• 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.
Greg wrote:
There is no reason to believe the hands in the PGF are anything more than rubber gorilla gloves.
Click to expand...


There IS a reason to think that the fingers are real......they move.

There is NO reason to think that they are covered by rubber gloves.....because nobody has produced an animated-clip of a person wearing rubber gloves closely replicating what we see in the 2-frame clip of Patty's fingers bending.

And nobody ever will.
 
SweatyYeti said:
A little scientific analysis of Patty...
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...

I've actually made this argument before myself and have since backed off of it. You need to know why.

I posted the following at Cryptomundo earlier this year.

Judaculla responds:
May 27th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
When evaluating Steindorf’s forensic animation work, I want the nitty-gritty on reliability and validity testing for reverse kinematics, along with statistical confidence intervals around measurements. The creation of any measure, test, or method in a quantitative science requires all of the above and is pretty standard. If reverse kinematics hasn’t undergone that kind of evaluation process, then it’s not scientific…yet.

It very well could be that reverse kinematics would erase all the misgivings Daegling has about taking quantitative measurements from the PG film (see Bigfoot’s Screen Test for those concerns, as well as Roger Knights’ evaluation of those methods for a critique). Steindorf could be a genius and have come up with a process that’s completely innovative and accurate.

You don’t need a bigfoot to establish the reliability and validity of a measure or method either. Apply the same process to human test subjects and see if the results get you close to the actual measurements. Then, move on to films of chimpanzees, gorillas, and people in padded costumes. You can get the actual physical measurements of bones from those subjects. If the process has a wide margin of error with known subjects due to large variance or large bias (statistical bias, not personal bias), then there is no reason to believe it would work with an unknown subject.

If someone is going to claim whatever quantitative measurement process they are using is scientific, that’s what’s required in any scientific field.
Click to expand...
 
Drewbot said:
You are saying the camera angle didn't change?
Are you sure?[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705470b8efa9e450.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...

Sure, the camera angle changed a fraction of a degree in the span of those few frames.....but it did not change a significant or meaningful amount.

I'll check again, to see how many frames apart those 2 frames are....and calculate the miniscule change.

The important thing is....the change in angle is FAR too small to account for the significant change in the shape of Patty's fingers.
 
Folks, Sweaty is using quotes from where we spotted him a point for argument's sake, and acting as if we actually supported the point.

Very underhanded, imo.

Fresh make-believe analysis of Patty...from Greg...


Quote:
The illusion of bending is seen across disconnected frames where lighting and camera angle changes ..
From an earlier post, by Greg....


Quote:
O.k. You win....the fingers bend.

Greg is a little confused, apparantly. Or maybe he's just plain dishonest.....who knows?!
Click to expand...
 
Is it time for the "poke the troll" game again?
A little scientific analysis of Buggs Bunny...
arario1.jpg

A little scientific analysis of Thomas the Cat...
A09.jpg

A little scientific analysis of Marvin the Martian...
Marvin_the_Martian_001.jpg

A little scientific analysis of the critters below indicated their shoulder width, arm length w/finger movement, head proportions, upper-to-lower body proportions....all defy the 'men-in-a-suit theories'.
king_kong_vs_godzilla.jpg

kaijufoot.jpg

mipc_ray_and_snowflake.jpg

008redking.jpg

nab_sc2.jpg

393530_1020_A.jpg
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
Folks, Sweaty is using quotes from where we spotted him a point for argument's sake, and acting as if we actually supported the point.
Click to expand...

Wrong, LTC.

I quoted Greg....and nobody else.

Very underhanded, imo.
Click to expand...

It's actually very ABOVE-BOARD. I quoted what Greg WROTE.

He shouldn't have written that if he didn't mean that.

Saying something without meaning it is under-handed, and dishonest.
 
In the LMS book, Gimlin says Roger is not sure if he got Patty on film, yet Roger calls Al and exclaims that he did.

They followed the tracks for only 1/4 mile, Gimlin got off his horse with his rifle, the rain is described as even worse than in earlier versions, and Gimlin says that the rain was already damaging the tracks when he went to cover them up with bark.
 
Her body proportions very nicely don't match-up to a human's proportions.
Click to expand...

Well, what we need to know is how they match up to a sasquatch's proportions. Since we have no examples to judge from, no one can say.

Doesn't seem to match this arbitrarily created chart, though.

MeeSas1.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
A little 'make-believe' analysis of Patty...

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

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
SY-
That could be the flaccid tip of a rubber glove hitting the thigh as it moves along. Which by the way, would make Greg's statement true anyway.

Also, the camera angle change may be miniscule, but the finger movement is as well. I'd like to see your calculations by the way when you get them done.

It is at least 4 or 5 feet, based on the tree in the clip and if they are X distance from 'Patty' then the angle change would be something like 1.5 degrees, if it was angling away at 30 degrees, and the distance to the first frame is about 200 feet.
 
Last edited:
http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

For a real belly laugh, read about how that skeleton is supposed to work when sasquatch walks.

The funky chicken comes to mind...

There appear to be 6 distinct features of the Patterson creature’s gait: hip rotation, high leg lift, ankle
rotation, non-locking knees, long strides and the legs swing in and out in a criss-cross fashion.

Hajicek knew if Steindorf could effect what he wanted,
scientists could study the strange yet graceful criss-cross,
hip-rotating, bent-kneed and ankle twisting gait of the
creature from any angle they chose.
Click to expand...
 
Rotation in walk

LTC8K6 said:
For a real belly laugh, read about how that skeleton is supposed to work when sasquatch walks.

The funky chicken comes to mind...
Click to expand...

I've wondered about this... My completely uninformed guess is that the rotation occurs because of the length of the foot.

That shouldn't be interpreted as an argument for authenticity necessarily. When I've put on swim fins on the beach and tried to walk to the water (yeah... I know better now... put them on in the water), I either have to (1) high step it and keep my toes pointed up and out or (2) really swing my leg out so that the tip of the swim fin will clear the ground. It won't clear otherwise, and I would trip over the smallest obstacle.

I've also tried shuffling backward heels first, which made my wife bust out into a fit of giggles.

If it were a real animal, one could make an argument that the rotation would be needed for the same reason. A sasquatch foot has to clear the forest debris. By itself, the rotation doesn't contribute to either hypothesis in my mind. I wonder if any humans have ever exhibited a walk like this due to some pathological condition of the foot or leg.

In other words, I think the rotation is real. The reason for the rotation is ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Where can we see visual evidence that the feet rotate?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the claim is that the foot rotates, but that the hip rotates the leg outward.

Again, I don't see that as a point in either camp's column. An actor in a suit with large feet would have to do something along these lines to keep from tripping.

I'd have to go back to my copy of LMS to pick out the frames where I believe it can be seen. If the hip rotation isn't clear to me and I can't point it out, I'll be happy to admit it.

I'll follow up tonight.
 
Thanks and a belated welcome to JREF.

I've never noticed the legs or feet to rotate. To me, both appear to maintain a straight aspect (for lack of better term). What I have mentioned before is that the feet (toes) are lifted higher than necessary to clear the sand. It reminds me of a person walking for the first time in snowshoes and lifting them more than needed to clear the substrate.
 
Speaking of Hajicek, in the introduction of his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Dr. Meldrum writes,

Doug Hajicek, nature film producer, took a break from shooting with his cameraman, and wandered near the shoreline of Selwyn Lake, nearly 800 miles north of Winnipeg, on the border of the Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories, Canada. In the Arctic to film giant lake trout, they had flown into this remote location in the early 1990s. Along the isolated beach they encountered a crisp 17-inch footprint. The print was exceptionally clear and detailed, and excluding enormous proportions, clearly humanlike in form, with distinct toes and a broad rounded heel. Some 40 inches farther ahead was another similar footprint, followed by another, and so on trailing alternately into the distance...

Hajicek's curiosity was piqued, and together with his cameraman, they followed the advancing line of footprints. For over a mile they traced the creature's enormous strides, before deciding that they didn't actually want to catch up to whatever behemoth had left the immense tracks clearly and deeply impressed in the frosty tundra soil.
Click to expand...

However, the nature film producer and his cameraman apparently didn't actually film the immense, crisp, clear, detailed, and enormous humanlike footprints with distinct toes that they followed for over a mile.

Why oh why does bigfoot have this affect on people?

RayG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom