JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


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

Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 23rd December 2013, 09:51 AM   #1001
barehl
Muse
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Why did he wait until he only had one minute of film left before he decided to film the greatest hoax in history?
I would imagine for the same reason that he made certain that the image was out of focus and that he shook the camera a lot: to provide as little evidence as possible.

Quote:
And being able to get it in one take, masterful work.
We don't know that. My guess would be that he practiced first with an 8mm movie camera. Or he might have simply practiced with a framing limiter which could be a cardboard tube. I'm also certain that the man in the suit walked that path a number of times before they decided to use the film. Also, we don't actually know how many rolls were shot. If he shot additional rolls then this would simply have been the best of the group. I believe each roll was only good for 11 minutes.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2013, 10:06 AM   #1002
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Why did he wait until he only had one minute of film left before he decided to film the greatest hoax in history? And being able to get it in one take, masterful work.
Have you ever heard of film editing?
You do know that the original film has been lost/destroyed so there is no way to ascertain whether it was edited or not - right?.
You do know that Bill Munns is not only a washed up unsuccessful movie FX person - he also lies through his teeth when he states that he is some sort of authority on film and film editing - right?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2013, 10:07 AM   #1003
Resume
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,697
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Really???? I think the only reason you are giving him so much credit for pulling this off is because you have to. The alternative would be that filmed a Sasquatch.
I'm giving him credit for being a competent con-artist; I don't have to give him credit for more than that.

I can't help it that some people are credulous and buy into the whole thing; people like Patterson are guileful and fully recognize this credulity and even count on those gulled to defend their gullibility.

Last edited by Resume; 23rd December 2013 at 10:16 AM.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2013, 10:36 AM   #1004
Northern Lights
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Have you ever heard of film editing?
You do know that the original film has been lost/destroyed so there is no way to ascertain whether it was edited or not - right?.
You do know that Bill Munns is not only a washed up unsuccessful movie FX person - he also lies through his teeth when he states that he is some sort of authority on film and film editing - right?
I've never fully understood the vitriol for Mr. Munns by the members of this forum. Whatever.

Mr. Munns has published a paper on the subject. It can be found here: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf

Feel free to provide a point-by-point analysis of where he is incorrect.
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2013, 10:45 AM   #1005
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,272
Mr Munns and Meldrum would both have you believe it's impossible for a human in a suit in the PGF. Uh, yeah.







There are phd's that would have you believe in ghosts and aliens also. Do you need some examples? Mr Munns has contributed one good thing to the study of the PGF which is cataloging the different versions of the film and preserving the ones available in high resolution scans. Good job! As for any of his other claims that are related, his bias on the subject (which he will claim is not present at all) as a monster maker that has an income at stake and has profited fairly well from his bigfoot exploits may or may not dictate his conclusions. You be the judge.

Meldrum should know better, but he seems to enjoy his bigfoot attention and profits just fine without the approval of his science colleagues.

So NL whats with the sideways knee thing? Did you ever notice the appearance of that knee being completely sideways?
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by River; 23rd December 2013 at 11:04 AM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2013, 05:55 PM   #1006
captain koolaid
Critical Thinker
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Why did he wait until he only had one minute of film left before he decided to film the greatest hoax in history? And being able to get it in one take, masterful work.

If he really filmed a bigfoot, why the hell did he do such a **** poor job of managing that only one minute of film left on the roll? With only seconds of film left... boom! there's bigfoot... which he's already prepared to capture on camera, what does he do? Frames and shoots the target in the most wasteful manner possible. He doesn't stay put, or fully close the range to fill the frame unimpeded by conveniently placed clutter and make full use of the few frames he has left.

He runs around like an idiot, sqeezing off useless footage, takes up crappy positons and blows it all on still rather distant, shakey, blurry, half-hidden at the crucial point shots. There was no pressure, Patty wasn't going anywhere in a hurry.

If it was a real encounter, with only seconds left, why didn't Patterson get footage that doesn't look like a hoax?


Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
...Obviously Roger knew what he was doing.

He certainly did. Among the things he knew, was using a camera. But, at this driven bigfoot hunter's moment of truth, he ceased being a quite accomplished amateur cameraman and turns into a monkey on crack that couldn't shoot a kid's birthday party.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 23rd December 2013 at 06:15 PM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2013, 07:26 AM   #1007
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,229
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
...the greatest hoax in history? And being able to get it in one take, masterful work.
Why do PGF believers consistently call it "the worlds greatest hoax"?

What makes it a greater hoax than any other hoax that was ever done? As it stands only a fraction of the human population believes that it shows a real Bigfoot. All the rest (the great majority) see it as a hoax.

How can it be the greatest when it has failed to do what it was supposed to do?

As far as convincing the world that Bigfoot exists - for that Patterson failed miserably!
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2013, 08:17 AM   #1008
elkabong51
Scholar
 
elkabong51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Cloud of Unknowing
Posts: 96
The greatest hoax would be the one that was never found out.
elkabong51 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2013, 08:23 AM   #1009
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,229
Right, or at least fooled and still fools the great majority of people around the world.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2013, 08:47 AM   #1010
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,272
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Right, or at least fooled and still fools the great majority of people around the world.

That would be religion.
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2013, 07:17 PM   #1011
captain koolaid
Critical Thinker
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Why did he wait until he only had one minute of film left before he decided to film the greatest hoax in history? And being able to get it in one take, masterful work.

As pointed out by others, "greatest hoax in history"? It is to laugh. Also pointed out by others, it may not have been one take. As for why do it with "only one minute of film left on the roll"? That may well have not been the case, either. In any event, he needed it to seem like the tail end of the roll to make the story work. The dude in the patty suit couldn't run, without blowing the hoax. He couldn't move effectively any faster than a brisk stroll. If the roll didn't finish where it did, people would ask- "Why didn't you get closer? Why didn't you get better shots? You filmed 10 whole minutes of distant, shakey footage of a bigfoot while it was just walking around?"

Nah, better to just shake the camera around for a few seconds, say the roll ran out... just before bigfoot ran away or something.

Patterson didn't make the mistake that Marx made... shooting the footage competently.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 27th December 2013 at 07:41 PM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 07:11 AM   #1012
calwaterbear
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
I've never fully understood the vitriol for Mr. Munns by the members of this forum. Whatever.

Mr. Munns has published a paper on the subject. It can be found here: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf

Feel free to provide a point-by-point analysis of where he is incorrect.
Heres 1 for you. Mr Munns is in possession of and has seen several of his frames that clearly show a bulge at the point the leg inserts into the hip girdle, it is clearly where the suit is folding up, and looks exactly what it looks like when you walk in waders. Mr. Munns has chosen to ignore those frames now calling them anomolies, (previously he said it was a poorly healed injury, when pointed out that was impossible, he backtracked to Anomolies)and refuses to show them to anyone (anymore).

Thats not science my friend - that is academic fraud - not releasing data you possess because it is contrary to your personal belief/ agenda!

#2, Mr Munns scans are not Professional, it was done on a home built system, for which he is to be commended , but it scans 3 frames at once, introducing paralax and other errors. The proper treatment of the film he has would be to have the national film archives scan it one frame at a time, using the same machines and technologies they used on preserving and enhancing the Zapruder films. I'm not sure why Mr Munns as the keeper of so many copies of the film would not allow that to happen!
calwaterbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:04 PM   #1013
xtifr
Muse
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sol III
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by calwaterbear View Post
I'm not sure why Mr Munns as the keeper of so many copies of the film would not allow that to happen!
I suspect you are sure, and are just too polite to say!
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2013, 09:07 PM   #1014
HarryHenderson
Muse
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why do PGF believers consistently call it "the worlds greatest hoax"?

What makes it a greater hoax than any other hoax that was ever done? As it stands only a fraction of the human population believes that it shows a real Bigfoot. All the rest (the great majority) see it as a hoax.

How can it be the greatest when it has failed to do what it was supposed to do?

As far as convincing the world that Bigfoot exists - for that Patterson failed miserably!
Actually, I completely disagree with that appraisal (and have stated as much any number of times here in the past). IMHO, the entire Bigfoot phenomenon exists in the present day SOLELY because of what the PGF has represented for the last 46+ years. HOPE. It is still the only clear 'depiction' that exists of the magical hairy beast. So revered is its existence that it is still the yardstick against which anything claiming to be Bigfoot is measured. And even we here at the JREF are still regularly 'debunking' it.

Now do the majority of people that's seen it actually believe it depicts a real Bigfoot? I highly doubt it. So, as a failed hoax because it didn't convince everyone (or even almost everyone), you have a point, but inevitably the PGF is the one singular instance of Bigfoot that's always made people (of every ilk) stop and take pause so as to at least contemplate it for a moment. Does a 'great hoax' have to fool everyone to be considered successful? How is it all measured?

I'm a bettin' man I'd bet serious money the film's significance is far bigger/broader than you've given it credit for. Curiously, I think one the biggest reasons it's endured isn't the 'somewhat convincing hairy monster' part near as much as the fact its author was dead a little over 3 years after it came out and he never really had to endure the more serious scrutiny 46+ years of time would have inevitably heaped on him. That is, had he lived, we'd probably not be talking about it here and now.
__________________
"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, you know I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 04:33 AM   #1015
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,393
Good points, Harry. The PGF can be seen as a wildly successful hoax when we consider that it's the pillar on which all of modern bigfootery rests. Of course that just begs the question if the "credit" should go to Patterson, whatever shill of the day is irresponsibly promoting the film (these days it's Meldrum and Munns), or the throngs who are stupid enough to fall for it.

NL, Bill Munns has not "published a paper" on the PGF. He and his co-author have written something that kind of looks like a paper and formatted it to the specifications outlined in the pretend journal that said co-author invented.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 04:35 AM   #1016
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,518
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
Actually, I completely disagree with that appraisal (and have stated as much any number of times here in the past). IMHO, the entire Bigfoot phenomenon exists in the present day SOLELY because of what the PGF has represented for the last 46+ years. HOPE. It is still the only clear 'depiction' that exists of the magical hairy beast. So revered is its existence that it is still the yardstick against which anything claiming to be Bigfoot is measured. And even we here at the JREF are still regularly 'debunking' it.

Now do the majority of people that's seen it actually believe it depicts a real Bigfoot? I highly doubt it. So, as a failed hoax because it didn't convince everyone (or even almost everyone), you have a point, but inevitably the PGF is the one singular instance of Bigfoot that's always made people (of every ilk) stop and take pause so as to at least contemplate it for a moment. Does a 'great hoax' have to fool everyone to be considered successful? How is it all measured?

I'm a bettin' man I'd bet serious money the film's significance is far bigger/broader than you've given it credit for. Curiously, I think one the biggest reasons it's endured isn't the 'somewhat convincing hairy monster' part near as much as the fact its author was dead a little over 3 years after it came out and he never really had to endure the more serious scrutiny 46+ years of time would have inevitably heaped on him. That is, had he lived, we'd probably not be talking about it here and now.
IIRC, the PGF pretty much disappeared off the radar for a long time, and was only revived in more recent years.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 06:07 AM   #1017
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,272
Bigfooters like to ignore things. Especially if it pokes holes in their savior. Prime example would be Pattersons beard growth from the shots in the casting footage, and the cast display footage allegedly taken the same day . (according to Patterson and Gimlins story)

They also like to ignore the fact that Patterson filmed proof of the hoax. He had Gimlin film him making a cast supposedly of one of the tracks the creature made. In doing so he filmed proof that the footprints were hoaxed. (you cannot see any footprints visible past the one Patterson is casting, and there is magically one there in the panning footprint footage) This is all scientific proof, not hunches or opinions. It's captured right there on Pattersons original film. (both the beard growth, and the proof of footprints being faked)

Meldrum refuses to address it passing the ball to Munns, or changing Pattersons and Gimlins story for them. Munns tried to misdirect from that and say that we don't know where this casting footage came from! BS! Gimlin in his own words.

http://werd.us/riv3r/yeah.mp3

Bigfooters have this nice habit of changing the facts to fit their version of things. Sorry, it's still a sham.

No glossing over of things 45 years later makes it any better. This doesn't mention the suit flaws, or the footage showing part of it coming apart at the ankles also. It is completely ridiculous to hold up this film as proof of anything except the gullibility of certain individuals and some that choose to profit from others gullibility.
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by River; 31st December 2013 at 06:42 AM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 11:32 AM   #1018
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,272
^^^ Link for Gimlin wasnt working so I upped it to a public website.

http://www74.zippyshare.com/v/96193040/file.html
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 02:21 PM   #1019
Northern Lights
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
NL, Bill Munns has not "published a paper" on the PGF. He and his co-author have written something that kind of looks like a paper and formatted it to the specifications outlined in the pretend journal that said co-author invented.
Ok, I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, but what about the content? Is it valid and if not, why?
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2013, 02:58 PM   #1020
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,393
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Ok, I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, but what about the content? Is it valid and if not, why?
The content is bollocks; this is why it hasn't been sent to and published in a legitimate journal. If you'd like an accounting of what specifically makes up that bollocks, you can begin with post #1017, and then do your homework by slogging through this entire thread (as well as parts 1–3).
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2014, 07:04 PM   #1021
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,272
Flappy suit is flappy.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
“Don't believe everything you see on the Internet.” ― Abraham Lincoln
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2014, 12:36 AM   #1022
Urkelbot
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 4
The problem with the paper is most of it has no references. Sure the pictures he finds of animals and people somewhat match the images of pgf munns selected. His conclusions are all drawn in the end from his personal experience. He does not back up his claims of what costume makers could/couldn't or would do at the time with any citations. The reader of the paper has no way to determine the validity of his claims with what is provided within the paper. The reader must trust munns is an expert and knows best.

It's also interesting in the paper he includes that a hoax can not be ruled out. I am wondering if meldrum forced him to include that bit not willing to stake his reputation on the authenticity yet.
Urkelbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2014, 03:10 PM   #1023
Gilbert Syndrome
Muse
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 806
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Ok, I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, but what about the content? Is it valid and if not, why?
Like Shrike said, it's mainly down to the enormous amount of bollocks that he managed to fit between the front and back covers. Which specific part of his paper blew your mind?
__________________
Sometimes I wonder what I'm a-gonna do, but there ain't no cure for the summertime blues.
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 08:18 AM   #1024
jerrywayne
Muse
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
FYI: Kitakaze is mentioned in footnote 63 for the Bigfoot chapter in the new book Abominable Science! Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids by Loxton and Prothero (Loxton contributed the Bigfoot chapter.)

"63. In early 2012, an online Bigfoot critic who posts under the name Kitakaze alleged that his investigations into the case of the Patterson-Gimlin film have given him 'specific knowledge of the suit and it still exists today' ... According to Kitakaze, the still-confidential whereabouts and circumstances of the suit will be revealed in his upcoming independent documentary, for release in 'anywhere from a year or two or more' ..."
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2014, 10:40 AM   #1025
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,290
The creature on the left was recently spotted. It appears to be IndyCar driver Scott Dixon in a suit. However, I found a real picture of Scott (on the right) and clearly he cannot fit in this suit. I can only conclude that the current IndyCar champion is, in fact, an unknown hominid (probably the Australian Yowie).



PS: I apologize for cropping out Emma Dixon in the picture on the right. Sometimes sacrifices must be made in the name of science.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2014, 05:23 PM   #1026
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Ok, I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, but what about the content? Is it valid and if not, why?
No sense of entitlement here. Multiple threads on this. One really long one.

For me the biggest "tell" was Munns steadfastly refusing to acknowledge that a splice can be placed between two frames and not be visible in later generation copies. He tried to pawn off a repair as a splice in his discussion. As if you would splice through the middle of a frame.

It was pretty funny watching him pretend to be so impartial when he showed up here, and how we would all have to wait until his study was complete. The default position on bigfoot is to feign open-mindedness so that your "research" can be the one time in history, after nearly half a century of failed attempts, to prove bigfoot one way or the other.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2014, 03:12 PM   #1027
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
The creature on the left was recently spotted. It appears to be IndyCar driver Scott Dixon in a suit. However, I found a real picture of Scott (on the right) and clearly he cannot fit in this suit. I can only conclude that the current IndyCar champion is, in fact, an unknown hominid (probably the Australian Yowie).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...b27239a2f9.jpg

PS: I apologize for cropping out Emma Dixon in the picture on the right. Sometimes sacrifices must be made in the name of science.
And look at the angle of his leg in the picture on the left! No human being could possibly lift their leg that high! It cant possibly be a person in that suit!
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2014, 08:36 PM   #1028
barehl
Muse
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Feel free to provide a point-by-point analysis of where he is incorrect.
I read the paper. He does make some valid points.
  • The film copies show no sign of film splices.
  • The shadows in the images are consistent therefore showing no large passage of time.
The only thing this shows is that the figure was shot in one take. But, why would anyone think that this required some kind of special editing or multiple takes?

