Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

This is one of the stills from the digital microscope photography done by Noll and Caddy "as seen on TV".

What evidence do you have it was photoshopped?

I don't know if the drawings were computer generated or hand drawn, but if they're traced (my old CorelDraw could do that), it eliminates human bias, don't you think?

Are you serious? I can't believe you're serious. No I don't think a couple of giddy Bigfoot enthusiasts playing scribble eliminates human bias. Give me a picture of some clouds and I'll scribble you a better Bigfoot that that. You think that pareidolia hack job isn't obvious?:

The look:

Let's have a look at the image before they played imagination with it. Can you honestly look at this mummer's farce by Noll and Caddy and keep a straight face? This doesn't make you feel embarrassed for these grown men?:

Patty should not have been sucking on lemons...

Can you actually seriously expect anyone to call that tracing? If I were a Bigfoot enthusiast I'd be sliding down the bench from Noll and Caddy on that one.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"Okay, let me try to clear it up for you: Dfoot showed that you can create the illusion of having a long arm depending on how you swing said arm/position your body."

Illusions based on arm position can potentially make an arm appear shorter (meaning they are actually longer) than it actually is, but NOT longer appearing (meaning they are actually shorter than they appear, unless viewed through a wide angle lens real close to the subject, an exception clearly not applicable in the PG Film). So Patty's ams are as long as they appear, or longer, but not shorter, in any given frame.


"This means that your poser figure's proportions (at least for the arms) might not be accurate."

The arms might actually be longer than the Poser figure arms.

"Secondly, he showed that you can only have your hands partially in a gorilla glove and still make it move as if your hand was fully in it. tube did something similar using gardening gloves. This could mean that you should at least test what would happen if your poser figure only partially had his hands in the glove area of the Bigfoot suit."

I'm personally not arguing for hand movement, so my analysis isn't affected by this concern. I am looking at proportions for shoulder, elbow, apparent wrist, and apparent hand, as much as the film allows, and those proportions, to me, seem correct, meaning the hand is in fact where I think the hand should be, and where the Poser figure hand is.

"I hope that your not addressing my point about that Bigfoot costume (especially the leg area) means that you're trying to fit a poser figure into that Bigfoot costume so you can get back to me on that."

?


"There's also the potential for you to be accused of cherry-picking your data. "


That is generally one of the classic generic criticisms of any endeavor by critics. If someone thinks I've done so, let them make their case for that criticism.

"Another issue that just sprung to mind is your seeming lack of a "control." In other words, an example of you fitting a poser figure into a picture/pictures of a person in a gorilla/bigfoot-type costume and showing that your results match up to the proportions of the person inside the costume."


There's no lack of "control" as I see it. I suppose if you want to set out specifications for an experiment, and define what control methodology is needed, and why it is needed, I'll listen.

Bill




My study simply is to determine an anatomical form which I feel confident fits inside the "Patty" postures, as defined by the film. That's what I set out to do. If other people feel a body of different anatomical proportions fits better, I welcome seeing their presentation of method and result.

 

[tyr_13]

Look at the date. According to a cyber friend who saw him in the Washington State Capital Museum program on "Giants in the Mountains" "The Search for Sasquatch". Bigfoot Expeditions: January 26, 2008, he's paid for rights.

If you're going to play Shoot the Messenger, you're going to have to get a bigger gun.

I really have no clue what you mean now. If he paid rights...how is he not getting his work published? Didn't you just say that copyright....the date on what...I'm so confused now. Of course I could have addressed the drawing, but it is just some guy's drawing. I can draw on top of pictures too.

Besides, if I were playing shoot the messenger, I would have been attacking, well you. Seeing as I addressed what you said and not you, it seems a pretty baseless claim. Unless you were talking about the literal gun, in which case just about any 30.06 round will do for humans or 'bigfoot'.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, for starters, there's: A) the subject's body proportions,

You realize, of course, your ridiculous arguments are falling apart in front of you.

1) You have already been given hard data measurements by Astrophotographer, real numbers, Sweaty, that show that Patty's proportions are within human range. Refute or retract.

2) Being fully aware of Patty's human body proportions you say that they are not and say "if the fingers bend you must pretend." You have been given an elegantly simple demonstration of Dfoot waving at you with a gloved hand to dispel your errant notion yet like Astro's actual analysis you ignore and continue.

3) What's to say those proportions aren't realistic? What data do you have to counter? A hirsute homo erectus would have proportions like that.

and B) the subject's fully-upright posture.

1) Show me how Patty's posture supports her reality as a sasquatch. A human can't do that? Tube couldn't do that? The actor on 'Best Evidence' didn't do that to Meldrum's surprise and agreement?

2) How does's Patty's posture affect her reality? I've seen plenty of alleged Bigfoot reports in which the supposed eyewitness stated that the creature walked fully upright, not stooped over, and even some who make a point of saying how the gait and posture was unlike Patty.

Both of those scream "fully-modern homo-sapien in a suit".

So by that reasoning a hirsute homo erectus would scream "fully-modern homo sapien in a suit."

In sharp contrast, check-out Patty's 'not-so-upright' posture....her head projects forward, noticeably more than a typical human's head does...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk2a.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk2.gif[/qimg]

There is nothing in those images that couldn't be accounted for by a man in a suit. By contrast, I do see a sas sagging diaper butt, toothpaste boobs, and an unfortunate costume malfunction on the upper leg.

Sweaty, it is my contention that you are not furthering your arguments and have in no way refuted mine. What you are doing, as always, is waiting a while and repeating old failed arguments. Much of it smacks of intellectual dishonesty by a person unwilling to abandon flawed arguments. I suggest that if you are unable to offer a solid rebuttal to those arguments that you agree to use as your avatar here for a period of one month the image of Dfoot waving at you with gloved hand.

Conversely, if you are able to successfully advance your arguments and dispel mine I will use an image of your choosing as my avatar for the same period of time. The only stipulation being that I will not use any images which are in violation of JREF rules (obscenity, etc.).

For an impartial observer I will suggest Nightwing, of the MABRC forum which you are a member.

Do you accept or not? And yes, I will interpret a 'no' as recognition of the fallacy of your arguments.

And then, from there....if we saw the suit in motion....it would, most likely, only become more obviously a suit.

Meaningless supposition based on fallacious reasoning. The suit we are discussing would have looked no less convincing under the exact same filming condition than Patty. Scientific and professioanl consensus has always been that Patty looks like a guy in a suit.




I'll have some time later tonight to respond to those posts.[/QUOTE]

 

[kitakaze]

For Sweaty's new avatar if he agrees and it can be made to fit:

Hi Sweaty[/B]... just waving at you again.

 

[kitakaze]

Neither Noll or Caddy seem capable of being objective in their analysis and both maintain a heavily biased opinion based on insufficient data. A huge problem with bigfoot proponents is that the vast majority seem to rely upon what the few say as gospel, and that aint right!

m

You'd think poor old Noll would have more to show than the fat lot of nothing he's got if there were a breeding population of giant bipedal primates in Washington State. There was that elk thing he got that one time.

Rick Noll, finder of elk.

 

[LAL]

This didn't exactly make national news, did it?

Last October, Meldrum presented some of his evidence to a symposium of 40 paleontologists at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History, and emerged with a peer-reviewed published paper acknowledging that what he'd collected were not the prints of a known species, nor were they hoaxes, but genuine casts of an unknown North American primate.

Meldrum was given the authority to classify the beast with a taxonomical name, the Anthropoides Ameriborealis, which translates into North American ape. It might not seem like much compared with a body in a freezer, but in the uphill battle of Bigfoot science, it's a huge step, and as close to acknowledged scientific proof as anything seen to to date. "It has certainly helped me shift the perception from that of tabloid fodder into the arena of biology," says Meldrum. "But a new species will only be recognized when DNA is collected."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155355/page/3

 

[LTC8K6]

Meldrum was given the authority to classify the beast with a taxonomical name, the Anthropoides Ameriborealis Anthropoides Ameriborealis

Nope....

Name of the prints, not the name of sasquatch. Yes, Meldrum named a footprint...a footprint...

Silly journalists...but then who would ever think Meldrum would name a footprint, and then think he'd be taken seriously...

Meldrum is just trying to sneak sasquatch in...

Of course now a large chunk of the internet thinks Meldrum has been allowed to give sasquatch a scientific name...

 

[LAL]

Dr. Swindler seemed to be thinking for himself here:

 

[kitakaze]

This didn't exactly make national news, did it?



http://www.newsweek.com/id/155355/page/3

Garbage. Species are not named from footprints. Lu, you know this. That reporting is inaccurate. But since we're quoting...

First sentence:

These are hard times for Bigfoot believers, a human subspecies that includes a fairly hairy collection of fantasists, charlatans, grifters and fools.

A good one:

"It very much sets us back, but it also teaches us a lesson and shows us we need to think ahead," says Loren Coleman, a zoologist...

Hmmm... Meldrum lecture on Bigfoot or Meldrum lecture on the historicity of Lehi and the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon. You know, that thing which is translated from 'Reformed Egyption' by Joseph Smith, Jr. (claims to have seen a Bigfoot, BTW) from golden plates unearthed in Manchester, New York protected by the angel Moroni.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, there are no such details in the original film. Period.

There are even less details in the copies. Period.

This imaginary drawing is ridiculous, and it makes the whole subject look silly.

This sort of "science" is why the subject gets no traction.

 

[Mad Hom]

They're different frames. The point Owen and Daris were making was that her face changed expression. Her lips appeared to be twitching, the profiles seem to show her mouth opening and closing. Just when they thought all the information that could be got from the film had already been got (and then some) something new was noticed. They weren't claiming bone scüncis.

The mouth in one frame looks a bit like this Don Post mask. Gosh, do you think..............?

[qimg]http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/StarWars/donpost-yoda.JPG[/qimg]

Lu are you trying to tell me that Patty with the Photoshop face and Patty with the Giant honker and huge lips are the same beast???

ROTFLMAO!!!

The two look NOTHING alike...really you should just drop that Photoshop hackery already it looks silly and NOT A THING like the other frames.

Also way to go with the Yoda mask...it's as if you seem to think that's the only mask Don Post Studios EVER made.

 

[kitakaze]

I can't emphasize enough that with the Noll and Caddy images including this:

Patty should not have been sucking on lemons...

We get this:

I don't know if the drawings were computer generated or hand drawn, but if they're traced (my old CorelDraw could do that), it eliminates human bias, don't you think?

We are seriously, actually invited to consider what we are seeing as having been traced from existing detail and by virtue of that process human bias has been eliminated.

This boggles the mind.

 

[Mad Hom]

We are seriously, actually invited to consider what we are seeing as having been traced from existing detail and by virtue of that process human bias has been eliminated.

This boggles the mind.

C'mon Kit you mean to tell me that when you stare into this piehole...

You don't obviously see this kind of detail......?

It's not human bias kit it's there...just look at it long enough...you'll see.

And Bigfoot Nation wonders why people point at them and laugh.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't think Nightwing is at MABRC, he is at Bigfoot Discussions, the guy who nailed the GA Boys and their Dr. Van Buren video.

DARKWING is at MABRC, but for truly impartial judgement I would go with Nightwing at Bigfoot Discussions.

 

[kitakaze]

I don't think Nightwing is at MABRC, he is at Bigfoot Discussions, the guy who nailed the GA Boys and their Dr. Van Buren video.

DARKWING is at MABRC, but for truly impartial judgement I would go with Nightwing at Bigfoot Discussions.

Woops. Brain fart. Good catch, Drew. I actually meant Darkwing at MABRC. I think I got my wires crossed during all the Georgia hullabaloo. You'll remember when DW was here trying to deal with Creekfreak. Sweaty posts at MABRC so I thought that would do.

 

[LAL]

Silly journalists...

 

[kitakaze]

It's not human bias kit it's there...just look at it long enough...you'll see.

Really? Like one of those 3D puzzles? Or maybe it's actually like beer goggles.

You have about six too many Coors with lime and you're thinking "Ooh! Those eyes, those lips, that hair."

But the next morning you wake up to those eyes, those lips, and that hair!!!

 

[desertyeti]

Just wanted to jump in for a moment and point out the obvious paradox of the BF-fanclub accepting a tracing of a copy of a blurry film as unbiased interpretation, yet when I did the same sort of tracing from photos and hands-on examination of a cast replica of the Elk Lay, it was unacceptable.
Laughable.
Carry on.

 

[Correa Neto]

Here's the product of applying my decades-long experience of pareidolia-induced scribbling image analysis to that face image. Its the most accurate representation of Patty's face- minus the beard, of course.

Can't see why Patterson was scared - unless the Brokeback mountain speculation has some truth at its core.