Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

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

1. kittenz responds: July 20th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   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.

2. alcalde responds: July 20th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   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.

3. DWA responds: July 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

   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.

4. DWA responds: July 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

   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!

5. DWA responds: July 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

   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. 😉

6. DWA responds: July 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

   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?

7. mystery_man responds: July 20th, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   (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.

8. kittenz responds: July 21st, 2009 at 12:38 am

   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.

9. DWA responds: July 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm

   “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. 😉

10. jerrywayne responds: July 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    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?

11. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: July 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    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.

12. alanborky responds: July 21st, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    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!

13. kittenz responds: July 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    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.

14. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: July 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    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.

15. jerrywayne responds: July 22nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    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.

16. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: July 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    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.

17. DWA responds: July 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    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.)

18. lukedog responds: July 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 am

    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

19. DWA responds: July 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 am

    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.)

20. jerrywayne responds: July 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    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.

21. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds: July 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    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.

22. DWA responds: July 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm

    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. 😀 )

    “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.

23. jerrywayne responds: July 25th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    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.

24. DWA responds: July 25th, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    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.

25. DWA responds: July 26th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    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. 😉

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|