His statement of resolution with roughly 160 vertical pixels for the figure is the same that I came up with. His estimate of a physical resolution of the figure between 0.5 and 1 inch also appears correct.

Notice that none of this suggests that you can accurately pick out a skeleton beneath the fur or that you can tell real muscles from padding. Yet, this is indeed his faulty assumption.

He begins his paper correctly. The introduction reads:
"which depicts a walking figure suggestive of a cryptid hominoid species known as sasquatch (or Bigfoot)"

"figure" is a good word since it is neutral. This word should then be repeated in the rest of the paper. However, it is not. There is no other use of this word. Instead what we see are phrases like:
  • as she passes
  • for her full height
  • PGF Hominid height

"her" is used 2 times
"she" is used 9 times
"hominid" is used 17 times

Notice that he assigns gender and even anthropological classification to the figure, things that are not demonstrable from his analysis. No professional paper would be written in this fashion.

Last edited by barehl; 23rd March 2014 at 08:38 PM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 06:05 AM   #1029
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,259
The length of the film indicates editing.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 09:42 AM   #1030
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I read the paper. He does make some valid points.[list][*]The film copies show no sign of film splices.
As pointed out by ABP just a couple of posts above yours in #1026 - there is no way to tell in a copy of a film if splices have been made BETWEEN the frames of the original. Splicing between frames has been the standard editing procedure since film has been edited. That Munns chooses to lie about this shows his intention to twist any fact to suit his own agenda.

Quote:
[*]The shadows in the images are consistent therefore showing no large passage of time.
The only thing this shows is that the figure was shot in one take. But, why would anyone think that this required some kind of special editing or multiple takes?
There is absolutely NO evidence that the figure was shot in one take. Pretending that he could accurately measure the movement of shadows in that film over say a roughly 15 minute period (easily enough time for three or four takes) is ludicrous.

Quote:
His statement of resolution with roughly 160 vertical pixels for the figure is the same that I came up with. His estimate of a physical resolution of the figure between 0.5 and 1 inch also appears correct.
So what? The size of the costume is moot.

Quote:
Notice that none of this suggests that you can accurately pick out a skeleton beneath the fur or that you can tell real muscles from padding. Yet, this is indeed his faulty assumption.
One of many.

Quote:
He begins his paper correctly. The introduction reads:
"which depicts a walking figure suggestive of a cryptid hominoid species known as sasquatch (or Bigfoot)"

"figure" is a good word since it is neutral. This word should then be repeated in the rest of the paper. However, it is not. There is no other use of this word. Instead what we see are phrases like:
  • as she passes
  • for her full height
  • PGF Hominid height

"her" is used 2 times
"she" is used 9 times
"hominid" is used 17 times

Notice that he assigns gender and even anthropological classification to the figure, things that are not demonstrable from his analysis. No professional paper would be written in this fashion.
Do you think he did this accidentally?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 24th March 2014 at 10:33 AM. Reason: grammar
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 12:27 PM   #1031
Northern Lights
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
As pointed out by ABP just a couple of posts above yours in #1026 - there is no way to tell in a copy of a film if splices have been made BETWEEN the frames of the original. Splicing between frames has been the standard editing procedure since film has been edited. That Munns chooses to lie about this shows his intention to twist any fact to suit his own agenda.
Um, but he does address this exact topic. Please see Point #1

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf
Northern Lights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 02:53 PM   #1032
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Um, but he does address this exact topic. Please see Point #1

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf
Hilarious!!!

