Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Page 348

Bill Munns · 25th April 2008, 09:54 PM

Diogenes;

"When can we expect the book, Bill ?"

Don't have a clue. I'd want to do a lot more research and tests on materials and film resolution issues filming the materials (the Part 11 notes) and haven't got any funding lined up yet.

Bill

AtomicMysteryMonster · 25th April 2008, 10:11 PM

but the most recent posts here remind me of the fight scene in "They Live."

Bill Munns · 25th April 2008, 10:29 PM

AMM:

Given you are one of the more rational voices on this forum, can you help me understand why my opinions seem to provoke the reactions you were reminded of? I'd welcome a second opinion.

Seems to me, the theme of this forum is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

Is "are you crazy" or "WTF" friendly?

And I'm still trying to understand why things posted elsewhere are of such concern here, as if either the other forum had no right to exist, or I had no right to express myself there.

Just curious. I'm still trying to figure out the mentality here.

Bill

Aepervius · 26th April 2008, 12:14 AM

If I may add my grain of salt, I think the WTF comes from the frustration that you posit you have no prejudiced position and are inquiring the pgf neutrally using your knowledge (or at least you don't say you are a believer), but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax (like "3 guys could not have pulled it off" and I pass many other). The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer, but the argument of the expert aren't really based on mucho evidence , if any, and from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it.

*shrug* my expertise in biology tells me anyway all those discussion and expertise you offer, is nothing in comparison to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, *nothing* since PGF and patty was one-of-a-kind... Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not).

I expect the WTF will be dropped (they are against forum rule as far as I know).

Bill Munns · 26th April 2008, 01:06 AM

Aepervius:

"If I may add my grain of salt, I think the WTF comes from the frustration that you posit you have no prejudiced position and are inquiring the pgf neutrally using your knowledge (or at least you don't say you are a believer), but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax (like "3 guys could not have pulled it off" and I pass many other). The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer, but the argument of the expert aren't really based on mucho evidence , if any, and from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it.

*shrug* my expertise in biology tells me anyway all those discussion and expertise you offer, is nothing in comparison to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, *nothing* since PGF and patty was one-of-a-kind... Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not).

I expect the WTF will be dropped (they are against forum rule as far as I know)."

Thank you for your very well reasoned note. I'll see if i can respond with similar reasoning.

"you posit you have no prejudiced position "

Well. I do not have any true absolute opinion on whether "patty" is real. I have said repeatedly, what's in the film mystifies me. And that is truly my frame of mind in this matter. It seems that others simply refuse to accept that as true, and I don't know what more I can say to get the point across.

Is "I'm mystified" a prejudiced position?

"but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax "

Then why do I keep saying, "If it's a suit"? I've probably said that a hunderd times or more, in all my postings. I even calculated a list of issues and their probability or improbability, in a way very structured and reasoned format.

But logically, if there are two essential options, "A" Patty's real, and "B" Patty's a hoax done with a suit, and I say I'm mystified or I'm undecided, doesn't that acknowledge both options are still being considered? That's what it means to me.

"The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer,"

But if the statements of an "expert", like Dfoot, are used as an argument by skeptics, is that OKAY?

And why do you elevate my opinion above that of Chris Walas or Stan Winston (both who have Academty Awards, and I don't). Why not just tell "the believers" the ones with the Oscars say Patty's a suit.

Every Professional in the makeup field, when asked about this issue, offers an opinion, and that opinion feeds people who believe along the line of the opinion. I've seen "the list" of over a dozen Makeup people who are described as believing Patty's a fake. These dozen opinions feed the skeptical proponent's mind, don't they?

"from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it."

Do you know the difference between a perspective view and an orthographic view? (Not being demeaning to you here, I honestly don't know if you are familiar with these terms)

A perspective view has one fixed point from which things are perceived, in relation to that one point. An orthographic view is instead a perception independent of a specific point of view (although it may have a general direction of view). Humans all perceive the world from their "perspective", and any perspective can conceivably be argued as a "bias" by someone taking another point of view.

So the remark of another person's bias is of itself, merely an opinion, unless you wish to acknowledge every person is biased, by virtue of their perspective.

"to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, "

Don't you mean, to other damning "absense" of facts?
Not playing semantics here, and don't want to rely on that tired cliche "absense of facts is not proof of absense". Just reads to me that you left out a word.

let's look first at the essence of this concern of yours.

Do you know if I have expressed any specific remarks about the "no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA," so you actually know my opinion of this particular issue. Did you know that the absense of such is actually one of the strongest reasons for my being mystified? I struggle continually with the issue of why such haven't been found and verified. But that is the larger "Is Bigfoot real" issue, not the "is Patty a suit" issue. So your remark in this portion seems to merge the two, when I thought the "Patty" issue was only a subset of the larger issue, because BF could be real even if Patty were proven to be a hoax.

I also wonder why would blood or scat or DNA be a "Patty" issue?

"Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not)."

Again, I fail to see how blood, scat, or DNA issues would impact on my investigation of whether or not Patty is suit? The issues I see as helping determine if Patty is a suit are issues of furcloth materials and their motion dynamics, the practicalities of seams and their placement, and such.

And the practicalities of how a suit is made, worn, filmed, and attended to during its use are all considerations I take into consideration, based on my experience working with them.

I've said I agree with John Chambers' reported statement that if patty's a suit, she's a better one than he could do. Isn't that an acknowledgement that it could be a costume?

Bill

Aepervius · 26th April 2008, 01:47 AM

Bill Munn, since we are on definition, Do you know what "inference" is ? How about this :
* there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume.
* if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer
* the history of the con job patterson did hint at the probability he was hoaxed is low (if this was an hoax). But this is beside the point.
* now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US. This is where the bone and blood comes in play. Anybody will agreee that the probability is relatively low in absence of biological evidence (any professional biologist at least, which you would surely agree knows a bit more on this than us). The only point hinting at the existence of a biological unknown entity would be the pgf. A Single point without any biological artifacts (only a film).
* Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact.
* You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. Compare with the previous statement. Rince and repeat.

QED.

Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume. This is quite an error, (a fallacy I would dare say) because as said before there could be a wide pan of knowledge on such costume type you might be missing (or are you telling us you have omniscience on costume technic ?). You are trying to prove something by proving a negative. The only way to go would be to prove a positive. Either prove that this is a real animal or prove this is a costume. With trying to prove "this is not a costume" you are only fooling two people : yourself and the BF community.

Bill Munns · 26th April 2008, 02:28 AM

Aepervius:

"Bill Munn, since we are on definition, Do you "inference" ? How about this :
* there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume.
* if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer
* the history of the con job patterson did hint at the probability he was hoaxed is low (if this was an hoax). But this is beside the point.
* now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US. This is where the bone and blood comes in play. Anybody will agreee that the probability is relatively low in absence of biological evidence (any professional biologist at least, which you would surely agree knows a bit more on this than us). The only point hinting at the existence of a biological unknown entity would be the pgf. A Single point without any biological artifacts (only a film).
* Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact.
* You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. Compare with the previous statement. Rince and repeat.

QED.

Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume. This is quite an error, (a fallacy I would dare say) because as said before there could be a wide pan of knowledge on such costume type you might be missing (or are you telling us you have omniscience on costume technic ?). You are trying to prove something by proving a negative. The only way to go would be to prove a positive. Either prove that this is a real animal or prove this is a costume. With trying to prove "this is not a costume" you are only fooling two people : yourself and the BF community."

Interesting that you posted the above logic structure qa, because I was working on the following at the same time:

Just looking at the PG film issue, in a basic logic diagram:

step one:

a. Real creature
b. person in a suit

Step Two:
If (b) is correct:

a. Roger, Bob, and a third person faked the film
b. Roger faked Bob or vice verse
c. Somebody faked both Roger and Bob

Step Three:
If (a) is correct,

a. Did the three do it all by themselves?
b. Did they do it with some outside help preparing the suit?
c. Did they have professional help, both in preparation and on the filming event?

All I've ever said is, if Step one is proven to be a suit, and Step Two is proven to be Roger, Bob, and a third person faked the film, then I tend to think the Step Three option that makes the most sense to me, based on what I see in the film and my experience making suits and films, is "C" (they had professional help both preparing the suit and at the filming.)

And if "C" is true, I would expect that there may have been some evidence of such in the ground, because that extra person activity would be hard to completely hide from others who later examine the site.

Now comparing yours and mine:

"* there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume."

We agree.

"* if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer"

We agree.

"* now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US"

Don't know how to calculate odds of this, to assign a number to the probability, but as i understand biology and wildlife studies, the prospects of an unknown species existing but escaping detection from scientific confirmation would vary inversely with A. Its size (bigger less likely), B. It's habitat (less likely the more humans enter or explore the habitat) and C. The extent people are searching for it (the more people are searching and not finding it, the less likely it is). So we have three "Less likelys" in a row.

"* Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact."

Your reasoning weakens here, because while with BF in general, the above probability is calculated, based on the absense of anything to validate the cryptid. So your reasoning is based on absense of things, reasonably suggesting or inferring rarity or non-existance.

But the PGF is existant and there is something on that film. Fact. And that something has enough visual information to determine some factual particulars of the film figure. Example, it can be determined to be a bipedal walking figure, with apparent breast-like shapes on the front torso, etc.

There are enough frames of the film to compare light patterns across the body from frame to frame, and a full motion sequence to evaluate the physiological actions of walking, turning the head, etc.

So there is something, and that something can be evaluated, to some extent.

Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low.

"Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume."

If a material (such as standard furcloth), is mechanically capable of pliable flexing and bending, but mechanically incapable of elongation, then when I see a mechanical motion which does not bend or flex based on the mechanical dynamics I know are the physical limits of a furcloth, I can say with some reasonable certainty that what I'm seeing isn't furcloth.

I believe we went around on the "trying to prove a negative" befor, and seems we never reached an understanding then, so I'll just say I argued this before and what I said then still stands as my point of view.

"* You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. "

One is "inferring" incorrectly. One's inference is actually one's own misunderstanding, thinking the world is pure yes/no/black/white, when i see multiple shades of grey. But I long ago gave up worrying if others "infer" their own misconceptions from my words or actions, because it is the inevitable result of existing.

Bill

William Parcher · 26th April 2008, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

"You have trouble imagining a hoax scenario? WTF?"

Yes, I do. If there was one, what i see on film took more than a performer and two guys to pull off.

OK. You are just another guy on the Internet saying that they have trouble with the PGF being a hoax. But wait, you're not just another guy because you are a professional costume designer. You give an expert opinion that this was not done by only three people at the film site. Your unstated proclamation is this: If you are going to believe that the PGF is a hoax, then you better get comfortable with the fact that more than three people were present and working at the film site.

"This guy is confessing to wearing the suit for only a few minutes, "

Quote:

You don't get into and out of such a suit in a few minutes. Cheap suits, yes, but if patty's a suit, she's not a cheap or amateur one.

Look, here it is, straight up. I say what I think and believe, as do you. We see things differently. Live with it.

The confessing mime says he was offered $1000 to play the role of Bigfoot. He says it only took a few minutes after he had the costume on. He says Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume. The day was "hot", and it was really hot being inside the suit. But it was only a few minutes and the physical effort was limited to walking across sand with only one single requested "turn to look" action. He says that near the end of his pre-determined walking pathway he jumped into a big hole (cavity created by an uprooted tree) and hollered out to "get this thing off me". He talks about wearing the hot and stinky suit and wanting to get out of it. Bob Heironimus might actually agree with you. No way could a "regular guy" perform in that furry black suit on that hot sunny day for more than a few minutes without some kind of break for cooling off.

This guy could be lying on multiple levels. Maybe he wasn't in the suit after all and the whole confession thing is a hoax. Or maybe he was in the suit and the bit about the stinky-hot-jump-in-the-hole is just some bullcrap that he is compelled to tack on for whatever reason.

Quote:

Maybe there wasn't any support crew. Maybe there wasn't a suit to need one? Keep an open mind.

My mind is fully open to the PGF being a hoax. Your declaration that this would require a professional production crew seems funny to me. The whole Bigfoot belief thing is very funny. Opening the mind to accept a perpetually undocumented and undocumentable wild hairy ape is very funny. You want to make this whole thing a serious interest and concern. That is funny too.

I could easily switch from "WTF?" to "LOL". It's all the same expression. Bill, we are talking about Bigfoot in a skeptical forum. This Bigfoot thing is funny as anything could be. Your efforts to legitimize the topic as a genuine mystery stated by a genuine costume expert is only resulting in more humor. Requests for a necessary "open mind" is just more funny stuff stacked on top of a funny foundation.

Bigfoot is funny because some people want to try to deal with it in a serious fashion. That's funny too. Bill, you can't say anything anymore without increasing the humor factor. The more serious you try to be, the more funny it gets. It's so funny now that I don't even care about proper grammer and sentence structure. Rope-a-dope slapstick fun. This thread should be archived on 16mm film with lots of scratches. Future generations can laugh their asses off with the Bigfoot topic. Funny. Very funny.

LOL!

Bill Munns · 26th April 2008, 12:56 PM

WP"

"Your unstated proclamation is this: If you are going to believe that the PGF is a hoax, then you better get comfortable with the fact that more than three people were present and working at the film site."

It's you who are suggesting elevating my opinion to fact. If you'd just keep saying "well, you are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion", maybe people would get the point, that it is my opinion.

"But wait, you're not just another guy because you are a professional costume designer."

So are Stan Winston and Chris Walas. Are you chastizing either of them for giving their opinions on the PGF? Are you worried that someone will think their opinions are "fact" because of their professional standing? I don't recall any concern or outrage from their remarks. Or is it only when someone who has some professional credentuals and offers an opinion conflicting with your belief that you whine about how that opinion might be perceived by others as fact? A good critical thinker applies a fundamental principle of logic across the board, so if a professional costume designer's opinion is in a special or restricted class as compared to a non-professional's opinion, fine. Apply that rule to Chris, Stan, and even Dfoot as you apply that rule to me.

"This guy could be lying on multiple levels. Maybe he wasn't in the suit after all and the whole confession thing is a hoax. Or maybe he was in the suit and the bit about the stinky-hot-jump-in-the-hole is just some bullcrap that he is compelled to tack on for whatever reason. "

So why does my remark of not appraising his ability to endure a suit provoke such a concerned response from you. I agree, Bob H could be lying on multiple levels. We agree. Done deal. Thank you.

"The more serious you try to be, the more funny it gets. "

Your opinion, and I respect your right to express it.

Bill

added:

"Bigfoot is funny because some people want to try to deal with it in a serious fashion. That's funny too. Bill, you can't say anything anymore without increasing the humor factor. "

So, my singular opinion has the potential to change the whole level of "funny"? Must be a very influential opinion.

Maybe that's why it bugs you so much? Just a thought.

Drewbot · 26th April 2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low.

You are completely leaving out the other potential factors for a report of BIGFOOT.
A. Person saw something and thought they saw a Bigfoot
B. Person completely fabricated the story for any number of reasons.
C. Person hallucinated that they saw a bigfoot

You are also leaving out the fact that these reports are investigated by enthusiasts, not investigators. How many investigations have led to any verifiable evidence?

While you may not admit that you are a Bigfoot enthusiast using your expertise in costumes to create waves within the bigfoot community, the fact that you have the same acceptance of the weak-evidence-pool as some of the other Bigfoot enthusiasts tells me otherwise.

Bill Munns · 26th April 2008, 08:52 PM

Drew:

"While you may not admit that you are a Bigfoot enthusiast using your expertise in costumes to create waves within the bigfoot community, the fact that you have the same acceptance of the weak-evidence-pool as some of the other Bigfoot enthusiasts tells me otherwise."

Just curious, Drew, what "weak evidence" have I accepted? I rely on my industry experience and my understanding of materials and processes, and my own analysis of the PGfim data to form my judgments.

Calling your bluf here, Drew.

Bill

Had to add this:

"You are completely leaving out the other potential factors for a report of BIGFOOT.
A. Person saw something and thought they saw a Bigfoot
B. Person completely fabricated the story for any number of reasons.
C. Person hallucinated that they saw a bigfoot

You are also leaving out the fact that these reports are investigated by enthusiasts, not investigators. How many investigations have led to any verifiable evidence?"

Okay, Let's do it this way:

A. Cryptid species explanation
or
B. Non-cryptid species explanation (which includes your list and mine, and any other which somebody thinks about later)

Can you say that 100% of incidents are in the "B" category, reliably confirmed? If not, you cannot take the "A" category out of consideration. And I did not refer to investigations that lead to a confirmation of a cryptid explanation. I referred to investigations leading to a non-cryptid explanation.

And the making waves thing is interesting. We all make waves by our very existance. Some waves may be bigger and more far reaching than others, but we all do make them. So is your concern:

A. That anybody is making waves?
b. That I specifically am making waves?
c. That I am making waves going in the opposite direction as your waves?
d. that you are getting seasick?
e. other.

AtomicMysteryMonster · 26th April 2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Seems to me, the theme of this forum is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way"

Yes.

Quote:

Is "are you crazy" or "WTF" friendly?

No. But I must admit I can sometimes understand the confusion that leads to them.

Quote:

And I'm still trying to understand why things posted elsewhere are of such concern here, as if either the other forum had no right to exist, or I had no right to express myself there.

Well, this is the PGF thread, so it's only natural that we'd discuss any new or particularly interesting developments related to the film.

I think the suspicions based on you posting on the BFF are pretty odd, but my not having a problem with it is based on me having experience similar to yours. I hung around on crypto boards when I randomly decided to check into cryptozoology-related stuff each year long before stumbling across the JREF. But I also realize that not everyone had similar experiences, so I can see why they're not seeing it the way I am.

I don't know if you've ever seen "They Live," so here's a link to the fight scene. Roddy Piper really wants the other guy to put on the glasses so he can see something important, but the other guy doesn't want to. This causes a great amount of frusteration between the two and this inevitably leads to a fight. I think that's what is going on here, only replace the glasses with research on factors directly related to (but not shown on) the film.

I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you. One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks. I doubt they planned for that, though. William Parcher's comment about crew tracks being written off as the work of others looking at the tracks after Patterson had left is a valid explanation for how such evidence could be left and "spun" to a hoaxer's favor. I can provide examples of hoaxers giving even wilder explanations after they've been busted (and still managed to get away with it).

I think this is frustrating to others because various people here have tried to help you by directing you towards such information and yet you don't. I know the reason for you not doing that, but I hope the above example will make you rethink that (seeing as how it'd probably help you avoid more incidents like this).

And for some random quotes I felt compelled to respond to:

Quote:

But if the statements of an "expert", like Dfoot, are used as an argument by skeptics, is that OKAY?

To be fair, Dfoot objects to being called an "expert." Well, that, and people here have disagreed with various aspects of his theories. Also, references to comments by Walas and Winston are brought up only as counterbalances to "someone from Hollywood says it can't be a suit", which actually predate the skeptical arguments.

Quote:

And why do you elevate my opinion above that of Chris Walas or Stan Winston (both who have Academty Awards, and I don't). Why not just tell "the believers" the ones with the Oscars say Patty's a suit.

We try to avoid appeals to authority (that's not to say it doesn't happen sometimes, though).

Quote:

Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

That's actually not an unreasonable explanation for Bigfoot. If you want, I can repost links to articles detailing cases in which staggeringly large amounts of reports on something turned out to be 100% incorrect. Since I have a link handy, here's a comment regarding feet that helped (but was only one of many points) knock me "off the fence" and onto the skeptical side of things when it came to Bigfoot.

I have some input on your recent comments concerning Roger Patterson's artistic abilities, but those'll have to wait for another post. I really, REALLY need to get some sleep...

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 12:38 AM

AMM:

Thank you for your post, and your reasoning.

Allow me to comment on one specific section:

"I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you. One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks. I doubt they planned for that, though. William Parcher's comment about crew tracks being written off as the work of others looking at the tracks after Patterson had left is a valid explanation for how such evidence could be left and "spun" to a hoaxer's favor. "

This is the kind of straightforward and calm explanation I would expect as a response, but nobody other than you seems capable of providing.

It sets a stage for a further discussion of the specific issue (footprints at the filming site).

Maybe we can explore this specific issue further together.

"I think this is frustrating to others because various people here have tried to help you by directing you towards such information and yet you don't. "

I've been trying now for 4 months to direct people to basic material issues and information, and they don't seem to be getting it either. The frustration cuts both ways. I'm frankly astonished at how much of what I write is missed by others.

But again, thank you for your well reasoned response.

Bill

ps:

"I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you."

I would welcome a list of any specific issues or details you feel I have missed, which may be relevent to or should factor into my own studies and notes.

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 01:57 PM

AMM:

Following up from the last post, I invite you to join me is trying to resolve the item you mentioned as follows:

"One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks."

From my observations of people here, they don't seem to be able to resolve much of anything, and more effort is directed at simply trying to put others down. Maybe the problem is they learn what they see, and they see others doing just that.

So What I propose to you is that you and I take this one issue you have mentioned (the footprints and the site) and we, together, see if we can discuss this one focused issue and arrive at a conclusion we both would confidently sign off on. And I will post that conclusion over in the thread with my notes that brought up the footprints on site issue, so the cleared up statement is there as well.

I propose we have this dialogue here, on line, so others interested can follow it (and obviously comment as they like), but you and I will keep our focus on our dialogue, and the construction of an understanding about this issue. If others can contribute facts and ideas in a cooperative way, we may quote them as well (attributed, of course).

We will respectfully quote and then answer every question the other asks, as fairly as we can, and we will never get into any silly semantics games or nit picky quibbles. We really will try to understand the true intent of the other's expressed ideas.

We will build on the things we agree on, and continue to discuss any points we disagree on. And we will see if we can reach a conclusion we both feel fairly reflects the important facts or considerations of the issue.

Hopefully, if others see us cooperating to achieve a mutual understanding, they may actually feel confident to try it with other issues, either with me or with other forum participants.

If this works for you, here's the starting point:

As you appear to know more about the issues of the filming site and footprints there, would you describe to me what you know or understand to be the facts and conditions of the matter. Specifically:

1. Can you describe what you know about the footprints found, human and "patty"?
2. Can you describe what you know about the weather, environment and timeline?
3. Can you describe the reported actions of people to investigate the site on the filming day or in days after?
In each case, you may describe your response in a simple paragraph, (more if you like) and in your own words, as you understand the matter, a generalized basic summary really.

And then let me respond with equal good faith, commenting on your remarks, and we will try to construct an understanding of the issue.

Bill

Correa Neto · 27th April 2008, 02:03 PM

Bill, a couple of comments:

1. Please understand that one can understand your explanations and arguments but still disagree with your conclusions. This is what is happening here. This is what quite often happens when a bigfoot proponent exposes his/her arguments here. I don't think people here ignore your qualifications. We just do not agree with your analysis and conclusions. Reminding us of your qualifications may be interpreted as argument on authority, and what we discuss are the evidences and the reasonings. More than once, at this and other threads I, as well as many other posters could have used the weight of our qualifications, and we choose not to do so. Yes, it may be frustrating sometimes. You must also understand that a number of arguments you raised here, such as the footprints left by the hoaxers, have already been discussed here a couple of times with other posters. If you feel tired of exposing your points, please note that we are also tired of exposing ours. Not to mention that quite often we've been faced with very rude and offensive attitudes from a number of posters. This creates wear and frustration and causes reactions that may not be very friendly, but certainly are lively...

Regardless of how hot and cumbersome the Patty costume could be, those folks would have been, in my opinion, able to perform using it. I've seen people without special preparations use for hours carnival costumes which were at least as hot and cumbersome as a Patty costume would be. I think PGF's resolution is not enough to detect the costume flaws you described. I think pareidolia and biased onservations can effectively account for many if not all of the features pointed by proponents as evidence of Patty's nature as a bigfoot. I think Patty moves like a man. I think one or two people are enough to help pulling the hoax (wearing the suit, shooting, etc.). I think the tracks left by the hoaxers during the filming can remain undetected and/or- even without the rain. Don't take the following as an offense. Regardless of your qualifications, I haven't seen in your work any evidences capable of changing my mind regarding Patty's nature. Its about the the quality of the data, its about the quality of the evidence; its not about your qualifications. The same is valid for Meldrum and Krantz.

2. The "if 99.9% of the sightings are explained by hoaxes/misidentification this still leaves 0.1% of sightings of real bigfeet" line. We discussed this more than once. Frankly, its a very weak line. Its the "bigfoot living in the gaps".
You wrote

Quote:

Can you say that 100% of incidents are in the "B" category, reliably confirmed?

Of course not, specially because there are missing pieces of information which, if available could either expose the incident as a hoax or a misidentification (or a real bigfoot, of course). If one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one must not forget that there are no reliable evidences to back the case of their existence, evidence which, if bigfeet were real creatures, one would expect to have. Sure, it is possible that a very unlikely chain of events and circunstances avoided these evidence of surfacing untill the time of writing. But this is... Well, unlikely. And gets more unlikely at each tick of the clock. This unlikely, implausible gap where bigfeet may live becomes smaller and smaller. Too small to host a population of giant apes scattered across North America. Oh, and note that if one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one can not rule out the possibility of their inexistence. And so far inexistence seems more likely in my opinion.
Aniway, I find interesting to see you advancing towards an approach not solely based on an analysis of if Patty as a suit is possible or not. I think the subject must be evaluated through more angles.

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 02:42 PM

Correa:

Thank you for your well reasoned and calmly explained post.

"Reminding us of your qualifications may be interpreted as argument on authority, and what we discuss are the evidences and the reasonings. "

My experience is the basis for my own judgment, so I must rely on it for my own analysis. If I mention it, the mention simply is to identify the basis of the opinion (saying "I have done it", as opposed to "I read about it" or "I heard somebody say it", or the like). It simply qualifies the basis of the opinion or remark.

"If you feel tired of exposing your points, please note that we are also tired of exposing ours. "

Point well taken. This is why my post above your, to AMM, was intended to see if we can consolidate the information of one specific issue to a conclusion which could be referenced in a more concise way, so people new to a discussion can more easily find what has been discussed and settled.

"Regardless of your qualifications, I haven't seen in your work any evidences capable of changing my mind regarding Patty's nature. Its about the the quality of the data, its about the quality of the evidence; its not about your qualifications."

I respect your differing perspective, and would support your effort to make up your own mind, based on the evidence you examine.

"Of course not, specially because there are missing pieces of information which, if available could either expose the incident as a hoax or a misidentification (or a real bigfoot, of course). If one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one must not forget that there are no reliable evidences to back the case of their existence, evidence which, if bigfeet were real creatures, one would expect to have. "

My point is simply that while the probability of a cryptid primate existing undetected is very low, the prospect of every incident being explained by hoax or other non-cryptid circumstances (given the number, geographic locations around the country, and the timeframe, throughout the last 100 years, maybe longer if Indian folklore is counted) is also low, although I do not know how to assign any weight to compare probabilities in a numerical manner. So I am mystified by the prospect that clearly a phonemenon exists, and has existed for the last century, and both potential explanations are seemingly improbable.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of which may be more improbable, as anyone in this forum is similarly entitled, as am I. My opinion is both options are highly improbable, thus the "mystified" status.

Bill

Drewbot · 27th April 2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Just curious, Drew, what "weak evidence" have I accepted? I rely on my industry experience and my understanding of materials and processes, and my own analysis of the PGfim data to form my judgments.

Calling your bluf here, Drew.

By Accepting this as counter-logic (It's the same acceptance of weak evidence that many Bigfooters subscribe to)

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

I can't prove every single one of them false, but, they have yet to prove one of them to be real.

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 03:10 PM

Drew;

"By Accepting this as counter-logic (It's the same acceptance of weak evidence that many Bigfooters subscribe to)

Originally Posted by Bill Munns
Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? "

I can't prove every single one of them false, but, they have yet to prove one of them to be real."

Drew, what evidence am I accepting? I am acknowledging there are things unknown or unproven, lacking evidence to arrive at a conclusion.

What "counter logic"?

Bill

Drewbot · 27th April 2008, 04:21 PM

I guess I should have put counter-logic in quotes. By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards.

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low.

If you think the probability that every report is (Non-Cryptid in nature) is low, than you are accepting that some of these reports are (Cryptid in nature), therefore accepting weak evidence. Since not one of them has ever been proven to be true.

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 04:56 PM

Drew;

"I guess I should have put counter-logic in quotes. By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards.

Originally Posted by Bill Munns
Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low.

"If you think the probability that every report is (Non-Cryptid in nature) is low, than you are accepting that some of these reports are (Cryptid in nature), therefore accepting weak evidence. Since not one of them has ever been proven to be true."

Drew:
what are you talking about? Where am I doing the following: "By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards."

How many times do I have to state so you get it that I have not accepted either argument or condition as proven and conclusive. the cryptid/non-cryptid debate is inconclusive by the lack of proven evidence overall.

Once again, I will ask you, what evidence am I accepting?

Bill

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 05:27 PM

Drew:

I really am going to try and reach an understanding with you, one last shot.
I do not accept "Bigfooter arguments" on face value, any more than I accept skeptic arguments on face value.

"Evidence" is something that may support a conclusion. If there are two basic options to explain something, and the evidence is weak or lacking to support one conclusion, that does not mean the other conclusion is automatically supported. It means "inconclusive", as in "not yet explained".

Your "counter-logic" seems to think there is only a cryptid/non-cryptid position, and you fail to acknowledge "inconclusive" or "undecided" as a middleground that favors neither side.

On the cryptid issue overall, I think there's reason to continue investigating the issue. I do not consider it "settled" either way. On the PG Film issue, I say again and again, I am mystified. That means "undecided" or "inconclusive".

You seem to think because I am not buying the evidence you choose to believe, I must be accepting the evidence of those on the other side. If so, you are wrong and are misunderstanding me.

Bill

Skeptical Greg · 27th April 2008, 06:15 PM

If you are rejecting evidence of a hoax, then you are accepting evidence that the subject of the PGF is a non-human North American primate ...

There is much evidence that it is a hoax, the costume aside ..

If the subject is not a non-human North American primate, it is a man in a suit, whether you can figure out how it was done or not..

Bill Munns · 27th April 2008, 06:25 PM

Diogenes:

"If you are rejecting evidence of a hoax, then you are accepting evidence that the subject of the PGF is a non-human North American primate ..."

Wrong. Undecided is an option. You may reject evidence as "inconclusive".

"There is much evidence that it is a hoax, the costume aside .. "

But no proven conclusion.

If the subject is not a non-human North American primate, it is a man in a suit, whether you can figure out how it was done or not.."

"IF"

well said.

Bill

AtomicMysteryMonster · 27th April 2008, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

I would welcome a list of any specific issues or details you feel I have missed, which may be relevent to or should factor into my own studies and notes.

Well, the stuff surrounding the filming that we'll be discussing later is probably the most important part. Looking into Patterson's connections to the entertainment industry and sleazy nature couldn't hurt, though. Hopefully the others can provide suggestions for you.

I also feel that it'd be wise to analyze the short-furred costumes used in The Lost World (the silent movie), King Kong Vs. Godzilla, The Bossburg "Cripplefoot" film, and the Harley Hoffman Bigfoot film. After all, it's possible that these known costumes have some of the same features that mystify you about Patty, which would definitely help your research. Like, say, if one of them shows signs of features that you had interpeted as requiring stretch furcloth (only the Hoffman figure might use that since it's modern) could tell you that something else is involved. Then again, maybe it's just a side effect of what William Parcher refers to as "peyote vision." I hope he reposts those stills he has that show the blinking eyes that Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler claimed to see on the PGF are more likely to be a type of film artifact.

On Patterson's artistic abilities:

From my experience (and viewpoint), those arguments are worded that way as a response to those who try to paint Patterson as a talentless know-nothing. Both are extreme, but I side with the "Patterson could" possibility since I know that one should never, ever underestimate a potential hoaxer.

As for Patterson:

He could sculpt - Combined with casting knowledge, theoretically give him the ability to make masks.

He had the necessary skills to mold/sew saddles - Aspects of this could be applied to costume-making.

He could copy the artwork of others
I understand that he built special wagons without using blueprints - Just general "don't underestimate the guy" type stuff.

In short, it's better to say that we can't know for sure if he could've built a costume, but that it's not as unlikely as some would claim.

Quote:

From my observations of people here, they don't seem to be able to resolve much of anything, and more effort is directed at simply trying to put others down.

Oh, they can. I've seen them do it plenty of times in the past. Hopefully now that you've shown to be more open to researching other aspects of the PGF besides the onscreen images, things'll calm down.

Quote:

So What I propose to you is that you and I take this one issue you have mentioned (the footprints and the site) and we, together, see if we can discuss this one focused issue and arrive at a conclusion we both would confidently sign off on. And I will post that conclusion over in the thread with my notes that brought up the footprints on site issue, so the cleared up statement is there as well.

Sadly, I've got a lot on my plate right now, so I can't give this as much attention as I would like to. I can't give all the sources, but I'll plug in a few ones that I was able to find quickly. I sincerely hope that other posters chime in with sources, clarifications, and corrections to any possible errors on my part. I'll do my best to fill in more sources when I get the time:

Here's the basic, "rough draft" version of what I know about the filming of the PGF:

Patterson and Gimlin go to Bluff Creek to look at some tracks discovered there (supposedly depicting three different individuals) for Patterson's Bigfoot documentary. They get there, but the tracks have been reduced to muddy globs that can't be cast due to rain and exposure to the elements over a period of time. If I remember correctly, those tracks (some of which had been cast by others before Patterson and Gimlin showed up) seem to be ones of extremely questionable authenticity, as you can see in this lengthy and extremely informative look at the matter here (this section notes their history).

On October 20, 1967 at 1:00 or 3:00pm (I'm not sure of the exact time since it varies depending on the account; Judging from the film, it was sunny that day.), the "Patty filming incident" supposedly happens. There are some contradictions about some details of this in the various interviews, the most important one in the case of ground details is the one about the horses. Depending on the interview, here's what is claimed:

Patterson falls off his horse - Claimed by Roger Patterson

Patterson jumps off his horse - Claimed by Bob Gimlin

The horse falls on Patterson, hurting his foot and bending a stirrup - Roger Patterson (he apparently started showing a bent stirrup at events Gimlin and he spoke at since he got sick of Gimlin saying the horse didn't fall on him)

Both Patterson's and Gimlin's horses fall over

Afterwards, they claim to track Patty for 3 point something miles up a mountain. Then they return to the film site and cast what they felt were the two best tracks. The tracks were a few inches deep into the ground, with some apparently getting up to three and a half inches deep in softer soil. The tracks were apparently 14 or 14.5 inches, although I've found a reference to a 16 inch track. Later accounts have Bob Gimlin jumping off a stump in an attempt to make tracks as deep as Patty's They might've had to go back to their truck (the filming site is near a road) to get the casting materials first, though. Then they go to call some people (including a Canadian museum in an attempt to get tracking dogs) and to send out the film.

Dfoot once made this interesting note, which he will hopefully provide more information about:

Originally Posted by DFoot

1) Gimlin said that AFTER he and Roger spent time with Hodgson they drove to the EUREKA POST OFFICE and air-mailed the film to DeAtley at 9 pm. PROBLEM? The post office was already closed.

2) Hodgson said that Roger told him they'd JUST GOTTEN BACK from the EUREKA POST OFFICE when he met them at 6:30 pm. They stayed there until they returned to their camp later that night. PROBLEM? That too doesn't fit with the things Patterson and Gimlin claimed went on prior to getting to the store. There simply wasn't enough time.

3) DeAtley always said he couldn't recall anything about the film, but one day he did give an explanation when told that the Post Office in Eureka would have been closed and neither Patterson's nor Gimlin's story matched reality. DeAtley then claimed his pilot had brought the film to him in his plane as he often ran such errands. PROBLEM? The pilot DeAtley used wasn't even in the USA all that year.

4) And finally, Bigfooters decided that the only thing to do is to claim that Gimlin couldn't tell the difference between the downtown Eureka Post Office and a local airport and so they must have had it specially flown from there. PROBLEM? Records show that NO PLANE flew anything to Washington at all that entire weekend.

Late at night/early next morning, it starts to rain heavily. Bob Gimlin tries to save some by covering them with cardboard. Seeing how soggy the cardboard gets, he opts to use tree bark.

The rain and flooding eventually gets so bad that they leave in fear that the road will be blocked and strand them there.

The next day, forest worker Lyle Laverty and his crew check out the site and takes some pictures of the tracks (both the covered and uncovered tracks).

Nine days later, Bob Titmus and his brother-in-law go to the site. He misses the tracks at first and then procedes to cast ten tracks. He claims that 10 tracks there showed signs of having been cast. This is odd, since Patterson claimed to have only done two. According to his map of the area, Patty looped around, went up a hill, and sat on a log to watch Patterson and Gimlin from above/behind. This contradicts Patterson and Gimlin's account of tracking Patty for several miles. He also noted that Patty's footprints seemed to start out of nowhere (There were no tracks that showed her entering the film site) and eventually vanished into pine needles. Titmus also claimed he could see Roger's prints from when he was filiming. To my knowledge, he didn't seem to make any reference to any impact of a fallen horse.

The thing is, Patterson and Gimlin had talked about how they barely made a dent in the soil while walking. How could such prints (especially unprotected ones) survive heavy rain? Furthermore, how could the unprotected Patty prints survive? Why weren't they reduced to "globs of mud" like the prints that brought Patterson and Gimlin there in the first place? How could that be when thet were at the mercy of rain heavy enough to threaten obstructing a road? To me, this makes it very likely that the originals were destroyed and that Patterson and Gimlin had to refake the tracks before leaving.

Roger Knights once came up with what he thought was an innocent explanation for the fact that the timeline for the October 20th filming didn't work and that the film was most likely filmed before when Patterson and Gimlin claimed it was. The problem with that explanation (as noted by William Parcher) is that Roger Patterson called for tracking dogs on the 20th (along with calls to toehrs saying he filmed Bigfoot that day). If the film is of a real creature and he filmed it before the 20th, we should expect him to ahve done that earlier. Furthermore, this would mean that Roger Patterson lied to countless people about what he was doing that day, which is extremely suspicious.

I should also note that Patty's tracks were never seen in the Bluff Creek area again after Patterson left.

I should also note that there are some issues with the "cast display footage." I find the possibility that the footage might be recycled from when Patterson dug some tracks into the ground in order to get footage of him casting tracks to be extremely compelling? Why? Because if that is the case, then it means the tracks he made before filming Patty match up exactly with Patty's feet. And if no instances of Patty's tracks can be found prior to the filming, I dare say that'd be smoking gun evidence that Patterson hoaxed it. The odds of him creating a footprint that matches up exactly to a real creature he'd film days later are very low.

Bill Munns · 28th April 2008, 12:04 AM

AMM:

lots to digest, but thank you for the info. I'll have a reply tomorrow (Monday).

Bill

bobbieshort · 28th April 2008, 12:11 AM

....here is an out-take you arm-chair critics can toss in the soup & stir it with a stick...... sheriff Edson unwittingly ruled out a third person with Patterson & Gimlin. Did Greg Long interview Edson, nope!

-----------------------------------------

Page 72 – 4th paragraph:

When I got home that night I remembered to enter even this minor incident into my diary, though from long experience, I knew better than to volunteer any of this information to my men when they questioned me about my findings. I didn’t want to pique their curiosity so they’d all go tramping through that area like a lynch mob. And in case you are wondering, my new status as “Boss man” didn’t do a thing to prevent the guys from teasing me about my avid interest in this subject. I had been talked about too long by now not to expect to go on being the target of their jokes and pranks.

”Charlie Bigfoot rides again!” they’d laugh whenever I couldn’t contain my excitement over finding new evidence. “You want to know the real truth about Charlie’s search for Bigfoot?” one of the guys said one day while we were having lunch. “He just found out he was adopted, so now he’s looking all over creation to find his real Daddy!” ”Hell, I heard all our ancestors used to swing from trees,” said another guy, “but I sure didn’t know it was that recent.” “Now you’ve gotta admit, there is a resemblance, big and brutal-lookin’ as old Charlie Edson is…” “That may not be as funny as you guys think, I said, though I couldn’t help laughing along with them. “After I’ve collected all the information I need, it may turn out we are all close kin to Bigfoot. What would you guys say to that?” (Prophetic words for 1979?)

During the next two years, all of 1965 and ’66, my buddy Red Collier and I went on frequent tracking and backpacking trips together, but in all that time we didn’t see a trace of Bigfoot. No tracks, no sightings, no shrieking wails in the night and not even a hint of their unmistakable odor.

“I wonder if we’ve succeeded at last, Red.” I said one day when I was feeling particularly discouraged.

“How do you mean, ’succeeded?’ Charlie? We haven’t seen hide nor hair of those creatures in years.”

“Succeeded in chasing them clear out of the state of California,” I said. “That’s what I mean, Red. What with more and more logging activity going on and a lot more nosey tourists, it could be we have finally driven the Bigfeet out of our read forever…”

“Aw come on, Charlie, you don’t believe that. They’re just layin’ low, that’s all. They’ve done that before, you know. You told me yourself you didn’t see your first Bigfoot ‘till more than three years after you first saw their tracks. They’re just doing what they know how to do best, that’s all. You know, like those news reporters say on TV, they’re keeping a low profile.” ”Which has to be a pretty smart trick when you’re more than eight feet tall,” I said with a laugh, though I really didn’t feel too cheerful.

As the months wore on and we had no luck in finding new evidence, I really feared the creatures had given up the northern California area for good. I certainly couldn’t afford to leave my business and family and just go tracking them up into Oregon, Washington or Canada – locations where they were still being sighted. No, the truth was I could only make a career of hunting for Bigfoot as long as he remained in the area where I made my living. The prospect of tailing the creatures half way around the world just didn’t get in with my budget.

The summer of 1967 was a particularly dry one, so my men and I were called upon to do a lot of double duty fighting nearby forest fires in an effort to reinforce the manpower of the Forestry Service. By the time fall arrived, everybody was praying for rain or an early snow, whichever came first, as long as it was wet. As for me, I also threw in a few prayers for the Bigfeet. I prayed they would all escape the fires alive and that I’d be able to see another of the creatures soon.

In October of that year, I almost got my wish. But a couple of other guys beat me to it – a couple of horse breeders, cattlemen by the names of Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson. Red and I happened to be scouting the Bluff Creek area up in Del Norte County the day those guys made that controversial film of a female Bigfoot on the run. I am sure if you have even the most vicarious interest in wildlife, you must have heard of that film by now. Hell, it was in all the papers, show on TV and in practically every country on earth.

As for whether or not Gimlin and Patterson shot film of a real Bigfoot or a man dressed up in a fur suit, it appears the jury is still out, weighting all the pros and cons. A lot of brilliant experts say yes, but there are a lot more who say “no way!”

Nobody asked me, but if they did, I would have to say, “Yes!” And not just out of loyalty to the Bigfoot either.

It wasn’t sheer coincidence that Red and I happened to be tracking in that area that day we accidentally saw Patterson and Gimlin go galloping past of on horseback. Of course, at the time we didn’t know who the hell those guys were or what they were up too. We only knew we didn’t care to get involved in any kind of social chitchat; not have to explain what we were doing in the area. We just squatted down and hid behind some underbrush until they rode past us. When we saw they were lugging a lot of equipment with them on a packhorse, I guess we just figured they were timber surveyors. Either that or gold miners as there had been a lot of prospecting for gold in that area in recent months.

It wasn’t until later that we found out it was only about a half hour after we spotted them that they must have spotted that female Bigfoot and gotten their historical 16mm film.

Now for the “coincidence.” We were in that precise area for a reason. Some hunters had reported seeing tracks in this vicinity only a few days earlier. And judging by the location they described when Red and I questioned them, it had to be right in the same general area where Patterson and his buddy had filmed their female. As I said, they got there first. But since I didn’t have a movie camera with me, I’m kind of glad they did, because controversial or not, I like to think at last somebody came up with what I fully believe to be “concrete evidence” that these creatures exist.

For one thing, the size of the tracks those hunters told me about jived with what Patterson and Gimlin found after the “star” of their film ran off. The prints were between fourteen and fifteen inches in length. Unquestionably female prints, since all the male tracks I had found were usually between seventeen and eighteen inches long. Also consensus had the height of the female as seven feet or thereabouts. That too, coincided with what Red and I had observed in the past; the females were generally between six and a half to seven feet tall, with the males averaging between eight and nine and a half feet tall.

As for the possibility that a third person had been with Patterson and Gimlin and had dressed up in a fur suit, both Red and I will swear we only saw two men ride past us that day, not three. And since we had been scouting that area for many hours before we saw those two guys on horseback, it’s not too likely that mysterious “third man” could have gone on ahead, since I presume he would have traveled on horseback too, and there was only one time that day when we heard or saw any horseback riders in the area; when we saw Patterson and Gimlin gallop past us.

Come to think of it, I sure wished I had known what those guys were up to when we saw them. Instead of hiding, I would have yelled out, “Take me along!”

And who knows, maybe that female was one of the same creatures I had seen before and chances are if she remembered me and I wasn’t as much of a stranger to her as the other two guys were, she might have hung around the area a little longer before taking off, resulting in a few more feet of film maybe and thus more evidence. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way.

Red and I got sidetracked in an effort to keep the secret routes and back roads that the tourists knew nothing about. That way we felt we had a better chance to do our tracking completely unobserved even though this usually involved our taking the longest way around rather than a short cut. That is how we got detoured up through Elk Valley and accidentally came upon some tracks we hadn’t counted on.

True, this was quite a way from our intended destination but as I mentioned, it had been two years since I had seen any sign of the Bigfoot. As a result, I got so carried away with excitement, you would think it was fifteen years earlier and I was getting my very first look at these tracks. This was also the first time I was just excited and not scared.

Red’s reaction was a little different. For the first thirty seconds or so, he seemed absolutely jubilant. Then when he saw how fresh the tracks were, he got very wary though first he tried to laugh it off by doing his “Lenny” imitation from Of Mice And Men “Which way did they go, George?”

Poor Red! I thought as I took out my tape measure and measured the seventeen and a half inch tracks, thinking they were very fresh indeed. The expression on his face looked as if part of him wanted to go on following those tracks while another part of him – his feet—would much prefer to backtrack in a hurry! “I’ll bet this guy is only about forty minutes ahead of us, Red” I said, “what’s your opinion?”

”Don’t panic, Charlie,” he said, panicking.

“Why should I panic? Do you realize how far a Bigfoot can go in forty minutes?”

Sure I do. But wouldn’t that depend on the direction he was headed?” I mean, even if we suddenly smelled one of them real close and we started running, how do we know we won’t run smack into it?”

“Who running,” I said…

”I think I smell one of them, Charlie. I didn’t want to tell you….”
---------------------------------------------------------------
End of except: Page 77 from “My Travels With Bigfoot, a true life odyssey” by Sheriff Charles “Charlie” Edson 1979-- Crescent Publications, Los Angeles, California

Edson, Charles W., Author, meticulous keeper of a diary, life time logger and Siskiyou County Sheriff in California; author of the 1979 “My Travels with Bigfoot, a true life Odyssey.” Edson first spotted a Sasquatch in 1955 while he was Sheriff in Siskiyou County. Edson continued searching for the creatures, personally spotting Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin riding horse back just thirty minutes before the famous filming of a Sasquatch, October 20, 1967. He was out tracking Sasquatch footprints with logger friend Red Collier in the same area at the same time. At the time he thought they were gold prospectors.

Edson died October 11,1999, leaves widow Genevieve “Ruby” Edson and two sons. I will remember Charlie’s gentle wisdom and words of advice; he was truly a gentleman. …. Bobbie Short

William Parcher · 28th April 2008, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by sierra4

....here is an out-take you arm-chair critics can toss in the soup & stir it with a stick...... sheriff Edson unwittingly ruled out a third person with Patterson & Gimlin. Did Greg Long interview Edson, nope!

Bob Heironimus does not claim to have been at Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967.

Besides that, "Charlie Bigfoot" sounds like just another Classic Bigfooter putting on the folk tales for others to enjoy.

William Parcher · 28th April 2008, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Then again, maybe it's just a side effect of what William Parcher refers to as "peyote vision." I hope he reposts those stills he has that show the blinking eyes that Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler claimed to see on the PGF are more likely to be a type of film artifact.

Quote:

Here's the basic, "rough draft" version of what I know about the filming of the PGF:

Quote:

On October 20, 1967 at 1:00 or 3:00pm (I'm not sure of the exact time since it varies depending on the account; Judging from the film, it was sunny that day.), the "Patty filming incident" supposedly happens.

1:30pm seems to be the most common exact time reported by P&G.

Quote:

The horse falls on Patterson, hurting his foot and bending a stirrup - Roger Patterson (he apparently started showing a bent stirrup at events Gimlin and he spoke at since he got sick of Gimlin saying the horse didn't fall on him).

Roger supposidly showed the bent stirrup to Al Hodgeson later that night. It would mean that Roger had to remove the bent stirrup from his saddle. How could Gimlin not take not of that, since they were together?

Quote:

Afterwards, they claim to track Patty for 3 point something miles up a mountain. Then they return to the film site and cast what they felt were the two best tracks.

I believe Titmus claimed to see that three tracks had been cast. Patterson publicly presented only two.

Quote:

They might've had to go back to their truck (the filming site is near a road) to get the casting materials first, though.

They did have to make a round-trip to the truck to get the plaster.

Quote:

The next day, forest worker Lyle Laverty and his crew check out the site and takes some pictures of the tracks (both the covered and uncovered tracks).

It was actually three days later... on Monday the 23rd.

Quote:

Nine days later, Bob Titmus and his brother-in-law go to the site.

Titmus was uncertain if he found the tracks nine or ten days after the filmed encounter. He was alone when he found and cast the ten tracks.

Quote:

He misses the tracks at first and then procedes to cast ten tracks. He claims that 10 tracks there showed signs of having been cast. This is odd, since Patterson claimed to have only done two.

Again, I think Titmus says he saw that three tracks showed plaster residue.

Quote:

According to his map of the area, Patty looped around, went up a hill, and sat on a log to watch Patterson and Gimlin from above/behind.

Not on a log. Titmus said she sat in ferns.

Quote:

This contradicts Patterson and Gimlin's account of tracking Patty for several miles. He also noted that Patty's footprints seemed to start out of nowhere (There were no tracks that showed her entering the film site) and eventually vanished into pine needles.

No, it was P&G who lost her tracks on pine needles after following her sign for 3.5 miles. Titmus didn't lose her sign (as she moved away from the fern sit), but instead chooses not to follow it.

Quote:

Titmus also claimed he could see Roger's prints from when he was filiming. To my knowledge, he didn't seem to make any reference to any impact of a fallen horse.

He also doesn't mention the array of Laverty crew bootprints which would have been "fresher" than those of Patterson.

Quote:

Furthermore, how could the unprotected Patty prints survive? Why weren't they reduced to "globs of mud" like the prints that brought Patterson and Gimlin there in the first place? How could that be when thet were at the mercy of rain heavy enough to threaten obstructing a road? To me, this makes it very likely that the originals were destroyed and that Patterson and Gimlin had to refake the tracks before leaving.

I sorta agree. But I go with the Bob Heironimus version. Weeks before October 20th, he wears the suit for filming. Immediately afterwards he leaves for home (Yakima) with instructions to mail the film roll to DeAtley from Eureka(?). P&G stay behind at Bluff Creek. He says that P&G were to "make some fake tracks" at the film site right after he left. This is still weeks before October 20th. Then on the 20th (at this point the film is already developed and edited), P&G are back at Bluff Creek to prepare the fake trackway for the official announcement to the world. They pretend that they had filmed Patty that day, but instead it was weeks prior. They may or may not have done some additional filming on the 20th (such as the stomp test and/or the cast display scene, etc).

Quote:

I should also note that Patty's tracks were never seen in the Bluff Creek area again after Patterson left.

Titmus did return to Bluff Creek later and of course he found Bigfoot tracks. No mention that these matched Patty. I don't think he ever went looking for BF tracks without finding any. I believe that Titmus was predominantly creating the tracks that he would "find". He may have been the most productive track hoaxer of all time.

Quote:

I should also note that there are some issues with the "cast display footage." I find the possibility that the footage might be recycled from when Patterson dug some tracks into the ground in order to get footage of him casting tracks to be extremely compelling? Why? Because if that is the case, then it means the tracks he made before filming Patty match up exactly with Patty's feet. And if no instances of Patty's tracks can be found prior to the filming, I dare say that'd be smoking gun evidence that Patterson hoaxed it. The odds of him creating a footprint that matches up exactly to a real creature he'd film days later are very low.

Patterson may have designed the costume feet to sorta match his idea of Bigfoot feet. He could have used his previously-made fake footprints (in substrate) and plaster casts as models (molds?) for these costume feet. When a mime wears the suit, any decent impressions made by the fake feet could serve as "Bigfoot tracks". He could also add to or improve these tracks using tools (plaster or cement casts?) that match the costume feet. He could even bring the suit (or just the legs/feet) and tools back to Bluff Creek on the 20th and use it to make another (or improve what was left weeks earlier) trackway.

If the stride was genuinely much longer than a human stride, then the tracks were not created by a mime simply walking in the suit. This would require special fakery technique. Or, a real Bigfoot.

Correa Neto · 28th April 2008, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Correa:
My experience is the basis for my own judgment, so I must rely on it for my own analysis. If I mention it, the mention simply is to identify the basis of the opinion (saying "I have done it", as opposed to "I read about it" or "I heard somebody say it", or the like). It simply qualifies the basis of the opinion or remark.

As is mine, at least in part, since it is used to evalute information.
I have very few -and probably minor- problems with your explanations on how to build a bigfoot costume and what sort of flaws are to be expected. Here's where the experience or qualifications enter. From your professional experience you provided the data, the evidence, the evidence, in this case is composed by descriptions of costume building techniques and their telltale marks.

My disagreements with you start when you look for these flaws at PGF. At this point, I really don't think qualifications matter or should be used as an argument.

A similar situation happens in respect to how hard it would be the Patty performance and the traces left by the hoaxers.

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Point well taken. This is why my post above your, to AMM, was intended to see if we can consolidate the information of one specific issue to a conclusion which could be referenced in a more concise way, so people new to a discussion can more easily find what has been discussed and settled.

Well, the information is around... Not organized, but it is around here. Somewhere. Of course a place showing the skeptic look towards Bigfoot would be nice to have. But sometimes I think people should use more the search function.

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

I respect your differing perspective, and would support your effort to make up your own mind, based on the evidence you examine.

My present position, again, was created by the evaluation of several lines of evidence. Once again I suggest that people must look from several angles.

Another interesting approach- why different people have different perceptions of Patty? Why I perceive “a bloke in a gorilla suit” while others see a real animal?

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

My point is simply that while the probability of a cryptid primate existing undetected is very low, the prospect of every incident being explained by hoax or other non-cryptid circumstances (given the number, geographic locations around the country, and the timeframe, throughout the last 100 years, maybe longer if Indian folklore is counted) is also low, although I do not know how to assign any weight to compare probabilities in a numerical manner. So I am mystified by the prospect that clearly a phonemenon exists, and has existed for the last century, and both potential explanations are seemingly improbable.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of which may be more improbable, as anyone in this forum is similarly entitled, as am I. My opinion is both options are highly improbable, thus the "mystified" status.

An analogy, quite often used, and quite often misunderstood by proponents:
For how long people have been seeing things that could be interpreted as lake monsters, ghosts, gnomes, etc.? Should I feel mystified by these reports? Is this an indication that there is something other than misidentifications, hallucinations, daydreams, false memories, hoaxes, etc. at the roots of these phenomena?

William Parcher · 28th April 2008, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities?

I think it is true that there are at least 1000 incidents that are archived in various places. The BFRO has a big list. Most of these are encounter stories with no evidence (pictures, casts, etc).

It is very common for Bigfooters to say the same thing as you. How could every single one of those incidents be false (for whatever reasons)? If only one of them is true, then we have a Bigfoot in the woods. There are some problems with that reasoning. Correa just pointed out one of them.

Another problem is that although we can see and count the archived reports (let's call it 1000 for simplicity), we have missing data on the total number of reports submitted as Bigfoot encounters. I've read some posts by BFRO investigators that something like 90% of all submitted reports are rejected (never put on public view) because they are not worthy of documenting. This could be because they are obviously false (hoax or misidentification etc) and can be discarded out-of-hand.

What this means is that we cannot properly evaluate the number of people who are intentionally creating encounter story fiction. Would it not be interesting if we could know something like... 10,000 people have submitted BF-type reports, and only 1000 are worth documenting because those at least sound somewhat believeable.

All of a sudden we could possibly say, "Wow, lots of people are compelled to fake Bigfoot encounter stories and the remaining 1000 might only be the 'best' of the fakes."

Many thousands of fiction novels are written each year. Only some of them make the Best Sellers lists.

Correa Neto · 28th April 2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

All of a sudden we could possibly say, "Wow, lots of people are compelled to fake Bigfoot encounter stories and the remaining 1000 might only be the 'best' of the fakes."

And also the best misidentifications, daydreams, hallucinations, false memories, etc...

Skeptical Greg · 28th April 2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

”I think I smell one of them, Charlie. I didn’t want to tell you….”

I smell something too...

There are so many problems with that story, I don't know where to begin ..

Was '67 a dry year, with lots of forest fires in northern CA ?

Skeptical Greg · 28th April 2008, 09:22 AM

Here's a little tidbit I don't think I've posted here before..
An excerpt from Patterson's own newsletter, writing how he tracked Patty for 3 miles .. and also recounting that his horse fell ..

Bill Munns · 28th April 2008, 01:00 PM

AMM:

Let me begin with the footprints on site issue we had discussed. I'm actually seeing a conclusion coming together quickly, from my perspective.

I have a few questions, which perhaps you, WP or others can answer:

1. Is Laverty's arrival on the scene "with crew" documented reasonably well (several people, not just him alone)?

2. Did Laverty have any knowledge that Patterson had (or would claim) to have filmed a creature making the footprints found?

My point being, if he came across footprints, I would not think he had any expectation a film showing the creature making the foorprints existed. And if not expecting any filming to have occured when a creature was present, he would not have any concern for any evidence of human activity on the site, other than observing evidence of human activity in relation to the footprints.
Any reports or evidence toward or against this idea?

Correa:

"My disagreements with you start when you look for these flaws at PGF. At this point, I really don't think qualifications matter or should be used as an argument. "

Well, I have two choices. I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added)" and no explanation of how I got to that opinion, or I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added) and then explain my experience which has shaped or influenced my opinion.

I prefer to explain how my opinion was formed or on what it is based, and that inevitably requires me to mention my experience at times.

The point of explaining how an opinion is formed is to allow others more options to test the opinion by their own investigation and research. An opinion without any explaination often leaves people simply wondering "where did that idea come from?"

Bill

Correa Neto · 28th April 2008, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Well, I have two choices. I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added)" and no explanation of how I got to that opinion, or I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added) and then explain my experience which has shaped or influenced my opinion.

I prefer to explain how my opinion was formed or on what it is based, and that inevitably requires me to mention my experience at times.

The point of explaining how an opinion is formed is to allow others more options to test the opinion by their own investigation and research. An opinion without any explaination often leaves people simply wondering "where did that idea come from?"

Bill

I understand your position. One of the things I am trying to say is that it can be easilly misinterpreted as an argument from authority. Not to mention that in some cases, the line separating both cases may be quite blurry. Note that at any moment there was a major questioning regarding the building methods and their telltale marks. Its quite clear from where it all came from.

Again, the disagreements are related to other topics.

An analogy: Suppose I am an engineer with 40 years of experience building bridges and we are discussing the possible causes of a collapse based on some footage. I can write about building methods and collapse causes and eventually reffer to my background. When we center our discussion on questioning if the footage has enough resolution to display features (say, corrosion marks) which would favor my idea or yours, my bridge-building background is not very relevant at this specific stage. This is my second point.

Of course, ideally the refferences should be towards publicated data, say, textbooks. Since as far as I know there are not too many books written on how to build gorilla suits, you must mention your experience... And it has a lot of weight.

However, on the other hand, I do think we all have the right to disagree with experts, within their field of expertise, when the data and or the analysis presented are found lacking. If we are wrong, then they will have no problem showing our mistakes. For example, I question Meldrum's and Krantz's conclusions, regardless of their qualifications because the problems I see at their analysis. This is my third point.

Well, I'm afraid we may be heading towards an OT digression. Maybe it would be better to focus at other issues we previously touched.

Correa Neto · 28th April 2008, 02:54 PM

Sorry, double post.

Crowlogic · 28th April 2008, 03:56 PM

One substantial problem within the membership of this forum is the near total dissmissal of any and all expierence that a poster or posters may have concerning anything that is not swimming with the prevailing current. For instance during a certain period of my post graduate life I spent huge blocks of time in wilderness and semi wilderness not as a tourist, footer, hunter or lumberjack but as a trained observer dispatched to those areas to perform legitmate scientific work. The specifics of that work I've made no secret of. Yet I find it interesting that there are those that dismiss my observations concerning the environment I was working in because I was doing water research and not some other "accepted or forum scantioned" purpose for being where I was at the time.

By now there isn't any one cohesive story that can explain the PGF. Not William Parcher, not Atomic Mystery Monster, not Bob Gimlin, not Roger Patterson. The list of point counter point is impossibly too long convoluted and the trail is way too cold to ever nail the thing down. However people like Bill Munns and D'foot are the one's most likely within the confines of this and a few other web communities to produce working examples of the things we see on the PGF. Rather than turn thier efforts into a pissing contest why not support the effort. Isn't this place about truth.

Bill Munns · 28th April 2008, 04:32 PM

Correa:

"I understand your position. One of the things I am trying to say is that it can be easilly misinterpreted as an argument from authority. "

We do agree here. That is why I try to explain my positions, with supporting facts, ideas, or examples. By giving the reader some basis to further research the issue, it empowers the listener to exercise some of their own logical authority or critical thinking, and make up their own mind.

As for being misintrepreted, to some extend that would seem to occur regardless of what a person perceived as an authority says. So I simply try in good faith to provide more information, so others can make up their minds.

"However, on the other hand, I do think we all have the right to disagree with experts, within their field of expertise, when the data and or the analysis presented are found lacking."

I support you here completely.

Perhaps this above isn't specifically On Topic for the PGF, but it is essential foundation for debating the PGF.

But I do welcome the discussion returning to PGF specifics, as you do.

Bill

Correa Neto · 28th April 2008, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Crowlogic

One substantial problem within the membership of this forum is the near total dissmissal of any and all expierence that a poster or posters may have concerning anything that is not swimming with the prevailing current. For instance during a certain period of my post graduate life I spent huge blocks of time in wilderness and semi wilderness not as a tourist, footer, hunter or lumberjack but as a trained observer dispatched to those areas to perform legitmate scientific work. The specifics of that work I've made no secret of. Yet I find it interesting that there are those that dismiss my observations concerning the environment I was working in because I was doing water research and not some other "accepted or forum scantioned" purpose for being where I was at the time.

By now there isn't any one cohesive story that can explain the PGF. Not William Parcher, not Atomic Mystery Monster, not Bob Gimlin, not Roger Patterson. The list of point counter point is impossibly too long convoluted and the trail is way too cold to ever nail the thing down. However people like Bill Munns and D'foot are the one's most likely within the confines of this and a few other web communities to produce working examples of the things we see on the PGF. Rather than turn thier efforts into a pissing contest why not support the effort. Isn't this place about truth.

Crow, I think that perhaps you should reconsider some of those words of yours. We do not dismiss the experiences or positions of those who are "swimming against the tide". We dismiss unreliable information and flawed (or poorly based) reasonings/claims, regardless of their vectors.

The root of your "extinct bigfeet" claim/proposition are Native American myths and old reports, coupled with the fact that bigfeet-like species lived in the past at Africa and Asia. You feel this is enough to support a proposal- bigfeet are a real species. Your next step is to rely on your field observations (no bigfoot experience) and in the lack of (recent) good pieces of evidence to back a claim- the species was extinct. OK so far?

Now, here are the problems I see with your proposal (of course you have the right to disagree with me, but please forget your disagreements for the sake of this discussion):

1. Personally I do not consider what I presently know about Native American lore as being enough to back the previous existence of these creatures. I consider the old reports as being even more unreliabe.

2. I can not find a good reason to accept Native American lore and old reports but dismiss recent reports.

3. The lack of fossils of bigfeet-like creatures in North America or anywhere near the land bridge.

Note that none of the reasons above cited are actualy related to your field experiences. Note also that every now and then I, as well as other posters here, wrote that the many people who carry on field works would, by now, probably have found reliable evidence of these animals if they existed. Under this aspect, I feel it is incorrect to say your field experience was dismissed, because at least in part, we agree. Unless I got completely wrong your ideas.

Oh, and regarding the "pissing contest", well, I don't see how we turned the debate between Bill and Dfoot in such a thing. Its a debate, and you will find posts where we disagree with Bill and others where we disagree with Dfoot. Its an open forum, and I think we, while keeping civil and within the forum rules, can and should debate.

RayG · 28th April 2008, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Crowlogic

For instance during a certain period of my post graduate life I spent huge blocks of time in wilderness and semi wilderness not as a tourist, footer, hunter or lumberjack but as a trained observer dispatched to those areas to perform legitmate scientific work. The specifics of that work I've made no secret of. Yet I find it interesting that there are those that dismiss my observations concerning the environment I was working in because I was doing water research and not some other "accepted or forum scantioned" purpose for being where I was at the time.

Who is dismissing your environmental observations? Skeptics? Advocates? Both? Regardless, I can quickly think of at least two reasons for dismissing your observations:

1. you were working down east and not in the PNW, and;
2. you never observed a squatch.

RayG

25th April 2008, 09:54 PM	#13881
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Diogenes; "When can we expect the book, Bill ?" Don't have a clue. I'd want to do a lot more research and tests on materials and film resolution issues filming the materials (the Part 11 notes) and haven't got any funding lined up yet. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

25th April 2008, 10:11 PM	#13882
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	Maybe it's just me... but the most recent posts here remind me of the fight scene in "They Live."
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	__________________ Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

25th April 2008, 10:29 PM	#13883
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	AMM: Given you are one of the more rational voices on this forum, can you help me understand why my opinions seem to provoke the reactions you were reminded of? I'd welcome a second opinion. Seems to me, the theme of this forum is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" Is "are you crazy" or "WTF" friendly? And I'm still trying to understand why things posted elsewhere are of such concern here, as if either the other forum had no right to exist, or I had no right to express myself there. Just curious. I'm still trying to figure out the mentality here. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

26th April 2008, 12:14 AM	#13884
Aepervius Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,218	If I may add my grain of salt, I think the WTF comes from the frustration that you posit you have no prejudiced position and are inquiring the pgf neutrally using your knowledge (or at least you don't say you are a believer), but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax (like "3 guys could not have pulled it off" and I pass many other). The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer, but the argument of the expert aren't really based on mucho evidence , if any, and from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it. shrug my expertise in biology tells me anyway all those discussion and expertise you offer, is nothing in comparison to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, nothing since PGF and patty was one-of-a-kind... Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not). I expect the WTF will be dropped (they are against forum rule as far as I know).
Aepervius Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,218	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism

26th April 2008, 01:06 AM	#13885
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Aepervius: "If I may add my grain of salt, I think the WTF comes from the frustration that you posit you have no prejudiced position and are inquiring the pgf neutrally using your knowledge (or at least you don't say you are a believer), but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax (like "3 guys could not have pulled it off" and I pass many other). The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer, but the argument of the expert aren't really based on mucho evidence , if any, and from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it. shrug my expertise in biology tells me anyway all those discussion and expertise you offer, is nothing in comparison to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, nothing since PGF and patty was one-of-a-kind... Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not). I expect the WTF will be dropped (they are against forum rule as far as I know)." Thank you for your very well reasoned note. I'll see if i can respond with similar reasoning. "you posit you have no prejudiced position " Well. I do not have any true absolute opinion on whether "patty" is real. I have said repeatedly, what's in the film mystifies me. And that is truly my frame of mind in this matter. It seems that others simply refuse to accept that as true, and I don't know what more I can say to get the point across. Is "I'm mystified" a prejudiced position? "but on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge even a low probability that this could be a hoax " Then why do I keep saying, "If it's a suit"? I've probably said that a hunderd times or more, in all my postings. I even calculated a list of issues and their probability or improbability, in a way very structured and reasoned format. But logically, if there are two essential options, "A" Patty's real, and "B" Patty's a hoax done with a suit, and I say I'm mystified or I'm undecided, doesn't that acknowledge both options are still being considered? That's what it means to me. "The frustration probably comes from the fact that AGAIN one which tout himself as an expert will be used as an argument by believer," But if the statements of an "expert", like Dfoot, are used as an argument by skeptics, is that OKAY? And why do you elevate my opinion above that of Chris Walas or Stan Winston (both who have Academty Awards, and I don't). Why not just tell "the believers" the ones with the Oscars say Patty's a suit. Every Professional in the makeup field, when asked about this issue, offers an opinion, and that opinion feeds people who believe along the line of the opinion. I've seen "the list" of over a dozen Makeup people who are described as believing Patty's a fake. These dozen opinions feed the skeptical proponent's mind, don't they? "from my POV is biased even if don't want to admit it." Do you know the difference between a perspective view and an orthographic view? (Not being demeaning to you here, I honestly don't know if you are familiar with these terms) A perspective view has one fixed point from which things are perceived, in relation to that one point. An orthographic view is instead a perception independent of a specific point of view (although it may have a general direction of view). Humans all perceive the world from their "perspective", and any perspective can conceivably be argued as a "bias" by someone taking another point of view. So the remark of another person's bias is of itself, merely an opinion, unless you wish to acknowledge every person is biased, by virtue of their perspective. "to other damning fact (no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA, " Don't you mean, to other damning "absense" of facts? Not playing semantics here, and don't want to rely on that tired cliche "absense of facts is not proof of absense". Just reads to me that you left out a word. let's look first at the essence of this concern of yours. Do you know if I have expressed any specific remarks about the "no bones, no corpse, no blood, no sqat, no DNA," so you actually know my opinion of this particular issue. Did you know that the absense of such is actually one of the strongest reasons for my being mystified? I struggle continually with the issue of why such haven't been found and verified. But that is the larger "Is Bigfoot real" issue, not the "is Patty a suit" issue. So your remark in this portion seems to merge the two, when I thought the "Patty" issue was only a subset of the larger issue, because BF could be real even if Patty were proven to be a hoax. I also wonder why would blood or scat or DNA be a "Patty" issue? "Would not that make you DOUBT a little bit in your own "expertise" that this cannot be a costume ? Apparently not)." Again, I fail to see how blood, scat, or DNA issues would impact on my investigation of whether or not Patty is suit? The issues I see as helping determine if Patty is a suit are issues of furcloth materials and their motion dynamics, the practicalities of seams and their placement, and such. And the practicalities of how a suit is made, worn, filmed, and attended to during its use are all considerations I take into consideration, based on my experience working with them. I've said I agree with John Chambers' reported statement that if patty's a suit, she's a better one than he could do. Isn't that an acknowledgement that it could be a costume? Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

26th April 2008, 01:47 AM	#13886
Aepervius Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,218	Bill Munn, since we are on definition, Do you know what "inference" is ? How about this : * there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume. * if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer * the history of the con job patterson did hint at the probability he was hoaxed is low (if this was an hoax). But this is beside the point. * now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US. This is where the bone and blood comes in play. Anybody will agreee that the probability is relatively low in absence of biological evidence (any professional biologist at least, which you would surely agree knows a bit more on this than us). The only point hinting at the existence of a biological unknown entity would be the pgf. A Single point without any biological artifacts (only a film). * Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact. * You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. Compare with the previous statement. Rince and repeat. QED. Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume. This is quite an error, (a fallacy I would dare say) because as said before there could be a wide pan of knowledge on such costume type you might be missing (or are you telling us you have omniscience on costume technic ?). You are trying to prove something by proving a negative. The only way to go would be to prove a positive. Either prove that this is a real animal or prove this is a costume. With trying to prove "this is not a costume" you are only fooling two people : yourself and the BF community.
Aepervius Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,218	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism Last edited by Aepervius; 26th April 2008 at 01:54 AM.

26th April 2008, 02:28 AM	#13887
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Aepervius: "Bill Munn, since we are on definition, Do you "inference" ? How about this : * there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume. * if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer * the history of the con job patterson did hint at the probability he was hoaxed is low (if this was an hoax). But this is beside the point. * now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US. This is where the bone and blood comes in play. Anybody will agreee that the probability is relatively low in absence of biological evidence (any professional biologist at least, which you would surely agree knows a bit more on this than us). The only point hinting at the existence of a biological unknown entity would be the pgf. A Single point without any biological artifacts (only a film). * Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact. * You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. Compare with the previous statement. Rince and repeat. QED. Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume. This is quite an error, (a fallacy I would dare say) because as said before there could be a wide pan of knowledge on such costume type you might be missing (or are you telling us you have omniscience on costume technic ?). You are trying to prove something by proving a negative. The only way to go would be to prove a positive. Either prove that this is a real animal or prove this is a costume. With trying to prove "this is not a costume" you are only fooling two people : yourself and the BF community." Interesting that you posted the above logic structure qa, because I was working on the following at the same time: Just looking at the PG film issue, in a basic logic diagram: step one: a. Real creature b. person in a suit Step Two: If (b) is correct: a. Roger, Bob, and a third person faked the film b. Roger faked Bob or vice verse c. Somebody faked both Roger and Bob Step Three: If (a) is correct, a. Did the three do it all by themselves? b. Did they do it with some outside help preparing the suit? c. Did they have professional help, both in preparation and on the filming event? All I've ever said is, if Step one is proven to be a suit, and Step Two is proven to be Roger, Bob, and a third person faked the film, then I tend to think the Step Three option that makes the most sense to me, based on what I see in the film and my experience making suits and films, is "C" (they had professional help both preparing the suit and at the filming.) And if "C" is true, I would expect that there may have been some evidence of such in the ground, because that extra person activity would be hard to completely hide from others who later examine the site. Now comparing yours and mine: *" there are only two possibilities. This is a real animal or a guy in costume." We agree. "* if this is a guy in costume, then this was a hoax. Either Patterson was hoaxed or he was the hoaxer" We agree. "* now let us see, what is the probability that a giant bipedial primate could exists in the US" Don't know how to calculate odds of this, to assign a number to the probability, but as i understand biology and wildlife studies, the prospects of an unknown species existing but escaping detection from scientific confirmation would vary inversely with A. Its size (bigger less likely), B. It's habitat (less likely the more humans enter or explore the habitat) and C. The extent people are searching for it (the more people are searching and not finding it, the less likely it is). So we have three "Less likelys" in a row. "* Therefore the probability of the pgf being an hoax weight heavily against the probability of it being a live animal without prior biological artifact." Your reasoning weakens here, because while with BF in general, the above probability is calculated, based on the absense of anything to validate the cryptid. So your reasoning is based on absense of things, reasonably suggesting or inferring rarity or non-existance. But the PGF is existant and there is something on that film. Fact. And that something has enough visual information to determine some factual particulars of the film figure. Example, it can be determined to be a bipedal walking figure, with apparent breast-like shapes on the front torso, etc. There are enough frames of the film to compare light patterns across the body from frame to frame, and a full motion sequence to evaluate the physiological actions of walking, turning the head, etc. So there is something, and that something can be evaluated, to some extent. Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low. "Additionally you make the error of thinking that if you CANNOT think of a cheap technic used for it to be a costume in the 60th then it cannot be a costume." If a material (such as standard furcloth), is mechanically capable of pliable flexing and bending, but mechanically incapable of elongation, then when I see a mechanical motion which does not bend or flex based on the mechanical dynamics I know are the physical limits of a furcloth, I can say with some reasonable certainty that what I'm seeing isn't furcloth. I believe we went around on the "trying to prove a negative" befor, and seems we never reached an understanding then, so I'll just say I argued this before and what I said then still stands as my point of view. "* You say you have difficulty thinking this could be a hoax. One can therefore infer you assign a zero, or nearly zero probability of it being a hoax. "** One is "inferring" incorrectly. One's inference is actually one's own misunderstanding, thinking the world is pure yes/no/black/white, when i see multiple shades of grey. But I long ago gave up worrying if others "infer" their own misconceptions from my words or actions, because it is the inevitable result of existing. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

26th April 2008, 09:56 AM	#13888
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,648	Originally Posted by Bill Munns "You have trouble imagining a hoax scenario? WTF?" Yes, I do. If there was one, what i see on film took more than a performer and two guys to pull off. OK. You are just another guy on the Internet saying that they have trouble with the PGF being a hoax. But wait, you're not just another guy because you are a professional costume designer. You give an expert opinion that this was not done by only three people at the film site. Your unstated proclamation is this: If you are going to believe that the PGF is a hoax, then you better get comfortable with the fact that more than three people were present and working at the film site. "This guy is confessing to wearing the suit for only a few minutes, " Quote: You don't get into and out of such a suit in a few minutes. Cheap suits, yes, but if patty's a suit, she's not a cheap or amateur one. Look, here it is, straight up. I say what I think and believe, as do you. We see things differently. Live with it. The confessing mime says he was offered $1000 to play the role of Bigfoot. He says it only took a few minutes after he had the costume on. He says Patterson and Gimlin helped him put on the costume. The day was "hot", and it was really hot being inside the suit. But it was only a few minutes and the physical effort was limited to walking across sand with only one single requested "turn to look" action. He says that near the end of his pre-determined walking pathway he jumped into a big hole (cavity created by an uprooted tree) and hollered out to "get this thing off me". He talks about wearing the hot and stinky suit and wanting to get out of it. Bob Heironimus might actually agree with you. No way could a "regular guy" perform in that furry black suit on that hot sunny day for more than a few minutes without some kind of break for cooling off. This guy could be lying on multiple levels. Maybe he wasn't in the suit after all and the whole confession thing is a hoax. Or maybe he was in the suit and the bit about the stinky-hot-jump-in-the-hole is just some bullcrap that he is compelled to tack on for whatever reason. Quote: Maybe there wasn't any support crew. Maybe there wasn't a suit to need one? Keep an open mind. My mind is fully open to the PGF being a hoax. Your declaration that this would require a professional production crew seems funny to me. The whole Bigfoot belief thing is very funny. Opening the mind to accept a perpetually undocumented and undocumentable wild hairy ape is very funny. You want to make this whole thing a serious interest and concern. That is funny too. I could easily switch from "WTF?" to "LOL". It's all the same expression. Bill, we are talking about Bigfoot in a skeptical forum. This Bigfoot thing is funny as anything could be. Your efforts to legitimize the topic as a genuine mystery stated by a genuine costume expert is only resulting in more humor. Requests for a necessary "open mind" is just more funny stuff stacked on top of a funny foundation. Bigfoot is funny because some people want to try to deal with it in a serious fashion. That's funny too. Bill, you can't say anything anymore without increasing the humor factor. The more serious you try to be, the more funny it gets. It's so funny now that I don't even care about proper grammer and sentence structure. Rope-a-dope slapstick fun. This thread should be archived on 16mm film with lots of scratches. Future generations can laugh their asses off with the Bigfoot topic. Funny. Very funny. LOL!
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

26th April 2008, 12:56 PM	#13889
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	WP" "Your unstated proclamation is this: If you are going to believe that the PGF is a hoax, then you better get comfortable with the fact that more than three people were present and working at the film site." It's you who are suggesting elevating my opinion to fact. If you'd just keep saying "well, you are entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion", maybe people would get the point, that it is my opinion. "But wait, you're not just another guy because you are a professional costume designer." So are Stan Winston and Chris Walas. Are you chastizing either of them for giving their opinions on the PGF? Are you worried that someone will think their opinions are "fact" because of their professional standing? I don't recall any concern or outrage from their remarks. Or is it only when someone who has some professional credentuals and offers an opinion conflicting with your belief that you whine about how that opinion might be perceived by others as fact? A good critical thinker applies a fundamental principle of logic across the board, so if a professional costume designer's opinion is in a special or restricted class as compared to a non-professional's opinion, fine. Apply that rule to Chris, Stan, and even Dfoot as you apply that rule to me. "This guy could be lying on multiple levels. Maybe he wasn't in the suit after all and the whole confession thing is a hoax. Or maybe he was in the suit and the bit about the stinky-hot-jump-in-the-hole is just some bullcrap that he is compelled to tack on for whatever reason. " So why does my remark of not appraising his ability to endure a suit provoke such a concerned response from you. I agree, Bob H could be lying on multiple levels. We agree. Done deal. Thank you. "The more serious you try to be, the more funny it gets. " Your opinion, and I respect your right to express it. Bill added: "Bigfoot is funny because some people want to try to deal with it in a serious fashion. That's funny too. Bill, you can't say anything anymore without increasing the humor factor. " So, my singular opinion has the potential to change the whole level of "funny"? Must be a very influential opinion. Maybe that's why it bugs you so much? Just a thought.
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Last edited by Bill Munns; 26th April 2008 at 01:52 PM. Reason: addition

26th April 2008, 08:29 PM	#13890
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by Bill Munns Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low. You are completely leaving out the other potential factors for a report of BIGFOOT. A. Person saw something and thought they saw a Bigfoot B. Person completely fabricated the story for any number of reasons. C. Person hallucinated that they saw a bigfoot You are also leaving out the fact that these reports are investigated by enthusiasts, not investigators. How many investigations have led to any verifiable evidence? While you may not admit that you are a Bigfoot enthusiast using your expertise in costumes to create waves within the bigfoot community, the fact that you have the same acceptance of the weak-evidence-pool as some of the other Bigfoot enthusiasts tells me otherwise.
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	__________________ "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 Last edited by Drewbot; 26th April 2008 at 08:31 PM.

26th April 2008, 08:52 PM	#13891
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Drew: "While you may not admit that you are a Bigfoot enthusiast using your expertise in costumes to create waves within the bigfoot community, the fact that you have the same acceptance of the weak-evidence-pool as some of the other Bigfoot enthusiasts tells me otherwise." Just curious, Drew, what "weak evidence" have I accepted? I rely on my industry experience and my understanding of materials and processes, and my own analysis of the PGfim data to form my judgments. Calling your bluf here, Drew. Bill Had to add this: "You are completely leaving out the other potential factors for a report of BIGFOOT. A. Person saw something and thought they saw a Bigfoot B. Person completely fabricated the story for any number of reasons. C. Person hallucinated that they saw a bigfoot You are also leaving out the fact that these reports are investigated by enthusiasts, not investigators. How many investigations have led to any verifiable evidence?" Okay, Let's do it this way: A. Cryptid species explanation or B. Non-cryptid species explanation (which includes your list and mine, and any other which somebody thinks about later) Can you say that 100% of incidents are in the "B" category, reliably confirmed? If not, you cannot take the "A" category out of consideration. And I did not refer to investigations that lead to a confirmation of a cryptid explanation. I referred to investigations leading to a non-cryptid explanation. And the making waves thing is interesting. We all make waves by our very existance. Some waves may be bigger and more far reaching than others, but we all do make them. So is your concern: A. That anybody is making waves? b. That I specifically am making waves? c. That I am making waves going in the opposite direction as your waves? d. that you are getting seasick? e. other.
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Last edited by Bill Munns; 26th April 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason: addition

26th April 2008, 11:58 PM	#13892
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	Quote: Seems to me, the theme of this forum is "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" Yes. Quote: Is "are you crazy" or "WTF" friendly? No. But I must admit I can sometimes understand the confusion that leads to them. Quote: And I'm still trying to understand why things posted elsewhere are of such concern here, as if either the other forum had no right to exist, or I had no right to express myself there. Well, this is the PGF thread, so it's only natural that we'd discuss any new or particularly interesting developments related to the film. I think the suspicions based on you posting on the BFF are pretty odd, but my not having a problem with it is based on me having experience similar to yours. I hung around on crypto boards when I randomly decided to check into cryptozoology-related stuff each year long before stumbling across the JREF. But I also realize that not everyone had similar experiences, so I can see why they're not seeing it the way I am. I don't know if you've ever seen "They Live," so here's a link to the fight scene. Roddy Piper really wants the other guy to put on the glasses so he can see something important, but the other guy doesn't want to. This causes a great amount of frusteration between the two and this inevitably leads to a fight. I think that's what is going on here, only replace the glasses with research on factors directly related to (but not shown on) the film. I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you. One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks. I doubt they planned for that, though. William Parcher's comment about crew tracks being written off as the work of others looking at the tracks after Patterson had left is a valid explanation for how such evidence could be left and "spun" to a hoaxer's favor. I can provide examples of hoaxers giving even wilder explanations after they've been busted (and still managed to get away with it). I think this is frustrating to others because various people here have tried to help you by directing you towards such information and yet you don't. I know the reason for you not doing that, but I hope the above example will make you rethink that (seeing as how it'd probably help you avoid more incidents like this). And for some random quotes I felt compelled to respond to: Quote: But if the statements of an "expert", like Dfoot, are used as an argument by skeptics, is that OKAY? To be fair, Dfoot objects to being called an "expert." Well, that, and people here have disagreed with various aspects of his theories. Also, references to comments by Walas and Winston are brought up only as counterbalances to "someone from Hollywood says it can't be a suit", which actually predate the skeptical arguments. Quote: And why do you elevate my opinion above that of Chris Walas or Stan Winston (both who have Academty Awards, and I don't). Why not just tell "the believers" the ones with the Oscars say Patty's a suit. We try to avoid appeals to authority (that's not to say it doesn't happen sometimes, though). Quote: Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? That's actually not an unreasonable explanation for Bigfoot. If you want, I can repost links to articles detailing cases in which staggeringly large amounts of reports on something turned out to be 100% incorrect. Since I have a link handy, here's a comment regarding feet that helped (but was only one of many points) knock me "off the fence" and onto the skeptical side of things when it came to Bigfoot. I have some input on your recent comments concerning Roger Patterson's artistic abilities, but those'll have to wait for another post. I really, REALLY need to get some sleep...
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	__________________ Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

27th April 2008, 12:38 AM	#13893
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	AMM: Thank you for your post, and your reasoning. Allow me to comment on one specific section: "I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you. One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks. I doubt they planned for that, though. William Parcher's comment about crew tracks being written off as the work of others looking at the tracks after Patterson had left is a valid explanation for how such evidence could be left and "spun" to a hoaxer's favor. " This is the kind of straightforward and calm explanation I would expect as a response, but nobody other than you seems capable of providing. It sets a stage for a further discussion of the specific issue (footprints at the filming site). Maybe we can explore this specific issue further together. "I think this is frustrating to others because various people here have tried to help you by directing you towards such information and yet you don't. " I've been trying now for 4 months to direct people to basic material issues and information, and they don't seem to be getting it either. The frustration cuts both ways. I'm frankly astonished at how much of what I write is missed by others. But again, thank you for your well reasoned response. Bill ps: "I feel kinda disappointed when you'll comment on something about the PGF and miss an important detail that doing some research outside what's seen on the film would've given you." I would welcome a list of any specific issues or details you feel I have missed, which may be relevent to or should factor into my own studies and notes.
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Last edited by Bill Munns; 27th April 2008 at 12:41 AM. Reason: addition

27th April 2008, 01:57 PM	#13894
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	AMM: Following up from the last post, I invite you to join me is trying to resolve the item you mentioned as follows: "One example is your comments about the lack of prints from the support crew you'd expect from a hoax explanation for the PGF and not realize that there was heavy, flood-causing rain hours after the filming (but before Patterson and Gimlin went back home) that would easily destroy any such tracks." From my observations of people here, they don't seem to be able to resolve much of anything, and more effort is directed at simply trying to put others down. Maybe the problem is they learn what they see, and they see others doing just that. So What I propose to you is that you and I take this one issue you have mentioned (the footprints and the site) and we, together, see if we can discuss this one focused issue and arrive at a conclusion we both would confidently sign off on. And I will post that conclusion over in the thread with my notes that brought up the footprints on site issue, so the cleared up statement is there as well. I propose we have this dialogue here, on line, so others interested can follow it (and obviously comment as they like), but you and I will keep our focus on our dialogue, and the construction of an understanding about this issue. If others can contribute facts and ideas in a cooperative way, we may quote them as well (attributed, of course). We will respectfully quote and then answer every question the other asks, as fairly as we can, and we will never get into any silly semantics games or nit picky quibbles. We really will try to understand the true intent of the other's expressed ideas. We will build on the things we agree on, and continue to discuss any points we disagree on. And we will see if we can reach a conclusion we both feel fairly reflects the important facts or considerations of the issue. Hopefully, if others see us cooperating to achieve a mutual understanding, they may actually feel confident to try it with other issues, either with me or with other forum participants. If this works for you, here's the starting point: As you appear to know more about the issues of the filming site and footprints there, would you describe to me what you know or understand to be the facts and conditions of the matter. Specifically: 1. Can you describe what you know about the footprints found, human and "patty"? 2. Can you describe what you know about the weather, environment and timeline? 3. Can you describe the reported actions of people to investigate the site on the filming day or in days after? In each case, you may describe your response in a simple paragraph, (more if you like) and in your own words, as you understand the matter, a generalized basic summary really. And then let me respond with equal good faith, commenting on your remarks, and we will try to construct an understanding of the issue. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

27th April 2008, 02:03 PM	#13895
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,370	Bill, a couple of comments: 1. Please understand that one can understand your explanations and arguments but still disagree with your conclusions. This is what is happening here. This is what quite often happens when a bigfoot proponent exposes his/her arguments here. I don't think people here ignore your qualifications. We just do not agree with your analysis and conclusions. Reminding us of your qualifications may be interpreted as argument on authority, and what we discuss are the evidences and the reasonings. More than once, at this and other threads I, as well as many other posters could have used the weight of our qualifications, and we choose not to do so. Yes, it may be frustrating sometimes. You must also understand that a number of arguments you raised here, such as the footprints left by the hoaxers, have already been discussed here a couple of times with other posters. If you feel tired of exposing your points, please note that we are also tired of exposing ours. Not to mention that quite often we've been faced with very rude and offensive attitudes from a number of posters. This creates wear and frustration and causes reactions that may not be very friendly, but certainly are lively... Regardless of how hot and cumbersome the Patty costume could be, those folks would have been, in my opinion, able to perform using it. I've seen people without special preparations use for hours carnival costumes which were at least as hot and cumbersome as a Patty costume would be. I think PGF's resolution is not enough to detect the costume flaws you described. I think pareidolia and biased onservations can effectively account for many if not all of the features pointed by proponents as evidence of Patty's nature as a bigfoot. I think Patty moves like a man. I think one or two people are enough to help pulling the hoax (wearing the suit, shooting, etc.). I think the tracks left by the hoaxers during the filming can remain undetected and/or- even without the rain. Don't take the following as an offense. Regardless of your qualifications, I haven't seen in your work any evidences capable of changing my mind regarding Patty's nature. Its about the the quality of the data, its about the quality of the evidence; its not about your qualifications. The same is valid for Meldrum and Krantz. 2. The "if 99.9% of the sightings are explained by hoaxes/misidentification this still leaves 0.1% of sightings of real bigfeet" line. We discussed this more than once. Frankly, its a very weak line. Its the "bigfoot living in the gaps". You wrote Quote: Can you say that 100% of incidents are in the "B" category, reliably confirmed? Of course not, specially because there are missing pieces of information which, if available could either expose the incident as a hoax or a misidentification (or a real bigfoot, of course). If one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one must not forget that there are no reliable evidences to back the case of their existence, evidence which, if bigfeet were real creatures, one would expect to have. Sure, it is possible that a very unlikely chain of events and circunstances avoided these evidence of surfacing untill the time of writing. But this is... Well, unlikely. And gets more unlikely at each tick of the clock. This unlikely, implausible gap where bigfeet may live becomes smaller and smaller. Too small to host a population of giant apes scattered across North America. Oh, and note that if one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one can not rule out the possibility of their inexistence. And so far inexistence seems more likely in my opinion. Aniway, I find interesting to see you advancing towards an approach not solely based on an analysis of if Patty as a suit is possible or not. I think the subject must be evaluated through more angles.
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

27th April 2008, 02:42 PM	#13896
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Correa: Thank you for your well reasoned and calmly explained post. "Reminding us of your qualifications may be interpreted as argument on authority, and what we discuss are the evidences and the reasonings. " My experience is the basis for my own judgment, so I must rely on it for my own analysis. If I mention it, the mention simply is to identify the basis of the opinion (saying "I have done it", as opposed to "I read about it" or "I heard somebody say it", or the like). It simply qualifies the basis of the opinion or remark. "If you feel tired of exposing your points, please note that we are also tired of exposing ours. " Point well taken. This is why my post above your, to AMM, was intended to see if we can consolidate the information of one specific issue to a conclusion which could be referenced in a more concise way, so people new to a discussion can more easily find what has been discussed and settled. "Regardless of your qualifications, I haven't seen in your work any evidences capable of changing my mind regarding Patty's nature. Its about the the quality of the data, its about the quality of the evidence; its not about your qualifications." I respect your differing perspective, and would support your effort to make up your own mind, based on the evidence you examine. "Of course not, specially because there are missing pieces of information which, if available could either expose the incident as a hoax or a misidentification (or a real bigfoot, of course). If one can not really rule out the possibility of a real bigfoot, one must not forget that there are no reliable evidences to back the case of their existence, evidence which, if bigfeet were real creatures, one would expect to have. " My point is simply that while the probability of a cryptid primate existing undetected is very low, the prospect of every incident being explained by hoax or other non-cryptid circumstances (given the number, geographic locations around the country, and the timeframe, throughout the last 100 years, maybe longer if Indian folklore is counted) is also low, although I do not know how to assign any weight to compare probabilities in a numerical manner. So I am mystified by the prospect that clearly a phonemenon exists, and has existed for the last century, and both potential explanations are seemingly improbable. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of which may be more improbable, as anyone in this forum is similarly entitled, as am I. My opinion is both options are highly improbable, thus the "mystified" status. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

27th April 2008, 02:51 PM	#13897
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by Bill Munns Just curious, Drew, what "weak evidence" have I accepted? I rely on my industry experience and my understanding of materials and processes, and my own analysis of the PGfim data to form my judgments. Calling your bluf here, Drew. By Accepting this as counter-logic (It's the same acceptance of weak evidence that many Bigfooters subscribe to) Originally Posted by Bill Munns Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? I can't prove every single one of them false, but, they have yet to prove one of them to be real.
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	__________________ "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

27th April 2008, 03:10 PM	#13898
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Drew; "By Accepting this as counter-logic (It's the same acceptance of weak evidence that many Bigfooters subscribe to) Originally Posted by Bill Munns Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? " I can't prove every single one of them false, but, they have yet to prove one of them to be real." Drew, what evidence am I accepting? I am acknowledging there are things unknown or unproven, lacking evidence to arrive at a conclusion. What "counter logic"? Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

27th April 2008, 04:21 PM	#13899
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	I guess I should have put counter-logic in quotes. By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards. Originally Posted by Bill Munns Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low. If you think the probability that every report is (Non-Cryptid in nature) is low, than you are accepting that some of these reports are (Cryptid in nature), therefore accepting weak evidence. Since not one of them has ever been proven to be true.
Drewbot Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,008	__________________ "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 Last edited by Drewbot; 27th April 2008 at 04:22 PM.

27th April 2008, 04:56 PM	#13900
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Drew; "I guess I should have put counter-logic in quotes. By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards. Originally Posted by Bill Munns Now, the counter logic which you omitted is this. Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? What is the probability every one(100%) is a Hoax? I's say low. "If you think the probability that every report is (Non-Cryptid in nature) is low, than you are accepting that some of these reports are (Cryptid in nature), therefore accepting weak evidence. Since not one of them has ever been proven to be true." Drew: what are you talking about? Where am I doing the following: "By accepting the Bigfooter argument that 'if only one is correct' then you are accepting a weak argument, based on weak evidenciary standards." How many times do I have to state so you get it that I have not accepted either argument or condition as proven and conclusive. the cryptid/non-cryptid debate is inconclusive by the lack of proven evidence overall. Once again, I will ask you, what evidence am I accepting? Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Last edited by Bill Munns; 27th April 2008 at 04:58 PM. Reason: emphasis

27th April 2008, 05:27 PM	#13901
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Drew: I really am going to try and reach an understanding with you, one last shot. I do not accept "Bigfooter arguments" on face value, any more than I accept skeptic arguments on face value. "Evidence" is something that may support a conclusion. If there are two basic options to explain something, and the evidence is weak or lacking to support one conclusion, that does not mean the other conclusion is automatically supported. It means "inconclusive", as in "not yet explained". Your "counter-logic" seems to think there is only a cryptid/non-cryptid position, and you fail to acknowledge "inconclusive" or "undecided" as a middleground that favors neither side. On the cryptid issue overall, I think there's reason to continue investigating the issue. I do not consider it "settled" either way. On the PG Film issue, I say again and again, I am mystified. That means "undecided" or "inconclusive". You seem to think because I am not buying the evidence you choose to believe, I must be accepting the evidence of those on the other side. If so, you are wrong and are misunderstanding me. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

27th April 2008, 06:15 PM	#13902
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,914	If you are rejecting evidence of a hoax, then you are accepting evidence that the subject of the PGF is a non-human North American primate ... There is much evidence that it is a hoax, the costume aside .. If the subject is not a non-human North American primate, it is a man in a suit, whether you can figure out how it was done or not..
	__________________ " Is that a real diamond ? If you can't tell, why does it matter ? "

27th April 2008, 06:25 PM	#13903
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	Diogenes: "If you are rejecting evidence of a hoax, then you are accepting evidence that the subject of the PGF is a non-human North American primate ..." Wrong. Undecided is an option. You may reject evidence as "inconclusive". "There is much evidence that it is a hoax, the costume aside .. " But no proven conclusion. If the subject is not a non-human North American primate, it is a man in a suit, whether you can figure out how it was done or not.." "IF" well said. Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

27th April 2008, 11:58 PM	#13904
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	Originally Posted by Bill Munns I would welcome a list of any specific issues or details you feel I have missed, which may be relevent to or should factor into my own studies and notes. Well, the stuff surrounding the filming that we'll be discussing later is probably the most important part. Looking into Patterson's connections to the entertainment industry and sleazy nature couldn't hurt, though. Hopefully the others can provide suggestions for you. I also feel that it'd be wise to analyze the short-furred costumes used in The Lost World (the silent movie), King Kong Vs. Godzilla, The Bossburg "Cripplefoot" film, and the Harley Hoffman Bigfoot film. After all, it's possible that these known costumes have some of the same features that mystify you about Patty, which would definitely help your research. Like, say, if one of them shows signs of features that you had interpeted as requiring stretch furcloth (only the Hoffman figure might use that since it's modern) could tell you that something else is involved. Then again, maybe it's just a side effect of what William Parcher refers to as "peyote vision." I hope he reposts those stills he has that show the blinking eyes that Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler claimed to see on the PGF are more likely to be a type of film artifact. On Patterson's artistic abilities: From my experience (and viewpoint), those arguments are worded that way as a response to those who try to paint Patterson as a talentless know-nothing. Both are extreme, but I side with the "Patterson could" possibility since I know that one should never, ever underestimate a potential hoaxer. As for Patterson: He could sculpt - Combined with casting knowledge, theoretically give him the ability to make masks. He had the necessary skills to mold/sew saddles - Aspects of this could be applied to costume-making. He could copy the artwork of others I understand that he built special wagons without using blueprints - Just general "don't underestimate the guy" type stuff. In short, it's better to say that we can't know for sure if he could've built a costume, but that it's not as unlikely as some would claim. Quote: From my observations of people here, they don't seem to be able to resolve much of anything, and more effort is directed at simply trying to put others down. Oh, they can. I've seen them do it plenty of times in the past. Hopefully now that you've shown to be more open to researching other aspects of the PGF besides the onscreen images, things'll calm down. Quote: So What I propose to you is that you and I take this one issue you have mentioned (the footprints and the site) and we, together, see if we can discuss this one focused issue and arrive at a conclusion we both would confidently sign off on. And I will post that conclusion over in the thread with my notes that brought up the footprints on site issue, so the cleared up statement is there as well. Sadly, I've got a lot on my plate right now, so I can't give this as much attention as I would like to. I can't give all the sources, but I'll plug in a few ones that I was able to find quickly. I sincerely hope that other posters chime in with sources, clarifications, and corrections to any possible errors on my part. I'll do my best to fill in more sources when I get the time: Here's the basic, "rough draft" version of what I know about the filming of the PGF: Patterson and Gimlin go to Bluff Creek to look at some tracks discovered there (supposedly depicting three different individuals) for Patterson's Bigfoot documentary. They get there, but the tracks have been reduced to muddy globs that can't be cast due to rain and exposure to the elements over a period of time. If I remember correctly, those tracks (some of which had been cast by others before Patterson and Gimlin showed up) seem to be ones of extremely questionable authenticity, as you can see in this lengthy and extremely informative look at the matter here (this section notes their history). On October 20, 1967 at 1:00 or 3:00pm (I'm not sure of the exact time since it varies depending on the account; Judging from the film, it was sunny that day.), the "Patty filming incident" supposedly happens. There are some contradictions about some details of this in the various interviews, the most important one in the case of ground details is the one about the horses. Depending on the interview, here's what is claimed: Patterson falls off his horse - Claimed by Roger Patterson Patterson jumps off his horse - Claimed by Bob Gimlin The horse falls on Patterson, hurting his foot and bending a stirrup - Roger Patterson (he apparently started showing a bent stirrup at events Gimlin and he spoke at since he got sick of Gimlin saying the horse didn't fall on him) Both Patterson's and Gimlin's horses fall over Afterwards, they claim to track Patty for 3 point something miles up a mountain. Then they return to the film site and cast what they felt were the two best tracks. The tracks were a few inches deep into the ground, with some apparently getting up to three and a half inches deep in softer soil. The tracks were apparently 14 or 14.5 inches, although I've found a reference to a 16 inch track. Later accounts have Bob Gimlin jumping off a stump in an attempt to make tracks as deep as Patty's They might've had to go back to their truck (the filming site is near a road) to get the casting materials first, though. Then they go to call some people (including a Canadian museum in an attempt to get tracking dogs) and to send out the film. Dfoot once made this interesting note, which he will hopefully provide more information about: Originally Posted by DFoot 1) Gimlin said that AFTER he and Roger spent time with Hodgson they drove to the EUREKA POST OFFICE and air-mailed the film to DeAtley at 9 pm. PROBLEM? The post office was already closed. 2) Hodgson said that Roger told him they'd JUST GOTTEN BACK from the EUREKA POST OFFICE when he met them at 6:30 pm. They stayed there until they returned to their camp later that night. PROBLEM? That too doesn't fit with the things Patterson and Gimlin claimed went on prior to getting to the store. There simply wasn't enough time. 3) DeAtley always said he couldn't recall anything about the film, but one day he did give an explanation when told that the Post Office in Eureka would have been closed and neither Patterson's nor Gimlin's story matched reality. DeAtley then claimed his pilot had brought the film to him in his plane as he often ran such errands. PROBLEM? The pilot DeAtley used wasn't even in the USA all that year. 4) And finally, Bigfooters decided that the only thing to do is to claim that Gimlin couldn't tell the difference between the downtown Eureka Post Office and a local airport and so they must have had it specially flown from there. PROBLEM? Records show that NO PLANE flew anything to Washington at all that entire weekend. Late at night/early next morning, it starts to rain heavily. Bob Gimlin tries to save some by covering them with cardboard. Seeing how soggy the cardboard gets, he opts to use tree bark. The rain and flooding eventually gets so bad that they leave in fear that the road will be blocked and strand them there. The next day, forest worker Lyle Laverty and his crew check out the site and takes some pictures of the tracks (both the covered and uncovered tracks). Nine days later, Bob Titmus and his brother-in-law go to the site. He misses the tracks at first and then procedes to cast ten tracks. He claims that 10 tracks there showed signs of having been cast. This is odd, since Patterson claimed to have only done two. According to his map of the area, Patty looped around, went up a hill, and sat on a log to watch Patterson and Gimlin from above/behind. This contradicts Patterson and Gimlin's account of tracking Patty for several miles. He also noted that Patty's footprints seemed to start out of nowhere (There were no tracks that showed her entering the film site) and eventually vanished into pine needles. Titmus also claimed he could see Roger's prints from when he was filiming. To my knowledge, he didn't seem to make any reference to any impact of a fallen horse. The thing is, Patterson and Gimlin had talked about how they barely made a dent in the soil while walking. How could such prints (especially unprotected ones) survive heavy rain? Furthermore, how could the unprotected Patty prints survive? Why weren't they reduced to "globs of mud" like the prints that brought Patterson and Gimlin there in the first place? How could that be when thet were at the mercy of rain heavy enough to threaten obstructing a road? To me, this makes it very likely that the originals were destroyed and that Patterson and Gimlin had to refake the tracks before leaving. Roger Knights once came up with what he thought was an innocent explanation for the fact that the timeline for the October 20th filming didn't work and that the film was most likely filmed before when Patterson and Gimlin claimed it was. The problem with that explanation (as noted by William Parcher) is that Roger Patterson called for tracking dogs on the 20th (along with calls to toehrs saying he filmed Bigfoot that day). If the film is of a real creature and he filmed it before the 20th, we should expect him to ahve done that earlier. Furthermore, this would mean that Roger Patterson lied to countless people about what he was doing that day, which is extremely suspicious. I should also note that Patty's tracks were never seen in the Bluff Creek area again after Patterson left. I should also note that there are some issues with the "cast display footage." I find the possibility that the footage might be recycled from when Patterson dug some tracks into the ground in order to get footage of him casting tracks to be extremely compelling? Why? Because if that is the case, then it means the tracks he made before filming Patty match up exactly with Patty's feet. And if no instances of Patty's tracks can be found prior to the filming, I dare say that'd be smoking gun evidence that Patterson hoaxed it. The odds of him creating a footprint that matches up exactly to a real creature he'd film days later are very low.
AtomicMysteryMonster Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 972	__________________ Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

28th April 2008, 12:04 AM	#13905
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	AMM: lots to digest, but thank you for the info. I'll have a reply tomorrow (Monday). Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

28th April 2008, 12:11 AM	#13906
bobbieshort Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 70	....here is an out-take you arm-chair critics can toss in the soup & stir it with a stick...... sheriff Edson unwittingly ruled out a third person with Patterson & Gimlin. Did Greg Long interview Edson, nope! ----------------------------------------- Page 72 – 4th paragraph: When I got home that night I remembered to enter even this minor incident into my diary, though from long experience, I knew better than to volunteer any of this information to my men when they questioned me about my findings. I didn’t want to pique their curiosity so they’d all go tramping through that area like a lynch mob. And in case you are wondering, my new status as “Boss man” didn’t do a thing to prevent the guys from teasing me about my avid interest in this subject. I had been talked about too long by now not to expect to go on being the target of their jokes and pranks. ”Charlie Bigfoot rides again!” they’d laugh whenever I couldn’t contain my excitement over finding new evidence. “You want to know the real truth about Charlie’s search for Bigfoot?” one of the guys said one day while we were having lunch. “He just found out he was adopted, so now he’s looking all over creation to find his real Daddy!” ”Hell, I heard all our ancestors used to swing from trees,” said another guy, “but I sure didn’t know it was that recent.” “Now you’ve gotta admit, there is a resemblance, big and brutal-lookin’ as old Charlie Edson is…” “That may not be as funny as you guys think, I said, though I couldn’t help laughing along with them. “After I’ve collected all the information I need, it may turn out we are all close kin to Bigfoot. What would you guys say to that?” (Prophetic words for 1979?) During the next two years, all of 1965 and ’66, my buddy Red Collier and I went on frequent tracking and backpacking trips together, but in all that time we didn’t see a trace of Bigfoot. No tracks, no sightings, no shrieking wails in the night and not even a hint of their unmistakable odor. “I wonder if we’ve succeeded at last, Red.” I said one day when I was feeling particularly discouraged. “How do you mean, ’succeeded?’ Charlie? We haven’t seen hide nor hair of those creatures in years.” “Succeeded in chasing them clear out of the state of California,” I said. “That’s what I mean, Red. What with more and more logging activity going on and a lot more nosey tourists, it could be we have finally driven the Bigfeet out of our read forever…” “Aw come on, Charlie, you don’t believe that. They’re just layin’ low, that’s all. They’ve done that before, you know. You told me yourself you didn’t see your first Bigfoot ‘till more than three years after you first saw their tracks. They’re just doing what they know how to do best, that’s all. You know, like those news reporters say on TV, they’re keeping a low profile.” ”Which has to be a pretty smart trick when you’re more than eight feet tall,” I said with a laugh, though I really didn’t feel too cheerful. As the months wore on and we had no luck in finding new evidence, I really feared the creatures had given up the northern California area for good. I certainly couldn’t afford to leave my business and family and just go tracking them up into Oregon, Washington or Canada – locations where they were still being sighted. No, the truth was I could only make a career of hunting for Bigfoot as long as he remained in the area where I made my living. The prospect of tailing the creatures half way around the world just didn’t get in with my budget. The summer of 1967 was a particularly dry one, so my men and I were called upon to do a lot of double duty fighting nearby forest fires in an effort to reinforce the manpower of the Forestry Service. By the time fall arrived, everybody was praying for rain or an early snow, whichever came first, as long as it was wet. As for me, I also threw in a few prayers for the Bigfeet. I prayed they would all escape the fires alive and that I’d be able to see another of the creatures soon. In October of that year, I almost got my wish. But a couple of other guys beat me to it – a couple of horse breeders, cattlemen by the names of Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson. Red and I happened to be scouting the Bluff Creek area up in Del Norte County the day those guys made that controversial film of a female Bigfoot on the run. I am sure if you have even the most vicarious interest in wildlife, you must have heard of that film by now. Hell, it was in all the papers, show on TV and in practically every country on earth. As for whether or not Gimlin and Patterson shot film of a real Bigfoot or a man dressed up in a fur suit, it appears the jury is still out, weighting all the pros and cons. A lot of brilliant experts say yes, but there are a lot more who say “no way!” Nobody asked me, but if they did, I would have to say, “Yes!” And not just out of loyalty to the Bigfoot either. It wasn’t sheer coincidence that Red and I happened to be tracking in that area that day we accidentally saw Patterson and Gimlin go galloping past of on horseback. Of course, at the time we didn’t know who the hell those guys were or what they were up too. We only knew we didn’t care to get involved in any kind of social chitchat; not have to explain what we were doing in the area. We just squatted down and hid behind some underbrush until they rode past us. When we saw they were lugging a lot of equipment with them on a packhorse, I guess we just figured they were timber surveyors. Either that or gold miners as there had been a lot of prospecting for gold in that area in recent months. It wasn’t until later that we found out it was only about a half hour after we spotted them that they must have spotted that female Bigfoot and gotten their historical 16mm film. Now for the “coincidence.” We were in that precise area for a reason. Some hunters had reported seeing tracks in this vicinity only a few days earlier. And judging by the location they described when Red and I questioned them, it had to be right in the same general area where Patterson and his buddy had filmed their female. As I said, they got there first. But since I didn’t have a movie camera with me, I’m kind of glad they did, because controversial or not, I like to think at last somebody came up with what I fully believe to be “concrete evidence” that these creatures exist. For one thing, the size of the tracks those hunters told me about jived with what Patterson and Gimlin found after the “star” of their film ran off. The prints were between fourteen and fifteen inches in length. Unquestionably female prints, since all the male tracks I had found were usually between seventeen and eighteen inches long. Also consensus had the height of the female as seven feet or thereabouts. That too, coincided with what Red and I had observed in the past; the females were generally between six and a half to seven feet tall, with the males averaging between eight and nine and a half feet tall. As for the possibility that a third person had been with Patterson and Gimlin and had dressed up in a fur suit, both Red and I will swear we only saw two men ride past us that day, not three. And since we had been scouting that area for many hours before we saw those two guys on horseback, it’s not too likely that mysterious “third man” could have gone on ahead, since I presume he would have traveled on horseback too, and there was only one time that day when we heard or saw any horseback riders in the area; when we saw Patterson and Gimlin gallop past us. Come to think of it, I sure wished I had known what those guys were up to when we saw them. Instead of hiding, I would have yelled out, “Take me along!” And who knows, maybe that female was one of the same creatures I had seen before and chances are if she remembered me and I wasn’t as much of a stranger to her as the other two guys were, she might have hung around the area a little longer before taking off, resulting in a few more feet of film maybe and thus more evidence. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way. Red and I got sidetracked in an effort to keep the secret routes and back roads that the tourists knew nothing about. That way we felt we had a better chance to do our tracking completely unobserved even though this usually involved our taking the longest way around rather than a short cut. That is how we got detoured up through Elk Valley and accidentally came upon some tracks we hadn’t counted on. True, this was quite a way from our intended destination but as I mentioned, it had been two years since I had seen any sign of the Bigfoot. As a result, I got so carried away with excitement, you would think it was fifteen years earlier and I was getting my very first look at these tracks. This was also the first time I was just excited and not scared. Red’s reaction was a little different. For the first thirty seconds or so, he seemed absolutely jubilant. Then when he saw how fresh the tracks were, he got very wary though first he tried to laugh it off by doing his “Lenny” imitation from Of Mice And Men “Which way did they go, George?” Poor Red! I thought as I took out my tape measure and measured the seventeen and a half inch tracks, thinking they were very fresh indeed. The expression on his face looked as if part of him wanted to go on following those tracks while another part of him – his feet—would much prefer to backtrack in a hurry! “I’ll bet this guy is only about forty minutes ahead of us, Red” I said, “what’s your opinion?” ”Don’t panic, Charlie,” he said, panicking. “Why should I panic? Do you realize how far a Bigfoot can go in forty minutes?” Sure I do. But wouldn’t that depend on the direction he was headed?” I mean, even if we suddenly smelled one of them real close and we started running, how do we know we won’t run smack into it?” “Who running,” I said… ”I think I smell one of them, Charlie. I didn’t want to tell you….” --------------------------------------------------------------- End of except: Page 77 from “My Travels With Bigfoot, a true life odyssey” by Sheriff Charles “Charlie” Edson 1979-- Crescent Publications, Los Angeles, California Edson, Charles W., Author, meticulous keeper of a diary, life time logger and Siskiyou County Sheriff in California; author of the 1979 “My Travels with Bigfoot, a true life Odyssey.” Edson first spotted a Sasquatch in 1955 while he was Sheriff in Siskiyou County. Edson continued searching for the creatures, personally spotting Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin riding horse back just thirty minutes before the famous filming of a Sasquatch, October 20, 1967. He was out tracking Sasquatch footprints with logger friend Red Collier in the same area at the same time. At the time he thought they were gold prospectors. Edson died October 11,1999, leaves widow Genevieve “Ruby” Edson and two sons. I will remember Charlie’s gentle wisdom and words of advice; he was truly a gentleman. …. Bobbie Short
bobbieshort Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 70

28th April 2008, 05:31 AM	#13907
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,648	Originally Posted by sierra4 ....here is an out-take you arm-chair critics can toss in the soup & stir it with a stick...... sheriff Edson unwittingly ruled out a third person with Patterson & Gimlin. Did Greg Long interview Edson, nope! Bob Heironimus does not claim to have been at Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967. Besides that, "Charlie Bigfoot" sounds like just another Classic Bigfooter putting on the folk tales for others to enjoy.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

28th April 2008, 06:42 AM	#13908
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,648	Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster Then again, maybe it's just a side effect of what William Parcher refers to as "peyote vision." I hope he reposts those stills he has that show the blinking eyes that Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler claimed to see on the PGF are more likely to be a type of film artifact. Quote: Here's the basic, "rough draft" version of what I know about the filming of the PGF: Quote: On October 20, 1967 at 1:00 or 3:00pm (I'm not sure of the exact time since it varies depending on the account; Judging from the film, it was sunny that day.), the "Patty filming incident" supposedly happens. 1:30pm seems to be the most common exact time reported by P&G. Quote: The horse falls on Patterson, hurting his foot and bending a stirrup - Roger Patterson (he apparently started showing a bent stirrup at events Gimlin and he spoke at since he got sick of Gimlin saying the horse didn't fall on him). Roger supposidly showed the bent stirrup to Al Hodgeson later that night. It would mean that Roger had to remove the bent stirrup from his saddle. How could Gimlin not take not of that, since they were together? Quote: Afterwards, they claim to track Patty for 3 point something miles up a mountain. Then they return to the film site and cast what they felt were the two best tracks. I believe Titmus claimed to see that three tracks had been cast. Patterson publicly presented only two. Quote: They might've had to go back to their truck (the filming site is near a road) to get the casting materials first, though. They did have to make a round-trip to the truck to get the plaster. Quote: The next day, forest worker Lyle Laverty and his crew check out the site and takes some pictures of the tracks (both the covered and uncovered tracks). It was actually three days later... on Monday the 23rd. Quote: Nine days later, Bob Titmus and his brother-in-law go to the site. Titmus was uncertain if he found the tracks nine or ten days after the filmed encounter. He was alone when he found and cast the ten tracks. Quote: He misses the tracks at first and then procedes to cast ten tracks. He claims that 10 tracks there showed signs of having been cast. This is odd, since Patterson claimed to have only done two. Again, I think Titmus says he saw that three tracks showed plaster residue. Quote: According to his map of the area, Patty looped around, went up a hill, and sat on a log to watch Patterson and Gimlin from above/behind. Not on a log. Titmus said she sat in ferns. Quote: This contradicts Patterson and Gimlin's account of tracking Patty for several miles. He also noted that Patty's footprints seemed to start out of nowhere (There were no tracks that showed her entering the film site) and eventually vanished into pine needles. No, it was P&G who lost her tracks on pine needles after following her sign for 3.5 miles. Titmus didn't lose her sign (as she moved away from the fern sit), but instead chooses not to follow it. Quote: Titmus also claimed he could see Roger's prints from when he was filiming. To my knowledge, he didn't seem to make any reference to any impact of a fallen horse. He also doesn't mention the array of Laverty crew bootprints which would have been "fresher" than those of Patterson. Quote: Furthermore, how could the unprotected Patty prints survive? Why weren't they reduced to "globs of mud" like the prints that brought Patterson and Gimlin there in the first place? How could that be when thet were at the mercy of rain heavy enough to threaten obstructing a road? To me, this makes it very likely that the originals were destroyed and that Patterson and Gimlin had to refake the tracks before leaving. I sorta agree. But I go with the Bob Heironimus version. Weeks before October 20th, he wears the suit for filming. Immediately afterwards he leaves for home (Yakima) with instructions to mail the film roll to DeAtley from Eureka(?). P&G stay behind at Bluff Creek. He says that P&G were to "make some fake tracks" at the film site right after he left. This is still weeks before October 20th. Then on the 20th (at this point the film is already developed and edited), P&G are back at Bluff Creek to prepare the fake trackway for the official announcement to the world. They pretend that they had filmed Patty that day, but instead it was weeks prior. They may or may not have done some additional filming on the 20th (such as the stomp test and/or the cast display scene, etc). Quote: I should also note that Patty's tracks were never seen in the Bluff Creek area again after Patterson left. Titmus did return to Bluff Creek later and of course he found Bigfoot tracks. No mention that these matched Patty. I don't think he ever went looking for BF tracks without finding any. I believe that Titmus was predominantly creating the tracks that he would "find". He may have been the most productive track hoaxer of all time. Quote: I should also note that there are some issues with the "cast display footage." I find the possibility that the footage might be recycled from when Patterson dug some tracks into the ground in order to get footage of him casting tracks to be extremely compelling? Why? Because if that is the case, then it means the tracks he made before filming Patty match up exactly with Patty's feet. And if no instances of Patty's tracks can be found prior to the filming, I dare say that'd be smoking gun evidence that Patterson hoaxed it. The odds of him creating a footprint that matches up exactly to a real creature he'd film days later are very low. Patterson may have designed the costume feet to sorta match his idea of Bigfoot feet. He could have used his previously-made fake footprints (in substrate) and plaster casts as models (molds?) for these costume feet. When a mime wears the suit, any decent impressions made by the fake feet could serve as "Bigfoot tracks". He could also add to or improve these tracks using tools (plaster or cement casts?) that match the costume feet. He could even bring the suit (or just the legs/feet) and tools back to Bluff Creek on the 20th and use it to make another (or improve what was left weeks earlier) trackway. If the stride was genuinely much longer than a human stride, then the tracks were not created by a mime simply walking in the suit. This would require special fakery technique. Or, a real Bigfoot.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. Last edited by William Parcher; 28th April 2008 at 06:43 AM.

28th April 2008, 07:06 AM	#13909
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,370	Originally Posted by Bill Munns Correa: My experience is the basis for my own judgment, so I must rely on it for my own analysis. If I mention it, the mention simply is to identify the basis of the opinion (saying "I have done it", as opposed to "I read about it" or "I heard somebody say it", or the like). It simply qualifies the basis of the opinion or remark. As is mine, at least in part, since it is used to evalute information. I have very few -and probably minor- problems with your explanations on how to build a bigfoot costume and what sort of flaws are to be expected. Here's where the experience or qualifications enter. From your professional experience you provided the data, the evidence, the evidence, in this case is composed by descriptions of costume building techniques and their telltale marks. My disagreements with you start when you look for these flaws at PGF. At this point, I really don't think qualifications matter or should be used as an argument. A similar situation happens in respect to how hard it would be the Patty performance and the traces left by the hoaxers. Originally Posted by Bill Munns Point well taken. This is why my post above your, to AMM, was intended to see if we can consolidate the information of one specific issue to a conclusion which could be referenced in a more concise way, so people new to a discussion can more easily find what has been discussed and settled. Well, the information is around... Not organized, but it is around here. Somewhere. Of course a place showing the skeptic look towards Bigfoot would be nice to have. But sometimes I think people should use more the search function. Originally Posted by Bill Munns I respect your differing perspective, and would support your effort to make up your own mind, based on the evidence you examine. My present position, again, was created by the evaluation of several lines of evidence. Once again I suggest that people must look from several angles. Another interesting approach- why different people have different perceptions of Patty? Why I perceive “a bloke in a gorilla suit” while others see a real animal? Originally Posted by Bill Munns My point is simply that while the probability of a cryptid primate existing undetected is very low, the prospect of every incident being explained by hoax or other non-cryptid circumstances (given the number, geographic locations around the country, and the timeframe, throughout the last 100 years, maybe longer if Indian folklore is counted) is also low, although I do not know how to assign any weight to compare probabilities in a numerical manner. So I am mystified by the prospect that clearly a phonemenon exists, and has existed for the last century, and both potential explanations are seemingly improbable. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of which may be more improbable, as anyone in this forum is similarly entitled, as am I. My opinion is both options are highly improbable, thus the "mystified" status. An analogy, quite often used, and quite often misunderstood by proponents: For how long people have been seeing things that could be interpreted as lake monsters, ghosts, gnomes, etc.? Should I feel mystified by these reports? Is this an indication that there is something other than misidentifications, hallucinations, daydreams, false memories, hoaxes, etc. at the roots of these phenomena?
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

28th April 2008, 07:33 AM	#13910
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,648	Originally Posted by Bill Munns Given there have been a number of sightings, and a number of footprints observed, cast, etc, and such, going back the last century or more, and cross all America, can you say categorically every single one of those is a hoax? because if there were (a hypothetical number here) 1000 incidents, and 999 are hoaxes, but one of them is real, then the cryptid phenonenon is real. Can you say categorically that you have investigated virtually every sighting and footprint occurance and determined that 100% of them are a hoax or expalined by known biological entities? I think it is true that there are at least 1000 incidents that are archived in various places. The BFRO has a big list. Most of these are encounter stories with no evidence (pictures, casts, etc). It is very common for Bigfooters to say the same thing as you. How could every single one of those incidents be false (for whatever reasons)? If only one of them is true, then we have a Bigfoot in the woods. There are some problems with that reasoning. Correa just pointed out one of them. Another problem is that although we can see and count the archived reports (let's call it 1000 for simplicity), we have missing data on the total number of reports submitted as Bigfoot encounters. I've read some posts by BFRO investigators that something like 90% of all submitted reports are rejected (never put on public view) because they are not worthy of documenting. This could be because they are obviously false (hoax or misidentification etc) and can be discarded out-of-hand. What this means is that we cannot properly evaluate the number of people who are intentionally creating encounter story fiction. Would it not be interesting if we could know something like... 10,000 people have submitted BF-type reports, and only 1000 are worth documenting because those at least sound somewhat believeable. All of a sudden we could possibly say, "Wow, lots of people are compelled to fake Bigfoot encounter stories and the remaining 1000 might only be the 'best' of the fakes." Many thousands of fiction novels are written each year. Only some of them make the Best Sellers lists.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

28th April 2008, 07:47 AM	#13911
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,370	Originally Posted by William Parcher All of a sudden we could possibly say, "Wow, lots of people are compelled to fake Bigfoot encounter stories and the remaining 1000 might only be the 'best' of the fakes." And also the best misidentifications, daydreams, hallucinations, false memories, etc...
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

28th April 2008, 08:35 AM	#13912
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,914	Quote: ”I think I smell one of them, Charlie. I didn’t want to tell you….” I smell something too... There are so many problems with that story, I don't know where to begin .. Was '67 a dry year, with lots of forest fires in northern CA ?
	__________________ " Is that a real diamond ? If you can't tell, why does it matter ? " Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 28th April 2008 at 08:35 AM.

28th April 2008, 09:22 AM	#13913
Skeptical Greg Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' Posts: 9,914	Here's a little tidbit I don't think I've posted here before.. An excerpt from Patterson's own newsletter, writing how he tracked Patty for 3 miles .. and also recounting that his horse fell ..
	__________________ " Is that a real diamond ? If you can't tell, why does it matter ? " Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 28th April 2008 at 09:55 AM.

28th April 2008, 01:00 PM	#13914
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532	AMM: Let me begin with the footprints on site issue we had discussed. I'm actually seeing a conclusion coming together quickly, from my perspective. I have a few questions, which perhaps you, WP or others can answer: 1. Is Laverty's arrival on the scene "with crew" documented reasonably well (several people, not just him alone)? 2. Did Laverty have any knowledge that Patterson had (or would claim) to have filmed a creature making the footprints found? My point being, if he came across footprints, I would not think he had any expectation a film showing the creature making the foorprints existed. And if not expecting any filming to have occured when a creature was present, he would not have any concern for any evidence of human activity on the site, other than observing evidence of human activity in relation to the footprints. Any reports or evidence toward or against this idea? Correa: "My disagreements with you start when you look for these flaws at PGF. At this point, I really don't think qualifications matter or should be used as an argument. " Well, I have two choices. I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added)" and no explanation of how I got to that opinion, or I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added) and then explain my experience which has shaped or influenced my opinion. I prefer to explain how my opinion was formed or on what it is based, and that inevitably requires me to mention my experience at times. The point of explaining how an opinion is formed is to allow others more options to test the opinion by their own investigation and research. An opinion without any explaination often leaves people simply wondering "where did that idea come from?" Bill
Bill Munns Muse Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 532

28th April 2008, 02:50 PM	#13915
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,370	Originally Posted by Bill Munns Well, I have two choices. I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added)" and no explanation of how I got to that opinion, or I can say "I think . . . (with opinion added) and then explain my experience which has shaped or influenced my opinion. I prefer to explain how my opinion was formed or on what it is based, and that inevitably requires me to mention my experience at times. The point of explaining how an opinion is formed is to allow others more options to test the opinion by their own investigation and research. An opinion without any explaination often leaves people simply wondering "where did that idea come from?" Bill I understand your position. One of the things I am trying to say is that it can be easilly misinterpreted as an argument from authority. Not to mention that in some cases, the line separating both cases may be quite blurry. Note that at any moment there was a major questioning regarding the building methods and their telltale marks. Its quite clear from where it all came from. Again, the disagreements are related to other topics. An analogy: Suppose I am an engineer with 40 years of experience building bridges and we are discussing the possible causes of a collapse based on some footage. I can write about building methods and collapse causes and eventually reffer to my background. When we center our discussion on questioning if the footage has enough resolution to display features (say, corrosion marks) which would favor my idea or yours, my bridge-building background is not very relevant at this specific stage. This is my second point. Of course, ideally the refferences should be towards publicated data, say, textbooks. Since as far as I know there are not too many books written on how to build gorilla suits, you must mention your experience... And it has a lot of weight. However, on the other hand, I do think we all have the right to disagree with experts, within their field of expertise, when the data and or the analysis presented are found lacking. If we are wrong, then they will have no problem showing our mistakes. For example, I question Meldrum's and Krantz's conclusions, regardless of their qualifications because the problems I see at their analysis. This is my third point. Well, I'm afraid we may be heading towards an OT digression. Maybe it would be better to focus at other issues we previously touched.
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley