair question, amigo.

    After 42 years and nothing but a few really humorous stories (it was me! no, me! uh uh, ME!!!!! No, it was HIM! NO IT WASN’T ME!!!!!) and character-assassin screeds, it is really hard to say what would work now.

    But honestly, here is what would. And it’s not much to ask, really.

    It is somebody – ANYBODY and I’m not even sure it has to be the perp, there, how’s that for open-minded? – putting together all of the elements that would have had to come together for a fake like that, and placing them in front of Patterson and Gimlin at the specified time and place, both well-known, in a plausible-sounding scenario.

    Bill Munns, a costume genius who knows that a fake of P/G would have been very, very, VERY hard, spells out, very well, what such a thing would, at minimum, require. Except for how the heck such a thing could have contrived to get into deep backcountry and surprise P N’ G. And yes you must include the specifics on that, to the detail. Remember: plausible scenario, i.e., one a scientist might accept. (No. Suffice it to say, on Munns’s analysis, neither P nor G come close to the required competence or resources. Remember: they RENTED THEIR CAMERA and BORROWED THEIR HORSES.)

    I haven’t asked for much above.

    And I’ve seen nothing that begins to take the first step toward someday, with enormous effort, beginning to start to come close.

  23. alcalde responds:

    “There has never been one scrap of evidence unearthed that Patty’s a fake, which is of course the only other possibility. That someone pulled something like this off, and every scrap of evidence and perpetrators utterly disappeared…well, that stretches credulity to the breaking point.”

    There’s lots of evidence that the film is a fake (I’ll get to that in a moment); all the evidence simply gets disregarded by some who want it to be real. And let’s be realistic here: that someone could hide all the tracks of a faked moon landing? That stretches credulity. That a couple of guys with a video camera and a monkey costume could not be immediately found out? Hardly stretching credulity.

    “But Patty’s motion has been shown, by experts in biomechanics, to be different from the human norm. Which is to say, not human. I have never, in a lifetime of seeing people walk, seen one who walks like that. So while the biomechanical evidence stacks the deck for the proponents, it’s not strictly required.”

    So if you put me in a suit and asked me to walk like a monster, and I made up a little walk, I’d be walking different from the human norm, but would that make me not human? Different from the norm is not the same as not being human, and actually would be offensive to differently abled folks. Have you watched the stabilized version of the film? There’s no walking being done that’s in any way outside the abilities of a human (which would lead to the logical non-human conclusion).

    “I mean, the proponents are coiming up with tons of it.”

    Yup, what with the bodies, the DNA, the twenty other HD video tapes, the in-focus photographs, the… oh, wait. :-)

    “Patty’s one of the more recent, and is already of championship caliber despite undying scrutiny for 42 years.”

    I’m not sure it’s been at the forefront of human consciousness for the last 42 years. :-) You’ve also had one of the people involved in it *confess* to it being a fake, but I guess that’s one bit of eyewitness testimony you’ve finally agreed doesn’t count as evidence. :-) The Cottlingly Fairies hoax (an “animal” hoax of a sort) went a lot longer without a confession (and one went to their grave without confessing) and had people like Arthur Conan Doyle championing it; but none of those facts make it any more convincing. I wouldn’t use the amount of time a subset of the population at large believe in something as criteria for something’s reality. Look at it this way: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism can’t all be right, yet each has been going on for thousands of years. At least one has to be “fake”, and I’m sure each has more adherents than the pro-Bigfoot camp does.

    But anyway, check out this website.

    I’ve corresponded with the creator in the past, but since his site explicitly says that no material from it can be used anywhere else without the creator’s consent, I don’t want to cut-and-paste any of it here. Read the whole site, which includes obscure stills and quotes from the P&G film people themselves, and you’ll see how Leroy Blevins Sr. does a fairly great job of both addressing all the “it can’t possibly be human” claims and showing how the hoax was done and tripping the original claims up. I think he’s done more honest research here than many people who trumpet the film.

    I’ve just discovered he’s added a video to the front page that shows him doing the Patty walk, DWA. Nailed it on the first take, too. You can send that to the biomechanics people. :-) Again, there’s a mountain of difference between not being a normal human walk and impossible for a human to perform, just as there’s a vast difference in UFOlogy between “not a common metallic alloy” and “impossible to manufacture on earth/must be of alien origin”. Oh, you might want to mute your volume first, as the site has also picked up a soundtrack on the front page since the last time I was there (?!?).

    Mr. Blevins shows that Korollocke was right about the size of the Bigfoot, too. He uses two different methods that both show a height of six feet, five to six feet six inches. Bob Hieronimus is six feet two inches, with one inch for boot, one inch for costume foot and one inch for head. As with many other claims, Blevins knocks aside each claim regarding the “impossibility” of the film being a human hoax. He’ll show you an actual movie costume from the era that reproduces the much-vaunted impossible musculature, etc. It’s amazing how much there is to refute the film if one actually chooses to look for it. Just have a good, stiff drink and an ice pack on hand, DWA, before you venture into the world of “not one scrap of evidence that Patty’s a fake”! :-) :-) :-)

    P.S. Korolocke, please don’t wish for the reality of a Floridian flock of giant carnivorous birds, unless you’re a Floridian looking for a solution to the alligator problem. :-)

  24. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    Thanks for your comment. I think that if we intertain the idea that the Patterson film is a hoax, then there are only two scenarios. One, someone perpetrated a hoax on Patterson and Gimlin (the usual suspect: Ray Wallace.) Two, Patterson with the help of Gimlin and a third man (presumedly) created the hoax.

    The first scenario seems far too dangerous to the perpetrater; P. and G. were armed. So, I would go with the second scenario.

    Is there any other evidence that could theoretically cause you to seriously doubt the P/G film? What if Gimlin up and confessed? Or Patty Patterson? What if someone were to reasonably recreate the Patterson film?

    Take care, amigo.

  25. DWA responds:

    alcalde: let me peruse the website and get back to you but I do have something to say about this: “…also had one of the people involved in it *confess* to it being a fake, but I guess that’s one bit of eyewitness testimony you’ve finally agreed doesn’t count as evidence.”

    Well, with the obvious motive (15 seconds of fame and a few fat checks from gullible media), I got a problem right there. With much of Hieronymous’s supporting detail easily refuted by what’s right there on the film – “dead red horse”????? – we have a little more of an issue here than whether to believe eyewitness testimony. I have to wonder if he was even in CA that day.

    With all the motives people ascribe to folks alleging sightings, all they get is ridicule and ostracism, so I’m a little confused about why they’d report unless they are certain what they saw. Which means that if they are wrong, they should be tracked down and either hospitalized as badly, badly sick or jailed as liars so bad they’re dangerous to themselves, never mind us. (If you read sighiting reports, you can pretty much rule out “innocent misidentification” as a factor in bigfoot sightings. Um, no it’s not.)

    jerrywayne:

    I would have to see the evidence.

    There could be any one of a number of reasons for a confession or a recanting. If Gimlin’s story of what happened didn’t wash with me, I wouldn’t believe him. Period. If he were involved in a fake, he’d have to do a better job than Hieronymous of describing something he was in on. Same with Patty Patterson, or anyone else involved. I want to know what’s in the film, not who struck John.

    If someone did a convincing Patty recreation now I’d simply ask: possible in 1967? Under the precise circumstances that applied that day? If not, so what?

    You too, amigo.

  26. DWA responds:

    alcalde: whoa. Red flag.

    Didn’t have to go any farther than that comical take – right there on the first screen – of this guy “proving” the P/G figure’s walk was do-able by a human.

    On a manicured lawn, not a backcountry river bed – ever walk one of those? with your own feet, I mean, in boots, never mind with big funny paddy clown ape feet – he did a herky-jerky, knee-pumping (where did that come from?), marionette-on-speed whatever-you-call-it that is as far from the P/G film as I imagined anyone would get.

    I’ll watch it a few dozen more times. But I don’t think my verdict will change. And if that’s what we are relying on…well, I’m wondering how much I will see in the rest of it.

    A biomechanical expert might not convert to a bigfoot proponent on doing the comparison. But he would slam dunk this as being as far from the P/G figure’s gait as a mallard’s.

  27. alcalde responds:

    DWA, before you watch it a few dozen more times, please check out the video-stabilized version of the P/G film by MK Davis.

  28. DWA responds:

    OK, looked at some of Blevins’s stuff. I mean, it’s hard. First, the guy doesn’t write well. Second, he builds no case.

    Youtube: “P/G Costume”: major skeptical error, to wit, taking the most outlandish proponent claims at face value. (Remember: the animal isn’t nonexistent because of the proponents’ missteps.) He shows that *a* costume can be made. Doesn’t playtest it; doesn’t film it; doesn’t show it being made; doesn’t show how the materials and technology were available in 1967; doesn’t show how an exact replica of what you see on the film could have been made, and functioned, in 1967. Grade: F.

    Youtube: “Shoulder pads in the Bigfoot costum of Patterson Bigfoot”. (No, that’s his spelling of “costume,” not mine. And it’s typical.) What was this trying to show? That you can draw lines in red ink in one frame, and similar lines in red ink in another frame. No attempt to relate figure to person-inside-figure. None. Not even an attempt. Relation to what is on the film, other than using film stills as tracing paper: zero. Grade: F.

    This paragraph, taken verbatim from Blevins’s website:

    “After looking over the photos of the female Bigfoot filmed by Roger Patterson and zooming in on the feet of the Bigfoot this is what I found.The left foot of the Bigfoot has no toes and the right foot has toes. Now matching these prints to the feet of the Bigfoot I have found out that the prints taken from the film site and the Bigfoot in the film are two different type of feet. And the prints do not match the feet of the Bigfoot in the footage. Now this raises another question with these prints don’t match the feet of the Bigfoot then who made them. So the research continued. “

    Boy, it better continue. This slant has been so discredited by expert analysis that I shouldn’t even have embarrassed him by putting it up here. Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz – has Blevins heard of them? – can not only write better than this guy, but they are degreed in relevant fields, and actually analyzed the film, rather than blowing it up to nicely deform the feet and then “analyzing” that. (I – relevantly degreed in no field – can tell you that both feet in P/G both belong on that figure and, wait for it, have toes.) There is a relevant lesson here: never blow up a film beyond recognition and pretend you are finding real things on it. Grade: F.

    Grade so far: this isn’t research. It’s personal wild-a**speculation, very badly put together. No logical flow. No evidence of anything, much less proof. (No evidence that this guy tried so much as a high-school term paper before this.) Unwatchable after a few minutes.

    Further translation: this was BAD. I am laughing as I type this, honest.

    Research tip.

    Read Bill Munns.

    THAT is analysis. Read that; put that scenario together; then calculate the likelihood that (1) the costume could have been made; (2) the guy in it could have been found, much less trained; (3) that the whole thing could have been done in deep backcountry with all evidence gone by the time P and G showed up; (4) P and G had a thing to do with it.

    THAT is how you go here. Science says so, and I only relay it to you.

    Crypto is the only field in which guys like Blevins and MK Davis get the light of day. But at least the latter contributed something to the field. (For five points, what is it?)

  29. DWA responds:

    And for another example of a real scientist with real chops weighing in on P/G, I give you Darren Naish. Ph. D.

    Why is it that whenever thoughtful analysis is done, the door to the reality of the animal is thrown wide open?

    Hmmmmm….

  30. DWA responds:

    alcalde: “DWA, before you watch it a few dozen more times, please check out the video-stabilized version of the P/G film by MK Davis.”

    Hey, man, yer talkin’ to an old hand here. That’s on my favorites list, and it was playing while I watched whatever-that-was-Blevins-thinks-he-was-imitating.

    He has to put on the suit; do the walk, film it to make it look like that, on a site like that; and show how every aspect of the tech and logistics was within 1967 reach.

    Not much to ask. F.

    (But you got the MK Davis question! Five points!)

  31. DWA responds:

    Oh geez.

    OK, I’m embarrassed. I made a serious mistake in an above post, and have to eat some here.

    “Youtube: “P/G Costume”: major skeptical error, to wit, taking the most outlandish proponent claims at face value. (Remember: the animal isn’t nonexistent because of the proponents’ missteps.) He shows that *a* costume can be made.”

    I take that back. Sorry, folks.

    He didn’t even show that a costume could be made. Just that he could do some drawings that I’m betting any of my three kids (14, 12, 8 ) could do.

    I am SO sorry.

  32. DWA responds:

    OK, I have watched Patty-guy Blevins walk a few more times. (I couldn’t make a few dozen.)

    I’m going to tone down what I said to: who cares?

    No, he doesn’t look like Patty, unless he’s trying to interpolate in the P/G film the added data that Patty’s trying to avoid cow, um, Patties. (She doesn’t look it. To me, anyway.)

    He’s not as far away as a mallard. I take that back.

    But the only thing he shows is: a human can make any proponent look funny who says that the Pattygate (poetic license) is un-replicable by a human. I mean, this guy comes reasonably close. But if a guy describing a sas sighting did that demo of what he saw, I would say to him: folks describe a very smooth, athletic motion; they are frequently astounded by it. Was this one really that herky-jerky? Did he really bounce up and down like that? You know they’re not supposed to; many, many witnesses are together on that. Did he have a hurt foot or something? Was he wading in a swamp? What’s with the exaggerated leg lifts? I don’t think any witness would describe what you are showing me. What did you see?

    But again: who cares about what a guy who, um, doesn’t care what he wears outside walks like? I mean, where’s the suit? You have to do the whole thing, show how the whole scenario – key word, scenario – was pulled off. This Blevins guy does what they all do: he grabs his favorite worry bone – or two or six – and worries it/them, with no need to discuss – or even think about – how they tie together, how anyone could possibly have done ALL of that, how this most improbable hoax got pulled off, soup to nuts. See, other than how the heck did they get the whole job into those woods, and why would people that sophisticated even need Patterson and Gimlin, Munns does that. Here, from a strictly technical standpoint, is the entire scenario of getting a guy into that suit. Read it, and you tend to think, um, there’s no way I do that unless someday I intend to wheel it all out; take the credit; and have Hollywood start handing me blank checks because oh would they ever. They would. Munns knows.

    Munns also knows this. If you think that film screams “fake” you are living in a fantasy. Oh he says that in exactly that many words.

    Munns, you see, knows.

    Raquel Welch. Patty. Oh, they’re real. :-D WIN, proponents. ;-)

  33. lukedog responds:

    unbelievable, ………. cryptos greatest footage is under heavy fire here! and rightly so. the fact this suit was around before pg film must have cryptobelievers shaking in their boots, worthy of a Dan Brown book .lol

  34. Dr. Strings responds:

    In comparing the PG shots and the larger photo taken from ‘One Million’, how anyone can state they don’t see much of a comparison is truly astounding. For all intents and purposes, they look identical. Then again, those who believe will dismiss anything that points to the contrary.

    Now, how is it a massive feat to pull off this hoax? Buying a gorilla suit and a camera, and getting a friend to dress up in it and go walk through the woods so you can film him walking and claim it was Bigfoot? Seems rather simple to me, really. We aren’t talking about faking a moon landing or something of that magnitude. Contrary to most of the population, some people can actually keep things quiet. Not everyone blabbers the truth about every hoax, and somebody did let a bit of the cat out of the bag by claiming they knew a costume was purchased. Now, don’t go demanding that the costume receipt be produced as proof of the purchase; that would be like signing a bank withdrawl slip with your name as you rob a bank. it was also nice how the creature turns and looks at the camera; we all know most animals mug for the camera. I also don’t understand the point that Hollywood would hand these guys blank checks. The film looks like a guy walking in a gorilla suit, it’s not really done all that well when you think about it. The quality is about on par with ‘Manos: The Hands of Fate’.

    It’s not that difficult to pull the wool over the eyes of people like us, people who want to believe these creatures exist. Look at it this way; a tiny model of a plesiosaur head and neck mounted on a little toy submarine fooled the entire world into believing it was irrefutable proof that the Loch Ness Monster existed for about 60 years and is still the most iconic cryptid photo ever, despite it being an admitted hoax. It makes perfect sense; if you go into something already believing it is what they say it is, you will see what they say it is.

  35. jerrywayne responds:

    I have my doubts about the Patterson footage. However, I do not see it as an obvious fake. Unlike Dr. Strings’ above post, I really don’t see that much of a connection with the 1MYBC film, nor do I believe that the Patterson film is so superficial as to fool only “true believers.” If the Patterson film is so obviously a hoax, folks would not still argue over it and discuss it, all these years later.

    While I still think the film is worth going over again, I do find issue with those who insert hyperbole into their arguments. To say that you have “debunked” the film, as Blevins does with utter confidence at his website, or that it would be utterly impossible for Patterson to have hoaxed us, as many film advocates have asserted with certainty, including those with science degrees, is troubling to me.

    My ideal would be to have a web site devoted to the Patterson film, open to scholarly and informed discussion. Idealy, it would be hosted and guided jointly by Daegling and Meldrum. (How about that for a “dream team?”) Perhaps, then, informed skeptics would get off their duffs and join the fray, and thus address the imbalance of years of virtually unchallenged advocate interpretation and argument.

  36. DWA responds:

    Dr. Strings:

    “In comparing the PG shots and the larger photo taken from ‘One Million’, how anyone can state they don’t see much of a comparison is truly astounding. For all intents and purposes, they look identical. Then again, those who believe will dismiss anything that points to the contrary.”

    Um, no they don’t. In fact, the larger photo from 1M looks, on closer inspection, like a guy in a suit. But nothing like the P/G figure. Then again, those who believe will dismiss anything that points to the contrary. I find scoftics much more susceptible to that, actually, than cryptos. (Scoftics are, after all, true believers in the nonexistence of cryptids.)

    “Now, how is it a massive feat to pull off this hoax? Buying a gorilla suit and a camera, and getting a friend to dress up in it and go walk through the woods so you can film him walking and claim it was Bigfoot?”

    This extraordinarily naive view has been so discredited by scientifically-competent research into the film that I think my posts on this thread will suffice to educate you if you didn’t read them. If not, you have some reading up to do. Actually, faking a moon landing would have been FAR easier to do. If you don’t understand why, that’s what the word “naive” is in there for.

    “and somebody did let a bit of the cat out of the bag by claiming they knew a costume was purchased.”

    So. Somebody hungry for fifteen minutes of fame told you that, third-hand, and you, what, swallowed it? Doesn’t sound too skeptical to me. The crypto frame of mind is skeptical by default. You’re telling us that we should believe a scenario for which there is no evidence?

    “…we all know most animals mug for the camera.”

    Naive view, reinforced by spending all one’s time around animals acclimated to humans. Spend a lot of time in the woods among animals less accustomed to us, and you find out that not only is seeing them hard; photographing them is almost impossible. Don’t believe me, ask a wildlife photographer. (Most of their shots, by the way, are of captive animals, although they only recently had to start documenting that if it was the case.)

    “I also don’t understand the point that Hollywood would hand these guys blank checks. The film looks like a guy walking in a gorilla suit, it’s not really done all that well when you think about it.”

    Um, naive. Discredited by the links you didn’t bother to read, apparently.

    Dude. Read up.

    “Look at it this way; a tiny model of a plesiosaur head and neck mounted on a little toy submarine fooled the entire world into believing it was irrefutable proof that the Loch Ness Monster existed for about 60 years and is still the most iconic cryptid photo ever, despite it being an admitted hoax.”

    Not a plesiosaur head and neck, BTW; they couldn’t do that. It was a sauropod head and neck. And according to you it fooled the eintire world, except for a little ten-year-old boy (me) who took one look at the photo; decided that the wave pattern on the water was utterly uncharacteristic of a large body of water subject to wind (although those aren’t the words I would have used at the time), and said: that is a photo of a toy brontosaurus in a bathtub. Man I must be GOOD.

    Dude. Read UP. This is a serious site.

  37. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    Our exchanges have been so civil that I thought it inevitable that sooner or later you and I would be in total agreement.

    As I am with your last post. Nice job, amigo.

  38. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Dr. Strings, they look incredibly similar, yes… If you turn your head sideways and squint a little. If, however, your eyes are open and you are looking closely, you will see several differences between the costumes from this movie and the P/G film.

    1- Pattie doesn’t slouch like the costumed guys.
    2- Pattie’s arms aren’t as thin as the costume’s.
    3- If you look at actual videos instead of still-frames, you will see that Pattie moves differently from the costumed guys.

  39. DWA responds:

    lukedog.

    Heavy fire? Scoftics’ inability to understand what “heavy fire” means – analysis that stands up to scientific scrutiny – has them continually embarrassing themselves.

    Can I just say this? One more time?

    NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE EXISTS POINTING TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN UNLISTED ANIMAL ON THE P/G FILM.

    After 42 years.

    If there is one….ONE SHRED…could someone stop scoftimouthing and SHOW me one…? This is getting (42 years) OLD.

    Soon the scoftics will have me utterly convinced that the sasquatch is real. They may get there before the proponents!

  40. lukedog responds:

    Yes DWA, there are 2 shreds of evidence staring right at you, the 2 stills posted! Let’s see, we have a couple of guys out to make a bigfoot doco, a now proven 1966 suit, hey presto, crypto’s holy grail footage.

  41. DWA responds:

    Lukedog:

    Oh, I get it. You don’t know what evidence means.

    Your whole post has not one – and this is the word – shred of evidence supporting it. Somebody told you that; you wanted to believe it; and you do. Proven suit? Nice dream, dude!

    Cryptomundo is where big dogs hunt, dawg. And the hunting is done with EVIDENCE.

  42. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Lukedog, the problem with those stills is, from my point of view – and, evidently, that of others here – Mr. McCostume doesn’t look all that much like Patty, in ways that have been detailed in previous posts in this thread. Please, explain why the two look so much alike to you, don’t just tell us that they do.

  43. lukedog responds:

    DWA, YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE. personally i prefer credible witness accounts with nothing to gain but ridicule , but i cant call that hard scientific evidence, bigfoot remains a FAITH , so any opinion is valid.

  44. kittenz responds:

    “Mr. McCostume doesn’t look all that much like Patty, in ways that have been detailed in previous posts in this thread. ”

    Of course they don’t look exactly alike. The costumes are not “off-the-rack” suits, but individually created professionally made “creatures” , created with various different components and using different “actors”. Because they are different from one another, does not mean that one of them is genuine.

    As to viewing the P/G film and forming an opinion, vs. eyewitness opinions formed during “sightings”: there really is no comparison; it’s apples and oranges. A film can be watched over and over, stopped, enlarged or otherwise manipulated, run backwards, etc, and it’s still the same film. It can be analyzed again and again. Eyewitness accounts, on the other hand, last seconds or at the most a few minutes, are witnessed by people suddenly coming upon something unexpected, and are subject to the variations and unwitting embellishments that so often accompany memory.

    I am not a primatologist but I am quite qualified, as a reasonably intelligent person professionally trained in biology and comparative anatomy, to judge the creature in the P/G film, and the film itself, on its own merits. It’s an obvious hoax, and as such it actually does a disservice to bigfoot research, because so many people have seen it and assume that they “know what a bigfoot looks like”, whereas a real bigfoot – if they indeed exist – may be nothing at all like the P/G creature.

    All of the arguments that I have seen from people trying to validate the P/G film as genuine, sound more and more like grasping at straws. It reminds me of the alien abduction stories, and the ridiculous lengths that people go to to try to convince themselves and others of their veracity .

  45. DWA responds:

    Lukedog: that comes from a misunderstanding of what “evidence” is – the single greatest problem skeptics seem to have with cryptids.

    The anecdotal (eyewitness) evidence for the sasquatch, all by itself, is compelling. Nothing would change, for that reason, were Patty shown to be fake. Scientists of repute have said this. Reason? It combines two things scientists are looking for in evidence – frequency (lots of people see it) and coherence (they’re describing it in very similar ways). It can’t be proof unless science says it’s proof – which by the way is the ONLY difference between evidence and proof. Skeptics don’t seem to have a good handle on that. I could add a further reason that the eyewitness evidence is so compelling to me: many, many people are describing things that are totally absent from the naïve public picture of the sasquatch. I’ve read hundreds of reports. How many have you read? I’m thinking none. That’s not doing your homework, and accepting, at face value, what people with no evidence have told you.

    Patty is the single most compelling piece of evidence. But it is in no way essential to the case for the sasquatch; the eyewitness evidence is far more telling. Patty could be fake. Tell me that all those people are wrong, and present your evidence that you are right. If you don’t have that, all you are doing is guessing. The sasquatch advocates are not guessing. They have me in their camp on this for one reason: the weight of the evidence. On which you need to get up to speed.

    The only skeptics I have seen on this question who have the foggiest notion what they are talking about are the ones who acknowledge the significant possibility of the animal’s existence. I’ve shot degreed scientists to pieces in this discussion. Reason? I am in command of the evidence. They are not.

    Careful of your response to this, lest it brand you as ignorant. My silence will be your indicator, dude. When people self-incriminate, no need to help them at all.

  46. DWA responds:

    “I am not a primatologist but I am quite qualified, as a reasonably intelligent person professionally trained in biology and comparative anatomy, to judge the creature in the P/G film, and the film itself, on its own merits. It’s an obvious hoax, and as such it actually does a disservice to bigfoot research, because so many people have seen it and assume that they “know what a bigfoot looks like”, whereas a real bigfoot – if they indeed exist – may be nothing at all like the P/G creature.”

    That is an opinion, unbacked by evidence, smacking very strongly of the fervent belief – spun faster down the drain by the ultimate blinder, I-have-a-DEGREE!!! – that trips up a whole lot of degreed scientists on this issue, and worth no more by itself than a single sighting report. (Yes. You have a degree. Now peel it off your face! It obstructs your vision AND looks funny.) “It’s an obvious hoax” is, as I have said, forcibly contradicted by people with, I daresay, more training in the fields relevant to the discussion. Unless backed by evidence, it’s as worthless as what Lukedog is saying about the figures looking identical. Um, a little “why” would be nice. And BTW, many people who had never seen the P/G film – believe it or not, that’s a lot of people – have seen it after their sightings. They have one of the following three responses:

    1) that is what I saw;
    2) that is not what I saw (and then they describe what sounds very much like a different individual of the same or a closely related species);
    3) I saw that kind of animal, but (skinnier/stockier/less stocky/etc.)

    Not sure what to say about ‘assume that they “know what a bigfoot looks like”’. I would love to see how that translates into a sighting. Hey: there’s a cow. But since I “know what a bigfoot looks like,” that must be a bigfoot! Or they see one, and because their assumption of what it looks like, verified by their eyes as correct, is also on the P/G film, they….um….help me out on this…are WRONG…? I think I got that. Not endorsing it mind you. Just, um, seeing it. ;-)

    And as to this:

    “All of the arguments that I have seen from people trying to validate the P/G film as genuine, sound more and more like grasping at straws. It reminds me of the alien abduction stories, and the ridiculous lengths that people go to to try to convince themselves and others of their veracity.”

    That sounds like someone badly wanting to believe something, who hasn’t read the analyses of the film. Change “validate” in the paragraph to “invalidate,” however, and drop the “as genuine,” and it’s spot on. I know, ‘cause I’ve seen ‘em all.

    I’ll never figure out what keeps the P/G scoftics going! Blind faith, I guess. Jerrywayne: I’m with you on what needs to be done with this film. More every minute.

    Are there any true skeptics out there when it comes to this film? Other than me and folks like me, I mean. I really wish folks would stop simply swallowing scoftijunkfood and do some analysis. Like, you know, the proponents have done. That’s the key to winning me, folks. And the proponents know it.

  47. kittenz responds:

    I did not say “I-have-a-DEGREE!!!, therefore I must unequivocably be right!”. What I said is that as a person trained in biology and comparative anatomy, I judge the P/G film on its merits, and based on training, experience, and observation, my opinion is that the film is a hoax.

    Nor did I say that I “know what a bigfoot looks like”. What I said is that if the P/G film is a hoax, it has given people who believe it to be genuine a false idea of what a bigfoot looks like.

    Apparently you’re having a lot of fun with this, which is fine, but you do have an annoying habit of deliberately misinterpreting statements to suit yourself.

  48. DWA responds:

    One more comment on: “knowing what a bigfoot looks like.”

    The enormous fun I’m having with the passage in which that resides utterly aside, an obvious application is: everyone is cooking up lies and basing them on what they see in P/G. This ignores – almost as if it wasn’t read – my statement, based on the hundreds of reports I’ve read. So I’ll just say it again: “many, many people are describing things that are totally absent from the naïve public picture of the sasquatch.” Which is actually fueled by P/G.

    Ever seen a bear in a zoo? How fast do you think a layman would predict that bear could run? Do you think that layman would be surprised if he ever found himself in a footrace with a bear? Oh, they’re surprised all right, when I tell them that the Olympic 100 champ will not get up that tree before the bear gets there. The animal in P/G looks like it’s in a situation it has been in before. (Not unreasonable at all; Patterson and Gimlin – although they didn’t get prizes – were probably her 10,000th humans) It’s also October. Using what we see from other omnivores in the temperate zone: she’s been fattening up for winter. She looks – as wild black bears I have seen on either shoulder of winter look – fat; slow; dare I say a weetad stupid; uninterested. Drooling knuckle-dragger. Sound like a stereotype to you? Thought so. I still wouldn’t want to have to beat her to the nearest tree. Just trust me on this: you read as many reports as I read, you would know that people are basing what they report on what they saw – in the encounter, not on any film.

    If you don’t want to trust me on that: either read the reports, or accept that you have no standing in this discussion. As no one does in any scientific discussion in which they choose not to be bothered with information.

    Wasn’t that simple?

    And that’s how I like to keep it. Simple, straight, and to the point.

    Ignorance gets tiresome. Challenge me.

  49. DWA responds:

    “I did not say “I-have-a-DEGREE!!!, therefore I must unequivocably be right!”. What I said is that as a person trained in biology and comparative anatomy, I judge the P/G film on its merits, and based on training, experience, and observation, my opinion is that the film is a hoax.”

    Um-hummmm. No evidence supplied for your “opinion” – other than your training. No acknowledgment of any other opinions. No discussion of what’s wrong with their viewpoints and right with yours. Oh, sounds like I-h-a-D!!!! to me. ;-) Who’s misinterpreting? (Oh, and it’s “unequivocally.” ;-) )

    “Nor did I say that I “know what a bigfoot looks like”. What I said is that if the P/G film is a hoax, it has given people who believe it to be genuine a false idea of what a bigfoot looks like.”

    As I’m sure you saw on re-reading, I got your intended meaning correct – the very first time. Who’s misinterpreting? ;-)

    “Apparently you’re having a lot of fun with this, which is fine, but you do have an annoying habit of deliberately misinterpreting statements to suit yourself.”

    Change that “you” to “scoftics” and “yourself” to “themselves,” and you’ll see what I’m up against. ;)

    Let’s try this again.

    Who’s misinterpreting?

    I’d just like to see somebody with real skeptical chops on the OTHER end of the P/G debate. (Daegling just needs to drop some understandable blinders, jerrywayne. In the absence of anyone else, I’ll take him for starters. He has requisite academic training; and I think he could grow in the role. ;-) )

    What I’m tired of is the people with all the research and all the evidence on their side being treated like bumpkins – by people who sound worse than bumpkins so doing. Evidence, in any debate, is all I listen to. And when the proponents yell, all I hear from the skeptical side is an echo. I would love to see someone give the proponents a run for their money. It would make this fun! Crushing rabbits with steamrollers gets old, even for me (LOVE steamrollers). I’m only doing it for the education of new cryptos, really; keeping them inspired, eyes on prize, helping them navigate the unseemly ocean of BS they have to deal with.

    So no one else is going to pick up on Raquel Welch and how she “inspired” Patty, eh? Back on topic. :-D

  50. kittenz responds:

    “She looks – as wild black bears I have seen on either shoulder of winter look – fat; slow; dare I say a weetad stupid; uninterested. Drooling knuckle-dragger.”

    – No, to me, “she” looks like a man in a costume.

    Blind faith and excuses are also tiresome. “Ignorance” also includes the ignoring of inconvenient details that conflict with one’s own opinion. Such as confessions. And the opinions of the many scientists who have examined the P/G film and concluded that the animal is a costumed human.

    Do bigfoot actually exist? I don’t know. I’ve not seen anything that convinces me that they do, but there are a lot of things that make me think it’s possible. The P/G film, however, is not one of those things.

  51. kittenz responds:

    DWA said:

    “No evidence supplied for your “opinion” – other than your training. No acknowledgment of any other opinions. No discussion of what’s wrong with their viewpoints and right with yours.”

    —No, because that has been hashed and rehashed in numerous previous blogs, and I have no great enthusiasm for rehashing it yet again.

    Of course I acknowledge other opinions, yours included. That does not mean I espouse them.

    And for the record, I do believe that the movie influenced Patterson and/or Gimlin. I doubt they predicted their little film would snowball the way it did, but once it did, they decided to maintain their story. “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it” is a pretty common human trait.

    Thanks, btw, for pointing out my typo. I usually just ignore yours.

  52. alcalde responds:

    DWA, what you’re actually doing is making it uncomfortable for anyone else who wants to discuss the subject and doesn’t hold your position. You’re treating this like a wrestling match, complete with taking the appropriate time-outs to flex your muscles and play to the crowd. No one else sees this as a competition, nor a battle of rabbits vs. steamrollers.

    I, for one, was interested in picking the original post’s topic up and asking about/compiling a list of movies where P/G-like costumes are seen, the creators of the costumes, and anyone else rumored to have created the P/G outfit, and whether these individuals are still alive, if they’ve ever been asked about it, did they deny it, etc. Sort of a table/checklist to see what the possibilities were at the time. I believe, but don’t know for sure, that there couldn’t be that many. That’s been somewhat of a common assumption, but as this One Million Years discovery shows, that may be false. However, I don’t want to be met with more of “If you don’t want to trust me on that: either read the reports, or accept that you have no standing in this discussion. As no one does in any scientific discussion in which they choose not to be bothered with information.” Can’t you see that that’s saying that anyone capable agrees with me, anyone else is ignorant and can just be ignored? That kind of statement also has the effect of drawing a belligerent attitude out of others in response, myself included, and for any strident remarks I made in some of my replies I apologize. Realize that, except for Mr. Coleman, who has made this his life’s work, for the rest of us, presumably including yourself, this is just the posting of comments on a blog, not a defense of a Phd thesis or a jihad against the forces of darkness. If it’s a competition, you’re the only one competing.

  53. DWA responds:

    alcalde:

    “”If you don’t want to trust me on that: either read the reports, or accept that you have no standing in this discussion. As no one does in any scientific discussion in which they choose not to be bothered with information.” Can’t you see that that’s saying that anyone capable agrees with me, anyone else is ignorant and can just be ignored?”

    Only in crypto could what I wrote be interpreted that way. It is interpreted just the way it is written: if you have no acquaintance with the evidence, don’t come on here bloviating like you do. If you’re a physicist, would you consider someone with a third-grade education your equivalent in an argument regarding the nature of the smallest subatomic particles? Likewise in any scientific debate. People who put YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE in caps like lukedog does up there, or pronounce P/G a straight-up fake without presenting any evidence, are unqualified to debate this with me. They’re as transparently unread on this as folks who think W is still Prez are on current events.

    [flexes muscles.]

    And folks who use “unequivocably” in sentences aren’t catching typos. ;-)

    If you don’t have an open mind on this topic, why even come here and talk about it? What are you contributing?

    I love it how people who ignore the proponents’ evidence come on here tellling poor ol’ Dr. DWA he’s picking on dem. Read up, or find a more productive use of time. Again: Only in crypto do people who know nothing about the topic claim equal time with the best thinkers in the field. THAT has to change for crypto to become the science that, sorry, it IS.

    I could care less about alien abductions. So I never discuss them. And have NO opinion on them. Other than: could be. Who knows?

    If you care less about crypto, practice never discussing it. Coming here to push nonsense says something about such people. And it ain’t good.

  54. DWA responds:

    And, as an example of caring less about crypto:

    “Blind faith and excuses are also tiresome. “Ignorance” also includes the ignoring of inconvenient details that conflict with one’s own opinion. Such as confessions. And the opinions of the many scientists who have examined the P/G film and concluded that the animal is a costumed human.”

    That’s a contender -from someone who has seen Ben Radford, remember – for the single most uninformed paragraph I have seen on this site.

    Someone needs to avoid this topic, and stick to the topics on this board about which someone knows something. That is so bad – and so easily refuted by reading what is in the public domain on the “confessions” [laughable, and obviously motivated by a quick payday from gullible media] and the “many scientists” [there is, on record, NO informed skeptical dissection of the P/G film] – that I would consider it an insult to my intelligence to be asked to deal with it further. Get out of kindergarten on this topic! Don’t sign up for graduate school, then tell the professor you haven’t been to school yet.

    Why is it only in crypto that people get away with Saturn-is-a- NASA-satellite crap like that utterly execrable paragraph in quotes? That’s embarrassing, is what it is. (If she keeps churning, though, we may get butter.)

    I hope no one is holding their breath for any backup for that paragraph. Wow, Ben. I take ten percent of what I’ve said about you back!

  55. DWA responds:

    alcalde:

    My opinion on your views on P/G is adequately expressed. I did want to note, though, that you keep it above board, and I appreciate that.

    The only reason I’m here is that I don’t want science kept from exploring the possibilities by brayers of nonsense. I don’t think sometimes that anyone understands that that is the reason – in my opinion the ONLY reason – science doesn’t explore the sasquatch and the yeti, despite the metric tons of cyberink I’ve devoted to that unfortunate circumstance. Science doesn’t see any need to get its whites dirtied by the hoi polloi on topics that the hoi polloi don’t have the first intent to do anything with but laugh at, no matter the opportunities for enlightenment out there for anyone who can read. If I heard that 75% of scientists considered (secretly of course) hairy hominoids a reality, it wouldn’t stir a nose hair. I’d just think: see? Scientists do recognize evidence when they see it. I just think it’s crippling to knowledge that they have to keep it secret to keep their jobs and their friends. (Who needs jobs and friends like that, eh?)

    Some brave folks have examined the evidence and stood up for it. You can see, in abundance, on this site, what that has gotten them. Fortunately, this site allows some of us who support them to take the cudgel to the non-scientific “thought” that is keeping this topic from the light of scientific day. It is disgusting; and I don’t intend to get my whites dirtied by it either.

    I just want to say this to anyone who’s seen the sasquatch. You’re taking it the wrong way. Stop feeling cursed; crazy; confused; certifiable. Yeah, you saw that. YOU HAVE PROOF. You do. Why care about the rest of the world? Laugh at them, hard. That’s what I’d do if I ever saw one.

    Wait for the rest of us to catch up. Humans can be real slow that way. ;-)

  56. DWA responds:

    I seem to be the only one on this site sometimes who thinks crypto is any fun!

    Doesn’t anyone else want to know what all these people are seeing?

  57. mystery_man responds:

    (Waving white flag) Is it safe to come out yet? I have been lurking and following this thread but I’ve been hesitant to jump in.

    I don’t really want to rehash what has already been gone over here many times before, so I’ll focus on the object of the posting. I decided I am going to get away from the whole incendiary P/G debate for a moment and just give some thoughts about the footage supplied here. It seems as if I am not the only one here that thinks a few frames of the movie are far from adequate for establishing a connection between Patty and the costumes from One Million Years BC. I really don’t see that many concrete similarities with the costumes other than a general look reminiscent of Patty, and only when compared to specific frozen frames.

    In order to do any sort of meaningful comparison, we’d need some footage of comparable length to the P/G footage in order to see more fully how these costumes used in the movie move. Selected frames are not going to do, in my opinion. We need to compare the gait and the way the suit shifts and moves beyond the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it flash of footage offered here. Without this information I don’t think we are going to get very far with this particular comparison.

    I cannot say for sure if Patty is a suit or real, but one thing I can say is that it is hard to establish that either way based on the cinematic footage provided here.

  58. kittenz responds:

    DWA says:

    “If you don’t have an open mind on this topic, why even come here and talk about it? What are you contributing?”

    What credentials do you yourself have, DWA, to make you the Alpha and Omega of all things cryptid?

    Having an open mind does not mean falling for every sensational cryptid story that comes along, no matter that it includes a film. Having an open mind means weighing the evidence and forming an opinion, based on examining evidence (when there is any), observation, and study and thought. Considering the opinions and observations of others is a part of that process. But that in no way means that you believe that everything you see and hear is true, and if you weigh the evidence and find it wanting in the truth, denouncing it does not make one “ignorant” nor constitute “braying nonsense”.

    As to being bothered by “mean ole Dr. DWA picking on me”, that is next to nothing. But I have noticed that your posts have become more and more condescending toward other members – not just myself, and that anyone who does not agree with your opinion ‘needs to get off the board because they have nothing to contribute”. As alcalde so politely put it, that is Mr. Coleman’s place. You sneer derisively at anyone who dares challenge your holy grail, the P/G film, on any point, and say they should not even pretend to be interested in cryptozoology. Why does that remind me so much of the Sunday School teachers at my grandmother’s church, deriding any others not of their faith?

    Then you get downright insulting. You quote me:

    “And, as an example of caring less about crypto:

    “Blind faith and excuses are also tiresome. “Ignorance” also includes the ignoring of inconvenient details that conflict with one’s own opinion. Such as confessions. And the opinions of the many scientists who have examined the P/G film and concluded that the animal is a costumed human.”

    That’s a contender -from someone who has seen Ben Radford, remember – for the single most uninformed paragraph I have seen on this site.”

    I don’t come here to be belittled and insulted. I come here for honest, open discussion.

    Hi mystery_man,

    Good to see you here. I just want to touch on a point you brought up: I do not think that the P/G film was in any way a direct copy of 1MillionBC. I do, however, think that the coincidences in the movie as relate to the P/G film are too convenient to be coincidences. I believe that probably Patterson and Gimlin may have had the making of their little bigfoot film in mind as a massive practical joke, that might or might not make them any money, but would certainly get them noticed. They probably had no idea that their film would “go viral” as we would say today. Then they saw 1 Million BC and realized that having a kick-ass girl bigfoot would be even better; a sort of massive razzberry (misspelling intentional) to throw to the good ole boys for which the film was intended. Then once the film did become so popular so quickly, it was like having a bobcat in a sack: no way to gracefully let it out. So they stuck by their stories, for the most part, as best they could, and now it’s gone on so long, and so many of the original players have moved on, that a cult has grown up around the film, a cult who are every much as true believers as the people who worship at Stonehenge every year. So it would be really messy to let that bobcat oit of the bag now; after 42 years, that bag must reek. Better to coax everyione they can into sticking with their stories.

    I have studied it time and again, picked it apart, run it backwards, and read everything I could get my hands on about it. I came to the conclusion, after years of study, that the P/G film is a deliberate hoax. That does not make me anti-cryptid, uninformed, ignorant, nor unenlightened.

    Apparently DWA, you want to promote the P/G film to the status of a “True Believers Only ” club. And my friend, True Believers Only clubs are called religions.

  59. DWA responds:

    “What credentials do you yourself have, DWA, to make you the Alpha and Omega of all things cryptid?”

    Wow. For somebody pretending not to feel picked on, that’s feeling VERY picked on.

    The rest of that post sounds like somebody’s Bible. But not mine. Other than that, I’ll let my silence be my response. Just read it – and the ones before it – and decide for yourself.

    Open-mindedly – for at least one of us – on to the next thread. ;-)

  60. jerrywayne responds:

    The Patterson subject looks remarkably real AND fake to me. First, the muscle movement is of the nature one does not find in B horror flicks, like Bride of the Gorilla. Score goes to the advocates.

    On the other hand, areas on the film subject at the belt and butt look like classic build ups or padding indicative of a costume. It almost SCREAMS fake, hence hoax. Score goes to the skeptics.

    If we look at events surrounding the making of the film, it doesn’t look good for the advocates.
    On the other hand, IF the film subject is a man in a costume, why haven’t we demonstrated that actuality to everyone’s satisfaction yet?

    If the film is a hoax created by Patterson, two scenarios have been advanced. First, Patterson was helped or guided by “Hollywood” professionals in the creation of a suit. The professionals may have known what Patterson was up to or not. Names such as John Chambers and Wah Chang have been mentioned in this regard.

    Some of Chang’s creations do seem to be reflected in the Patterson film; we do not know if Chang had a direct hand (doubful), or if Patterson merely used some of Chang’s technique. But we have no evidence (that I know of) of a direct link between Chang and Patterson.

    In the early 1970’s I would sometimes run across
    an article or comment on Patterson’s film that suggested scientists were not taking the film seriously because it had been uncovered that Patterson was in contact with special effects people in the film industry prior to the filming at Bluff Creek. I don’t know if this has ever been verified or if it was just a rumor.

    The second scenario is less elaborate. Patterson bought a gorilla suit from the Philip Morris costume agency and modified it to create his “Bigfoot.” Morris has said that Patterson asked him how to give the costume a more massive look in the shoulders and how to make the arms longer. Both Morris and his wife have said this is the true account. He said he recognized his gorilla suit when he saw the Patterson film.

    Is one story more likely than the other? Or, are both together an accounting of the Patterson film?

  61. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Well, to all the people saying that the P/G film is an “obvious fake”, I have one simple, polite request – Please, please detail the things about the P/G film and the apemen in the movie stills that convinced you that Patty is a fake, or whatever it was that made you think so. I do not care where else this has been said – I was not there, nor do I know where it is, so all those places you say it has been said mean nothing to me if you do not tell me what was said.

    When you say it is an obvious fake, yet fail to say why it’s so obviously fake, it does make one question what you’re saying.

  62. alanborky responds:

    Pfff!

    You got’o be kidding me!

    John Richardson with his Bee Gees’ bouffant and chest wig plus old car rug looks more like a real Bigfoot than anything on show here – unless all that spiky ‘fur’ on the ‘ape’ men was due to them being punk rocker Bigfoot rather than merely having bits of bri-nylon glued all over them.

    And as for the star exhibits: well, patty_million-1 looks more like an unwashed underfed would-be heavy metal star who, for a publicity stunt’s been rolling about in fat and a box of castoff gorilla hair.

    And as for million-7572, what little ‘fur’ there is, is woodshaving and scrubbingbrush bristles, the rest is brazenly boot polish.

    Compared to these pitiful offerings, Raquel Welch makes a better Patty!

  63. kittenz responds:

    CryptoInformant 2.0,

    It’s all here, albeit scattered among dozens of previous posts. All of the things I see in Patty that look fake. So if you’re an adventurous sort, feel free to wander back thru the archives here. One day soon, when I can carve out two or three hours of free time, I’ll post all the things that convince me that Patty is a hoax in one document. Or I should say a joke, not necessarily a hoax, because I think a massive practical joke was the original intent of the film, and it just got way out of hand.

  64. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Kittenz – It seems we both have the same problem – time. You don’t have the time to put everything that convinced you together, and I don’t have the time to wade through Cryptomundo’s archives looking for it. So, until one of us ends up with some free time on their hands, I will continue to compare Patty to the ape-suits in existence at that time (like Mr. McCostume up there) and look a little confused when people say they’re close-enough-to-identical-to-be-the-same-thing.

  65. jerrywayne responds:

    kittenz,

    While we may never know what motivated Patterson, I think speculation is not off limits. However, I disagree with your take. Patterson was in communication with Sanderson before and after his film was made. Early on he tried with Sanderson to interest the scientific community in the bigfoot enigma and in his verifying film. This does not sound like someone making a little film for the good old boys at the local drive-in or someone engaged in a joke.

    If I understand your post correctly, you believe Patterson may have made his bigfoot a female because of the 1MYBC film (another inside joke?)
    I would suggest he made his film subject look and act as it did because he was basing his “encounter” on the sworn testimony of “William Roe,” one of the documented sightings from the 1950’s that excited Sanderson and Green. Roe claimed to have seen a “sasquatch” that was covered with short hair, had female human-like breasts, and possessed a casualness that included an over the shoulder glance back.

    I speculate Patterson was looking for money and fame. It seems to be well known that he was always scrapping around for a dollar. Since he was very much enchanted by the whole “America’s Abominable Snowman” stuff, thanks to TRUE MAG and Sanderson, I believe he passionately wanted to contribute to solving the mystery. What he lacked was patience.

    Bottom line in this interpretation: Patterson could spend his life trying to verify bigfoot’s existence by finding compelling evidence; or he could take a short cut and create that compelling evidence himself. He chose the short cut. Once he got it right, he let it ride.

    CryptoInformant 2.0

    I’ll also try to explain why I doubt the Patterson film, soon. I’ll try to do it succinctly. You are free, of course, to show me where my factual mistakes are, and where my interpretations of the evidence and events do not agree with your views.

    But I do have a request to make of you. Explain, please, why folks seem to get bent so out of shape if someone doubts the Patterson film? If cryptos are as open minded as they claim they are, and say they are repulsed by “scoftic” closed thought, the view that the P film is a hoax should be in the realm of serious consideration and not a closed option that dares not speak its name.

  66. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Jerry, the reason some people get upset is, in my opinion, because the P/G film is such an iconic piece of evidence for Bigfoot. If I can truly be said to get “bent out of shape”, it is because I hear so many cries of “obvious fake”, yet very rarely does anyone say why they feel that it is so obviously fake. Because of this, I am, of course, very interested in hearing why you doubt the authenticity of this film.

  67. DWA responds:

    jerry:

    Piggybacking on CI 2.O: it’s the same reason you were advocating a place for folks on both sides to come together and actually discuss this film, listening to one another’s viewpoints. I’d love to see that.

    I’ve heard people with very obvious expertise, in biological science, in movie special effects, in biometrics, and in the costume trade, say that if this was a fake, it wasn’t obvious, it wasn’t cheap, and it wasn’t likely. Some of them flat say it’s authentic.

    And then they back it with EVIDENCE.

    I’ve never heard anyone – anyone – provide one bit of backing for the fake theory, other than saying things about Patterson and/or Gimlin that either (a) are false (Patterson, if he were alive, could sue for libel) or (b) are not suppported by anything known about them (e.g., that there’s a ghost of evidence that they had even the faintest whisker of the competence that would have been required). Or, that that “simply looks fake,” which is a supposition largely fueled by a priori bias. Which is easy for me to say – very – because it never comes with evidence. Never have I seen a skeptical slant that focuses – the way the proponent analyses invariably do – on what is in the film, and on Patterson’s and Gimlin’s accounts, and on how each seems to reinforce the other at every turn.

    Simply put: the stories scan. Experts say the film scans. And they provide evidence.

    When we hear opposing viewpoints that just toss off allegations, and don’t even feel the need to back a single thing they say, we get irritated. Because we see the other side providing all the evidence.

    Bill Munns’s analysis was, according to him, facilitated by a dialogue with a skeptic. They exchanged views, and enlightened each other. Munns’s analysis benefited from it.

    That’s why I think that Patty’s not done yet. We can still figure out whether this piece of evidence should compel us to look further. (Even though I for one think that the rest of the evidence is by itself compelling enough.)

  68. lukedog responds:

    hey DWA, have you ever seen the close up of the ‘ tennis ball’ pop out of P/G big foot leg? I was not impressed when i saw it , but narrator suggested some kind of muscle spasm? although if i had a spasm like that i think it might affect my walk. any insight appreciated

  69. DWA responds:

    Lukedog: OK, this is more like it.

    I get chary of paying too close attention to film artifacts. And without the academic chops to give you a firm opinion, I’m not sure what that “tennis ball” is. It could be one of those things that happen when one zooms in so close on a film that one starts to generate artifacts that aren’t on the subject but in the technology.

    It could be a muscle spasm, too. Shoot, it might have affected Patty’s desire to get out of there at a faster pace (although numerous encounters describe equally leisurely departures, and sometimes no departure at all, on the part of the subject after it saw that it was being observed). Patty really doesn’t look like she’s favoring an injury, that’s for sure. And finally, when you don’t know anything for sure about an animal’s basic locomotor apparatus, you may be seeing something totally natural for that animal. Or even a birth anomaly that the animal’s just learned to live with, although it doesn’t seem like much of an impediment.

    I think that postulating that as a suit artifact presumes a really sophisticated suit. Which I think that, if this is a suit, it indeed is. I think I must have seen every ape suit in use in the 1960s watching TV and movies. And every one made the wearer look – even to ten-to-twelve-year-old me – like, well, a human in a suit, acting like a monkey. I never saw a suit that actually made its wearer look like a giant bipedal ape with subtly but dstinctly non-human proportions. This one does. And measurements taken of the figure’s limb proportions bear it out. The animal is well outside the norm for humans on almost all of them. In other words: you can get a human with any one, or maybe even any two, of those measured proportions. Three? ALL of them…?

    I’d prefer to rest my case on the technical analyses that have been done of the animal’s gait and its limb proportions, which seem not to indicate a human, and have been done by folks well versed in fields directly relevant to the analysis.

    To me, it’s like CI 2.0 says. This just looks too real to me for me to accept “that looks fake” at face value without expecting some backing for that statement. John Napier – a clearly degreed professional – had objections to the film that I found very easy to shoot down. And I wasn’t alone in that. It’s because he abandoned his science for his incredulity – something it never pays for a scientist to do.

    (And Napier believed the sasquatch to be real. Go figure.)

  70. jerrywayne responds:

    CI 2.0

    Of course there are a couple of definitions of icon: one is a representative image, the other an image venerated as sacred. I do realize that the P. film occasionally seems almost sacred to some, but we shouldn’t have any “sacred cows” when it comes to investigating and considering cryptids.

    I fully agree with you that the P. film is not obviously a hoax. So my comments later may not address that aspect of your concerns.

    I doubt the authenticity of the P. film, but I am not dogmatic about it. I understand that I do not have all the answers. I can only speak for myself.

    I believe that advocates should also reject dogmatism. We should all approach the issue with freshness and not with hardened arteries.

    Also, and this is a point that enthusiasts seem to have the most problem with, no matter how realistic the P. film might seem, it cannot be used exclusively to prove the existence of bigfoot.

    DWA

    I very much appreciate the tone of your post addressed to me. My only concern is that you are skewing the argument in favor of the advocate from the outset. Patterson’s behaviour and relationships with others has been fairly documented by interviews with people that knew him. His character is directly relevant to the hoax issue. Look at Meldrum’s book and you will find the chapter on the P. film centering primarily on Gimlin. Why? Because Patterson has a tarnished image. You can not wave a magic wand and disallow this piece of the puzzle, just because it might cause some doubt.

    Likewise, the issue of “experts.” As others have pointed out, there is a tendency here to prop up “experts” who agree with your position and totally dismiss those “experts” who do not. This too is a form of “stacking the deck” in favor of the position you champion.

    For instance, you have dismissed Daegling time and again. You say he does not have “evidence” and you do. Consider this (and see if you recognize your own position):

    Advocate experts claim P. film subject’s compliant walk cannot be duplicated by humans.

    Daegling counters this by recreating the “bigfoot” walk in a laboratory experiment.

    Woops, advocates say! Hey, what we really meant is that a fellow in a monkey suit can’t walk so “fluidly” as P’s bigfoot, on rough terrain, with obstructed vision and so forth.

    See what has happened? Daegling has demonstrated that one argument for authenticity is wrong, and it is based on laboratory demonstrations (evidence).

    Advocates change the subject, yet act as if Daegling has committed some sort of egregious error.

    And what “evidence” do advocates use to counter this perceived error. Nothing but subjectivity and incredulity! (“Looks to me like there is no way a man in a monkey suit could walk that way!”)

    Now, mi amigo, I know you well enough to know that in the above example, you would assert that Daegling had no evidence for his claim, that you know better, and that the real evidence is your [subjective] belief that a man in a monkey suit cannot be as surefooted as the ‘bigfoot’ in the film. You may even charge Daegling with “incredulity,” even as your view by definition is one of incredulity- “there is no way a man in a costume can walk that way!”

    Don’t mean to pick on you, my friend. Just thought I would mention some of my concerns.

  71. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Jerry, I agree with you fully in that the P/G film can not be used as the sole basis for a scientific confirmation of Sasquatch – however, I think it can be useful in gathering a bit more support. I am glad you do not see this film as obviously fake – if it really is so obvious as some claim, then the implication is that people who think it is real are either liars or idiots – but, again, I would like to be informed as to what about the video or the circumstances surrounding the video caused you to have serious doubts about its authenticity.

  72. DWA responds:

    Jerrywayne: I’ll try to be quick, amigo.

    “Patterson’s behaviour and relationships with others has been fairly documented by interviews with people that knew him. His character is directly relevant to the hoax issue.”

    I might have wanted to fake that film worse than Patterson. But you can’t advance your case against me without evidence. There has never been any unearthed that Patterson was capable of this. Krantz’s interview with him showed Krantz that he didn’t understand things he would have to have understood to pull it off.

    “Likewise, the issue of “experts.” For instance, you have dismissed Daegling time and again.”

    I do that because he does not adequately address what is in the film. He almost doesn’t address the film directly at all, particularly the advocates’ contentions that the figure’s proportions are not indicative of a human. He insists that Meldrum has to address the suit issue, when he should know that in a scientific debate YOU must defend your position, not make your opponent do it. That’s conduct unbecoming a scientist. At least one who wants me to respect what he says.

    “You say he does not have “evidence” and you do. Advocate experts claim P. film subject’s compliant walk cannot be duplicated by humans.”

    Some of them do; I have repeated here, many times, that that is an overreach by the proponents. Attacking that overreach is not addressing what is on the film. They’re wrong. Which has no bearing on whether that film is fake or not.

    “Daegling counters this by recreating the “bigfoot” walk in a laboratory experiment.”

    No he doesn’t. The only acceptable way to do that is by duplicating – suit and all – what is on the film, in a way that is indistinguishable in any significant way from what is on the film. What Daegling does doesn’t address what’s on the film at all. Two high-school kids in a zebra costume doesn’t invalidate film shot of zebras in the wild. Unless you can’t tell the diff between them and a wild zebra. (Granted that’s a lot of kids in costumes then. :-D )

    “Woops, advocates say! Hey, what we really meant is that a fellow in a monkey suit can’t walk so “fluidly” as P’s bigfoot, on rough terrain, with obstructed vision and so forth.”

    Never mind that people who know the suit trade say that you aren’t getting a man in a suit like that to do what Patty does – again – in the film. Here’s Daegling attacking an advocate overreach again. What he needs to do is show us the FILM is fakeable. He doesn’t. He shows that in a nice controlled lab experiment with a smooth floor, guys can walk funny. (The advocates need to put me on retainer. They make too many mistakes.)

    “See what has happened? Daegling has demonstrated that one argument for authenticity is wrong, and it is based on laboratory demonstrations (evidence).”

    Yup, only it’s the wrong argument and the wrong evidence. The film still stands, with no one even having come close to duplicating it in 42 years. Daegling failed.

    “Advocates change the subject, yet act as if Daegling has committed some sort of egregious error.”

    The debate – again – must center on faking the film, not on attacking the advocates’ uninformed assumptions. (That one was a doozie.)

    And as to this:

    “Also, and this is a point that enthusiasts seem to have the most problem with, no matter how realistic the P. film might seem, it cannot be used exclusively to prove the existence of bigfoot.”

    That’s why I have a problem with “enthusiasts.” I’m into science. And no single piece of information can ever be sufficient, all by itself, to prove the existence of anything. (Outside of a specimen.) What lends Patty her power – other than many people saying, I saw an animal that looked like that, and no reason to doubt them, is that every kind of evidence found in conjunction with her has been found, many other times, in many other places, by many other people who never heard of Patty.

  73. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    We are in the reading room, but not on the same page. I’ll try to drag you over to the page I’m on, and we will see if my points make more sense to you.

    Daegling is an anthropologist who has written a book and some articles on the the bigfoot phenomena from a skeptical position. Since there are many things one could look at here, Daegling has necessarily limited his scope. (I for one, wishes he had looked into how Sanderson and Green fostered the bigfoot story early on). He has addressed broad issues like the tracks, and particular issues brought up by credentialed advocates.

    One such argument was advanced by Krantz, namely that the P. film subject exhibited a walk uncharacteristic of humans and a gait which probably could not be mimicked successfully by humans. Daegling simply put this argument to the test and found it was invalid.

    So, Daegling removed one plank of the argument edifice for the authenticity of the P. film, one set up by a credentialed colleague, by using applied science. Nothing really controversial here.

    Yet, our own Mr. Woolheater presented a post with the title “David Daegling’s Flawed Science” in which he argues that Daegling does not address a different issue, namely, how can a man in a monkey suit walk as fluidly and as confidently as the P. film subject on rough terrain
    and with the limited vision a mask would create.
    But why would Daegling’s addressing one issue be considered “flawed”, only because he didn’t consider another issue?

    The argument that a man in a suit could not walk as fluidly and as confidently as the P. film subject is a subjective appraisal. The argument that skeptics need to prove it was a man in an ape suite puts the burden of proof on them, when it really resides with the advocate. (Although I would like to see an ape suite demonstration myself.)

    You overreach when you say “never mind that people who know the suit trade say that you aren’t getting a man in a suit like that to do what Patty does–again– in the film.” Are you unfamiliar with those in the “suit trade” who have gone on record to say the P. film is obviously a man in a suit?

    Subjectively, the “no man in a monkey suit could walk so confidently and fluidly as the P. film subject” does not strike me as a very strong argument. Why?

    1. As P. Morris has pointed out, if you are wearing over-sized costume feet or shoes, you make sure your feet clear the ground as you step out of your plant. This causes more surefootedness, not less. Watch clowns, excepting pranks and pratfalls, when they stomp around they are very surefooted.

    2. As I believe Daegling has pointed out, if you are employing a compliant gate (walking with bended knees) you are also increasing your surefootedness, as well as enlarging your stride.
    Go outside and try it out.

    3. The idea that a costume headgear would impede vision seriously enough to preclude the P. bigfoot stroll, seems unlikely to me. And that criticism does not take into account that a hoaxer would no doubt scan the area first, and pick a route with the least problems.

    I need to close. Amigo, I guess what I’m trying to get across is that we are better served to keep fresh perspectives on the issues at hand, and be open to other’s arguments. I think claiming that advocates have all the real science on their side, and the poor skeptic is wallowing in subjectivity and incredulity, is not an accurate appraisal of the state of things.

    Anyway, you will have the last say on this, if you wish. My next post will be on why I doubt the P. film.

  74. DWA responds:

    jerrywayne:

    I’m in the reading room, and I’ve got the evidence right in front of me.

    Your statement “I think claiming that advocates have all the real science on their side, and the poor skeptic is wallowing in subjectivity and incredulity, is not an accurate appraisal of the state of things” is not itself an accurate appraisal of the state of things.

    I’ve reviewed my posts against your last one. They stand. Remember, this is why you want the skeptics to get off their butts, join with the advocates and finally get involved in the game, right? The skeptics have unearthed nothing that would lead a reasonable person to believe P/G was faked.

    Again, Daegling failed. You mention, once more, something we can comfortably dismiss: Daegling’s red herring. Krantz’s overreach is not on the P/g film. I want to know, not whether Daegling can counter a silly statement Grover obviously made in frustration, but: can he give anyone reason to believe that’s not a genuine animal on that film?

    He can’t. You at least have mentioned nothing he said, or did, that could.

    P. Morris is simply silly. We saw his supposed copy of the P/G figure in another post here. He couldn’t even get the name of the site right. “Bluff Creek National Park?”

    And as to this:

    “You overreach when you say “never mind that people who know the suit trade say that you aren’t getting a man in a suit like that to do what Patty does–again– in the film.” Are you unfamiliar with those in the “suit trade” who have gone on record to say the P. film is obviously a man in a suit?”

    I am familiar with them. They are countered by people who put forward EVIDENCE that even if that’s a suit, it is in no way “obvious.” Bill Munns knows as much about this as anybody. Calling this “obvious” against his analysis is, well, as I’m serious about this matter, I go with him. Period. READ HIM. Everyone who has said it is obviously a man in a suit has had either (1) an obvious axe to grind or (2) a stake in making us think he did it (or a date with 15 minutes of fame). Show me one piece of EVIDENCE that one of them had so much as one piece of EVIDENCE backing his point of view. (Plus. Jerry. Jerry. Jerry. The question – lingering, white-hot, after 42 years – points to “obvious” to you? The question itself – the 42 freaking years – isn’t evidence that it’s not obvious. IT IS PROOF that it’s not obvious.)

    All that stuff about surefootedness doesn’t explain how the dude in the costume eluded two men on horseback for three miles. I need to hear about that surefootedness. And you still have to get a man in that suit, and get him in that backcountry, and eliminate all evidence by the time P and G show up. Anyone that sophisticated doesn’t NEED P and G (who were anonymous to the general public until their film came out).

    As to “The argument that skeptics need to prove it was a man in an ape suite puts the burden of proof on them, when it really resides with the advocate,” well, as I have pointed out here many times, that is simply wrong. The postulate that that’s a man in a suit is an injurious block to scientific research, tossed willy-nilly into the conversation by incredulous people bereft of evidence. It is their proposition. If they do not back it, they are obstructing a scientific investigation by branding everyone involved a nut. Science – when scientists aren’t busy ignoring it – abhors such an intellectual vacuum.

    So, anyway. The first piece of evidence worth talking about from the P/G skeptics I eagerly await. But after all this time I’m not exactly holding my breath.

    ‘Cause, see, that EVIDENCE word is really important. No suppositions without it.

  75. DWA responds:

    I need to add one thing that to my mind virtually adds up to a Pattyfake debunk, all by itself. And thinking of it just now, I’m stunned that it almost never comes up, although – are we surprised? – Munns sure talks about it. And it’s something anybody who worked on “1 Million” could have told you.

    We know where this was shot. We know how far from civilization it is. We know that no evidence of anything other than Patty showed up at the site.

    We also know this: ape suits are virtually unsurvivable for more than a few minutes at a time.

    READ MUNNS. Then tell me how the maintenance that would have been required to keep that guy in that suit in that remote place – and would have required other people to perform – got done, and how the evidence of it eluded everyone who reviewed that site during, and after, Patty’s passage. And yes, you have to provide details, or we’re just talking UFO-grade ‘theorizing’ here, like all the other ‘theorizing’ skeptics have done on P/G.

    Anyone who ever dealt with Raquel Welch on set could probably tell you how hard this would have been. ;-)



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.