Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Luminous]

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..

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/61_72.gif[/qimg]

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 )

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Yes it appears the wrist is rotating, or should I say shoulders, but the fingers do look like they are retracting as well. I don't think angle alone can account for this.

I'm looking at the shoulder "pads" and I can see how you come to that conclusion. But there are still too many other features that appear life-like to me. And I can picture muscle filing out those broad shoulders just as easily.

 

[Luminous]

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 ?

The gif of Patty's hand seemed to retract more than this. I don't think angle alone can account for Patty's finger retraction. Try putting the doll and Patty gifs side by side. Let's see what they look like when they are compared more closely. Seriously, give it a try.

 

[Luminous]

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.

I thought everyone was in agreement that arm extenders were used to account for the unusual length of Patty's arms? (of course this is impossible as the Humerus, not just the Radius and Ulna would also have to be extended for it to be proportionate). An extended arm would probably not have moving fake fingers in 67. That's why it's significant (if you believe in the extended arm theory.)

 

[LTC8K6]

I thought everyone was in agreement that arm extenders were used to account for the unusual length of Patty's arms?

I have no idea where you'd have gotten that idea. Not from reading this board. I don't think any arm extenders were used, and I doubt you'd get any such agreement from the regular skeptics here.

I would include that as one of the possible explanations for Patty's fingers bending, but it would be well down on the list.

Patty's fingers actually bending, and an illusion from low resolution and arm movement would both be much higher on the list.

So, if you asked me to explain the finger bending, yes, arm extenders would come up, and Sweaty would guffaw...but I don't think I see arm extenders.

 

[Luminous]

I have no idea where you'd have gotten that idea. Not from reading this board. I don't think any arm extenders were used, and I doubt you'd get any such agreement from the regular skeptics here.

I would include that as one of the possible explanations for Patty's fingers bending, but it would be well down on the list.

Patty's fingers actually bending, and an illusion from low resolution and arm movement would both be much higher on the list.

So, if you asked me to explain the finger bending, yes, arm extenders would come up, and Sweaty would guffaw...but I don't think I see arm extenders.

LAL mentioned that John Green had noticed that Patty's arms were unusually long, to the point I believe, that they exceeded the possibility of being human. So someone came up with the idea that arm extenders were used. (I think she said the guy who supposedly gave Patterson the gorilla suit said that arm extenders were used in the costume. Long's book?) Anyway, that is what would make finger movement an interesting issue.

 

[drapier]

Yeah, there is a simpler explanation.....they bend.

Pardon me while I go laugh at you fools.

Sure, they bend. And therefore ...

 

[kitakaze]

Have you seen the cell phone bigfoot movie?

*tries to be nonchalant* Well, I did give everybody a link to it. Hmph.

 

[kitakaze]

That post caught me a bit off guard. Thank you for accepting my apology. I guess what I'm referring to is the immature way so many seemed to behave when I first logged on a week or so ago. Though I stand beside my observations of the various behaviors I witnessed, I must admit I wasn't the wiser in some of my own provocative ways. Let's start fresh, shall we?

Hello all, Luminous here. What's on the bigfoot menu tonight?

(I gotta run to a doctor's appointment. I'll check back in later)

P.S. I don't recall ever using the term 'scoftic.' Just FYI

It's good that you apologized and maybe you might think it's asking to much but there's more than a few highly insulting statements you've made that I really wish you'd retract. I think that would go a long way in making it easy for people to start fresh with. Because I'm quite sure that nothing of the kind ever took place can you provide a link to a post from when you first logged on where you felt someone was behaving immaturely or engaging in disingenuous tactics as opposed to objectively trying to address the issues with you?

Here is your fifth post on this forum and your second post in a bigfoot thread which for me dictated the manner in which I would address you thereafter:

Patty shows clear and in some places "flexing" muscle tone in the legs, arms, back, gluts, and hands. Show me one gorilla suit from that decade that had those features built in. You can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist. So I guess you'll have to resort to trying to discredit the clearly visible muscle tone. Try as you may, the "I don't see it" argument is a cop out. For every one who says "I don't see it" there are fifty more who say, "I do see it." What can be witnessed with the eyes is far more convincing than empty words. There's a film of this figure, showing exactly what I am describing. What evidence do you bring to the table besides empty words? It's intellectually dishonest to deny what is clearly staring you in the face.

Despite what someone like Sweaty might try to imply otherwise, I don't take issue with someone unless they take a tone that warrants it, regardless of what they're talking about, orbs included. IMO, the above post was rude, arrogant, provocative, and highly presumptuous.

Also, you asked to be shown just one suit and Correa showed you many. IMO, intellectually honest would have been to say, "oh wow, there are suits even from much earlier that display the features I'm talking about." Instead, you engaged in moving the goal posts by talking about cost. Nevermind intellectual honesty, for the sake of courtesy and adult conduct I would have also said something to the effect of, "ok, I said you can't show me because they don't exist. I was being presumptuous and arrogant. I'm sorry."

Luminous, I'll spare you a long story but when I first came here I defined myself as a fence-sitter but was still in many ways deeply a proponent. I came here to learn and to see just what evidence could withstand objective scrutiny. I'd be lying if I said I didn't look forward to taking on some poo poo scoffers, too. I became skeptical not because the majority here were but simply because all the things that I felt might have a chance of being reliable evidence fell apart after being pursued and objectively examined. I didn't last as long as I did here before becoming completely skeptical by berating people. When I first came I familiarized myself with the discussion and the people participating and made an effort to be mindful of their experience, how long and how in-depth they've been examining the phenomenom. If you'd really like to discuss the evidence objectively and enjoy yourself here, I recommend you do similar. If you just want to talk with fellow believers than there's nothing to stop you from going back to the BFF. However, I don't think that's why you're here. Why do you think you're here.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Yes it appears the wrist is rotating, or should I say shoulders, but the fingers do look like they are retracting as well. I don't think angle alone can account for this.

"I'm going to have to disagree with you on this." Wow. It's that simple Luminous, thank you. We disagree on what we read into the movie. We're not deliberately being blind or ignorant, we just disagree on the conclusions taken from the film. The film is of such quality that it's very difficult to make any firm conclusions at all, yet you insist that your interpretation of the events is absolutely correct and we're all mongs for not seeing it! You sound like a religous zealot, and cant for the life of you see why those around you dont want to spend all day bowing to your God. Posting more small, blurry, grainy and dark images is not going to help in anyway, as you may have noticed now that we're about 145 pages into the thread.

The fact remains that there's absolutely no real evidence of Bigfoot at all, and the movie is acting as something of a lifeboat or rallying point for those who'd like to believe there are wookies wandering the worlds forests and we just haven't found them after all this time. Not hide nor hair, no scat, no dead bodies, no lairs, no nothing. How can you be surprised that a bunch of skeptics want hard evidence to support an amazing and unlikely claim?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Kenny 10 Bellys wrote:

Posting more small, blurry, grainy and dark images is not going to help in anyway, as you may have noticed now that we're about 145 pages into the thread.

The fact remains that there's absolutely no real evidence of Bigfoot at all....
....How can you be surprised that a bunch of skeptics want hard evidence to support an amazing and unlikely claim?

To my pal, Luminous......

"145 pages"...............and years of saying the same thing over and over again...."where's the proof....got a body?" .

I hope you decide to "give it up", and leave this board, sooner rather than later, Luminous!

You're discussing "evidence" with people who can't see evidence.
They're only capable of seeing "proof"....sometimes referred to here as "hard evidence" or "reliable evidence".
One of Correa's examples he gave of "reliable" evidence was "fossilized remains" of a Bigfoot type creature. That.....in actual fact....would be proof that such a creature did indeed exist.
They continually ask for "good, reliable evidence"...but what they're all actually asking for is "proof"....and NOTHING less.

Like I've said before...this forum is nothing more than a bunch of 'skeptics' saying ONE thing....over and over again...

"where's the proof.....got a body?" Kenny's post is just the latest example.
Good work, Kenny!

You can keep "discussing" the evidence here, Luminous.....but there will never be ANY intelligent analysis of the evidence for bigfoot by the skeptics here.

Lu has been disussing the evidence here for years...and I've been trying to convince her to leave for years (because she's wasting her time)....and she hasn't made an inch of progress yet.

The response is always the same to any piece of evidence she discusses...

"Well, that's not really good evidence...it's unreliable...unsupported....and not worth a dam thing. But if you can bring me a body.....or even some fossilzed remains of a body.....Then we'd be talkin' some "good evidence"!!"

Have a good day, Luminous.

 

[SweatyYeti]

OH...wait a minute....this was just handed to me. Greg wants to say something about the evidence.... ...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

Thanks Greg! You're the best!

 

[Teresa.Hall]

..

 

[LTC8K6]

Hard evidence is not proof, and proof is not only a body, and Sweaty knows this. One really has to wonder at the endless word games, lies, and question dodging.

Sweaty does not allow skeptics to see things differently, and that's a shame.

Such an awful thing for Greg to do, say that he thinks Bigfoot is unlikely to be real...

Perhaps we should start lying to Sweaty, and tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what we actually believe?

OH...wait a minute....this was just handed to me. Greg wants to say something about the evidence.... ...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

Thanks Greg! You're the best!

 

[kitakaze]

To my pal, Luminous......

"145 pages"...............and years of saying the same thing over and over again...."where's the proof....got a body?"

That's an expected assessment from someone who continually demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity.

I hope you decide to "give it up", and leave this board, sooner rather than later, Luminous!

So this is where you're at now? You post to tell others not to post. I guess you could have done it by pm but that's really not what you're trying to accomplish, is it?

