• 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.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
SweatyYeti said:
Want to see a "Jref special" :boggled: debate, Luminous...
Here you go...

The following link goes to the start of a "debate" over whether or not Patty's fingers are actually bending in this 2-frame animated clip....or if it's just an illusion.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]

It begins with my post, #3680....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782&page=92

One would think it's obvious that the fingers are indeed bending.....but not so if one is a "skeptic" :covereyes on Jref.


I heard that you heard that kitakaze is a real nice guy in real life....but here is a healthy dose of "real life kitakaze" for you to digest...in post #3251....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782&page=82


Enjoy! :D
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, that appears to be unimpeachable evidence of movable digits. I'd like to know how Patterson pulled that off if it was a simple suit? Again, maybe it's because it was NOT a suit? It is something that should be considered...
 
Pretty good blog, there, LTC. Whose is it?
Click to expand...

How would I know, I'm a ridiculous scoftic who's blind, and does no analysis or research on bigfoot.

I just sit here and say "Where's the body?" all day.

A bunch of lemurs jumped on my keyboard and that blog came up, I guess.
 
Without a doubt, that appears to be unimpeachable evidence of movable digits. I'd like to know how Patterson pulled that off if it was a simple suit? Again, maybe it's because it was NOT a suit? It is something that should be considered...
Click to expand...

We'd (the gang) like to know why bending fingers is supposed to be significant. You appear to be suggesting that it means it was not a suit, which, to give you credit, is more than we got out of Sweaty I believe.
 
Luminous said:
Without a doubt, that appears to be unimpeachable evidence of movable digits. I'd like to know how Patterson pulled that off if it was a simple suit? Again, maybe it's because it was NOT a suit? It is something that should be considered...
Click to expand...
Oh yes! They move alright .. Patty took a step ..

Is this peachable ?

DollHand1ag.gif


Would you believe those are rigid plastic fingers ?
 
Diogenes said:
Oh yes! They move alright .. Patty took a step ..

Is this peachable ?

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/DollHand1ag.gif[/qimg]

Would you believe those are rigid plastic fingers ?
Click to expand...

If the fingers bend, you must pretend there's something Ken intends to send around the bend in order to mend the tragic end that all the signs in fact portend.
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Oh yes! They move alright .. Patty took a step ..

Is this peachable ?

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/DollHand1ag.gif[/qimg]

Would you believe those are rigid plastic fingers ?
Click to expand...

No that is just stupid. What are you doing, just changing the wrist angle? I can see the difference between what Sweaty posted and your toy. They're as different as day and night. Why don't you try putting them side-by-side in the same post? That would be interesting. (By the way, what are you doing still playing with toys?)

:)
 
SweatyYeti said:
Want to see a "Jref special" :boggled: debate, Luminous...
Here you go...

The following link goes to the start of a "debate" over whether or not Patty's fingers are actually bending in this 2-frame animated clip....or if it's just an illusion.


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]

It begins with my post, #3680....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782&page=92

One would think it's obvious that the fingers are indeed bending.....but not so if one is a "skeptic" :covereyes on Jref.


I heard that you heard that kitakaze is a real nice guy in real life....but here is a healthy dose of "real life kitakaze" for you to digest...in post #3251....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782&page=82


Enjoy! :D
Click to expand...


As I said in an earlier post, many of these folks are not true skeptics. At the very most they're skeptic "wannabes."
 
LAL – I do not dispute the IM index; I merely contend that it is an approximation based on a single data source (ie. the Patterson Film) and not credible physical evidence. As such, it is speculation at best.

The Patterson Film represents a single data source with no credible physical evidence to support it, no controls in place, has not been “repeated” (that is to say, there are no other credible similar films or photographs from other encounters), and no written diary/log (which could account for differences in the first hand accounts offered by Patterson & Gimlin).

All of this represents serious gaffs in scientific protocol and calls into question the true nature of the film (ie. genuine vs hoax).

Overall, I’d suggest that much of the “Bigfoot exists” argument is based on first hand accounts and poorly collected/credibly questionable evidence. Overlooking the confirmed/known hoaxes, I’d argue the current body of evidence is simply not strong/documented enough to scientifically state “Bigfoot exists” with 100% certainty.

Arguing either case, at this junction, is more subjective (ie. single data source with credibility issues due to protocol gaffs) then scientifically based.

Stills taken from the Patterson Film; could they, as you, Luminous, and others suggest, show muscle definition; yes. Are there other plausible explanations; ie. foam padding, shoulder pads, wadding boots, etc.; yes.

Personally, while I would like to believe (which I’ve stated before), I’d have to fall on the “hoax” side for the reasons stated above (ie. generally speaking, the lack of credible scientific evidence).

