Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Skeptical Greg]

What would Jesus do if he saw Bigfoot?

Heal his deformed a$$ ?

 

[Hitch]

Hitch wrote:


And...as a bonus....it gets wider in the WRONG frame!!

In the "doll hand illusion" animated gif......the fingers look more bent in the frame where the hand appears wider.

Just the OPPOSITE happens with Patty's hand.....the hand appears wider in the frame where the fingers are straighter.
Reinforcing what I pointed out earlier......it's not an illusion caused by the hand turning.

Different hand. Different illusion.

 

[Hitch]

The camera must have been moving horizontally...because the image has horizontal streaking in it.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/bendpov4.gif[/qimg]

And horizontal streaking can't make a hand appear to change in width? Amazing!!!

 

[tube]

About two years ago I was helping out the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries by manning a table they had set up at the annual science fiction convention. The table had various books for sale, including some published by Hancock House. I had also set out several early test casts that displayed desiccation ridges. I got into an interesting conversation with a man who did plaster casting of figurines. As I spoke to him, a woman came up and began to look through Chris Murphy's re-issue of Roger Patterson's book, now re-titled The Bigfoot Film Controversy.

When I ended my conversation with this man, this woman suddenly spoke up. Mind you, she initiated the conversation, and I had no idea who this woman was. She opened the book to page 88, and pointed out this photograph to me:

For those who have not read the book, the photo on page 88 is of Roger Patterson, allegedly taken in Ape Canyon, which is on the south side of Mt. St. Helens in Washington. This was the site of a classic Bigfoot encounter in 1924.

Out of nowhere she tells me that the picture is a fake, and that she was there when the picture was taken! I was so taken aback that I asked her to write down what whe had told me. Note that she puts Ape Canyon in California, probably due to our subsequent conversation about Patterson's film.

Her note reads (with personal information redacted)

"Bobbie H. 509-***-**** #########@aol.com

p. 88 Bigfoot Film Controversy

I was there when picture was taken -- South Fork of Ahtanum 20 miles west of Yakima. My mom threw gas on fire to make it flare up. NOT taken in California.

Niece of Jerry Merritt"

The Niece of Jerry Merrit! If true, it suggests Patterson engaged in Bigfoot related fraud before his Bluff Creek film.

I had always assumed that Gimlin took the photo. At the Bellingham conference in late May 2005 I asked Bob Gimlin about going to Ape Canyon with Patterson. Surprisingly, Gimlin told me that he was not in Ape Canyon with Patterson! He told me he went to Spirit Lake with Patterson, but Spirit Lake was on the NORTH side of the mountain, and quite a distance from Ape Canyon.

So who took the picture???

Personally, I've always been more interested in physical evidence than anecdotal evidence. It's possible that this gal is mistaken or is being deceitful. But part of the reason that I bring this little tidbit forward is to counter the claim that Greg Long set out to find witnesses that had a negative opinion of Roger Patterson. This information was VOLUNTEERED to me, and I asked no "leading questions" at all. This gal's testimony is totally consistent with what the other witnesses in Long's book relate about Patterson, and further it goes beyond what Patterson apologists claim about Patterson's deceit, that it was not Bigfoot related.

I understand Dave Murphy (no relation to Chris Murphy) was working on a pro-Patterson book. I advised Murphy of this account. We will have to wait and see if Murphy follows up on it. I'm betting it won't happen...

 

[Belz...]

I'm looking forward to Squeaky's forthcoming reaction to actual analysis.

I'll respond more to your posts later tonight, Rick....I only have a few minutes available right now.

Well that was refreshing !

 

[Belz...]

And...as a bonus....it gets wider in the WRONG frame!!

In the "doll hand illusion" animated gif......the fingers look more bent in the frame where the hand appears wider.

Just the OPPOSITE happens with Patty's hand.....the hand appears wider in the frame where the fingers are straighter.
Reinforcing what I pointed out earlier......it's not an illusion caused by the hand turning.

Magnificent. Someone presents an example showing how non-bending fingers can appear to be bending, and now you expect all elements of both the PGF frames and the doll frames to be the same ?

Where the hell did you learn to interpret videos like this ?

 

[Spektator]

In the "doll hand illusion" animated gif......the fingers look more bent in the frame where the hand appears wider.

Just the OPPOSITE happens with Patty's hand.....the hand appears wider in the frame where the fingers are straighter.
Reinforcing what I pointed out earlier......it's not an illusion caused by the hand turning.

That's it?

That's it?

So you think the doll hand illusion works only one way? What if I do a couple of more photos where the opposite happens, and the "thinner" hand looks more curved? It's a matter of angle, distance, and elevation, that's all. So if I do that--no, I know exactly how you'd respond.

 

[SweatyYeti]

spektator wrote:

What if I do a couple of more photos where the opposite happens, and the "thinner" hand looks more curved?

Go ahead.

 

[kitakaze]

And you go ahead and do us all a favour and squeeze off a point, Spanky. You're not exactly humbling any skeptics with your blithering over inanity. Have you shown that two insequential frames giving the appearance of finger bending is not an illusion? Not in the slightest. Have you directed our attention to any element of the PGF subject that rules out a man in a suit? Hell no with a side of not at all, a cup of nice try, and a pat on the head to go. Showing how bad your 2-step is is just too easy. When ever you decide to dislodge your fingers from your ears you can enlighten us by telling us exactly what must we pretend if the fingers do indeed bend.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, if anyone's interested, while still locked the main bigfoot wikipedia article has taken a complete nosedive in terms of quality. A couple examples being the loss of the etymology section and the Search for Bigfoot-esque attribution of the word 'sasquatch' to 'west coast natives'. What's the deal?

 

[fsol]

Good gosh, no wonder believers in bigfoot don't want to comment on this pair of photos! Uncanny resemblance there.

Personally I think that uncropped those pictures are even more damning for the pattycakes. Unfortunately Chris Walas pics all lead to dead links over on BFF now. From a purely visual comparison of the two, one of them looks to have the proportions of a man, and the other doesn't.

Talking about it further is pretty useless however, if you go look at the older threads from a couple of years ago, all this has already been pointed out, flexible fingers and all.

 

[LTC8K6]

And look! The hand gets wider! Amazing!!!

Very close to proof that it is the angle causing the "bending" imo.

 

[kitakaze]

Talking about it further is pretty useless however, if you go look at the older threads from a couple of years ago, all this has already been pointed out, flexible fingers and all.

Yeah! What Future Sound of London said! Let's hear about some reliable evidence... er, interesting evidence... no wait... umm... interesting video, game-cam, still shots? *sigh* We're gonna hear Spongey horse-hump the PGF more, aren't we?

 

[Hitch]

Very close to proof that it is the angle causing the "bending" imo.

Harbor no illusions. I certainly don't. Those lines don't prove anything -- except any idiot can draw lines on a picture.*




* For clarification, I'M the idiot I am referring to. I have absolutely no expertise in photographic analysis and no good reason to waste my time on the effort of drawing those lines.

 

[Hitch]

Yeah! What Future Sound of London said! Let's hear about some reliable evidence... er, interesting evidence... no wait... umm... interesting video, game-cam, still shots? *sigh* We're gonna hear Spongey horse-hump the PGF more, aren't we?

I think the term you were searching for is "any" evidence. Don't feel bad, the Pattycakes have the same problem.

 

[kitakaze]

I think the term you were searching for is "any" evidence. Don't feel bad, the Pattycakes have the same problem.

*gasp* How provocative! That's the kind of rant ammo that Spiffy adores. Be prepared for a premature woogasm by him on how sightings are evidence and some fluff with lots of 'p' words. He doesn't quite get that the same can be said for goat suckers, werewolves, and everything else that goes bump in the night. Oh, if he only had a point.

 

[LTC8K6]

It wasn't the lines, Hitch. I just did some experiments with my own hand.

 

[tconley2019]

spektator wrote:



Go ahead.

SweatyYeti, rather than waiting for spektator to take more pictures, do what I just did. Cup your hand a little and hold it so that you're looking at it edge on. Rotate the hand until you can see your knuckles. Your hand should look wide, with the fingers clearly bent. Now rotate it back so that your fingers are mostly in the same plane. Now your fingers look straight and the hand is thinner. That's probably what you see with Patty.

Now, since your hand is in the correct position and near the head anyway, slap yourself a couple times for not having the intellectual curiousity to look down at your own hand.

 

[kitakaze]

Now, since your hand is in the correct position and near the head anyway, slap yourself a couple times for not having the intellectual curiousity to look down at your own hand.

I don't which made me laugh more, that or WP's use of the word podunk.

 

[William Parcher]

How do we know Roger didn't try more than one suit and more than one actor? Maybe Roger didn't like the results of the suit that BH wore?

I guess we can't know those things. Roger is dead and con't confess anything anymore, even if he would have eventually decided to do this. Bob Gimlin is still alive and therefore has the opportunity to reveal anything he may already know. Heironimus gives direct testimony to wearing the suit during the PGF (with specific mention of the famous turn-to-look, aka Frame 352), as well as background testimony that puts the Patterson hoax into a more global (spacio-temporal) context.

The demo would be how Roger wanted his sasquatch to walk.
BH could have been a rehearsal that Roger cut, but he liked the walk.

Or, somebody else was the demo and BH was the final actor in the final cut?

BH could simply have been making Patty tracks for Roger, unbeknownst to BH.

As if Roger himself could not simply put on the Patty costume pants and feet and create the tracks himself. Why call BH to Bluff Creek to make these tracks (and offer $1000 to do it) when anybody could have worn the fake feet and walked across that sandbar?

There were three sets of tracks out there, right? Junior, Momma, and Poppa. Maybe BH was just one of those sets of tracks.

Lordy Lord. Why do I keep hearing the sound of a loud guitar?

I don't think I've ever agreed that BH was definitely Patty, or that Patty was definitely a man in a suit.

I thought I saw a posting here from you where you agreed with me that BH was probably the guy in the suit shown in the PGF. My memory is decent, but not perfect at all.

I'm about 99.9% sure that Patty is a man in a suit.

Because you see the sudden bunching/folding/creasing of the costume skin on the right thigh?

I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that Roger tried more than one suit and more than one actor.

I guess that's reasonable. Do you have anything that you've seen or read that suggests this? I'm genuinly curious of any obviously fundamental flaws in BH's testimony that suggests he is unaware of what really happened leading to the final PGF (i.e. yes BH, you are telling the truth about your experiences with RP, but even still... it was not you shown in the PGF, but instead was another actor).

How about other variations?...

Patricia Patterson films Bob Gimlin in the costume as Roger directs the action from the side.

John Green films Ronald Reagan in the costume as Bob Heironimus directs the action from the side. The end product is called the Patterson-Gimlin Film.

Minds will wander when they are given freedoms to do so....