Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

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?

Where in this post do you simply point that out?:

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?

Regardless, as LTC said, the film does not support the level of detail shown in those drawings. They are imagination. Period.

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.

Meldrum has no peer-reviewed paper. What you referred to is not peer-reviewed and from a museum newsletter. They are easily published. Here it is:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-conte...of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf

Can I rely on you to make sure when someone at your board or elsewhere says Meldrum has a peer-reviewed paper that you will let them know the facts?

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.

Meldrum does lectures on the veracity of the Book of Mormon. I think you need to do a little catch up on what the BoM and Church of Latter Day Saints are about. I think Meldrum is I guy who started out early in life with some pretty kooky beliefs and has spent way too much of his time as a scientist trying to reconcile them with reality. It's like he's...

Hanging in there.

 

[kitakaze]

I think Hoffy could take Patty in an arm wrestle no sweat. I mean look at those bulging muscles!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERdW5IiWHGA

 

[Crowlogic]

Whew seems the flame throwers have been turned up a notch or two. Without posting a bunch of previously quoted posts I'll comment by adding.

Sweaty: the walking upright Bigfoot costume reminds me more of Homer Simpson in shape than anything in the PGF.

Kitakazi: Pure imagination may or may not be responsible for the drawinging on the Caddy face frame. I don't think it looks accurate and does not further the cause of whoever made it. Yet care must be utilized when assigning something to pure imagination. There is something called an educated guess and computers make educated guesses constantly with image processing and music reproduction. Glad you realize that Morris was a fraud but the jury is still out with the Wah mask. We need proof of that otherwise its just an educated guess and we either include educated guesses or we dismiss them as pure imagination.

 

[LTC8K6]

Funny, I went through he entire DVD yesterday and couldn't find that frame.

It's a plot to discredit bigfoot!

 

[Correa Neto]

This "marvelous suit" is older than PGF and more realistic-looking than Patty IMHO.

Regarding Meldrum's defense of the Book of Mormon, I think that what LAL wrote does not apply.

...snip... 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. ...snip...

At that text, he is trying to defend the literacy of the Book of Mormon (yup, revelations, angels, books of gold, etc.) against reliable scientific evidence (or at some cases lack of evidence, if you preffer). As I wrote before, its too close to fundamentalism for my tastes. It shows that his reasonings, his evaluations, when belief (and this is bigfoot's case, since its not backed by reliable evidence) is involved can be heavilly biased. It shows that he may accept evidences of very low quality and rely on shaky reasonings as long as they can back the belief. I would feel the same regarding any present-day science with similar attitudes towards any sacred text.

This brings us back to the point Iwas making before- those who already tender a belief are more prone to embrace a new one.

Nitpick- some Mormons seem to think Caim was turned in to a bigfoot. Nope, I don't think Meldrum is one of them.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

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.

I'll get around to responding to those sometime next week. This weekend I'll be, ummm.......too busy.

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.

I was talking specifically about the 'realistic body contour' of the back of Patty's legs....not about every aspect of her body contour. Those things you mentioned are different issues, which would need to be analysed and debated, on their own.

 

[Belz...]

I was talking specifically about the 'realistic body contour' of the back of Patty's legs

Gosh, this is so 1967.

 

[kitakaze]

I'll get around to responding to those sometime next week. This weekend I'll be, ummm.......too busy.

Later, got it. Well, I'm here now and you're here now so let's deal with the topic we already have going. Also I have a new avatar waiting for you if you think you can handle some moderated debate with me.

I was talking specifically about the 'realistic body contour' of the back of Patty's legs....not about every aspect of her body contour. Those things you mentioned are different issues, which would need to be analysed and debated, on their own.

That's rich! The realistic body outline is only partial, I guess. Just the leg, actually! Patty's realistic because Sweaty thinks her leg is realistic.

Bail.

 

[kitakaze]

Kitakazi: Pure imagination may or may not be responsible for the drawinging on the Caddy face frame. I don't think it looks accurate and does not further the cause of whoever made it. Yet care must be utilized when assigning something to pure imagination. There is something called an educated guess and computers make educated guesses constantly with image processing and music reproduction. Glad you realize that Morris was a fraud but the jury is still out with the Wah mask. We need proof of that otherwise its just an educated guess and we either include educated guesses or we dismiss them as pure imagination.

Take a good look at that image. It's an indulgement nothing else. Its main purpose is to titillate Bigfoot enthusiasts. They drew that. The resolution of the film is simply not there to support the ridiculous details they lead us to believe have been recovered. It's a mummer's farce.

As far as the PG hoax is concerned, I have never been more satisfied as to its nature as a hoax as I am now. I really need more time to get into it but there are a number of things happening currently that are giving me the fullest picture of it I've ever had.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bill,
I'm not sure how the lower right shoulder figures into the model you came up with, but there are a few frames that were shot with the back more parallel to the camera, and a low right shoulder is not apparent .

Also, it seems you have located the shoulder joint somewhat high in this composition, throwing off the arm length and proportion ..

I lowered it a little bit to show how I see it ..

 

[LAL]

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.

Aw, you sound hurt. I just preferred Rick's extremely clear photo of the original and Owen's drawings over photos of the original and his explanation of HOW IT GOT UP.

As I recall, all the BFFers who already thought it was an elk lay were very impressed with your work.

 

[LAL]

Can I rely on you to make sure when someone at your board or elsewhere says Meldrum has a peer-reviewed paper that you will let them know the facts?

No one on any board I've seen has said that. The Newsweek story was posted and I read it. I haven't had time to try to follow up on it. Thank you for doing that. I'll have to wait for tonight to check out the link.

 

[Bill Munns]

Diogenes:

On the frames that show the back nearly straight on, as one example you posted, I'm still trying to get good copies of that sequence to test the model through those frames.

"Also, it seems you have located the shoulder joint somewhat high in this composition, throwing off the arm length and proportion ..

I lowered it a little bit to show how I see it .."

Please keep in mind that for any anatomical figure, it needs to be run through multiple frames for comparison, which is why I did 9.

I do plan to expand this with more frames, and run maybe 5 models of varied proportions through the full larger frame inventory, for an even more comprehensive study. And a model with shorter arms, about as you diagrammed, will be one of those figures.

So more work on this is still in the works.

Bill

 

[Mad Hom]

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

Ha Ha Ha...we don't have any arguments?!?

Now that's a good one....no Lu we point and laugh because you people allow bias and wishful thinking to replace actual science. Bigfoot Nation wishes,hopes and BLEEVS that they can see the facial features in Patties blurry piehole other people see....um..well they see a blurry over exposed piehole.

Bigfoot Nation thinks they can see a Bigfeets ArsePrint in an Elk Lay

they think you can see Dermal Ridges in casts

they think you can see A Bigfeetsus baby dismount another Bigfeetsus in a blurry distant video.

they think you can see a whole lot of stuff.

But this ridiculous Wishful Science will never replace actual real Science practiced by real grown up scientists LU....you know that right?

You people just simply must let go of the Con Man's Flick...it's far to vague, far to ambiguous, and far to useless in terms of proof....also the Skookum butt cast is useless,cripplefoot is usless,dermal ridges are by and large useless...it's all useless...I say scrap it all and start fresh.

Because all these alleged muscle movements,facial features,compliant gaits,and dermal ridges etc etc moves you not an inch closer to proving this beastie is an actual live flesh and blood animal.....and now here comes the broken record part......it's been 40 flippin years...put away the microscope and the Kodachrome whatzis and the crayon scribbles and the Photoshop faces...and the biased costume comparisons...and the Bison Hair...etc etc

...and go find an actual Bigfeetsus already would ya!!

 

[jnelso99]

Stupid newbie question (I am NOT going through 386 pages!) -

Where would one find the best-quality images of the frames of the PG film, and as complete a set as possible (obviously copyright is an issue)? The Poser analysis intrigues me and I may try something like that myself just for the heck of it. Or at least until I lose interest and get distracted by something else.

 

[Crowlogic]

Stupid newbie question (I am NOT going through 386 pages!) -

Where would one find the best-quality images of the frames of the PG film, and as complete a set as possible (obviously copyright is an issue)? The Poser analysis intrigues me and I may try something like that myself just for the heck of it. Or at least until I lose interest and get distracted by something else.

Here's 2 of the best stills available.

 

[LAL]

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.

But Philip Morris called Greg Long and said that was his suit. What more do you want?

Was the suit tailored with horsehide and turned into a T-shirt and pants?

Bob went right along with this after saying "the guy from Planet of the Apes" did it. Why should Philip Morris' lies be less acceptable than Bob Heironimus' lies?

Since their confessions don't work it must be some other guys with suits and limited acting ability. Am I getting this straight yet?

Are you sure it wasn't a modified Yoda mask?

I'll try to get to the interview after I do another search for that frame on the HD TV. Maybe you could help me out. The whole show is here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B09FB3C4EE6B3228

Please note the section and time where it appears.

This is one of the enhanced images without the line drawing:

 

[LAL]

Stupid newbie question (I am NOT going through 386 pages!) -

Where would one find the best-quality images of the frames of the PG film, and as complete a set as possible (obviously copyright is an issue)? The Poser analysis intrigues me and I may try something like that myself just for the heck of it. Or at least until I lose interest and get distracted by something else.

https://secure29.activehost.com/legendmeetsscience/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=2

The whole 59 seconds is in the extras section. It was digitalized from John Green's copy.

The cibachromes are reproduced in Chris Murphy's books Meet the Sasquatch and The Patterson Film Controversy.

 

[LAL]

This "marvelous suit" is older than PGF and more realistic-looking than Patty IMHO.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/tn_snowman.jpg[/qimg]

Regarding Meldrum's defense of the Book of Mormon, I think that what LAL wrote does not apply.

At that text, he is trying to defend the literacy of the Book of Mormon (yup, revelations, angels, books of gold, etc.)

I don't see any angels here:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Children_of_Lehi_DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

He does cite Richard Dawkins.

Ken Miller wrote Finding Darwin's God and lectures on reconciling religion and science. He raised his daughters in his faith and calls himself a theist. Does this mean he's not credible when he speaks on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, the blood cascade and the evolution of the eye?

Last I heard, Catholics believe in angels.

 

[LAL]

Whew seems the flame throwers have been turned up a notch or two.

They always give me a warm welcome.

The drawing LTK posted does not seem to be in the same style as the others and does not appear to be from the MQ show. I'd ask him to source it, but he's apt to put me back on filter for being "obtuse". Far be it from me to suggest it's been Photoshopped by someone wanting to hold the analysis up to ridicule.