On the issue of overall existence of “Bigfoot”, you wrote “Many were backed up by physical evidence”; I assume you mean in terms of sightings (just want to make sure we are talking the same topic)? Which sightings and what physical evidence? Cell phone video?

Do you have references/sources (Internet prefered)? If so if you could provide that would be grand...that would provide a common baseline in terms of ALCON discussing the same material.
 
Luminous said:
Tell me why you want to know so bad? Also, if you don't mind, name them again. I didn't pay close enough attention to it the first time around. I apologize for that.

LAL tells me you're actually a pretty nice guy in real life, so I apologize for being rude toward you. I'll do my best to be more civil. I only ask the same in return, even if we disagree.
Click to expand...
Thank you for addressing the question and my apologies for not responding earlier, I had only time to make one post. My reason for wanting to know is basically as William assessed it.

I appreciate your apology, it's often hard for many to do. I treat/respect people here according to their conduct regardless of their whether they are a skeptic, proponent, believer, etc. If you come rumbling in saying people who give credence to the existence of bigfoot are idiots then I will take issue with that person, as I have done many times in the past.

Conversely, someone who bangs the 'scoftic' drum here and says many of the things you have said here will receive similar treatment from me. The simple fact is that it's been quite a while since we've had some true 'scoftics' here. Most of the people you see regularily in this thread have been discussing in great depth the minutia of the bigfoot phenomenom over hundreds of pages and have seen every angle.

Someone coming in and matter-of-factly telling people here they are being intellectually dishonest for not sharing their opinions/perceptions is nothing new. The fact is that so far you're following the same wayward path that many others have here in vain. You'll be surprised how much 'slack' people will cut you and how much they'll listen to what you have to say if you just be mindful of some very simple conduct principles. If you do continue to assert that most here are 'wannabe skeptics' then I'm sure you could understand the less than friendly tone I will take. Of course, everything I just said may seem completely arrogant to you in which case I'm sure you'll tell me about it.
 
We'd (the gang) like to know why bending fingers is supposed to be significant? You appear to be suggesting that it means it was not a suit, which, to give you credit, is more than we got out of Sweaty I believe.
 
Luminous said:
Without a doubt, that appears to be unimpeachable evidence of movable digits. I'd like to know how Patterson pulled that off if it was a simple suit? Again, maybe it's because it was NOT a suit? It is something that should be considered...
Click to expand...
It was considered. We do not dodge questions.

It may have been because Patty was a real bigfoot. But the effect may also have been created by using something like this.
claw1.jpg


Or maybe because the suit P&G bought or rented had a mechanism like this?
popmechanics.jpg


Perhaps it was even simpler than the first option and he just placed his fingertips at the gloves after extending the costume's lower arms, like tube suggested (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2543300&postcount=4028).
IMG_5298.jpg


Or it was just an effect of changing perspective, as suggested by Diogenes and other posters.

All the above should be considered, don't you think?

So, the bottomline is: Patty's (possible) moving fingers are a dead end when it comes to reliable evidence for bigfeet beig real animals.
 
Luminous said:
No that is just stupid. What are you doing, just changing the wrist angle?

:)
Click to expand...
Stupid works for me ...

Have you looked at the two stills from the Patty .gif side by side ? ( no animation )

Guess what ? The angle changes ...

Here is a broader view..

61_72.gif


Note that Patty's shoulders are rotating CCW ( Y axis ) and more of the palm is exposed, just like the doll hand above..

Patty's shoulder pads show up nicely in those frames also ...:)


( Gif animation created bt Gigantofootecus )
 
Last edited:
If the film is a hoax, I think the appearance of a bending hand (I'll say "hand" since the fingers are not distinct in the film image) is probably due to changing perspective as Diogenes has reminded us or because the finger portion of the hand is just dangling from the palm portion of the hand.

Wouldn't the dangling part of the hand naturally start to close as the arm swings forward and open up as the arm swings backward?

While it is possible that the hand may have mechanical fingers, I think there are simpler ways to explain the bending.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
A few suggestions:

[qimg]http://themoderatevoice.powerblogs.com/files/joe-eating_crow.jpg[/qimg]

Not bad, but I prefer this:

[qimg]http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/08/eating_crow.jpg[/qimg]

Or maybe with a little editing:

[qimg]http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bush_eats_crow.jpg[/qimg]

This is rather tempting as a regular avatar:

[qimg]http://www.pete-online.us/Images/EatCrow.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Someone made the same image googling I made...:D

Yeah, that second pic looks pretty cool. It has a santeria or voodo atmosphere that is very fitting. However, I would rather go with some photoshopping showing myself eating a crow. That should be even more tempting for any betters.

Not as much appetizing as the money would be, I suppose...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom