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 26th March 2014, 04:34 PM   #1041
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
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 agree that there is no evidence to prove that there was splicing/editing of the film when the subject is moving across the screen.

However, the main point is that Munns is lying when he claims he can prove that no splicing occurred during that same portion - or any other portion of the film(s) taken by Patterson.
__________________
"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 27th March 2014, 12:52 PM   #1042
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,752
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
But, why would anyone think that this required some kind of special editing or multiple takes?
Nobody would. The point of such exercises is always deception, so we can't be gullible and let ourselves be duped. "Duper's Delight" is actually a prime motivation for these kinds of people: conning anyone into taking them seriously is sport enough to do it.
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 27th March 2014, 01:00 PM   #1043
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 31,840
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
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.
We simply don't know what's been done to the film. I'm sure that the film was ready when they went out to "find" bigfoot.
tsig is online now   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 March 2014, 08:49 PM   #1044
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,229
Munns hasn't submitted his story to the field of Anthropology. He wrote a story about how Patty isn't a person in a costume which automatically makes her a new species of bipedal primate living as a population in the woods. But nobody has ever shown that they really exist. Munns wants people to argue with him about details of costumes and folds and shadows but he absolutely does not want to talk about primates in our local woods.

He wants to use rulers and micrometers to argue instead of dealing with reality itself and of course I am talking about the creature itself.

I think he avoids telling the field of Anthropology that he has proven the existence of a new species of hominid because he knows that he has not done that. Even the simplest rationality and reason points out that Bigfoot does not exist at all. It's actually extremely obvious that Bigfoot does not exist and that the believers are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bills Munns is not anything like a scientist nor even an intellectual man. He is a salesman and he knows he has customers. The problem is that they do not want to pay him. They want the meth that he cooks but they want it free. Tell us that you have proven that Patty is a Bigfoot (aka Bigfoot exists) but please don't ask for very much money.
__________________
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 28th March 2014, 01:58 AM   #1045
rockinkt
Muse
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 765
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Munns hasn't submitted his story to the field of Anthropology. He wrote a story about how Patty isn't a person in a costume which automatically makes her a new species of bipedal primate living as a population in the woods. But nobody has ever shown that they really exist. Munns wants people to argue with him about details of costumes and folds and shadows but he absolutely does not want to talk about primates in our local woods.

He wants to use rulers and micrometers to argue instead of dealing with reality itself and of course I am talking about the creature itself.

I think he avoids telling the field of Anthropology that he has proven the existence of a new species of hominid because he knows that he has not done that. Even the simplest rationality and reason points out that Bigfoot does not exist at all. It's actually extremely obvious that Bigfoot does not exist and that the believers are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Bills Munns is not anything like a scientist nor even an intellectual man. He is a salesman and he knows he has customers. The problem is that they do not want to pay him. They want the meth that he cooks but they want it free. Tell us that you have proven that Patty is a Bigfoot (aka Bigfoot exists) but please don't ask for very much money.
Nominated.
__________________
"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 30th March 2014, 11:29 AM   #1046
barehl
Muse
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 701
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.
That wasn't so much my point. Munn's argument, if correct, would only constrain the film to a single, continuous take which would in no way negate the idea that it is a man in a suit. So, his argument adds little value in determining if the film is a hoax. As I pointed out before, they could also have shot more than one piece of footage and only kept the one they liked. I was only addressing what Munn said. In other words, I think it is a false argument to claim that filming a man in a suit would require some type of editing.

Quote:
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.
I again agree with this. However, isn't the stronger evidence the fact that it would be nearly impossible to shoot a hand-held sequence in multiple takes without some jumps between frames at the edit points even with no evidence of a line splice? On the other hand, perhaps the frequent motion blur would cover this.

Quote:
So what? The size of the costume is moot.
This has nothing to do with what I said. You seem to be trying to invent arguments that I didn't make. My point was that Munn's analysis adds nothing even if all of his assertions are correct and that his paper did not appear professional.
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 31st March 2014, 12:14 PM   #1047
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
If you want to test the gait of someone in a monkey suit, you put them in a monkey suit. That's just the first thing that's wrong with this poor attempt at evidence. This is not how science is done, it's how rubes are sold the goods.

The PGF is just what it looks like: a guy in a monkey suit, the mental contortions of the PGF analysts notwithstanding.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok 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 March 2014, 01:12 PM   #1048
Resume
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,714
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Have a look at this video analysis and see what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLBxtZc
Once you understand why this film, and self-invented expert analysis of same, does nothing to vitiate the correct impression that it's a feller in a monkey suit, well, once you realize that you're well on your way to clarity on this subject.
Resume is online now   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 March 2014, 05:48 PM   #1049
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
If you want to test the gait of someone in a monkey suit, you put them in a monkey suit. That's just the first thing that's wrong with this poor attempt at evidence. This is not how science is done, it's how rubes are sold the goods.

The PGF is just what it looks like: a guy in a monkey suit, the mental contortions of the PGF analysts notwithstanding.
It was done on a Discovery Channel episode, in which Dr. Meldrum had to ( willingly ) admit the guy in the suit had no problem duplicating the walk ..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of Heaven, is the thought of spending
eternity with most of the people who claim they are going there. "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 01:28 PM   #1050
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,295
OK, back to the topic of this thread, I have a question for those who believe the PGF shows a real Bigfoot. Perhaps this has been discussed before, but what I want to know is... What happened to the suit?

I don't mean the suit seen in the film. Let's assume that this is truly a real unknown hominid known as bigfoot. But when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin stumbled upon this creature they were in the area to film Roger's movie. There is some earlier footage of them riding around and of Gimlin in costume as the Indian tracker. So for this film/pseudo-documentary/or whatever, where is the suit they planned to film? It seems illogical that Roger would plan such a film without a pay-off scene, a climax where the intrepid hunters would find the beast.

If the PGF shows a real bigfoot creature, where is the suit for the fictional film?
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 7th April 2014, 02:00 PM   #1051
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,393
People who believe the film shows a real bigfoot tend to conveniently forget (or dismiss out of hand) that Roger had purchased a suit and was intending to film a bigfoot movie featuring a guy in that suit. If I recall correctly, we know that Roger purchased some kind of gorilla costume from this guy, although few people think that this costume actually is what we see in the PGF. I'd say the consensus is that Roger cannibalized parts of this costume for his own creation, or used the Morris costume to help him figure out how to make his own.

Long-time member Kitakaze claimed here that he had made connections that culminated in him finding THE suit, i.e., the one in the PGF, and that it has been kept as a valuable curio all these years by an individual connected to the film.
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 7th April 2014, 02:39 PM   #1052
Northern Lights
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Long-time member Kitakaze claimed here that he had made connections that culminated in him finding THE suit, i.e., the one in the PGF, and that it has been kept as a valuable curio all these years by an individual connected to the film.
Let me get this straight, I make a "claim" without anything more than that and I get torn to pieces, but a "long time member" makes a claim without anything more and it's golden? Just making sure I've got my facts in order.
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 7th April 2014, 02:51 PM   #1053
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,229
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Let me get this straight, I make a "claim" without anything more than that and I get torn to pieces, but a "long time member" makes a claim without anything more and it's golden? Just making sure I've got my facts in order.
Here let me tear into The Shrike...

Thinking that Kitakaze had proven that the costume is sitting at DeAtley's house is as stupid as thinking that Bigfoot exists.

Stupid. Stupid. There.
__________________
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 7th April 2014, 03:37 PM   #1054
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,180
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Here let me tear into The Shrike...

Thinking that Kitakaze had proven that the costume is sitting at DeAtley's house is as stupid as thinking that Bigfoot exists.

Stupid. Stupid. There.
If he's correct it's not DeAtely. Someone else.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 7th April 2014 at 03:38 PM.
GT/CS 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 7th April 2014, 03:40 PM   #1055
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,180
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Let me get this straight, I make a "claim" without anything more than that and I get torn to pieces, but a "long time member" makes a claim without anything more and it's golden? Just making sure I've got my facts in order.
You get torn to pieces because your claim is utterly ridiculous, and it tends to morph as the storytelling goes on.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS 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 7th April 2014, 03:46 PM   #1056
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,229
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
If he's correct it's not DeAtely. Someone else.
Oh, I read that Brett declared that it was inside a glass case at Al DeAtley's house and that Kit tried to pursue that.

You read otherwise?
__________________
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 7th April 2014, 04:40 PM   #1057
xtifr
Muse
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sol III
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Let me get this straight, I make a "claim" without anything more than that and I get torn to pieces, but a "long time member" makes a claim without anything more and it's golden? Just making sure I've got my facts in order.
Kit got a lot of criticism for his unsubstantiated claims, from both sides. Unsurprisingly, the skeptics did a much better job of criticizing than the footers.

However, there's a fundamental difference between a mere unsubstantiated claim, and the idea that the PGF shows a real creature that exists in what can only be defiance of the laws of physics and biology. I hate to keep harping on it, but no fossils, bones, scat, hide, nor hair pushes BF into the real of the essentially-impossible, which is a whole different place from the merely-unproven.

It's possible (as this forum demonstrated) to doubt Kit's claims without believing that the PGF shows anything but a man in a suit. (As for your claims, they're a bit off-topic in this thread, but similar logic applies.)
__________________
"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 online now   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 7th April 2014, 04:40 PM   #1058
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,180
Kit told me otherwise.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS 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 7th April 2014, 07:21 PM   #1059
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,431
Originally Posted by Northern Lights View Post
Let me get this straight, I make a "claim" without anything more than that and I get torn to pieces, but a "long time member" makes a claim without anything more and it's golden? Just making sure I've got my facts in order.
Do you think the claim that a costume exists, is just as outrageous as a claim that there is an undocumented North American primate ( lots of them .... ) running around ?

Which of these is not like the other?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of Heaven, is the thought of spending
eternity with most of the people who claim they are going there. "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2014, 07:51 PM   #1060
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 31,930
Mod WarningThe discussion has gone very far afield from the thread's topic (which is the Patterson Gimlin film), and there are other threads for other aspects of 'bigfoot' related discussions, so this thread is being closed for clean up until a member of the Mod Team has the time to do so. In the interim, as always, do not start new threads on the topic. You'll have to wait until this one is reopened.
Posted By:LashL
LashL 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 April 2014, 10:02 AM   #1061
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Moderator
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas
Posts: 25,701
Mod WarningThe thread has been culled and will now be reopened. As always, keep on topic,the topic is not the other posters and keep it civil.

One other piece of advice, if you notice it getting off topic; do NOT respond in kind. Report the off topic post and get back to discussing the PGF. Mmm'k? Mmm'k.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis 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 April 2014, 11:22 AM   #1062
HarryHenderson
Muse
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business
Posts: 885
This might not be in the right sub-forum so the mods can move it wherever they see fit. Is anyone here familiar with that short film of a hairy man-ape shot in Northern California in 1967 by a guy named Roger Peterson (I think) and his Indian sidekick who was a Blackfoot war chief I think? The video is kinda cool even if it's an obvious fake because HAIRY APE MEN DON'T REALLY EXIST, but I'd give him an A for effort.
__________________
"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
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 06:19 PM.
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.