Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

Hmmm.....what could that be, on the end of Patty's arm???.....

Is it a lobster claw?

 

[kitakaze]

Hmmm.....what could that be, on the end of Patty's arm???.....


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyHand23.gif[/qimg]

Maybe it's a cheeseburger.......or maybe it's a bottle of Windex....


Hence my use of the term "sewer of a forum".

OMG, don't you see it, Sweaty!? You were so focused on wishing for a thumb you missed it:

There are two, possibly three apparent protrusions coming from Patty's arm. Could this be evidence of the PIGI body armour that TBE was referring to!?

Anyway, hence the term 'creduloid'. Make 'em proud.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

As always, Sweaty, how have you measured the weight of the evidence? How have you discerned a high degree of probability? We'd love to hear your math.

I've already discussed why I think there's a very high probability that Joyce's sighting report is a legitimate Bigfoot sighting.
Here it is...in a nutshell...

Her report is supported by both her daughter and her husband. Probability of it being a 'family lie'.....very low.

Joyce called me, a total stranger, almost 2 weeks after I called her, and was very enthusiastic, and friendly. Also, she made no attempt to have continuing conversations about it.
The probability of her calling me out of a 'need for attention'.....very low.

They saw the creature in broad daylight...at close range...and watched it walk away through an open cow pasture. Probability of it being a 'misidentified bear'......a flat zero.

Bottom line.....a very low probability of these alternate explanations being true means there is a very high probability that the only explanation left is the TRUTH of the matter.........Joyce and her daughter saw a real-live Bigfoot.


As for the "math".....weighing evidence is not always an exact science....but it is a science nonetheless.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:


I've already discussed why I think there's a very high probability that Joyce's sighting report is a legitimate Bigfoot sighting.
Here it is...in a nutshell...

Of course Joyce is your 'very strong' evidence. Thank you, Sweaty, for providing an excellent example of atrocious footer logic. You really should post a link to her BFRO report for the benefit of the many newcomers who have no idea about your Joyce-capade.

In the meantime, among the many possibilities of what may have occurred, please detail for the newcomers how a person in some type of suit was ruled out.

 

[Aepervius]

To be honest, the first idea I got was that the plastic was bent between the picture. I tried the same things with my nephew doll (shortly before I was yelled on by him and my sister ). I could never get the same perspective in the photo. Truth to be told, I got the same phenomenon as finger appearing to bend, but not as bad as in the example, I got it as pronounced only when I changed to a "along the arm" view perspective... I begin to suspect that I am not using the same kind of zoom or lens as you did for the experiment. or the same perspective...

 

[Apology]

Is it a lobster claw?

Loose strip of fake fur flapping?

 

[catbasket]

OMG, don't you see it, Sweaty!? You were so focused on wishing for a thumb you missed it:

There are two, possibly three apparent protrusions coming from Patty's arm. Could this be evidence of the PIGI body armour that TBE was referring to!?

Anyway, hence the term 'creduloid'. Make 'em proud.

Thanks for that Kitakaze.

Unfortunately my broadband connection dropped out after posting the pics - the joys of living in the English countryside - so I couldn't reply to SweatyYeti in a timely manner.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..............
To many intelligent people, including myself, Bigfoot is absolutely well-worth serious consideration.....

.
Then an intelligent person like yourself should be able to explain why Patty has donut shaped muscles that encircle the arm ...

Rather than linear shaped and attached, as found on other real primates... ( all animals with limbs for that matter .. )

Maybe you could get your buddy Lu to pop off an e-mail to Dr. Jeff about this one.. Then you could take credit for the explanation yourself , and really wow em' over at the MABRC ..


P.S.

Hey, I just noticed; Patty is giving a ' thumbs up ' in that frame...

There is so much to be learned yet from this film ....

 

[GT/CS]

Of course Joyce is your 'very strong' evidence. Thank you, Sweaty, for providing an excellent example of atrocious footer logic. You really should post a link to her BFRO report for the benefit of the many newcomers who have no idea about your Joyce-capade.

In the meantime, among the many possibilities of what may have occurred, please detail for the newcomers how a person in some type of suit was ruled out.

Please do. I'd love to finally see some strong evidence of Bigfoot!

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Only if you REALLY want to know...alright then. You can look at the gargoyle with any lens you want and it won't change the parallax effect. It's completely dependent on the distance between 3 objects, the background object, the foreground object and the camera. The closer the foreground object is to the camera, the more it appears to move relative to the background object when you change your POV.

But how are you calculating this? Without an equation or something, I only have to take your word to go on (until I can find a place with the space requirements set by you in order to test it).

Incidentally, I had a closer look at the doll hand stills and I call BS. I still don't see any articulation, but I contend that the fingers have been straightened.

Do you see any straightening in this?

There's an obvious "chunk" missing in the lower lefthand corner, which seems to have been done to compensate for something, but I honestly can't see how that could effect the seeming movement of the hand. Someone needs to make a clean .gif so that there can be no question as to the accuracy of the .gif.

It's real easy to do, and who ever originally posted this animation must be getting a good chuckle from it all. This is NOT an illusion. I don't believe the doll hand could be orientated into the change we see. The camera position hasn't changed and the doll hand hasn't been rotated. IMO, this amounts to fraud.

Can it be called a fraud if the condition was noted by the creator of the images used to make the .gif back when the .gif was new?

Speaking of which, I'd imagine that Spektator could easily take new pictures of that doll hand to see if a new .gif can be created to get the same effect. He could probably also photograph the doll itself for independent testing by another forumgoer. I've got a rubber hand like this that I can take pictures of if anyone wants to make a .gif out of it (assuming the gaps between the fingers aren't a problem). Just let me know/tell me how to position it.

Or if you want, someone has given directions on how to do it using your own hand.

This has more on the bending issue.

I found frames 62-67 which show the frames right after the bent digit. Unfortunately, they're in a gif that exceeds the limit. I guess I could split it up and post the frames if you're REALLY interested. Let me know.

Yes, please do. It'd also be goodf if you tell use where you got these frames from (DVD? Book? Etc.).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's continue our discussion of the evidential quality of the PGF ...


Sweaty .. ( Or do you prefer Mr. Yeti ? )

Here is something else to apply your intelligence to..

Where would you place the subject's spinal column in this shot ?

Show where it begins at the base of the skull, and where it ends at the top of the pelvis..

Just a loose approximation would be fine..

Then we can discuss it, and maybe compare it to the Steindorf model ..

 

[GT/CS]

Let's continue our discussion of the evidential quality of the PGF ...


Sweaty .. ( Or do you prefer Mr. Yeti ? )

Here is something else to apply your intelligence to..

[qimg]http://www.gatzstuff.com/images/Bigfoot/profile.bmp[/qimg]

Where would you place the subject's spinal column in this shot ?

Show where it begins at the base of the skull, and where it ends at the top of the pelvis..

Just a loose approximation would be fine..

Then we can discuss it, and maybe compare it to the Steindorf model ..

Holy cow, are we sure Patty is really a SHE?!!!

Oops, sorry, that must be a rock or a stick behind her. Nevermind.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Since you're so good at Googling I shouldn't have to tell you Dr. Meldrum got suspicious when he talked to the supposed witnesses.

Well, that, and I wasn't asking about his getting suspicious. I only wanted to know what made him think it was real.

9' would be well out of human range. This was a professionally done hoax.

I'm shocked that Dr. Meldrum hadn't considered any of numerous ways to artificially extend the height of a person. Stilts, special shoes, special costumes, etc. With a tall person and the right method, 9 feet is quite reachable. There are other ways to make things seem taller than they really are, such as shooting from an angle lower than the subject or putting the subject in an area with surroundings that either don't allow for a way of judging height or that are sized in a way that can make one misjudge the height of the subject.

If you want to see some neat special effects tricks used to hide the true shape and height of a person wearing a costume, check out the movie "Pumpkinhead." If you've got a high speed connection, you might be able to (legally) watch a streaming version of it at fearnet.com (I know it's on the cable TV OnDemand Fearnet package for sure).

Also, it looks like he botched the height of the subject in the Redwoods video...

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

.
Then an intelligent person like yourself should be able to explain why Patty has donut shaped muscles that encircle the arm ...

I'm guessing that the picture of a gorilla with "donuts" on its arms will be brought up again.

However, the real question is do the "arm donuts" on real primates behave the same way as they do on Patty when they're seen in motion? After all, the motion argument was used as a rebuttal to some of Dfoot's stuff, so it's only fair that proponents stick to those requirements...

As for the Joyce encounter...

It seem that the sighting was made in 1983, but wasn't reported until 2002. Looks like there's plenty of room for distortions in memory.

If we assume that this wasn't a hoaxed report, this (in my opinion) leaves two possible mundane explanations:

1. A person in a costume (be it bigfoot, gorilla, ghillie, etc.) that was either very tall or that the witnesses misjudged the size of. As we know from this incident, even a police officer can make errors in estimating the size of something. Also, check out this video of someone hozxing Bigfoot sightings.

Now I'm sure that someone will note that the guy in the video says that his suit looks stupid when seen from close up. Which is fine and dandy, as this could mean that our hypothetical costumed person used a better quality suit or that the witnesses' surprised minds made a costume seem more realistic than it really was (like in the Canadian incident). Also, notice the position he adopts and direction that he runs for most of the video...

2. A misidentified bear. I'd imagine that a bear rising up from its usual four-legged stance could appear to be something rising from a crouch and it is known that bears can walk on their hind legs. From what I can tell, SweatyYeti doesn't like this explanation since the sighting was (in his words) at "close range". What many people forget is the possibility of seeing a disfigured/deformed bear. As the Jacobs photographs taught us, pictures of bears that don't match up with the common image of what a bear is "supposed" to look like can make people misidentify them as being Sasquatches. Here are two pictures of what I've been told is a piglet with holoprosencephaly, which can create the appearance of a human-like face. If these pictures are geniune, I can easily imagine a bear with the same condition being mistaken for Bigfoot. Also, there are other ways for animals to get deformed faces without the involvement of holoprosencephaly. Inbreeding (as shown by some of the tigers here) and injuries can also a bear's face look strange or get rid of/hide its ears. Get rid of the ears on the bears in these pictures and I'd say they could easily be mistaken for Bigfoot.

In the best cases scenario, the report can only give us proof that the witnesses saw something that couldn't indentify. Without any evidence to back it up, it doesn't mean a whole lot, much less that Bigfoot exists.

 

[mangler]

Sweaty,

Do you think these illustrate a coincidence? Don’t forget that the X,Y and Z angles of the camera have changed slightly.


m

 

[catbasket]

Mangler,

You have explained why Patty appeared (to me) to have an extra thumb coming out of her fore-arm in one of the frames. Nice!

 

[LAL]

It was established by many sources. I provided a number of them in this post. You can continue to ignore facts all you wish, but some of us come to conclusions by following the evidence, not what someone thinks.

I'm not ignoring the facts; I've been ignoring the board. Enough of it is definitely enough.

I thought Skamania County Elk were Roosevelt for, probably, 30 years, so I was as surprised as anyone.

In all my Googling, all I could find was "elk" for the area with no mention of variety. The information I found on the St. Helens herd being a mix is quite a bit more recent than the Skookum expedition, I believe.

I'll do some e-mailing in my copious free time.

Have you noticed one reason it's so hard to find posts on this board is we wander off topic? There's a Skookum Cast thread around here somewhere, isn't there?

If inadequate experimental testing was conducted to rule out Roosevelt elk as a possible culprit, how can we be sure?

RayG

I guess you'd just have to talk with the elk experts Rick and Jeff Meldrum talked to. In the meantime, does this really look like the impression of an elk knee of any size?

 

[LAL]

Well, that, and I wasn't asking about his getting suspicious. I only wanted to know what made him think it was real.

I don't know if he was even quoted correctly. I have permission to repost the information I have, but I don't know that I saved the post and the archives on the list were closed last time I checked.

Why not ask Jeff?

<snip>

Also, it looks like he botched the height of the subject in the Redwoods video...

Just how do you botch measuring on a tree? At least he's taken time from his incredibly busy schedule to check things out. He interviewed the witnesses and found no reason to disbelieve them.

Meldrum doesn't agree with Byrne and Green thinks Byrne is a fraud (he's botched a few things too). Rick Noll has worked with Byrne and found him to be thorough, but they disagree completely on the MDF. There's nothing close to 100% agreement in "the field", even among "the experts".

Maybe that's one thing that makes it so interesting.

 

[LTC8K6]

The full cast imprint looks exactly like an elk's knee. The modified small cast does not.

 

[LTC8K6]

I actually thought the left hand in 352 might just be clenched or something. It actually never occurred to me that anyone who believed in bigfoot would describe the hand as mangled when there are so many other reasons for it to appear the way it does.