No-one and I will repeat that - no-one - knows where or how the Patterson/Gimlin film was originally developed except maybe those personally involved in the fraud that are still alive.
How does Munns know that the original spliced film was not purposely copied on an optical printer so that each copy made thereafter would show no evidence of the splice?
How does Munns know that the film that Patterson was claiming was the original was in fact the original?
The answers to the above questions are obvious to anyone who has done their homework.
Munns has no special knowledge or evidence about when the film was taken nor does he know when or how or where the film was developed. He also has no idea what process was used to make the first copy or copies from the original given that he does not know anything about the original film.
He also has no evidence that allows him to conclude what "generation" of copy any print is from. Again, no-one but the hoaxers would be privy to how many copies were made. As far as anyone knows - a so-called "first generation copy" of the PGF could be a "fourth generation copy".
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 24th March 2014 at 02:56 PM. Reason: remove superflous sentence
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 03:32 PM   #1033
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Aepervius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bierland. I mean , germany.
Posts: 9,082
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Um, but he does address this exact topic. Please see Point #1

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf
You know , as someone said before, not to sound disparaging, but you should do your homework. Rockint was nice to repeat you one the point, but those were repeated in this thread (and the version 1,2,3 of the same thread, which every time went too long for the forum software and was edited out - hundred of pages).

I would advise to read upthread before commenting on what was said dozen of time.

But i can give you the TL;DNR version : Munns ignore a lot of point on the faulty provenance of his data, does not show the frames which are going against his hypothesis , is putting out ungrounded assertion, and ignore the most simple explanation, and finally did not publish in a real photometric/anthropologic journal because he knew what would happen (gett6ing panned for a poor job).

On my side I would also assert that the financial bias also played a role. But that's me being a realist.
__________________
Omnes Blessant Ultima necat

"I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament)
A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2014, 04:08 PM   #1034
HarryHenderson
Muse
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Um, but he does address this exact topic. Please see Point #1

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%...MAGE_final.pdf
Please see Point #1? You mean pablum like this? "...The author has examined every frame of several true contact prints, and there is no cut line anywhere in the contact print copy. This would be the single most conclusive indicator if the PGF camera original had been spliced before copying, and the indicator is absent. Therefore, it is conclusive that the original film had not been spliced before copying..."
Really? Single most conclusive indicator? And it's conclusive? Because wannabe Bill Munns says so? You realize his "logic" is akin to his saying a newly painted house couldn't possibly be newly painted if there's no over-spray?!

The real marvel isn't Bigfoot anymore, but how desperately Bigfoot bleevers still cling to even the most tenuous of claims by the most tenuous of so-called experts. Munns says no splice so, umm, I guess that's that? Of course that's in spite of the fact he said that not because there is or isn't a splice - SINCE HE DOESN'T ******* KNOW - but because he's the 'expert' and he'll say whatever he the expert wants to say and you'll like it Mr. Bleever.

Have you read The Munns Report? It's likely someone more delusional about their intelligence and abilities there is not.
__________________
"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, you know I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2014, 02:11 PM   #1035
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
The length of the film indicates editing.
Well how outrageous can they be in claiming the edited film has not been edited?

A matter of seconds out of a whole roll! Imagine what is on the rest of that roll, but even more importantly in Roger Patterson's library of film collected over years by the time of the PGF.

One of the most interesting passages in The Making of Bigfoot provides multiple source reference to Roger bringing up a rented gorilla suit on a Greyhound bus out of Holllywood. One of the camera shop owners talked about it. What is clear about that effort is the film will look exactly like a guy in a gorilla suit. It won't convince anyone about a new hominid.

Patterson, always living hand-to-mouth, could not afford to do the professional thing - purchase a suit and modify it - and that is where his brother-in-law DeAtley became film production manager. His interview in The Making of Bigfoot makes no room for doubt: he was the producer. He paid for it, put together the clip, and made a road show out of it. There is no doubt he saw Roger's previous efforts, and a trial run with a gorilla suit in particular. Outside Yakima.

Now, did these pretenders just call up Al DeAtley, the known film producer, and ask him about it? A word search for DeAtley produces zero results in their paper. The interview of DeAtley in The Making of Bigfoot is humorous for his sometimes frank/sometimes coy admission to it as a hoax. But these academic frauds want to pretend that they are doing deep undercover detective work by studiously ignoring the film producer who had that whole roll of film in his hands.

It was in his hands before the staged encounter as a matter of fact. The impossibility of developing the film in so short a time has been amply attested to. So how long did Al DeAtley study this roll of film and edit it down to what is called the PGF? Where is the rest of the film? The suit?

The Pretenders have not apparently discovered the book entitled The Making of Bigfoot. They do not know DeAtley is retired from construction and is involved in the wine industry now, available for a phone call were they to present themselves to him.

You can't have it both ways: pretend to be an academic work, but ignore a book that actually was published on the subject. Ignore the producer of the film you claim to be investigating. Pretend an edited clip is a "film". Etc.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 09:14 AM   #1036
Cotter
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 86
ABP - very interesting claim. Would you mind pointing me toward where the proof of the film being edited is?

This is a common claim, but I have not been able to come across the proof of it.

Thx.
Cotter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 09:52 AM   #1037
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,259
Cotter
How long is the film?

Now find out how long a full roll of the Kodak film would be.

Subtract the former from the latter, the result is what is on the cutting room floor.

There is no question it was edited.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 10:09 AM   #1038
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Aepervius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bierland. I mean , germany.
Posts: 9,082
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Cotter
How long is the film?

Now find out how long a full roll of the Kodak film would be.

Subtract the former from the latter, the result is what is on the cutting room floor.

There is no question it was edited.
I assume people might mistakenly think edited as "manipulated the picture" rather than the "at the very minimum cut at the start , cut at the end, and removed the bit which one did not want to publish" which is the sense used here.
__________________
Omnes Blessant Ultima necat

"I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament)
A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 10:31 AM   #1039
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,747
Originally Posted by Cotter View Post
ABP - very interesting claim. Would you mind pointing me toward where the proof of the film being edited is?

This is a common claim, but I have not been able to come across the proof of it.

Thx.
Award for not paying attention. Earth to Cotter:

The clip is about one minute. The developed roll has been edited. You don't need to know if the developed roll is twenty minutes or twenty hours: it has been edited.

Really, can anyone be so obtuse? It is like Munns saying a copy of the Wizard of Oz has not been edited. The developed film Al DeAtley paid to produce was EDITED. The result of that editing is a mere one minute clip, commonly referred to as the PGF.

Cotter, how do we get from a whole roll of film down to one minute of film? We edit that roll, right? And it cannot be even proven whether this clip was at the beginning, middle, or end of the reel, regardless of whether it has additional editing or not. In addition to this one edited example we also have other still frames like the stomp test, allegedly from a second reel - so we have multiple edits, multiple reels without question.

The portions edited out are not minor irrelevant red herrings. That is rather the entire point of editing in the first place: to eliminate everything except the story line, in its most compelling format. We know who did that, and it is Al DeAtley. (For one thing the unedited reels will show the true sequence of events, along with external data to check the story against.)


But then again, Al DeAtley, the producer, already has been interviewed. And he is so full of himself for pulling it off. But who wouldn't be. And on this point about the exact sequencing of the editing he supervised, his memory is foggy.

Oh golly, imagine that. He has such exact recollection of pouring garbage cans full of money on themselves at hotels during their road show. Both stories, Heironimus and Patterson, state that the undeveloped film is sent to DeAtley.

Poor old Al does not remember receiving it in the mail. Sending it to (probably California) to be developed. Reviewing it. Cutting it down to the mere minute-plus-stills from (by their own testimony) two reels.

What he remembers is "four walling", which means television, radio, print media, and poster-boarding a town before they roll in to show the edited clip in a gymnasium, movie theater, or whatever for cash customers, every night for months on their road show.

He was heavy on supplying motive, namely a million dollar scam. But at the same time not admitting outright that he and his in-laws committed fraud.

If munns or any other proponent acknowledges the producer of the pgf, they have a huge problem. Al DeAtley does not back the myth. If the producer of the film does not back the myth of its production then the article in question is stupid on the face of it.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 26th March 2014 at 10:35 AM.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2014, 10:39 AM   #1040
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,259
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I assume people might mistakenly think edited as "manipulated the picture" rather than the "at the very minimum cut at the start , cut at the end, and removed the bit which one did not want to publish" which is the sense used here.
Well this started with Bill Munns' claim that there was no evidence of splicing.

Which is what film editors do when cutting out bits of film.

I don't think anyone is claiming editing in the sense of retouching- or things like that.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

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