• 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.
I know the subject of hinged fake feet got brought up awhile back and I recently learned of some Youtube videos (via a low budget movie blog called "Lost in Schlock") which demonstrate a similar concept. Just look up "Digitigrade Werewolf Legs / Stilts" and "Digitigrade Werewolf Legs / Stilts -- close up" by "gryphern." Said videos show examples of building and walking in fake legs with hinged feet. Granted, these aren't designed to leave prints, but they still show how such a device could be constructed.
 
historian said:
A bigfoot killed a trapper, after the trapper shot at the Bigfoot, in Canada I believe. His partner made it out alive.

A young Quinault Indian shot at and believed that he wounded a Bigfoot, at least 20 years ago. Within only a few days, the Indian became sick. His condition rapidly deteriorated until he went to see a doctor. The doctor could do nothing for him, and expected him to die shortly. So the elders of the tribe took the sick Indian back out to where he had shot the Bigfoot and performed a ceremony asking forgiveness. Apparently this did the trick as the Indian recovered and is alive today to tell the story.

It takes no more than 2 days for a Bigfoot to find where you live, from my own experiences. They may then stay in the vicinity or camp out inside your home in another dimension and phase, depending on whether they like you or not. One of their favorite tricks is to camp outside your bedroom and eavesdrop on your dreams at night. If they don't like what you are dreaming about, then they slap the outside wall of your bedroom and wake you up.
Click to expand...

Please take it to the " Invisible Bigfoot " thread ..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94981

This thread is about The Patterson-Gimlin Film ...
 
Diogenes,

Would it be at all possible for you to repost the pictures showing how Jim McClarin was actually taller than Patty? I still find it amazing that nobody else seemed to notice how that tree knot could be used to gauge their respective heights.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Diogenes,

Would it be at all possible for you to repost the pictures showing how Jim McClarin was actually taller than Patty? I still find it amazing that nobody else seemed to notice how that tree knot could be used to gauge their respective heights.
Click to expand...
No problem..

howtall.gif


However, it is good to keep in mind, that we can't prove that the path either subject walked was not a few inches higher or lower than the other, but I think it is pretty clear they were close..
 
Diogenes said:
What I find interesting, is that Pattycast looks a lot like Rogerfoot.

The image on the left is a photo of Patterson's foot, scaled to the same size as the cast...


The toes are not a perfect match but the relative dimension and shape
is very close..
Click to expand...

Whoa! Very interesting.
 
manofthesea said:
I'll buy that. Now what about our grizzlies, moose, and bison? Are there sizes natural in comparison to their same species?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I understood your question...

Since the bodies of moose, grizzlies and bisons are a product of evolution, then I would say they are of the "natural size". Actually I think it would be better to write their sizes are optimal for the ecologic niches they occupy.

Relative to mice, bears are giants.

Some species from the megafauna reached larger sizes because environmental conditions allowed such adaptations. However, animals that reach large sizes quite often are more specialized and thus more vulnerable to environmental changes. When conditions changed (climate and introduction of humans) they were not able to adapt.

Again, the large size frequently attributed to bigfeet (an indication of a high degree of specialization to a certain set of conditions or niche) is not a good match for the alleged generalistic, highly adaptative behavior of the creature. Another implausibility IMHO.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Correa Neto:

I agree with you about how kaiju movies and old gorilla movies offer a lot of insights about costuming. It's a shame that people are so quick to write thenm off as being "cheap" and "fake-looking" without paying close attention to them. Judging from stills I've seen online, a 1941 movie called "The Monster and the Girl" had an almost perfect-looking gorilla costume. If they had taken that design and did a little more tinkering around, they could've had "Gorillas in the Mist" style realism decades ago!

Oh, and that Spectreman video was hilarious; great find!
Click to expand...
I guess its a problem of bias coupled with laziness.

Bias because some people have a tendency to overestimate PGF and laziness because some never bothered to actually look at those movies, relying only on what a number of self-proclaimed experts write or say.

We've seen plenty of examples here. A poster, for example, more than once wrote that performing as a bipedal ape is a hard task, while performing as a knuckle-walking gorilla is easy. When evidence that he was completely wrong was exposed, there was no feedback. And I bet this lie will sooner or later pop out at some other place -if not right here.

Spectreman was so bad that became good! And its ecologic, well ahead of its time...:boggled:
 
Correa Neto said:
Some species from the megafauna reached larger sizes because environmental conditions allowed such adaptations. However, animals that reach large sizes quite often are more specialized and thus more vulnerable to environmental changes. When conditions changed (climate and introduction of humans) they were not able to adapt.

Again, the large size frequently attributed to bigfeet (an indication of a high degree of specialization to a certain set of conditions or niche) is not a good match for the alleged generalistic, highly adaptative behavior of the creature. Another implausibility IMHO.
Click to expand...

Local environmental conditions which can allow for gigantism may not be the the single cause of it. Reproductive strategies must be accounted for as well. In the simplest terms, if males battle for access to females and a large size is favored for winning the battles - then you have a situation that sets the stage for a general increase in adult size. Multiple causative factors contribute towards gigantism (or dwarfism) and each factor is as significant as any other. If an increase of body size is not a reproductive advantage, then we should not expect to see gigantism even if the local conditions would allow for it.

The reason I asked why Bigfoot is so huge is because it seems to be especially maladaptive given their supposed ecological niche. We are told that they inhabit the dense forests of the PNW. Being an extra tall biped in this situation may be a troublesome existence. For one thing, you have to constantly duck and dodge tree branches (many will be at head height). We are told that Bigfoot doesn't have much of a neck, so the head itself may have limited mobility. That means that when a walking Bigfoot encounters a branch, it must avoid it by bending at the waist. The large quadrupeds that inhabit this environment deal with this by having a long flexible neck and a standing height that is lower than most of the tree branch obstacles. Then we could talk about how vision becomes increasingly maladative as the height of the eyes increases. At some point in increasing height, the eyes see nothing but nearby tree branches and leaves. Then we can talk about dealing with obstacles on the ground (such as fallen trees, large rocks, etc.). The big quadrupeds are adapted for jumping over many of these obstacles. Does Bigfoot do this as well, as a biped?
 
Yep, competition between males is a large (pun intended) factor when it comes to size, but if the beast can't get enough food to sustain that size or if its size makes it too cumbersome for locomotion... Here enters the environmental restrictions.

An extra issue is that large mammals usually have long reproduction cycles; they tend to generate a relatively small ammount of offspring that need relatively long times to mature. This adds an extra weak spot.

Many propenents point to foot flexibility as an adaptation for rough terrain, what would at least in principle partially account for the problem you pointed regarding a 3m tall ape walking around the woods. However, since these very apes are supposed to walk long distances, this feature becomes a contradiction. Another point that must also be remembered is that natural old growth forests are not exactly cluttered with underbrush (contrary to what some pro-bigfoot posters claimed).
 
manofthesea said:
I really don't want to offend the families involved, but what exactly happened to the three mountaineers on Mt. Hood last year? Didn't one of them make a call from near summit? From what I recall, the one victim that was found nearly did have his arm torn off.
Click to expand...

I'll have to make some suppostions here...

I think in USA a forensic autopsy is mandatory when a corpse is found in this type of situation. The area where the corpse is found is also a potential crime scene, and some investigation must also be carried on. And more evidence (footprints, strands of hairs, etc.) could potentially be found. This is how forensic experts can point to the probable cause(s) of the death. Evidence of a bear or puma attack and scavenging activity, for example can be found. So, chances are that evidences for an attack by a bigfoot-like creature would have appeared if they existed. Things such as bite/claw marks, hairs, footprints, etc.

And since so far nothing pointing towards bigfoot attacks ever appeared...
 
CN-
Would you agree then that the emotional attachment to bigfoot by certain proponents overrides their scientific training? It almost seems like shaping the evidence to get a desired result, rather than using the existing evidence if it leads to an undesired result.
 
This seems to be the case, unfortunately. As it also seems to be the case when it comes to "beliefs" in general. But I digress.

Some proponents (with or without scientific training) have their judgements similarly impaired by emotional attachment, arrogance, ignorance (unwilling or not), stubbornness, profit, etc. Of course, they say the same about skeptics.

Aniway, I think people do have to right to belive bigfeet are real and wander across most of North America. But its also my opinion that no one has the right to say the currently available evidence is enough to back such claim. They must acknoweledge the many weaknesses present at the available pieces of evidence and reasonings. Hiding such flaws under a carpet sewed with wild baseless speculations will not strenghten any arguments and evidences. Attacking skeptics for not being convinced by flawed arguments and evidences will also be of no help. Such tactics can only create an illusion of relief or safety on the proponent, but the arguments and evidences will continue to be flawed. And the reputations of the proponents, as well as their causes will be damaged.

Getting rid of these flawed arguments and pieces of evidence (or at least use them with the propper caution) will be very good for their cause, even if they become almost empty-handed. The "default position" of a proponent, in this case, at least for now, should be something like "I believe they are real, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence at this moment to back this claim. The pieces of evidence may be enough to convince me and some others for one reason or another, but their quality is not good enough for scientific purposes, for example." This should be valid even for those who claim to have actually seen those beasts.

This would spare a lot of time and bandwidth, besides contributing a lot for a civil debate. I acknoweledge, however, that probably it would not be so fun...

Sorry for the long rant... Not the first time I rant about this aniway...
 
Correa Neto said:
This would spare a lot of time and bandwidth, besides contributing a lot for a civil debate. I acknoweledge, however, that probably it would not be so fun....
Click to expand...

Bingo! Bandwidth is not to be spared because the bandwidth is the baby. Belief in Bigfoot is a fantasy game that almost anyone can play. The internet has caused a blossoming of this belief-cult because the gamers can network with each other in real time.

"Hi, this is my first posting on BFF. I just wanted to tell you guys that I believe in Bigfoot and really enjoy all of the debates here. I don't have a sighting of my own, but I'm very compelled by all of the evidence and the eyewitness reports and what the experts here have to say about it all. I have some opinions about the MDF and I'll post in that thread to start out my interaction here."

Bigfootery cannot reduce itself to strict discussion of verifiably known facts. If it did, then there would be no campfire stories about Bigfoot. The whole Bigfoot myth thing is already based on the fascination that develops from our own imagination. If we didn't have all of those exquisitely detailed encounter reports we would all be left to imagine what the hell Bigfoot looks like. If we only had footprint castings we wouldn't even know if Bigfoot is hairy.

The perpetuation of the Bigfoot myth requires colorful and compelling stories and dialogue. If it had to be confined to the conventions of scientific methodology and data gathering, it would cease pretty quickly. Yes, the fun of Bigfootery comes from the fantasy and the proclaimed mystery. That ain't going away any time soon.
 
OK, so you are publicizing without backing it up? Sounds like a typical Hoax to me.:duck:
 
Correa Neto said:
I guess its a problem of bias coupled with laziness.

Bias because some people have a tendency to overestimate PGF and laziness because some never bothered to actually look at those movies, relying only on what a number of self-proclaimed experts write or say.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think another part of the problem is that people see those suits and focus on how the face or chestpiece didn't look 100% like a real gorilla instead of looking at other details, like fake muscles or moving arm extensions. Well, that, and the mindset that "all old special effects look crappy."

We've seen plenty of examples here. A poster, for example, more than once wrote that performing as a bipedal ape is a hard task, while performing as a knuckle-walking gorilla is easy. When evidence that he was completely wrong was exposed, there was no feedback. And I bet this lie will sooner or later pop out at some other place -if not right here.
Click to expand...

This "declaring things to be hard/impossible without doing any research" business is giving me major "9/11 Truther" flashbacks.
 
Correa Neto said:
"I believe they are real, but I am not aware of any reliable evidence at this moment to back this claim. The pieces of evidence may be enough to convince me and some others for one reason or another, but their quality is not good enough for scientific purposes, for example."
Click to expand...

Hmmm... the above has some parallels to how I characterized my own stance on Cryptomundo a few months ago.

I’m fine with folks who are agnostic about the existence of sasquatch. If you are a strict empiricist (and that’s a good thing in my mind), you might find the existing evidence to be ambiguous or even suggestive. However, you’ll need more before accepting that such a species is real. Although my position has vacillated over time, that’s the camp that I find myself in now.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure I would say I believe they are real, just that I don't dismiss the possibility on an a priori basis. I am open to either a zoological or sociopsychological explanation, such as Daegling's prankster-ecomessiah hypothesis.

Since this thread is on the PGF, I'll quote a recent e-mail I sent that touched on the subject.

The challenge of replicating the PGF is a hollow one until it is based on quantitative measurements that can be agreed on beforehand as being reliable and valid, for which the film subject would far exceed the limits of a confidence interval for the human measure in question. Qualitative judgements are entirely subjective and amorphous.

I had hoped that the IM index would be such a measure. However, I am unable to get any information on the reliability and validity testing of the "reverse kinematics" employed by Reuben Steindorf, the forensic animator in Legend Meets Science. I must assume that, for the time being, no such testing has been done. In other words, it likely isn't a standardized measurement technique around which bias and variance has been established. E-mails to Steindorf only yielded minimal information, and then he stopped replying.

My hunch was that a rigorous 3-D modeling in motion would get around some of the issues in Bigfoot's Screen Test and supply something quantitative we could hang our hats on. Maybe it still can, and maybe it's this very procedure. I would need to know more about it though.
Click to expand...
 
Welcome Judaculla,

I hope our fellow JREF'ers will welcome you to this discussion.

I haven't followed you that closely at BFF, because you seem to have steered clear of some of the more controversial discussions that I have found myself engaged in.

However, you have always stood out ( IMO ) as one who carefully chooses your arguments and refrains from the hero worship tendencies that others slip into.

You are one of the rare BFF members who garners respect from both sides ..

( If you haven't picked up on it, I post as Skeptical Greg at BFF )
 
Correa Neto said:
I'll have to make some suppostions here...

I think in USA a forensic autopsy is mandatory when a corpse is found in this type of situation. The area where the corpse is found is also a potential crime scene, and some investigation must also be carried on. And more evidence (footprints, strands of hairs, etc.) could potentially be found. This is how forensic experts can point to the probable cause(s) of the death. Evidence of a bear or puma attack and scavenging activity, for example can be found. So, chances are that evidences for an attack by a bigfoot-like creature would have appeared if they existed. Things such as bite/claw marks, hairs, footprints, etc.

And since so far nothing pointing towards bigfoot attacks ever appeared...
Click to expand...

(It's not like on CSI) If you're unaware of the events as the tragedy unfolded, that is fine. The line that the two missing climbers rapelled on was cut. There were footprints leading away from the snow cave.
I wanted to know if the distress call was taped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom