Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Bill:

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.

There is never any wrist movement seen in the movie that defines the location of the wrist .. There are plenty of lumps in the wrist area that would hide it's true location ..

The forearm of the poser figure could easily be shortened by 3 - 4 inches, leaving the finger tips in the palm area of the costume ..

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Or your study may not be adequate. IMO, and based on some crude measurements I made of your figure posed in frame 352, the figure is not squared with the shoulders of "Aunt Bunny"/"Patty". Based on my measurements (which could be wrong) it appears the figure's shoulders are 30 degrees to the horizontal, while Bunny/Patty's shoulders are more like 10-15 degrees to the horizontal. If the shoulders are not square with the "suit" then the figure will not fit properly and it will appear that one hand does not fit, while the other does.

 

[Drewbot]

Didn't someone post DFoot's recounting of the Langdon/Chambers/Post Conversation about the PGF? I can't find that anywhere, I swear it was just posted this week.

 

[Bill Munns]

Diogenes:

"The forearm of the poser figure could easily be shortened by 3 - 4 inches, leaving the finger tips in the palm area of the costume .. "

So are you arguing that Patty has an abnormally shorter lower arm compared to a longer upper arm?


Astro:

"Or your study may not be adequate. IMO, and based on some crude measurements I made of your figure posed in frame 352, the figure is not squared with the shoulders of "Aunt Bunny"/"Patty"."

Which is why I studied 9 frames, not just one, to get a more broad sampling of fit overall, and that would more likely null out singular discrepancies in one frame.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Which is why I studied 9 frames, not just one, to get a more broad sampling of fit overall, and that would more likely null out singular discrepancies in one frame.

Unless you made similar mistakes in the other frames. Some of the other frames I examined showed similar problems with the shoulders not sloping the same way. The number of reference points used for alignment seems to be too low IMO. Additionally, it is hard to obtain good reference points in these frames because of the nature of the images.

 

[Mad Hom]

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.

Indeed Bigfoot Nation is only un-biased in situations that will not affect their obvious bias.

It borders on being a travesty really.

 

[Mad Hom]

Really? Like one of those 3D puzzles?

Yes like one of those 3D puzzles...in fact last night after hours of staring at Patties piehole I finally saw the..

Dolphins!

By the way....how recent is this PattyShop Hackery anyway??

Was it before or after Dfoot showed one could make a pretty accurate Patty with materials readily available in 1967?

Just wondering.

 

[Dfoot]

Hey Drew: I just heard from tube that Verne Langdon was posting somewhere around here.

Anyway, I'll tell you what I know about that....

Langdon worked with Chambers and knew him well. Thought the PG suit was beneath his level of quality (which it was because it was a cannibalized suit made from various parts and the Wah head).

Langdon did explain the HANSEN ICEMAN story. He said Hansen called him up at DON POST wanting one of those frozen caveman things made (they were fairly common - like Mermaids for sideshows) and Langdon contacted Chambers. Eventually Chambers helped advise Howard Ball (who was the person who molded the Iceman) and that's how it was born.

Langdon knows a lot of history as he was the man in the middle of it all. Great masks and parts from Don Post were used on so many shows back then. Janos even used some on LOST IN SPACE.

 

[Bill Munns]

Astro:

"The number of reference points used for alignment seems to be too low IMO. Additionally, it is hard to obtain good reference points in these frames because of the nature of the images. "

The study is a work in progress, and I'm gathering comments from many people on several forums and from e-mails. I'll continue to expand on this and refine the study. All comments, including yours, will be considered.

Thank you.

Bill

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Dr. Swindler seemed to be thinking for himself here:

Looking at blurry images through a microscope does not reveal more detail of the subject, any more than zooming in on digital images does ..

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

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).

I must disagree, as I've tested the positions shown in the pictures Dfoot took and they work. You can test for yourself if you don't believe me. Just to be fair, I'll even ask the others to try testing it for themselves.

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.

My concern has less to do with moving fingers and more to do with how not having fingers all the way in could screw around with proportion results. It wouldn't have to be the amount Dfoot was doing, either.

"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."

?

Do you think that the above costume has the same "unusually short lower leg" issue that you feel a person inside the Patty suit would have? If you need footage of the suit in action in order to make a decision, just click here. You didn't answer my question before and I figured I'd raise the matter in a friendly way instead of flat-out asking why you didn't address the issue.

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.

Okay. I hope this means that you'll be willing to contact Bob Burns about his personal study of the PGF (as you had said that you feared being accused of cherry-picking when you declined). After all, it's now too late to ask Stan Winston about his feelings on the matter and who knows how long Bob Burns and Rick Baker will still be with us...

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.

Well, if you want to submit this study for publication, you'll probably be needing one. As for methodology, I've already provided two possible ways to do a "control" (I left out the "use a film of a person you hired to wear a gorilla suit" due to the potential expenses).

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

(My Quote) "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)."

(Your bold) "I must disagree, as I've tested the positions shown in the pictures Dfoot took and they work. "

The link is blocked by my anti-spyware software, so I can't go there. But I stand by my belief that no matter how you position your arm, it will not look longer than it actually is, if viewed through a long lens.


"My concern has less to do with moving fingers and more to do with how not having fingers all the way in could screw around with proportion results. It wouldn't have to be the amount Dfoot was doing, either."

You have two choices: A. Make the entire arm proportionally smaller, or B. shorten the lower arm alone. A. shifts the elbow (which I don't see) and B causes an unnatural proportion between upper and lower arm (which no human claiming to be inside Patty has). So I tend to think the arm as posed is dimensionally and proportionally correct.

"Do you think that the above costume has the same "unusually short lower leg" issue that you feel a person inside the Patty suit would have? If you need footage of the suit in action in order to make a decision, just click here. You didn't answer my question before and I figured I'd raise the matter in a friendly way instead of flat-out asking why you didn't address the issue."

I would need to see stills with the leg bent 90 degrees or so at the knee, in a reasonable profile, to judge. My computer doesn't currently have the software to pull stills from video sequences on the net. So I can't answer your question with the same exactitude as the study figure. Plus it looks like NFT spandex-backed fur, and that has an entirely different motion dynamic than the fur materials of 1967, so that would potentially weaken any comparison further.


"Okay. I hope this means that you'll be willing to contact Bob Burns about his personal study of the PGF (as you had said that you feared being accused of cherry-picking when you declined)".

I'm not planning to contact Bob. If he wants to write up a formal analysis for others to read, he can. And I'll read it. If Rick wants to do the same, I'll read it. It's not for me to ask them, and I don't intend to. It's for whoever wants their analysis to ask them to produce one.

(my quote) "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."

"Well, if you want to submit this study for publication, you'll probably be needing one."

I'm exploring that.

Bill

 

[tyr_13]

Looking at blurry images through a microscope does not reveal more detail of the subject, any more than zooming in on digital images does ..

But didn't you know that microscopes make you more scientific like?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Can you elaborate on exactly what your point was?

It's pretty self-explanatory. My point is that you were using incomparable images and your 'body contour' talk is hooey.

"Incomparable images"?????


Well.....here they are again.....being compared.....like it or not, kitty......

Oh, and let's compare that suit with this moving image, too....

I asked you kitty, to elaborate on what you meant in your post.....but all you could do is say "the images are "incomparable".

Again....can you elaborate on the point you were trying to make, concerning these comparisons?



kitakaze wrote:

and your body contour talk is hooey.

Unlike you, kitty....I can elaborate on a point I'm trying to make.

As for what I mean by "body contour"....A better way of stating what I'm talking about would be to include the word "realistic" in that phrase........since, by definition, "contour" simply means 'an outline of an object', and, since all suits have an outline, even that hokey suit pictured above has "body contour". It has an 'outline'.

So the best way to phrase the question, when comparing a suit's body contour to Patty's body contour....is "Does the suit have as realistic a body contour as Patty does?"

This particular suit....

....does not.


Now, feel free to post pictures of Oranugtans, kitty....with their straight legs...but since it's Patty's legs we're comparing suits to...Orangutan's legs are completely irrelevant to the meaning of "realism", as far as my use of the term goes.

As for a precise definition of "realistic", as it applies to the back of Patty's leg.......the meaning of the word is very easily understood by anyone who is interested in an honest analysis of the matter. I'm not going to write out a long, technical description/definition of what I mean by "realistic".....since that's only engaging you in your technicality games. The fact that you posted pictures of Orangutan legs, as a way of trying to complicate the matter of defining "realism", shows that you are not really interested in an intelligent assessment of the realism of Patty's legs.

Just as Astro's posting of a completely irrelevant Penn & Teller (Sonoma) Video demonstrated his lack of interest in an honest analysis.....your posting of completely irrelevant Orangutan legs shows that you're not really interested in an honest analysis/discussion of the evidence, kitty.

And, consequently, I'm not interested in wasting any more of my very limited free-time trying to discuss this with you. I simply don't have the free time to spare, trying to discuss something in "lawyer speak".

All I'll say about 'realism', regarding Patty's legs, is this...

The back of Patty's legs have a curvature to them that very closely resemble large, bulging, calf muscles....which appear to actually bulge, and move as she walks, while the skin area directly around those bulging masses (muscles? ) stays tightly in place.
They resemble what we see in a real animal's legs....as opposed to a man-in-a-suit's legs.

The suit above, that I'm comparing to Patty, doesn't have even the slightest hint of any of those features.

 

[LAL]

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

[qimg]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Samiam667/bigfeetsus2.png[/qimg]

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

[qimg]http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Samiam667/bigfeetsus5.png[/qimg]

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.

Funny, I went through he entire DVD yesterday and couldn't find that frame. The only drawings I found were the ones I posted. I'll try again in case I missed something. This one's closest:

Maybe some drawing and human bias could make Philip Morris' new, improved Patty suit look more like Patty.

I'm not "Bigfoot nation", but I think you point and laugh because you don't have any arguments.

 

[LAL]

It's all well and fine to theorize marvellous suits that could do all the things we see in the PGF, but this is what Morris was actually making in 1967:

 

[LAL]

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



We get this:

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.

No, I was simply pointing out there are programs (and tools within programs) that latch onto pixels without any drawing from humans at all. You've tried magic wand and stroking? I don't know how the drawings were done. Do you?

The thing that stood out for me in the story was the paper. If Meldrum actually has a published peer-reviewed paper, that's a first.

Ken Miller's a Catholic. So what? He was the key Witness in the Dover trial. Some scientists manage to keep parts of their religion while excluding religion from inquiry. If Melrum were saying there's some connection between sasuatches and Lehi, I might be worried.

 

[kitakaze]

I asked you kitty, to elaborate on what you meant in your post.....but all you could do is say "the images are "incomparable".

All I could do? Actually, I did elaborate more about comparing those images. You know that. Here it is:

It's pretty self-explanatory. My point is that you were using incomparable images and your 'body contour' talk is hooey.

That they don't facilitate a valid comparison. I think if one is going to make image comparisons with the PGF it would be ideal to try to match film, distance, and lighting conditions at least.

Of course, your manner of debate can't function without intellectual dishonesty so I'm quite used to this by now.

Again....can you elaborate on the point you were trying to make, concerning these comparisons?

Again? More, you mean? Sure, I can do this for you, Sweaty. Unlike in your case where it takes countless repeated requests to get you to answer just once.

Taking high-res close-up studio shots of BF suits and comparing them to low-res shots of Patty to try and emphasize what you think is Patty's 'realism' is just fantasically stupid. I mean really, where the heck do you think you are? You do remember that I said the other commercial BF suit you posted would look at least as good if not better if it were the subject of the PGF? Even just what Crow Logic did to it made it look closer to what we see in the PGF. Also, if you want to try and emphasize what you think is Patty's 'realism' by comparing her with other images then why don't you try comparing her with images of subjects we know are not suits under conditions similar to the PGF. We know the suit ads show something fake, it's Patty's reality that's in question, right? If for you it's an issue of moving muscles under taut skin and hair then show us what you think you see in something real. At the very least, make sure you show us a good selection of suits with muscles doing otherwise. Now before you reach for the quote button just wait until you've read the rest of the post.

As for what I mean by "body contour"....A better way of stating what I'm talking about would be to include the word "realistic" in that phrase........since, by definition, "contour" simply means 'an outline of an object', and, since all suits have an outline, even that hokey suit pictured above has "body contour". It has an 'outline'.

So Patty has a realistic body outline? That sad saggy diaper butt has a realistic outline? Those mid-torso hairy K-19 warheads have a realistic outline? All those ridiculous lumps in all the wrong places on Patty McLumpy show a realistic body outline? I sure don't have any idea what a real sasquatch looks like but I know bums and boobs and human bodies. Based on Patty's body outline I feel pretty safe when I count myself among the many who see a crummy suit.

So the best way to phrase the question, when comparing a suit's body contour to Patty's body contour....is "Does the suit have as realistic a body contour as Patty does?"

Terrible way to phrase the question. Forget the phrasing, the whole question stinks.

This particular suit....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/Sasquatch2smaller2.jpg[/qimg]


....does not.

That suit doesn't have a realistic body outline for a human but if it has a realistic outline for a Bigfoot I can't say. Neither can you.

Now, feel free to post pictures of Oranugtans, kitty....with their straight legs...but since it's Patty's legs we're comparing suits to...Orangutan's legs are completely irrelevant to the meaning of "realism", as far as my use of the term goes.

As for a precise definition of "realistic", as it applies to the back of Patty's leg.......the meaning of the word is very easily understood by anyone who is interested in an honest analysis of the matter. I'm not going to write out a long, technical description/definition of what I mean by "realistic".....since that's only engaging you in your technicality games. The fact that you posted pictures of Orangutan legs, as a way of trying to complicate the matter of defining "realism", shows that you are not really interested in an intelligent assessment of the realism of Patty's legs.

Please explain why showing shaggy orangutan legs or fuzzy bear legs shows that I'm not interested in a intelligent assessment of the realism of Patty's legs. I would really like to know because I truly don't understand.

Just as Astro's posting of a completely irrelevant Penn & Teller (Sonoma) Video demonstrated his lack of interest in an honest analysis.....your posting of completely irrelevant Orangutan legs shows that you're not really interested in an honest analysis/discussion of the evidence, kitty.

And, consequently, I'm not interested in wasting any more of my very limited free-time trying to discuss this with you. I simply don't have the free time to spare, trying to discuss something in "lawyer speak".

I find the irony of you saying this delicious. Particularily since it was you who once wrote that precise definitions and meanings are very important when having a discussion. You've been asked so many times to simply define your use of 'realism' and 'body contour' without answer that it's ridiculous. I take a real satisfaction knowing that someone who makes constant use of semantic quibbles accuses me of technicality games and lawyer-speak. It's like pre-burn Darth Vader walking away from a lightsaber duel with you because he says your're too 'fancy'.

All I'll say about 'realism', regarding Patty's legs, is this...

The back of Patty's legs have a curvature to them that very closely resemble large, bulging, calf muscles....which appear to actually bulge, and move as she walks, while the skin area directly around those bulging masses (muscles? ) stays tightly in place.
They resemble what we see in a real animal's legs....as opposed to a man-in-a-suit's legs.

The suit above, that I'm comparing to Patty, doesn't have even the slightest hint of any of those features.

Am I supposed to see this in the tiny 5-frame gif you posted? On the back of Patty's leg I see two weird lumps. They don't look like muscles to me and I don't see them on the other leg. I don't see them bulge and move as she walks, they're just there. Can you show some measurements of those movements? Because all I see now is you making a subjective observation. I don't see it and so many others do not. Why is that if it really is there? If it is why can't you clearly show it?

PS

Yes, I will keep at you about reliable evidence vs proof (I note you took your mock of it out of you sig), unicorns, and Gimlin on admitting Chico was at Bluff Creek.

 

[kitakaze]

It's all well and fine to theorize marvellous suits that could do all the things we see in the PGF, but this is what Morris was actually making in 1967:

[qimg]http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/images/pmcostume.jpg[/qimg]

Philip Morris was a liar. He took credit for things he did not do. Listen to Bipto's interview with Vern Langdon where he roasts Morris for taking credit for his company's suits and Morris issued a letter of apology that was used for an ad.

Most importantly, Lu, for the integrity of your arguments, please stop propagating the idea that we are arguing an off-the-shelf Morris suit. A tailored suit was used - who tailored it and if anything came from Morris is in contention.

As far as I'm concerned Morris had nothing to do with the PG Hoax. The head was a modified Wah Chang mask and the body was put together by someone who has not revealed their role in the hoax.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just as Astro's posting of a completely irrelevant Penn & Teller (Sonoma) Video demonstrated his lack of interest in an honest analysis.....

LOL. Talk about lack of interest in honest analysis. You have continuously run away from everyone's questions and refuse to engage in debate when people demonstrate your analysis is incorrect and based on subjective interpretation. Go figure.

BTW, I tried to demonstrate that the Penn and Teller video was "real" because some bigfoot proponents bought it. You were the one throwing the "realism" term around like it was proof. I was demonstrating that "real" is in the eye of the beholder. Something you continue to have problems grasping. Therefore, if you really are interested in analysis and not just being the PGF pitch man, why not stop using the subjective terms and get down to really analyzing the film. Oh....that's right, you don't do "numbers". That is real "honest analysis". Sounds more like pseudoanalysis to me. Of course, for pseudoscience, pseudoanalysis must be OK. Call us when you want to put your crayons away.