Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tube]

The obvious answer to the conundrum of why Patty's breasts don't sag is that she wore a bra.

Patterson obviously caught her just after taking a bath in the creek. She was irrigating her buckshot wounds and eye infection. Though she didn't have time to put her bra back on, she was able to put a bone clasp in her hair and pick up her digging stick.

 

[LTC8K6]

Most of the images presented were processed with either image restoration or image enhancement software. Some of the enhancement algorithms operate only on gray-scale, or result in gray-scale images after processing. The original scanned images are RGB, and gray-scale images are the Y component of the YIQ transform. The image contained on the first generation copy that was scanned resulted from the optical superposition of a Kodachrome original onto Eastman Safety stock. This is important because the dyes used in the film for the three colors are not the same size. For this reason, in some instances, the green layer of the film is processed alone because it has the smallest grain and hence captured the highest spatially-resolute image. The image restorations involved motion and focal blur removal which was performed using FIR and IIR filters. Image enhancement included Wallis enhancements, homomorphic equalization, histogram equalization and curve adjustments.

So where are these 953 NASI images and what were they used for? Can we see any of them anywhere? Was all that enhancing and blur removal helpful?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

 

[Luminous]

Nobody asked me but...

There are a number of issues, indeed.
-The shape of the breasts is quite unatural IMHO. Looks more like oversized breast implants (please don't ask for an example; Google Images will provide you the examples and I will not risk being punished by posting nudes here). The "oh, but its an unknown species and we don't know the anatomy" line is not a good way out, since we can compare with the breasts of known female bipedal (Homo Sapiens) and non-bipedal apes (gorillas, orang-utangs, chmipanzees, bonobos). None of them have breasts that look like Pattys boobs IMHO.

-The location of the breasts is a bit strange; they seem to be too low in the chest when compared with known large apes. If the breasts were floppy (the Venus of Willendorf comes to mind), it would be OK, but they for me they seem quite rigid. For this I can present some relatively safe links:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/images/BreastpositionbyCupSize.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_stage
You can follow the links in Wikipedia's articles for more examples.
This is in stark contrast with Patterson's description. All it takes for one to see first-handed how Patty's breasts are unnatural is to go to the beach...

-Honestly, the breast movement I can see seems to be related/created by the subjects' torso twisting during the exagerated arms swings. The breasts seem to be spinning around a vertical axis (the vertebral column) instead of bouncing during the walk, as I would expect in natural breasts.

-The GIF also shows that the PGF resolution is quite poor; many (perhaps most) of the details pointed as "evidence" of Patty being a real animal are guesstimates at best. Of course, this is also valid for "evidence" such as zippers...

Spinning? Sorry, that's ridiculous. You sound like a guy who wants others to think that you know what your talking about, when you really don't. JMO

 

[Luminous]

Nobody asked me but...

There are a number of issues, indeed.
-The shape of the breasts is quite unatural IMHO. Looks more like oversized breast implants (please don't ask for an example; Google Images will provide you the examples and I will not risk being punished by posting nudes here). The "oh, but its an unknown species and we don't know the anatomy" line is not a good way out, since we can compare with the breasts of known female bipedal (Homo Sapiens) and non-bipedal apes (gorillas, orang-utangs, chmipanzees, bonobos). None of them have breasts that look like Pattys boobs IMHO.

-The location of the breasts is a bit strange; they seem to be too low in the chest when compared with known large apes. If the breasts were floppy (the Venus of Willendorf comes to mind), it would be OK, but they for me they seem quite rigid. For this I can present some relatively safe links:
http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/images/BreastpositionbyCupSize.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_stage
You can follow the links in Wikipedia's articles for more examples.
This is in stark contrast with Patterson's description. All it takes for one to see first-handed how Patty's breasts are unnatural is to go to the beach...

-Honestly, the breast movement I can see seems to be related/created by the subjects' torso twisting during the exagerated arms swings. The breasts seem to be spinning around a vertical axis (the vertebral column) instead of bouncing during the walk, as I would expect in natural breasts.

-The GIF also shows that the PGF resolution is quite poor; many (perhaps most) of the details pointed as "evidence" of Patty being a real animal are guesstimates at best. Of course, this is also valid for "evidence" such as zippers...

It appears that are mocking me. Please explain what you're talking about when you mention that the breasts are "spinning." I just watched it again and I see movement, but spinning? Are you sure you're not spinning me a tall tale?

 

[Correa Neto]

Spinning? Sorry, that's ridiculous. You sound like a guy who wants others to think that you know what your talking about, when you really don't. JMO

It appears that are mocking me. Please explain what you're talking about when you mention that the breasts are "spinning." I just watched it again and I see movement, but spinning? Are you sure you're not spinning me a tall tale?

Listen Luminous, you have the rights to disagree with me or anyone else and state so. You are entitled to have your opinion on a subject and state it. As I am entitled to disagree with you and have my own opinion and state it.

What you dont have is the right to use ad homs and this sort of answers if you are really interested in honest debate as you claim to be. You have absolutely no rights to attack me (or anyone else) because I don't agree with your conclusions. I presented links to back my position. Instead of saying I don't know what I'm talking about, you should try showing me why your opinions and conclusions are better than mines or anyone elses.

"Rotating" sounds better than "spinning" for you? Shoulders move due to exagerated arms swinging. Thus the torso rotates around the spine.

By the way, have you ever noticed there's a fundamental difference between female human breasts and the breasts of females from other mammalian animals? Have you ever taken in to account its implications regarding the subject of PGF?

And what about the other questions I presented?

So, shall we debate or be polite and let the issue rest because we can't reach an agreement? Insult exchanges, evasions, dodges and similar tactics do not interest me.

 

[kitakaze]

If an uncatalogued species does indeed exist in North America, it would make sense that there may be similar species in other parts of the world.

Why do you think we have no reliable evidence for any of these man-like beasts from around the world?

Okay, a question for you. Assuming Patty is a man in a suit, what would that suit look like when broken into pieces --how many pieces were there and how was it all held together?

I have no idea but we're supposed to leave the PGF aside, remember?

 

[Luminous]

Listen Luminous, you have the rights to disagree with me or anyone else and state so. You are entitled to have your opinion on a subject and state it. As I am entitled to disagree with you and have my own opinion and state it.

What you dont have is the right to use ad homs and this sort of answers if you are really interested in honest debate as you claim to be. You have absolutely no rights to attack me (or anyone else) because I don't agree with your conclusions. I presented links to back my position. Instead of saying I don't know what I'm talking about, you should try showing me why your opinions and conclusions are better than mines or anyone elses.

"Rotating" sounds better than "spinning" for you? Shoulders move due to exagerated arms swinging. Thus the torso rotates around the spine.

By the way, have you ever noticed there's a fundamental difference between female human breasts and the breasts of females from other mammalian animals? Have you ever taken in to account its implications regarding the subject of PGF?

And what about the other questions I presented?

So, shall we debate or be polite and let the issue rest because we can't reach an agreement? Insult exchanges, evasions, dodges and similar tactics do not interest me.

I really thought that you were playing "head games" with me and trying to mock or make fun of me.

Regardless, I see her breasts moving, but I wouldn't describe it as you have. I actually thought, "What's next, twirling tassels?" If you're serious then I apologize. But I thought for sure you were messin' with me. As long as you'll be honest and not make personal attacks, I'm still game.

Luminous

 

[Luminous]

Why do you think we have no reliable evidence for any of these man-like beasts from around the world?I have no idea but we're supposed to leave the PGF aside, remember?

I forgot, no P/G stuff.

My answer to your question is the same for North America. I believe we're dealing with an endangered species. One that is quite possibly on the brink of maintaining a breeding population. Though I have hopes that evidence may be forthcoming (hopefully within the next ten years), There's also a strong possibility that they go extinct without us ever knowing they were here.

Think of all the species that have already gone extinct, many without leaving us so much as a fossil to study. (fossilization only occurs in rare circumstances and the fossil record only reveals a very small percentage of what has actually lived on the earth in past ages.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My question. If you don't believe in Sasquatch, why do you spend so much time debating the subject? Seems a bit obsessive. If Sasquatch is a myth, why not just forget about it and spend your energy on things that really matter? I'm sure there are a lot more useful things you could be doing with your talent.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

At least to me, it looks like the left arm is brushing against the left breast during swinging affecting the slight movement of the breast seen. What little movement that I see appears to occur as the left arm makes contact.

 

[RayG]

My question. If you don't believe in Sasquatch, why do you spend so much time debating the subject? Seems a bit obsessive. If Sasquatch is a myth, why not just forget about it and spend your energy on things that really matter? I'm sure there are a lot more useful things you could be doing with your talent.

I can only speak for myself but I'd characterize it as an interest as opposed to a belief in bigfoot. I neither believe nor disbelieve in bigfoot.

I got hooked over three decades ago and was a staunch proponent up until the past five or six years. Over those years I've become more obsessed with science than bigfoot, and I cringe whenever I see someone (like LAL), or some organization, (the BFRO, for example), making claims that seem more supported by wishful-thinking than actual facts.

Shoddy science will neither prove nor disprove claims that a large, hairy, bipedal, human-like creature roams the woods of North America.

I've read a great deal of the bigfoot literature, even had a bigfoot website once upon a time, and while I once accepted anecdotal accounts as evidence of bigfoot, that's no longer the case. In fact, one of the main reasons I've become increasingly skeptical is the lack of progress in bigfootdom. The evidence today seems no better than the evidence from 40 years ago, even though there have been tremendous advances in technology in those 40 years.

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

I really thought that you were playing "head games" with me and trying to mock or make fun of me.

Regardless, I see her breasts moving, but I wouldn't describe it as you have. I actually thought, "What's next, twirling tassels?" If you're serious then I apologize. But I thought for sure you were messin' with me. As long as you'll be honest and not make personal attacks, I'm still game.

Luminous

I was playing no games. I was merely expressing my opinion. I re-read what I wrote and found nothing that I could interpret as mockery.

I don't see the breast moving as you describe/perceive; Teresa's perceptions of the movement seem a bit different from mine, but we (as well as Kitakaze tube and other posters) seem to agree that those breasts do not look natural or move as you describe. I'm sure, however, there are other people who agree with you. This shows how different perceptions can be. Relying only on perceptions/interpretations when it comes to images of such poor resolution is a dead end.

Apologies accepted. Lets forget about this episode and move ahead.

Pick one of the arguments I presented or questions I made.

What about this one:

Have you ever noticed there's a fundamental difference between female human breasts and the breasts of females from other mammalian animals? Have you ever taken in to account its implications regarding the subject of PGF?

I must tell you in advance that it most likely will be another dead end, but for another reason.

 

[tube]

Unlike Patty, this gal never wore a bra:

 

[Luminous]

Correa,

Your youtube links would not open. Your links to the gorilla site opened fine. But all I saw were gorillas with long hair.

Also how do you know that Marx's 77 Bigfoot suit had short hair? I see what looks like black stretchable velvet material, but no hair whatsoever. Where did you get your information on that?

 

[Luminous]

At least to me, it looks like the left arm is brushing against the left breast during swinging affecting the slight movement of the breast seen. What little movement that I see appears to occur as the left arm makes contact.

Of course they would move in cadence with the swinging of the arms. Nothing unnatural about that. She's also hunched over a bit, hence gravity also played a role IMO. That's what I see every time I watch that gif.

 

[Luminous]

I can only speak for myself but I'd characterize it as an interest as opposed to a belief in bigfoot. I neither believe nor disbelieve in bigfoot.

I got hooked over three decades ago and was a staunch proponent up until the past five or six years. Over those years I've become more obsessed with science than bigfoot, and I cringe whenever I see someone (like LAL), or some organization, (the BFRO, for example), making claims that seem more supported by wishful-thinking than actual facts.

Shoddy science will neither prove nor disprove claims that a large, hairy, bipedal, human-like creature roams the woods of North America.

I've read a great deal of the bigfoot literature, even had a bigfoot website once upon a time, and while I once accepted anecdotal accounts as evidence of bigfoot, that's no longer the case. In fact, one of the main reasons I've become increasingly skeptical is the lack of progress in bigfootdom. The evidence today seems no better than the evidence from 40 years ago, even though there have been tremendous advances in technology in those 40 years.

RayG

That's a logical stance. But ruling out eyewitness testimony is not scientific at all. It's a part of the evidence, howbeit an often skewed part. But the valid should be considered a part of the overall body of evidence.

 

[Luminous]

I don't see the breast moving as you describe/perceive; Teresa's perceptions of the movement seem a bit different from mine, but we (as well as Kitakaze tube and other posters) seem to agree that those breasts do not look natural or move as you describe. I'm sure, however, there are other people who agree with you. This shows how different perceptions can be. Relying only on perceptions/interpretations when it comes to images of such poor resolution is a dead end.

Apologies accepted. Lets forget about this episode and move ahead.

Lets.

How can anyone say what's natural about an entity we know virtually nothing about? In addition, we don't even know her condition. For all we know she could have recently given birth and was lactating. As my wife would tell you, she was enlarged and swollen.

As I've said before, It's an exercise in futility to make comparisons of this kind, because frankly, we just don't know enough about these creatures to arrive at specific conclusion.

We can make out generalities like its got arms, legs, breasts etc. And we can all say they're moving. But what we cannot say is that they're moving properly or improperly, because no one here really knows. This is not a human we are examining here.

 

[Luminous]

Here's one that shows the unusually long arms...And look at the muscle groups from her legs to her glutes to her back.

 

[Luminous]

Check out the complex muscle groups in this one. If this is a suit, it's unlike anything produced in that time. Click to enlarge.

 

[Luminous]

Look at the balance and symmetry. A suit? I wouldn't be too sure.

 

[Luminous]

Very few have seen this inhuman looking face. A mask? Again CLICK TO ENLARGE