• 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 wonder what became of Lee Frank ... You don't hear that much about Bigfoot hunters who supposedly travel all over the country ..

"The prints look good - but "Bigfoot" tracks are a dime a dozen...we really need to see him," said Lee Frank, who reportedly travels all over the United States investigating sightings of the legendary animal.
Click to expand...
 
I'm Disappointed!

LTC8K6 said:
It's a paredolia of course. Anyone can see that.
Click to expand...

What's that?

You can view this photo at Webshots.com
member - oheokai
album - Cryptids and Natural Phenomena

(My other albums show my dogs and my 'reconstructed Hanging Garden'.)
Note- plants in hanging garden are for info only, no specimens available.
 
William Parcher said:
No. Where did this question come from? I don't think I've ever said anything that would lead to this question.



I don't post on BFF.
Click to expand...

You sure? I thought that there was a resemblance in your posts here, and another person's on BFF. Screen name started similar to yours. I apologise.
I need to, especially when you figure out who I thought you are.
 
Pareidolia

Pareidolia is the perceptual phenomenon whereby one finds images or patterns in something seen when the image is not really there (e.g. faces in the clouds, sasquatch in the shadow, lake monster in the ripple, Virgin Mary in the burnt tortilla, Satan's face in the Twin Tower smoke, and so on).

I'm actually not sure if it's only sight. Is it EVP folks who claim voices in white noise?

Anyone who claims to see a sasquatch in a fuzzy or dark picture needs to know about pareidolia.

Friends don't let friends blobsquatch.

ETA: Is that a verb? LOL
 
LTC8K6 said:
Bigfoot investigator fooled by giant plywood feet in 1977...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hoaxes/mass2.htm
Click to expand...

I can't help but think of the "Big Foot Race" offered here.

And speaking of carnival fun 'n games type stuff, check out this vintage ad for Bigfoot stilts.

A furry covering? Bending toes? Pivoted wrists? A device that fills out the suit to hide the stilts and cool off the wearer? Very interesting. They're supposed to be easy to master as well...

Those links also seems to display the type of arm extensions that proponents talk about when they say that extensions would look unnatural. However, they don't seem to consider the idea that the length is an illusion caused by an "extension" at the top (shoulderpads) and bottom (a specially worn glove or relatively short extension, like the ones used in some old movie gorilla suits) of ones' arms, which would appear to be more natural.

Dahinden fooled by cheap suit and fake prints in 1977...they even imagined the stink...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/canadianhoax.htm
Click to expand...

I've actually had people try to argue with me that the police officer really did see a Sasquatch. Nevermind the fact that the prints matched up with the hoaxer's (which they got from a book) and that one of the hoaxers was the person on the bus who made all the fuss about it being Bigfoot...
 
Last edited:
AtomicMysteryMonster,

Those are pretty exagerated forearm extensions. But they are simple and can be easilly made. Here you can find some alternatives that can produce extended forearms, moving fingers included.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2491685&postcount=3704
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2488918&postcount=3675

Someone (I guess it was WP, but my rotten neurons are failing again) told me the "robot hand" toy was not available back in the late 60s. The point, however, its that a person with some creativity and skills could make or modify something like it. And since Patterson had some craftsmanship (saddlery and sculpture) and contacts with people who made creature costumes...

Tube, as I predicted, figured out the simplest solution of all...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2543300&postcount=4028
And if Patterson modifyed a gorilla costume by extending its arms, this would be the easiest solution.
 
A little scientific analysis of Patty...

Skeletons2.jpg



Her body proportions very nicely don't match-up to a human's proportions.

The shoulder width, arm length w/finger movement, head proportions, upper-to-lower body proportions....all defy the 'man-in-a-suit theory'.
 
A little 'make-believe' analysis of Patty...

To explain-away the fact that her fingers move...

handmove1.gif


Skeptics post this image....

claw1.jpg



Nice work, boys! :)

BTW....Tube's images of his fingers bending with rubber gloves does not closely replicate Patty's finger-bending. But don't let that little detail interfere with your make-believe analysis.

If anyone here thinks that it does....just put together a little animated gif of tube's "finger-bending" demonstration....and post it.
 
There is no reason to believe the hands in the PGF are anything more than rubber gorilla gloves.

They are seen in a slightly cupped configuration throughout the footage.
The illusion of bending is seen across disconnected frames where lighting and camera angle changes ..

If they were actually bending, the motion could be seen across a sequence of adjoining frames.. No such motion is apparent in spite of claims to the contrary ... ( see Pareidolia discussion above )
 
SweatyYeti said:
A little scientific analysis of Patty...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeletons2.jpg[/qimg]


Her body proportions very nicely don't match-up to a human's proportions.

The shoulder width, arm length w/finger movement, head proportions, upper-to-lower body proportions....all defy the 'man-in-a-suit theory'.
Click to expand...

And only 5' 7" ...


Anyone can draw stuff Sweety ....
 
Fresh make-believe analysis of Patty...from Greg...

The illusion of bending is seen across disconnected frames where lighting and camera angle changes ..
Click to expand...

From an earlier post, by Greg....

O.k. You win....the fingers bend.
Click to expand...


Greg is a little confused, apparantly. Or maybe he's just plain dishonest.....who knows?!

Note:
In the 2 frames of the finger-bending clip (only a few frames apart).....neither the lighting nor the camera-angle changed.
But don't let that little detail get in the way of your imaginary analysis. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom