Bigfoot on video? Memorial Day 1996

[William Parcher]

This thread is for the continued discussion of what is called the Memorial Day Footage (MDF). Discussion on this began recently in the Patterson-Gimlin Film thread, but this subject deserves its own thread to prevent significant hijacking of the PGF.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You say that my analysis is not a "careful and critical evaluation of the evidence", Astro....but I noticed that you didn't point out even one specific flaw in any of my statements concerning what the evidence shows.

I have. I have asked you to prove your claim that it is an infant. You refuse to do so. Instead, I get....

For instance....I said that the 2-frame animated gif unambiguously shows the lifted object moves upward after the visible arm can be seen moving downwards.
Is that not true? Is the line in the second frame higher than the line in the first frame?

This is your interpretation of the film. Can you provide me with measurements and values that can be quantified to demonstrate it is an infant being held up in the air by it's mother. That in itself defies logic. I am unaware of any mother primate (except maybe a human), that takes its own infant and holds it up in the air as it is running like a football player about to score a touchdown.

There are several other things I could ask you about....but I won't, because it simply doesn't matter what your opinion is about the MD Video.
All that really matters is what someone has to contribute in the way of actual analysis...or counter-analysis.

Apparantly you're not interested in doing that.

Feel free to provide an actual analysis and not some animated gif you took off a website or video. Give numbers and figures to demonstrate what you say is true. For instance, how long is the arm and how tall is the bigfoot. From that one might be able to draw the size of the "infant".

To me it all looks like blobs and your animated gifs don't shown anything to convince me that it may be something else. For me to provide a counter-analysis, you need to provide an ACTUAL analysis with some values and figures to examine. Saying this is what you see in two very blurry frames, is not an analysis. It is an opinion and nothing more.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is the MDF (minus soundtrack).

This copy is not high-quality, but still gives the casual viewer a general sense of what was captured on full-frame video. There are also some zoomed (enlarged) versions.

 

[William Parcher]

This enlarged looping clip looks like a running person to me. They seem to be removing some sort of upper apparel (jacket, sweater, etc.) as they run. It's not a pullover thing, but instead opens at the front. The runner starts removing it by dropping it down off the shoulders, then to the elbows and forearms (sleeves would come off last). I don't think the garment is fully removed in this loop.

This comes from Bigfoot Encounters, where there is much information about the MDF and other clips.

 

[Blackdog]

[reposted from the PGF thread]

There's no use arguing with Sweaty, his mind is made up, it has been for a long time and it can't be changed. Bows and flows of angel hair and all that.....
After all if Noll says it's a bigfoot that's good enough for him.

One question Sweaty.
What do you think of the idea that there was a pod of BF's up there that day?
According to Lori's father, per his conversations with Owen, there had to be in order for the witness statements to be true.

 

[Spektator]

If I recall correctly, on the "Best Evidence" show a human runner very significantly outpaced the "creature," dispelling the notion that it moved inhumanly fast. Then, too, a direct size comparison resulted in the conclusion that the "creature" was somewhere around five and a half feet tall, despite the photographer's estimate that it was "huge" and "over seven feet tall."

 

[Blackdog]

For some background on my previous post this is what I posted on the BFF a while back.

...Owen assumes that the subject seen in all three instances (woman and son sighting, Owen sighting and video) are in fact the same subject.

Not according to Lori's father who posts as bbcoug;

[removed broken link]

It was the info in this second post however, that validated what my son-in-law Owen has said from the beginning. The creature running across the mountainside was NOT the creature he had seen. The primary reason was the size. The one on the hill looked smaller.

[removed broken link]

Lori and Owen's sighting actually occurred in 3 phases.

The first, is when Diane in their group saw the "man in a dark suit" run 600 feet down the mountainside to where it stopped in some trees by a fence line.

The second phase, Diane called to Owen to come quick because she (now) thought it was Bigfoot. Owen ran to the uphill side of her camper and looked right into the face of the creature. They were about 100 yards apart. Owen estimated it was around 6.5 to 7 feet tall. They looked at each other momentarily and it ducked back into the trees. I often tease Owen about who scared who the most in that incident. I reminded him that it was the animal that ducked.

The third phase is when they called to Lori to bring the camcorder. She immediately started to take pictures of the hill. Nothing. The creature was now nowhere in sight. She kept on shooting and suddenly it made an appearance about at the same location we thought that it came down from in phase 1. Lori got about 22 seconds of the creature running across the hill. Later analysis indicated that the creature running across the hill was only 5.5 to 6 feet tall. Now think about this a minute, why the discrepancy on heights? Either Owen miscaculated or, there was another adult in that sighting. Please keep in mind that if it was the mother, she would have had to have the kid with her, or she would have left the child by itself under the trees. You see how all of this is starting to tie in. This is a loop hole, but miracles do happen. The BFRO site was sent a report of another sighting just a few days ago. This sighting happened almost 11 years ago, at the same lake, about the same location we think, only that occurrence happened 7 days earlier than the Memorial Day sighting. In this later report, he estimated that the animal stood 6.5 to 7 feet tall, using the cattle fence as a height comparison. Now all of a sudden Owen was right. This was another creature in that area. They were obviously looking at a Sasquatch family. By the way, the witness in the later sighting looked at the creature for about 5 minutes thru binoculars. About an hour later it came out a second time and he looked at it somemore with the glasses.

bolding mine

And here

Owen always insisted that the thing behind the fence was somewhere around 6.5 to 7 feet tall. The thing running across the hill was around 5.5 to 6 feet.

These are fairly recent posts that contradict your point. Maybe Lori's dad is making stuff up or isn't privy to Owens true thoughts but there is a contradiction. Who is right? Maybe we'll never know if we don't ask questions.

I honestly don't think anyone can say that this is inconsequential when we're continually discussing the validity of eyewitness accounts.

This post has been edited by Paul1968UK: Apr 4 2008, 12:17 PM Reason for edit: Removed broken links

The posts that were referenced as a broken link and removed by Paul Vella were redirecting to Melissa's forum (Search for Bigfoot Forum). She recently purged a bunch of people from her forum and closed it down from public view during a recent dust up and I can no longer view her board to know if the links are actually broken or just inaccessible. They were direct quotes from bbcoug who claims to be Lori Pate's father.

Noll suggested that what Lori's father said should not be given much credence because he wasn't there during the filming and therefore what he had to say was a second hand story. On the other hand Noll (who wasn't there either) wants everyone to take his second hand story as gospel.

 

[Blackdog]

If I recall correctly, on the "Best Evidence" show a human runner very significantly outpaced the "creature," dispelling the notion that it moved inhumanly fast. Then, too, a direct size comparison resulted in the conclusion that the "creature" was somewhere around five and a half feet tall, despite the photographer's estimate that it was "huge" and "over seven feet tall."

You are correct sir! That was on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Some people (like Sweaty) think that actually lends credibility to the video.

 

[Spektator]

You are correct sir! That was on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Some people (like Sweaty) think that actually lends credibility to the video.

Thanks for the correct title!

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Post #177 by wolftrax in this thread has for a mundane explanation for the "lift," along with some .gifs to back it up.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
You say that my analysis is not a "careful and critical evaluation of the evidence", Astro....but I noticed that you didn't point out even one specific flaw in any of my statements concerning what the evidence shows.

I have. I have asked you to prove your claim that it is an infant. You refuse to do so. Instead, I get....

Originally Posted by Sweaty Yeti
For instance....I said that the 2-frame animated gif unambiguously shows the lifted object moves upward after the visible arm can be seen moving downwards.
Is that not true? Is the line in the second frame higher than the line in the first frame?

This is your interpretation of the film.

You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

If you can't demonstrate that....then you haven't given me, or anyone else, any reason to think that I'm wrong in saying the object continues to lift up higher in that sequence of frames.

I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.

Can you provide me with measurements and values that can be quantified to demonstrate it is an infant being held up in the air by it's mother. That in itself defies logic. I am unaware of any mother primate (except maybe a human), that takes its own infant and holds it up in the air as it is running like a football player about to score a touchdown.

I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".

What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...

In this version I paused one frame, which I think shows the infant initially being lifted up...to then be placed down onto the subject's shoulders...

In this 3-frame gif....I placed lines at the top of the subject to show the change in height...from higher (infant being initially lifted-up), to lower (infant lowered onto the shoulders), and then higher again (infant sitting upright)...

One significant detail to notice is that during the entire lift sequence, the shape of the subject's head continually changes. The reason for that is simple....the lifted object is being moved around.

It's not due to "background noise", as someone suggested....because in the entire first segment of the video, when the subject is running....the shape of it's head does not change.
If it was due to background noise, the head would be changing shape throughout the video.


One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )



That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.

The way I see it...if skeptics here can't readily admit that Patty's fingers bend...when it's very clear that they do...they'll never have anything constructive to contribute to the analysis of this video.

 

[LTC8K6]

How many times does a skeptic have to concede that a hand bends before Sweaty will stop saying that they didn't concede it?

I personally conceded the point more than once so that the issue could be discussed, and I know others did as well.

Even when we give in to Sweaty so there can be a discussion, he still lies about it.

Why does anyone bother?

We can see the pattern emerging again with the MDF, too.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You are WRONG, Astro....on two counts.

First....you haven't pointed out one specific flaw in my analysis...other than your disagreeing with what I think the result of my analysis shows is the most likely explanation.

Second...My statement, quoted above, is not "my interpretation" of the height of the two lines in the 2-frame animated gif.

It's not an opinion as to whether one line is higher than the other line.
It's an objective fact. If you think that I'm wrong in stating that the 2nd line is higher than the first line....then feel free to demonstrate that.

Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher. You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!

I don't care whether or not you want to answer the question I asked you, regarding the lines in that gif. I'm not asking you again....because, as I said in my last post....you're not interested in providing any counter-analysis....and neither are you interested in directly answering my questions.
All you are interested in is asking me to "prove it's a Bigfoot w/infant"....and that's something I can't do, because I don't know for sure that it is a real Bigfoot.

Yet in post #13819 of the PGF you stated the following:

The fact of the matter is.....the explanation which best fits all the many details of this event, is the Bigfoot w/infant explanation.

Yet now you are not even sure it is a real bigfoot. So are you suggesting a person was running around with an infant tossing them up on their shoulders as they ran/walked across a field? How much farther is that from say a guy in a suit with something they lifted up that, because of the blur in the video, appears to be alive to you but is not?

I've never said that the video shows "a mother lifting an infant up in the air as it runs".

But you did say it was the most likely explanation based on how you interpret the event. If you are going to say the mother is not "running", I stand corrected but you still claim that it is probably/most probably/most likely/etc.(take your pick) a mother lifting an infant up on its shoulders.

What I think is happening in the video, is that when the subject reappears into view....the subject first lifts the infant up onto it's shoulders, and, after walking 2 or 3 steps (positioning and steadying the infant), lets-go of it, at which point the infant quickly sits upright. I think that 'straightening-up of the infant' is what the quick rise in the subject's height actually is...

Or there can be other explanations not yet explored. Again, if it is an infant, what allows you to generate this theory? Where is the infant when the subject is in the open?

One more nail in the "mask theory's" coffin....if the lift is just a mask being flipped-up, why does it take 3 or 4 steps...the whole lift sequence...for the subject to lift it up??

(Answer...it doesn't take that long to lift up a mask...it's not a mask. )

How long do you think it takes to take off a mask when exhausted after running across an open field in a hot suit? What if the mask is a bit snug and is fastened in someway? Many things could delay taking off a mask but in your world, those factors are not even considered because it might indicate it is a mask. The fact remains that the film is too blurry for you to draw such conclusions and make such assumptions. Did you ever wonder what type of ground was behind the hill and what effect it can have on the subject height?

That's the end of my analysis of the MD Video on this board.

Which is not really an analysis at all is it? It is your subjective interpretation of the information in a very blurry video, where you complete ignore possible other scenarios (focusing only on the mask as your strawman). I asked for some numbers, you give me a bunch of gibberish. How can one counter a subjective opinion? We might as well be discussing a belief in something that can not be proven.

It appears you do not understand the term analysis and how to quantify anything. What about the rest of the video? Where is your analysis where the subject is clearly in the open and easier to see? Instead you give us these few frames which are hard to evaluate because of the degree of blur and the lack of details. From this you arrive at your most likely explanation with little, if any evidence to back it up. Again, you fail to convince anyone that this is not somebody in a suit seen from a distance with this kind of "evidence" and "argument". Next thing you are going to do is tell us the gait is too long, the height is too big, the arms are not in proportion, etc to be a human.

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty-
What did the other 95 people on the hill that day say they saw?
What?
Only the 5 people who thought they saw a bigfoot were interviewed?
Oh. OK

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

Sigh....You don't understand. You seem to think I am arguing that the two lines are not different. I don't think I ever stated this. It is what you interpreting what these values mean is what is the issue. So what if one line is higher.

In actual fact, Astro....you had previously stated nothing about the two lines in that animated gif.
You've conveniently ignored my question, and comments about them. Now, at least, you're agreeing that one is higher than the other.

As for your question..."So what?"......the fact that the 2nd line is higher than the first line means something very significant....and unambiguous. That is....the object has continued to lift-up higher, after the subject's hand has let-go of it.
And, since we never see the subject's other hand coming down from the head area....it's reasonable to think that the object has lifted-up completely under it's own power.
There is, in fact, NO evidence whatsoever that the subject used either hand to lift up that object.

You're free to disagree with that assessment of mine....but I think that it's a logical, and reasonable assessment.

If you can find something in the stills to give me a reason to think otherwise....go ahead and post it. I'm all eyes.

You can not draw any conclusion/opinion/evaluation from this and suggesting that it is a mother with an infant is incorrect. That is what is at issue here. I asked for some analysis that shows it is a mother with an infant, which you stated was the most likely explanation for this!

One last time, Astro......object lifts-up....without the benefit of the subject's hands.....you do the math.

As for my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario...on what I just talked about, and ALSO on many additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event.

 

[Blackdog]

It looks to me as if the subject is just as tall at the beginning of your clip as it is at the end, it's in the middle that it's shorter.
What is the left hand doing?

What "additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event"?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Many things could delay taking off a mask but in your world, those factors are not even considered because it might indicate it is a mask.

The "mask theory" is dead, Astro.
The stills, and logic, finished it off a long time ago....I'm happy to report.

Problems with the mask theory are as follows...

1) A mask would be too small to account for the apparant size of the lifted object.

2) The object first lifts up, then down, and then quickly up again. Why??

3) The object lifts up without the use of any hands. How??

4) The object can be seen, in a few stills, to be slightly behind the subject's head. (Exactly where an infant would be seen, if it were sitting on the subject's shoulders...btw.)

5) The subject's head/face never changes color, even after the supposed mask is taken off.

Lastly...an upcoming problem for the mask theory...a re-creation video will show that a simple mask, at that distance and low-res, would, in fact, be barely visible. It will not match the overall mass of the object seen in the video.

Is that enough for you, Astro?

 

[SweatyYeti]

It looks to me as if the subject is just as tall at the beginning of your clip as it is at the end, it's in the middle that it's shorter.

It is...because the object is being lifted up by the main subject, right at the start of the long animated-gif. The object then lowers, and then lifts-up quickly at the end of the sequence.

What events?

I don't have the time...nor the interest (on this board)...in going over all the other pieces of evidence which are part of the eyewitness testimonies from that day.

I only replied to your post, Blackdog, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I'm ignoring you.
But I can't continue discussing and debating this video, here, because of the extremeness of the skepticism on this board. This video is just too easy to "spit on", so to speak.

 

[Blackdog]

You can't discuss it with me anywhere else. There's always BFD but you won't discuss it there either. The only place you would possibly discuss it is in a place where no one disagrees with you. That's called being an intellectual coward Sweaty.

I think you know you'd be destroyed if you did try to get more in depth, that's why you won't reply to my earlier post about Lori Pate's father.

 

[Astrophotographer]

One last time, Astro......object lifts-up....without the benefit of the subject's hands.....you do the math.

As for my figurin'....I've based my assessment...that "Bigfoot w/infant" is the most likely scenario...on what I just talked about, and ALSO on many additional little pieces of evidence surrounding this event.

Really? Can you show where BOTH hands are located in these images? Feel free to demonstrate.

As for all your additional pieces of evidence, feel free to display them. So far you have not. You keep muttering about all sorts of stuff but nothing concrete. All I keep seeing is your ridiculous animated gifs of blobs. To me that is not very convincing for your "bigfoot w/infant" theory.