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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DWA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then they back it with EVIDENCE.

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

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

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

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

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