Patterson film: Credit where credit is due

The problem is that the picture is too blurry to make a conclusive photographic analysis. Remember the face on Mars?

http://www.skepdic.com/faceonmars.html

The first photographs showed a structure that looked like a giant face. Analysis showed that 'something' was there and in fact, the best analysis could not disprove there was a face. The later high-resolution pictures showed that the 'face' was actually a group of mountains that have been eroded by the strong, directional winds on Mars. Even so, there are still some people who reject the new pictures as fakes, and prefer to believe that there are cities on Mars built by ancient aliens.

It is useless to try and prove anything based on tiny details in that blurry film. It might be worth a try if the original film were available for analysis, but conveniently enough, it isn't. Using these blurry photos, you can prove anything, like the bigfoot is holding a baby or is sporting an erection:

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/
 
SweatyYeti said:
Mad Hom wrote:

It's been shown humans can duplicate a "compliant gait"....but has it been shown WHY the "guy in the suit" walked with a compliant gait in the first place??
Was there a precedent for that kind of walk by a supposed Bigfoot creature?
Click to expand...

Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk? He's the one who claims to have been wearing the suit in the film and he was shown walking in the National Geographic show "Is It Real?". He's one of those people who walks in an ape-like manner, swinging his long arm with his knuckles pointing forward. After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.
 
bjb said:
....After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.
Click to expand...

Actually, if it was a guy in a suit, I'm sure it was Dale Heater.

What? You don't know Dale?

He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?
 
SweatyYeti said:
----------------
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.
Click to expand...

While you are at it, see if you can figure out why this Bigfoot has muscles shaped like donuts, a butt that is detached from the thigh, deltoids and pecs that don't follow the upper arm to the extent they should, breasts that don't really move like you would expect them to ( no bounce to speak of ) and hernia looking knots that just pop up out of nowhere ..

There has been a lot of discussion about the thigh hernia, but I just noticed these on the back of the thigh and calf ..

hernia2.gif


The standard dismissal is: " Must be light and shadow .. "


See, it's like this ..

Resembles real muscle . = Must be real, and proof it's a real Bigfoot .

Looks unnatural, like no muscle shape seen on earth .. = Must be light and shadow...


The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0
 
Diogenes said:
The bottom line is this ..

We know there are guys..

We know there are suits ..

We know guys can wear suits ..


We don't have a Bigfoot, much less one that looks like the subject of this film..


Guy in suit = 3
Bigfoot = 0
Click to expand...
I like your thinking!

It even gets better when you add in a couple of other bits:

We know people create bigfoot hoaxes..

We know that some of the "footprints" have been made by hoaxers..

5- zip

Must be a lot more yet.....

Next!
 
SweatyYeti said:
As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.
Click to expand...
Gotcha!

I agree entirely - it just can't be a man in the suit, the head's completely wrong. Thanks to that, I believe that I've solved the puzzle of bigfoot and why he/she has never actually been seen in the meantime.

You're all looking the wrong place!













THIS is the guy in the suit! The forehead fits the suit perfectly.

Ya needs to look under water!
 
RayG said:
Would it really truly matter?

RayG
Click to expand...

Yes, it would matter because then you would know what you were talking about. By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit.

I should add that Bob H's statements are not speculation because they are first-hand testimony. Whether or not Bob H is a credible witness can be the subject of speculation. He did pass the test, furthermore, he was willing to take the test, unlike certain other people connected with the film. Maybe he's lying, but which is more credible: Bob H. is a KGB spy-worthy liar and the film shows a real bigfoot, or he really was the guy in the suit?

As with every other fringe belief, any single clue that leads to the debunking of the film is waved away by the believers. But when all of these clues are put together, it becomes clear that the film is a hoax. There are way too many problems with the film and especially with the circumstances around it for it to be real. On the other hand, the believers try and point to small details that could suggest the film is valid. They look at the film and see babies and hard-ons, but they don't seem to notice the unrealistic motions of the body itself. Just like believers in Sylvia Browne, they remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'.

I advise anyone interested in bigfoot and crypto-zoology in general to learn about other lunatic fringe beliefs and see just how much they all have in common with each other. For example, the Cottingly Fairy hoax has all of the same elements, such as photographic proof examined by experts and proclaimed to be genuine. In the case of the fairies, the photographs were well-focused and original negatives were examined, and the experts were still fooled. But as with the bigfoot film, the 'other' photographs taken by the girls were never examined or even asked for. Out of a couple dozen attempts, only 4-5 pictures were presented as evidence. This hoax is very similar to the bigfoot film hoax because all of the photographic evidence (the entire original, unedited film) has never been seen. Anyway, learn about hoaxes in general and you'll learn to recognize one when you see it.
 
bjb said:
Yes, it would matter because then you would know what you were talking about.
Click to expand...

You mean the way you know Bob H. is the guy in the suit based on his walk?

By the way, Bob H has also passed a lie detector test that he was the man in the suit. Passing the lie detector test is not conclusive evidence, but if he had failed then even I wouldn't believe he was in the suit.
Click to expand...
You put much faith in a machine that does not detect lies.

From http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/polygraph.html

The secret of the polygraph-the polygraphers' own shameless deception-is that their machine is no more capable of assessing truth telling than were the priests of ancient Rome standing knee-deep in chicken parts...dozens of studies over the past twenty years conducted in psychology departments and medical schools all over the world have shown that the polygraph cannot distinguish between truth-telling and lying.

The truth is this: The polygraph is a ruse, carefully constructed as a tool of intimidation, and used as an excuse to conduct an illegal inquisition under psychologically and physically unpleasant circumstances. Spies know how to beat it, and no court in the land permits submission of polygraphs, even to exonerate the accused.
Click to expand...
As with every other fringe belief, any single clue that leads to the debunking of the film is waved away by the believers. But when all of these clues are put together, it becomes clear that the film is a hoax. There are way too many problems with the film and especially with the circumstances around it for it to be real. On the other hand, the believers try and point to small details that could suggest the film is valid. They look at the film and see babies and hard-ons, but they don't seem to notice the unrealistic motions of the body itself. Just like believers in Sylvia Browne, they remember the 'hits' and forget the 'misses'.
Click to expand...
You seem to think I believe the film captured an actual bigfoot. Might you be mistaken in that assumption?

I advise anyone interested in bigfoot and crypto-zoology in general to learn about other lunatic fringe beliefs and see just how much they all have in common with each other. For example, the Cottingly Fairy hoax has all of the same elements, such as photographic proof examined by experts and proclaimed to be genuine. In the case of the fairies, the photographs were well-focused and original negatives were examined, and the experts were still fooled. But as with the bigfoot film, the 'other' photographs taken by the girls were never examined or even asked for. Out of a couple dozen attempts, only 4-5 pictures were presented as evidence. This hoax is very similar to the bigfoot film hoax because all of the photographic evidence (the entire original, unedited film) has never been seen. Anyway, learn about hoaxes in general and you'll learn to recognize one when you see it.
Click to expand...
I hope you're not implying I'm ignorant of those things which you mention. I have made numerous comparisons between bigfoot and crop cricles, UFOs, unicorns, etc. etc. You seem to be jumping to erroneous assumptions based on incomplete information.

It may well be your opinion that Bob H was wearing the suit that day, but the fact he walks in a similar manner doesn't prove it.

RayG
 
Huntster said:
He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe that that is an accurate representation of the scientific method?

Because when I read it, I recognize it as pretty much the opposite of logic and the scientific method.
 
Beleth said:
Originally Posted by Huntster
He walks like a sasquatch, is built like a sasquatch, is as strong as a sasquatch, has the intellect of a sasquatch, and loves a practical joke. If you ask him (which I have not), he'll likely tell you he was the guy in the suit.
Click to expand...

In accordance with your logic, that's proof it was a guy in a suit, and that it was Dale, right? That's "science", right?
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe that that is an accurate representation of the scientific method?.....[/QUOTE]

I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.

It certainly isn't a scientific answer for me.
 
bjb wrote:
The problem is that the picture is too blurry to make a conclusive photographic analysis. Remember the face on Mars?
Click to expand...
The "it's too fuzzy" argument won't hold a drop of water in this analysis...because we're not dealing with details within the head, or face...just the outline of the head...in profile.
The blurring associated with that amounts to only a small fraction of the overall body height, and when the edge is sharpened, any measurement error of the size of the head is MINISCULE.

Here are two frames. The profile is the one I'm working with....I'm trying to draw a human head in there that's the proper size...but with no luck so far!
 
bjb said:
Have you seen Bob Hieronimus walk? He's the one who claims to have been wearing the suit in the film and he was shown walking in the National Geographic show "Is It Real?". He's one of those people who walks in an ape-like manner, swinging his long arm with his knuckles pointing forward. After seeing him walk, it's pretty darn obvious that he was the guy in the suit.
Click to expand...

Have you seen him walk like that in a padded bulky bigfoot suit?
 
SweatyYeti said:
As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.
Click to expand...

Please post this when you are done. Look at the size of Baker's Harry head. Now that is something which would accomodate a human head with ease. Check out the difference in size between Baker's Harry head and what we can see in the P/G footage. Harry's head goes straight up and doesn't slope backwards.
 
Huntster said:
I was asking bjb. Please note the question marks.
Click to expand...
A question mark preceded by a comma and the word "right" typically denotes either a sarcastic question or an implicit assumption by the questioner of an affirmative response. Sometimes both.

I wasn't sure in which vein you meant what you said, so I asked.

It certainly isn't a scientific answer for me.
Click to expand...
Okay then.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Mad Hom wrote:

It's been shown humans can duplicate a "compliant gait"....but has it been shown WHY the "guy in the suit" walked with a compliant gait in the first place??
Was there a precedent for that kind of walk by a supposed Bigfoot creature?

As for some decent evidence....I'm working on an analysis of Patty's head, that I'm pretty sure shows that due to the sharply sloping forehead, it simply can't be a guy-in-a-suit. A human head just doesn't fit into that space...not one that's in correct proportion to the body.
I'm still working on it, but at the moment it looks good for Bigfoot....and pretty bad for the "guy-in-a-suit" theory.
Click to expand...

Analysis?? Seems to me that what you have is a conclusion (That Patty's melon is un-human) and now your just trying to prove it.

Of course it looks good for Bigfeet...you want it to look that way.
 
Huntster said:
There certainly are photos of the foot that made the casts that Patterson and Gimlin cast in October, 1967.

In fact, we can clearly see the bottom of the feet in the photos.
Click to expand...

Do we ever actually see the foot you speak of making the prints? Oh and when I ask the question "Do we have the foot?" What I actually mean is....do we have an actual Bigfeet foot attatched to an actual Bigfeet that we have observed make a footprint?

Sorry Fuddster but a picture of a Bigfeet foot is only worth about one word...

Useless!
 
carcharodon wrote:
Please post this when you are done. Look at the size of Baker's Harry head.
Click to expand...

I sure will carcharodon...in a day or two!

Harry's head, and all the other hoax suits I've seen have that same feature...a tall vertical, human-looking forehead. Very much unlike Patty's head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom