Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Astrophotographer]

Why would it be so difficult to reproduce the movement/bulging we see here?...

Why would it be so difficult to find a bigfoot? I already stated that if somebody produced the effect, you would claim that Patterson was not smart enough to do this and therefore you would continue to proclaim it is bigfoot in the film. BTW, nobody has yet to produce any tissue samples, bodies, skeletons, or a live bigfoot since this film was shot. Was this the last bigfoot ever?
Your continued effort to see what you want to see is typical of "belief". Like I said earlier, if a biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of primate anatomy and biomechanics is under the impression that this could be the effects of a suit and not muscle movement, as you claim, then I am more apt to accept his opinion over your less trained and skilled opinion.

That's the main reason why I post images and animated-gifs...to try to find the truth....not so that my analysis will be "accepted" and skeptics will all "believe in Bigfoot".

No, it is to convince yourself. This is why avoided my analysis of arm length from the one image and also my comparison of Bob in a bigfoot suit to "Patty/Bunny". Since you dismissed them as invalid, this means you only accept your own flawed analysis where the position of the bodies are not the same and Bob is not wearing a suit. Therefore, you are NOT interested in finding the truth. You are only interested in your interpretation of the truth.

I don't care what anybody "believes"....and it doesn't matter to me whether or not others accept my analysis. The only thing I'm interested in from skeptics is counter-analysis which carries some weight (analysis which is supported by something)".

However, when I provided analysis you proclaimed you were not interested in "numbers" and could not explain the comparison of Bob in the suit with "Patty/Bunny". When I pointed out problems with your analysis, you ignored them. You are not interested in discussing numbers or looking at problems with your analysis. You are in the business of convincing yourself in a public forum and nothing else.

That so-called "reason" of yours (and the rest of the gang's here) is nothing more than a lame, first-grader's excuse used to avoid backing-up and supporting your proposals and statements....Should we all just play "Skeptical Make-Believe?

I have backed most of what I have stated with analysis that you ignored (one for over three months even though you promised to get back to it) and when I showed that your comparisons were invalid, you just avoided discussing it. Now you use your own subjective interpretation of what you think you see in the film, something other REAL experts on suits and primates state could be duplicated by a suit. Talk about lame efforts.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So, which is it.....is the "suit" crappy (unambiguous)....or is it so good (ambiguous) that we should consider the possiblity that Roger got some help from a suit expert??

One can not say. It could be a "crappy" suit that is filmed under bad conditions (poor film resolution added to the distance) that do not reveal the major flaws in the suit or it could be a pretty good suit that Roger obtained from an expert suit maker who sold it to him and he modified it to make it look more like bigfoot. One can not say based on the information available.

That being said, it still looks like somebody in a suit and you have yet to provide any real evidence (other than your subjective interpretation of the film) that indicates it can not be a guy in a suit. The Bigfoot proponents could resolve this simply by producing the real physical evidence (not foot/buttprints) to show that bigfoot exists as a real creature. Over 40 years after this film was shot, not one bit of verifiable and undeniable evidence has been produced that proves that the subject in the film is a creature called bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

Paranormal believer Erik Beckjord dies at 69

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, bigfootery just became less colorfull...

Aniway, I was a bit bored with some extra time (slow work days) so I managed to quickly make this simple diagram.

No numbers, so it must be simple for anyone to understand why even if the subjects have the same arm lenght, are located at the same distance from the camera and the cameras are identical, posing the arm at diferent angles will result in diferent lenghts as registered on film or CCD. The l1 image registered on film or CCD will be larger than l2 because the arm at the bottom is not paralell to the film or CCD. Thus, the "notice the arms" and similar comparissons presented are utterly useless.

Its no rocket science, its no advanced optics, its high school-level material. And it shows how weak are some of the arguments presented by some footers...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nice diagram Correa ..

I think we can easily bring this thread up to 15,000 posts ... Then shoot for 20 ...

Reminds me of how Sweaty was arguing in a Memorial Day Video thread, over at BFF, that the principles of video encoding were irrelevant to what we were seeing in the film...

 

[Óðinn]

Well, bigfootery just became less colorfull...

Aniway, I was a bit bored with some extra time (slow work days) so I managed to quickly make this simple diagram.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/optics.jpg[/qimg]
No numbers, so it must be simple for anyone to understand why even if the subjects have the same arm lenght, are located at the same distance from the camera and the cameras are identical, posing the arm at diferent angles will result in diferent lenghts as registered on film or CCD. The l1 image registered on film or CCD will be larger than l2 because the arm at the bottom is not paralell to the film or CCD. Thus, the "notice the arms" and similar comparissons presented are utterly useless.

Its no rocket science, its no advanced optics, its high school-level material. And it shows how weak are some of the arguments presented by some footers...

Your diagram nicely shows the foreshortening of an angled arm but the arm is not the same distance from the camera. The whole point is that it's being angled towards (or away) from the camera. If the top of the arm is farther away from the camera than the bottom of the arm it gets foreshortened. Looking at your diagram from our view shows the arm is the same length because the top and bottom are the same distance from our eyes. As long as the arm is planar to the camera lens you can orient it any way you like without it getting foreshortened.

However, an important note is that what you see is ALWAYS full length or SHORTER than the actual length. Foreshortening effects always reduce the apparent length of an object. This means the arm could be longer than it appears. Therefore, you can establish an upper limit and claim the arm is X units long or longer. You can also try to estimate the orientation of the arm and correct for any foreshortening, which effectively adds length to it. It doesn't make measuring/comparing images utterly useless, but it must be factored into the equation.


...Damn JREF is slow these days!!??

 

[Óðinn]

Double post...

 

[Spektator]

Paranormal believer Erik Beckjord dies at 69

I can't say I'll actually mourn his passing, but I won't make any nasty comments, either. And the idea of the paranormal bigfoot will probably live on through other adherents.

 

[tube]

 

[Óðinn]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/beckjord-hoax/

Maybe he's just dead from the neck up.

 

[William Parcher]

Coleman wonders if Beckjord's death is a hoax. He doesn't mention that Jeffrey Teagle could be wrong or lying.

How could the SF Chronicle end up with a complete detailed obituary for someone who isn't dead? Do they not confirm these things?

PS: I wonder if Jeffrey Teagle is TEABERRYEAGLE on JREF. The guy who claimed that Bigfoot is an alien "PIGI".

 

[William Parcher]

Beckjord owned an early generation copy of the PGF. He would occasionally offer this for sale on eBay with a starting bid of $1 million. This was obviously a self-promotional fantasy stunt. If he had used a starting bid of $1,000 with no reserve he probably would have sold it (presuming that he would not be selling a copy of his copy).

I'm curious about who takes possession of his copy now that he has passed away. It has some value as a research tool for both believers and skeptics. I suspect he would want to keep it in the hands of believers.

The attached flowchart shows copies of the PGF. The entry marked "To CA" is Beckjord. His identity was no mystery, but some Bigfooters refuse to type his name.

According to this chart, Beckjord has a copy of what Green has. Well, maybe not. Green's 1st Generation copy seems to have some flipped frames at the very beginning of the Patty scene as well as Gimlin riding Bob Heironimus' horse (Chico) just before the Patty encounter. That suggests bizarre or sloppy editing (the flipped frames) was done before Green got his copy. The S:LMS program shows the Green copy (cropped & enlarged) but excludes (or corrects) the flipped frames, and excludes Gimlin riding Chico. I wonder if Beckjord's copy has the flipped frames and the pre-encounter scene showing Gimlin riding Heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek.

Long ago, Green provided his full-frame copy to a TV production which showed the flipped frames and Gimlin riding BH's horse. That was before BH publicly confessed to wearing the suit. Later Gimlin admitted he was riding Chico at Bluff Creek.

 

[William Parcher]

We see that Daris Swindler has a copy of the PGF. Swindler died almost nine months ago.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And we still have no way of knowing if the original is the original .......

 

[SweatyYeti]

And we still have no way of knowing if the original is the original .......

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Aniway, I was a bit bored with some extra time (slow work days) so I managed to quickly make this simple diagram.

A beautiful diagram, Correa. Too bad all it shows is that lenses invert an image and can change the overall size of the image. In other words.....your diagram shows a 'whole lot of nuthin'.

I'm still waiting for Longtabber's demonstration of the image distortions he's been blabbering about.

 

[William Parcher]

Teagle now admits to Coleman that he told a lie about Beckjord still being alive. The spirit of Beckjord lives on in Teagle. Rather than say nothing at all, say something that you know isn't true. It's no wonder that they were friends.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:



A beautiful diagram, Correa. Too bad all it shows is that lenses invert an image and can change the overall size of the image. In other words.....your diagram shows a 'whole lot of nuthin'.

I'm still waiting for Longtabber's demonstration of the image distortions he's been blabbering about.

If that's all you saw, if that's your reply, your counter arguments, then the best I can say is that you have not actually looked at it with any care.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Try proving that the resgistered lenght of an object over film or CCD will not change according to the viewing angle. I eargerly expect your demonstration that the laws of perspective are wrong.

Sorry Sweaty, but the comparisons like those you like to show between images taken with diferent equipments, different distances, different viewing angles (among many other issues), they are the actual 'whole lot of nuthin'.

 

[Correa Neto]

Your diagram nicely shows the foreshortening of an angled arm but the arm is not the same distance from the camera. The whole point is that it's being angled towards (or away) from the camera. If the top of the arm is farther away from the camera than the bottom of the arm it gets foreshortened. Looking at your diagram from our view shows the arm is the same length because the top and bottom are the same distance from our eyes. As long as the arm is planar to the camera lens you can orient it any way you like without it getting foreshortened.

However, an important note is that what you see is ALWAYS full length or SHORTER than the actual length. Foreshortening effects always reduce the apparent length of an object. This means the arm could be longer than it appears. Therefore, you can establish an upper limit and claim the arm is X units long or longer. You can also try to estimate the orientation of the arm and correct for any foreshortening, which effectively adds length to it. It doesn't make measuring/comparing images utterly useless, but it must be factored into the equation.


...Damn JREF is slow these days!!??

Note that unless you can demonstrate that the subject is paralell to the camera's film or CCD, the measurements are at least debatable. Can we do this with Patty, the images of BBC's red ape suit or Bob Hieronimus' pics?

I don't think so.

The perspective effect you describe (forearms being more lenghtened than upper arms) is one of the reasons why I consider Patty's IM estimatives as unreliable. Note that Patty's left fore arm is the one which most likely could be lenghtened in respect to the upper arm due to perspective effects.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

So, which is it.....is the "suit" crappy (unambiguous)....or is it so good (ambiguous) that we should consider the possiblity that Roger got some help from a suit expert??

One can not say. It could be a "crappy suit" that is filmed under bad conditions (poor film resolution added to the distance) that do not reveal the major flaws in the suit or it could be a pretty good suit that Roger obtained from an expert suit maker who sold it to him and he modified it to make it look more like bigfoot.
One can not say based on the information available.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


According to you, Astro......we cannot say whether the basic identity of the Patterson Film subject (man or beast) is ambiguous or unambiguous.

Well, since "ambiguous" means...

3) Of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.


.... you are therefore saying that....

"we cannot say that the identity of Patty, i.e. man or beast, is "uncertain" (ambiguous).....and neither can we say that it is certain (unambiguous).
Well, one thing's for sure, Astro.....you've certainly given us all something to think about!


Is that a fair assessment of what you are, in fact, saying, Astro??


Again......IS the basic identity of Patty (man or beast) ambiguous, or isn't it?

That being said, it still looks like somebody in a suit and you have yet to provide any real evidence (other than your subjective interpretation of the film) that indicates it cannot be a guy in a suit. The Bigfoot proponents could resolve this simply by producing the real physical evidence (not foot/buttprints) to show that bigfoot exists as a real creature. Over 40 years after this film was shot, not one bit of verifiable and undeniable evidence has been produced that proves that the subject in the film is a creature called bigfoot.

Astro's "universal" response to all of my posts.


As I've stated in the past....the Robo-Skeptics here at Jref (the home of "Critical Thinkers" ) have but ONE thing to say concerning the evidence for Bigfoot's existence....

"Where's the proof....got a body?"