One of Correa's examples he gave of "reliable" evidence was "fossilized remains" of a Bigfoot type creature. That.....in actual fact....would be proof that such a creature did indeed exist.

But it's not proof that they do now. Nevertheless, it would be very compelling reliable evidence. You know full well that Correa has also said that fossil evidence could constitute proof.

They continually ask for "good, reliable evidence"...but what they're all actually asking for is "proof"....and NOTHING less.

Many, many times it's been explicitly explained to you by myself and others what the explicit difference between proof and reliable evidence is. It's dishonest of you in your trolling to pretend otherwise. Tell me Sweaty, is a good photo with a clear history proof or reliable evidence?

"where's the proof.....got a body?" Kenny's post is just the latest example.
Good work, Kenny!

Kenny's post makes a succinct observation of a fact that you can't seem to come to terms with.

Lu has been disussing the evidence here for years...and I've been trying to convince her to leave for years (because she's wasting her time)....and she hasn't made an inch of progress yet.

If reliable evidence comes to light then she'll make plenty of progress and I'll support it all the way.

You, Sweaty, are so far gone that you've reduced yourself to taking hack potshots from the sidelines while evading being directly addressed and urged to make some kind of point. I'm not sure yet if it's just sad or funny.

 

[Hellbound]

I think Kitakaze has hit the nail on the head here.

I don't have any reason to activiely disbelieve in Bigfoot as a creature. It's not some deep-seated need to discard it, or whatever other obscure, incorrect psychological issues believers would like to propose.

I just haven't seen realiable evidence to show Bigfoot does exist.

Is it possible? I suppose, but I find it highly unlikely. A breeding population in an area that (despite claims to the contrary) is fairly well-travelled and very well-mapped, with no physical evidence (hair, fecal samples, DNA, etc), "footprints" that show varying morphologies and often disagree with each other ("breaks" in some, dermal ridges in some, but rarely all the same features on two found in widely dispersed areas, by different discoverers), grainy, out-of-focus films (despite the realtive ease and low cost of automated wildlife camaeras, and the abundance of cheap, autofocusing cameras and video recorders), and so forth.

But, if you can get that evidence, I'm 100% willing to change my views. Show me DNA samples that don't match any known primate (and are not simply too degraded to be identified, as the "bigfoot" samples tested to date have been). Show me clear video and/or photographs, with a known history, especially if from two seperate parties. Or, as the believers claim is all we'll accept, show me a body (live or dead).

What it seems is that we're being shown a bowl full of flour and told that it can only be used to make a chocolate cake. Could it be? Sure. But it could also be used for bread, tortillas, gravy, muffins, breading, any other flavor of cake, etc, etc, etc. In the absence of any other evidence to narrow down the possibilities, I'm not going to agree that the cake tastes wonderful. No matter how much I might like chocolate cake, I'll wait for the real thing.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Sweaty does not allow skeptics to see things differently, and that's a shame.

No, it's fine with me if people want to bury thier heads in the sand...as Greg undeniably has...I'm just trying to make it clear to Luminous that his attempt at debating the evidence, here, is pointless. That's all.

Such an awful thing for Greg to do, say that he thinks Bigfoot is unlikely to be real...

Actually...to be precise.....he says the evidence indicates a 0% likelihood of Bigfoot being real......which equates to a 100% likelihood that all the evidence for Bigfoot, across the globe, and over the years, has ALL been a product of "mundane explanations" such as lies, hoaxes, misidentifications, and fantasy.
That's a 100% likelihood....according to his "analysis" of the evidence.

Greg is 100% sure that Bigfoot does not exist, within the millions and millions of acres of wilderness areas, across the Earth.
That boy's got "powers of observation" that blow away your average human being.

Either that, or he has a closed mind.

 

[kitakaze]

OH...wait a minute....this was just handed to me. Greg wants to say something about the evidence.... ...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

Thanks Greg! You're the best!

I like when you whine about your Diogenes quote signature because then I can post a link to Belz schooling you like a silly troll on it.

Oh, wait a minute. This was just handed to me:

The fact of the matter is....I WILL answer any question that someone wants answered.

I've stated before that I'll never refuse to answer a Bigfoot-related question.

...But I will never refuse to answer a question that's relevant to Bigfoot evidence.

Ask me ANY question you like, Bigfoot related, preferably the toughest ones first...the ones that I'm "clearly" dodging...and I'll answer them.

Are you a compulsive liar, Sweaty?

 

[LTC8K6]

Actually...to be precise.....he says the evidence indicates a 0% likelihood of Bigfoot being real.

No, he doesn't, and you already had that explained to you, however small your grasp of it was.

It's funny that you want to be precise now, though.

 

[kitakaze]

LTC8K6, thank you for one of the finest moments in any BF thread and my new signature.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well kitakaze, that other guy got to see it... it's only fair.