• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Óðinn said:
I am a geomaticist
Click to expand...
This means that you have something to do with geographic information. For example, if you created contour maps you would be a geomaticist.

with emphasis in photogrammetry & photometrology
Click to expand...
These both involve measuring photos. Your analysis of the PG film agrees with your statement that you take measurements from aerial photos.

I'm an image analyst that knows how to measure Patty's biometrics on film.
Click to expand...
You aren't measuring biometrics. This is the first suggestion of bias. Although in fairness, it may not be bias. If you are used to aerial photos then you might just be using the wrong word.

Only a formal photogrammetric analysis can do that
Click to expand...
This is roughly equivalent to claiming that I can determine the horsepower of a car by carefully analyzing the paint color and trim lines. Your claim doesn't make sense.

Here is the report which I compiled back in 2009 which IMO, disproved Bill's 15mm lens theory.
Click to expand...
Author is listed as by Gigantofootecus. This is our second suggestion of bias.

Gigantofootecus said:
This is why Bill believes Patty was 7' 4". Her image
Click to expand...

Our third suggestion of bias.

Gigantofootecus said:
Since no historical data is available, the next best bet it to use Patty as a walking ruler to approximate a cross-field measurement. We know the exact frames representing 2 sides of the triangle (to the camera). Let Patty's trackway represent the 3rd "irregular" side. If Patty's step length was 41" in 17 steps she would have traveled 58'. Because she didn't travel in a straight line, the length of the 3rd side of the triangle is probably closer to 56'. Keep in mind we only need to establish a maximum distance for 17 steps of the trackway. For example, if a 60" step length is required to support a 15mm lens, then you have to reject the 41" estimate and accept that Patty was a giant.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say. You've not just stepped outside the bounds of professional analysis; you've hopped in a car and driven to the next county. This time the bias was more than a suggestion and it leads directly to analysis error. Let's continue.

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.
Click to expand...
And this analysis is where?
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Okay, I measured out 140' using my measuring wheel. I measured this several times to be sure it was accurate.

My normal fast walk took 24.5 paces. That's 34" per step.

My long stride was consistently 21.5 paces. That's 39" per step.

So, a 46" step should be possible for someone over 6' tall.
 
What was to stop P&G from doing multiple track ways until they got the desired result. They could then film themselves doing the casts and measurements. I am no student of film but could easily pull that stunt.

Most of the TV shows I watch must be filmed in Washington DC because they always have establishing shots of the Mall, the Capital, and the White House. They wouldn't be trying to trick me, would they?
 
Wolrab said:
What was to stop P&G from doing multiple track ways until they got the desired result. They could then film themselves doing the casts and measurements. I am no student of film but could easily pull that stunt.
Click to expand...
It's of a certainty that the tracks were not made by the Pattysuit figure, in spite of what the Footies here have claimed.
 
Óðinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is one Pattyphiles always get wrong. Concerning footie, science says there is no good evidence to suggest such a creature exists. The PGF certainly isn't good evidence, not with its diaper ass, its wolfman-esque mask and its all-around ****** resolution.

Of course this is provisional and a skeptic (or skeptical scientist) would have to adjust their opinion if ole foo was carted up and put on a slab. But I don't see this happening any time soon. Does anyone, really?

You don't, do you?
 
A good quality copy of frame 350

McaCqNz.png
 
MikeG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I had understood this started, but it apparently got a lot worse.

When you study the literature on internet trolling that classifies them as sadists, this comes as no surprise:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
 
Peoples criticism of the PGF proves to me that photos and videos of Bigfoot are pointless, regardless of how clear they are. Their bodies and walking gate are almost identical to humans and all someone has to do to look like one is put on a fur suit.

There was a window of opportunity for people to get more films like the PGF before we had more advanced costume and computer technology, but it didn't happen. Anything coming out now will be even more suspect as the bar is now set much higher than it was back when the PGF came out.
 
Last edited:
If there was such a thing as bigfoot, it would have been filmed/videoed thousands of times by now. Hell, we'd have special forest reserves for them.
 
Wolrab said:
If there was such a thing as bigfoot, it would have been filmed/videoed thousands of times by now. Hell, we'd have special forest reserves for them.
Click to expand...

One has to take into consideration the behaviour and intelligence of the animal. I've learned that Sasquatch don't stay in a persons line of sight long enough and in the instances where they are viewed long enough, the witness is usually too shocked or afraid to think of anything other than what's going on in that moment.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Peoples criticism of the PGF proves to me that photos and videos of Bigfoot are pointless . . .
Click to expand...
Why certainly. The diaper-assed, wader-hipped, wolfman-masked pattysuit fools no one now save the most invested, undiscerning, credulous proponents. More to the point, there is nothing in the fossil record, in the natural history of North America that remotely resembles the creature portrayed in Patterson's fuzzy movie. Further, no proponent, no bigfoot entrepreneur has produced one iota of scientific evidence to advance the bigfoot hypothesis. While the PGF was a success in beguiling the most gullible, it is an abject failure in stimulating scientific interest because let's face it, even children know it's a guy in a suit.
There was a window of opportunity for people to get more films like the PGF before we had more advanced costume and computer technology, but it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
You type this as if folks were interested in reproducing the pattysuit. Why bother?
Anything coming out now will be even more suspect as the bar is now set much higher than it was back when the PGF came out.
Click to expand...
Anything coming out now is suspect because there is no such creature. The bar is neither high nor low, existing only in the fantasies of footers. No one else gives a ****.
 
Getting evidence of this particular creature isn't easy and it's not because they don't exist. I'm beginning to understand now that they were designed to be near perfect. It's actually amazing that we even have something like the PGF. I don't think Roger understood the true significance of what he caught on film that day.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Getting evidence of this particular creature isn't easy and it's not because they don't exist. I'm beginning to understand now that they were designed to be near perfect. It's actually amazing that we even have something like the PGF. I don't think Roger understood the true significance of what he caught on film that day.
Click to expand...

So they are omniscient? Interesting.

We're not 12 here OS; this isn't the BFF where every sort of absurdity is entertained. Nor is this the playground at recess; please advance adult arguments or pull your lines from the water.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Getting evidence of this particular creature isn't easy and it's not because they don't exist. I'm beginning to understand now that they were designed to be near perfect. It's actually amazing that we even have something like the PGF. I don't think Roger understood the true significance of what he caught on film that day.
Click to expand...

LOL whats amazing is anyone would think PGF is anything other than part of Rogers Bigfoot movie.
But I guess reality escapes some people.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Getting evidence of this particular creature isn't easy and it's not because they don't exist. I'm beginning to understand now that they were designed to be near perfect. It's actually amazing that we even have something like the PGF. I don't think Roger understood the true significance of what he caught on film that day.
Click to expand...

Roger knew exactly what he caught on film that day, after all, he designed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom