Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[The Shrike]

Originally posted by Barehl in the "Bigfoot Follies - Part Deux" thread:
"There are 952 frames of motion. The speed has been suggested to be at least 16 frames per second and no more than 24 frames per second. So:

952 / 16 = 59.5 seconds
952 / 24 = 39.7 seconds

I doubt a one minute walk would be much of a problem but that is the most that the Pattysuit figure had to do."

This was in response to a question I had posed to Chris - over what distance must I do "the gait" before we can declare that I've replicated it?

I decided to take a look at the film according to observable paces rather than number of frames. I compared PattyBob's pace (= stride, i.e., 2 steps) to my own. I started here with stabilized footage but then went to the full footage to try to estimate for how long PattyBob was on camera.

1) By my reckoning, Patty appears at 2:36 and is in and out of view until the film runs out at 3:28. 60-36 = 24 secs, added to the 28 secs after 3:00 = 52 secs on camera.

2) The only time Patty can be seen clearly taking steps is from 2:52 to 3:03. That's 11 seconds.

3) During those 11 seconds, I count 8 paces. That's 0.73 paces/sec.

4) Assuming a constant pace over the entire 52-second segment, I estimated that Patty took 38 total paces. I'm estimating that PattyBob completed 38 paces in 52 seconds.

How does that compare to my pace?

1) I did my slightly exaggerated walk and it took me 48 seconds to get in 38 paces.

2) With my handy-dandy field measuring tape, I determined that I had covered 267' in those 38 paces.

3) My pace works out to 84.32" for a step length of 42.16" over a distance of 267'.

Some observations then:

a) Not only can I do the "Patty gait" easily, I can do it easily over a distance of at least 267'.

b) With my step length of 42" being longer than Patty's 40", it stands to reason that my 38 paces carried me farther than Patty's carried her. In other words, PattyBob is on film covering a distance of < 267'.

c) Not only was PattyBob's distance over 38 paces shorter than mine, the duration of time to walk that distance was longer, i.e., 52 seconds vs. my 48.

What does this mean? I don't know, other than that it's one more demonstration that the subject of the PGF is not doing anything remarkable in walking along the sandbar. I see nothing to suggest a very large size of the individual in the suit or any indication of athleticism that would rule out an average bloke like myself.

 

[Wolrab]

This is killing me. Why would anyone believe that the creators of the PGF actually recorded, measured, and made casts of actual tracks the monkey suited guy made?

They had as much time as they needed to create the tracks just the way they wanted them.

People are arguing about stride length, head bobbing, distance from the camera, photogrametry, height of the monkey suited guy and other imaginary minutia.

Nothing about that film is real other than it was shot in the woods.

 

[GT/CS]

All true, but 'footers like to come here and troll us so they won't listen to logic. That's one reason Chris, OS, and the other one are all on 'ignore'.

 

[barehl]

2) With my handy-dandy field measuring tape, I determined that I had covered 267' in those 38 paces.

My pace works out to 84.32" for a step length of 42.16" over a distance of 267'.

I could try it myself. I have a measuring wheel that I can use to get the distance.

 

[Garrette]

If memory serves, my 100 meter pace count in the military was consistently 54 which converts to a step length of just over 38 inches, not far from the unreachable 40.

 

[The Shrike]

This is killing me. Why would anyone believe that the creators of the PGF actually recorded, measured, and made casts of actual tracks the monkey suited guy made?

They had as much time as they needed to create the tracks just the way they wanted them.

That's what got me interested in this aspect. I always assumed they just made the prints separately, but when Chris said the prints were a mere 40" apart, it suggested that maybe they didn't. If I were perpetrating this hoax, I would've put them far enough apart to suggest something bigger than the guy I had put in the suit.

 

[Óðinn]

Odinn, can you show HOW you got the focal length to converge on 25mm?

The layman here, doesn't understand this like you do.

Also, can you recap your qualifications here at IS, I am pretty sure you did at BFF, but many here don't go to that place.

Thanks,

Hi Drew, at least you're a reasonable debater. The other rabble rousers are the reason I stopped posting here. They are more interested in dismissing and discrediting rather than getting to the truth.

My qualifications: I am a geomaticist, with emphasis in photogrammetry & photometrology and I have degrees in astrophysics and computer science. I'm an image analyst that knows how to measure Patty's biometrics on film. I only establish facts by measuring the film, but many here don't seem to like that, which is their problem. They are the reason the PGF hasn't been put to bed, and trust me, the PGF has not been "disproven over and over". Only a formal photogrammetric analysis can do that and I don't recall seeing any on JREF/ISF.

Sorry, but you can't claim the PGF is fake because bigfoot isn't real. Science doesn't work that way. So if any of you harp on that aspect, then you sure as hell aren't scientists.

Here is the report which I compiled back in 2009 which IMO, disproved Bill's 15mm lens theory. But this report was based on Bill's 3rd gen copy of the PGF which turned out not to match the aspect of the original film. Once I corrected for this, the focal length of the lens converged on 25mm.

Shrike, if I told you a story that contradicted yours, would you buy it? Of course not. You're a scientist and you know stories are for suckers. You need facts right? So show me your damned video so I can measure your head bob, otherwise, I'll file away your story in my round filing cabinet, like you would do to mine. You wouldn't buy any of my anecdotes, so why I should I trust any of yours? Face it, you can't estimate your vertical variance within an inch if you don't actually measure anything. That's just eyeballing, which is very unscientific. And what is your experience measuring biometrics on film BTW?

 

[MikeG]

.........
Shrike, if I told you a story that contradicted yours, would you buy it? Of course not. You're a scientist and you know stories are for suckers. You need facts right? So show me your damned video........

Do you know what happens to scientists who give up their anonymity when discussing BF?

Footers try to get them fired. They ring up the head of their institution and make all sorts of accusations to try to get them removed. They slander and libel them. They harry them personally. Think I'm making this up? Well, Parnassus of this forum and the BFF suffered exactly that.

So why would you expect The Shrike to subject himself to those sort of attentions from a bunch of obsessive nuts? I doubt if anyone on this board would risk their anonymity in the way you demand, because everyone knows what kind of craziness they would then face.

 

[MikeG]

...... Face it, you can't estimate your vertical variance within an inch if you don't actually measure anything. That's just eyeballing, which is very unscientific. And what is your experience measuring biometrics on film BTW?

You're 100% right, of course. But I didn't notice you raising the same point when whatshisname put a straightedge on his computer monitor to eyeball the head movement of Patty. Why did you ignore that blatant bit of nonsense?

 

[River]

Odin believes the actor in the suit made the trackway that Patterson & Gimlin claimed came from the film subject. (which is horse crap)

I've shown him proof the tracks were indeed faked. Does he accept it? Not likely he will ever, as he is a footer not a skeptic. He's often trolled nonsense (in a better worded reponse than most footers granted) here at the old JREF board, and on the BFF.

 

[John Nowak]

The Shrike can't post his video evidence because his second cousin's former driving instructor is in shot.

 

[Cervelo]

Hi Drew, at least you're a reasonable debater. The other rabble rousers are the reason I stopped posting here. They are more interested in dismissing and discrediting rather than getting to the truth.

My qualifications: I am a geomaticist, with emphasis in photogrammetry & photometrology and I have degrees in astrophysics and computer science. I'm an image analyst that knows how to measure Patty's biometrics on film. I only establish facts by measuring the film, but many here don't seem to like that, which is their problem. They are the reason the PGF hasn't been put to bed, and trust me, the PGF has not been "disproven over and over". Only a formal photogrammetric analysis can do that and I don't recall seeing any on JREF/ISF.

Sorry, but you can't claim the PGF is fake because bigfoot isn't real. Science doesn't work that way. So if any of you harp on that aspect, then you sure as hell aren't scientists.

Here is the report which I compiled back in 2009 which IMO, disproved Bill's 15mm lens theory. But this report was based on Bill's 3rd gen copy of the PGF which turned out not to match the aspect of the original film. Once I corrected for this, the focal length of the lens converged on 25mm.

Shrike, if I told you a story that contradicted yours, would you buy it? Of course not. You're a scientist and you know stories are for suckers. You need facts right? So show me your damned video so I can measure your head bob, otherwise, I'll file away your story in my round filing cabinet, like you would do to mine. You wouldn't buy any of my anecdotes, so why I should I trust any of yours? Face it, you can't estimate your vertical variance within an inch if you don't actually measure anything. That's just eyeballing, which is very unscientific. And what is your experience measuring biometrics on film BTW?

Boy you must stay at Holiday Inn alot!?!

Your blatherings would indicate your no scientist and/or you've checked your common sense at the door.

Why don't you channel your sciencey side and present one scrap of evidence that Bigfoot is anything other than a social construct.

After you do that, then bring in a body that looks like a dude in a crappy suit and then Pattys the real deal...until then its a hoax

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Hi Drew, at least you're a reasonable debater. The other rabble rousers are the reason I stopped posting here. They are more interested in dismissing and discrediting rather than getting to the truth

The truth being that the PGF is an obvious hoax? Brilliant. So, we're all very aware of the truth then, great.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You're 100% right, of course. But I didn't notice you raising the same point when whatshisname put a straightedge on his computer monitor to eyeball the head movement of Patty. Why did you ignore that blatant bit of nonsense?

Answer's on a postcard, please.

 

[The Shrike]

Sorry, but you can't claim the PGF is fake because bigfoot isn't real. Science doesn't work that way. So if any of you harp on that aspect, then you sure as hell aren't scientists.

Bullcrap. The #1 reason the PGF is fake is that bigfoot isn't real. It's the same reason the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are fake. Our best evidence suggests that the non-avian dinosaurs have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous and that there's no such creature as bigfoot.

Now if there's something in either film to suggest that the subjects were indeed what they are claimed to be then by all means we can use that information to amend our provisional conclusion. In the case of the dinos, it's pretty easy to trace the film to the special effects professionals who are credited on the film, and to documentaries illustrating how those effects creating the illusion of living, breathing dinosaurs.

What about the PGF? We lack that open admission that the film is fake, so the best we can do is examine the film (assuming we're willing to ignore so much of what is known about the filmmaker) to see if we can rule out the vastly more likely possibility that Patty was a guy in a furry suit than that Patty was an otherwise unknown species. If there's an analysis that does this then 1) I haven't seen it and 2) there's a groundbreaking paper that someone's not publishing.

Shrike, if I told you a story that contradicted yours, would you buy it?

Depends on the "story". Is it what you did on summer vacation when you were 8 years old or is it some analysis you've done? If the latter, then I would extend to you the professional courtesy of assuming that you weren't representing your work dishonestly.

So show me your damned video so I can measure your head bob, otherwise, I'll file away your story in my round filing cabinet, like you would do to mine.

Oh, well if your story is that Patty's head doesn't bob up and down then yes, I will take it with a grain of salt until I see some analysis to establish that claim. That's the whole point, isn't it? PattyBob's head motion was not 0" +/- 0". What was it, and how do we know? How well do we know it? If we can't establish what it was, then we have no grounds on which to judge attempts to replicate it.

I have been very open about the crude nature of my eyeballed estimates and that I would honestly report my result should I conduct the demonstration with appropriate rigor. If PattyBob is doing something on the film that I'm unable to do then I'll gladly report that result here. This is, you know, what scientists do: we unravel truths even when at the expense of our preconceived notions.

 

[The Shrike]

So why would you expect The Shrike to subject himself to those sort of attentions from a bunch of obsessive nuts?

While that is my primary motivation for maintaining whatever anonymity I still might have after all these years, it's really not an issue in this case, Mike. People already know that I'm an American white guy and a bit over 6' tall. I can pretty easily mask my face and make sure I'm not wearing a "University of ____________" T-shirt in the video!


Edit -
To be clear, I have no video that I have not shared. If I see justification for making one I will, and I'll share it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

While that is my primary motivation for maintaining whatever anonymity I still might have after all these years, it's really not an issue in this case, Mike. People already know that I'm an American white guy and a bit over 6' tall. I can pretty easily mask my face and make sure I'm not wearing a "University of ____________" T-shirt in the video!


Edit -
To be clear, I have no video that I have not shared. If I see justification for making one I will, and I'll share it.

Unless and until certain parties provide measurable standards, ANY video of ANYone performing ANY "walk" will engender nothing more than getting the wagons ina circle and moving the goalposts.

(BTW, I was at University of _________ for grad work. Did we share any classes?)

 

[The Shrike]

(BTW, I was at University of _________ for grad work. Did we share any classes?)

That was you?!

 

[Slowvehicle]

That was you?!

...all nine times...

 

[carlitos]

The best thing about University of _____ is the color scheme of their sweatshirts. And the radio personalities on the college station.