Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tyr_13]

Is this better? I stretched and cropped it.

[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/BH-1.jpg[/qimg]

You seem so judgemental. Do you have something personal against Bill Miller or are you just blaming him because images can look different on different computers and look different from site to site (the second one I linked to is much clearer). Or didn't you know that?

BS. Images can look different on different screens but the one you presented was altered. It is a jpeg image with set height and width by pixel count. The color will very by screen, and the size in cm will very by the resolution of the screen, but the screen will not make the picture distort wider or shorter than it really is. The reason it makes Bob look thinner is it was altered to do so, which is why someone would be judgmental. The ratio doesn't change from screen to screen with a jpeg (unless you mess with a CRT).

Or didn't you know that?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, to be fair, if LAL is using the wrong resolution configurations at a LCD (say, normal aspect screen with widescreen configuration) then the images can be distorted.

Aniway, if one is trying to check (even if qualitatively) proportions out of an image, this image must not be stretched or widened, its vertical/horizontal aspect must not be changed. So the comparison as proposed is another bigfoot SNAFU.

 

[tyr_13]

You know you're right. I guess I just assumed we were talking about a correctly set display.

 

[Crowlogic]

Is this better? I stretched and cropped it.

[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/BH-1.jpg[/qimg]

You seem so judgemental. Do you have something personal against Bill Miller or are you just blaming him because images can look different on different computers and look different from site to site (the second one I linked to is much clearer). Or didn't you know that?

Well there you have it. Young lean Bob heronimous. He'll need that midsection padding he's never mentioned as part of the suit and perhaps having his arms pulled out if their sockets so they'll be as long as what's seen in the PGF. Heck he was promised $1000 so what's a couple of dislocated shoulders.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As you wish.

I am assuming this is the passage you are talking about?

Using Trig., a distance of 130 feet, +/- 5 feet, for a subject height of 6 feet gives a tolerance range of +/- 3.35inches.

This means that a subject that is 72 inches tall, and viewed at 1500 inches in distance, but calculated or compared with something at a distance of 1560 inches will be actually 68.65 inches tall... but if it were 1620 inches, then it would be 75.35.

A plus or minus 5 foot distance equals about a 3" difference in apparent height. I can almost garantee that the measurements made at the film site of the photographers position and that of the subject for any given frame is as accurate as that. 5'9" to 6'3".

The funny thing is I can not find this as a refutation of Daeglings work. If I recall correctly, you stated this disproved Daegling's trigonometry but Daegling does not perform this calculation as far as I can tell. He talks about percentage differences based on how subjects appear based on if the standard is moved in and out of plane. Daegling states that if the standard for measurement is moved 3 feet away from the plane of the subject seen at 80 feet, the object appears (when measured on the image and not by performing a calculation) 4% larger/smaller. In the little computing exercise, the 130 foot +/- 5 value gave a change of 5% which is not much different than the MEASURED (and not calculated) difference of 4% for 80 +/- 3 feet.
If you want to get technical about it,

arc tan 6/80 = 4.29 deg (rounded)
arc tan 6/77 = 4.45 deg (rounded)

The apparent angular change is 4.45/4.29 = 1.037 => 3.7% If you want to argue about 3/10ths of a percent, feel free to do so but he was working on measurements and not calculations. I am sure lens distortion and minor measurement errors can account for the differences.


What I am trying to figure out is the statement:

I can almost garantee that the measurements made at the film site of the photographers position and that of the subject for any given frame is as accurate as that.

Since Patterson did not measure where he was and it is not clear where Aunt Bunny was located, how can we "almost guarantee" such a measurement was accurate to within 5 feet?

I've given my sources on his errors in calculation (also see Meldrum's book). Since both are trying to show the figure in the PGF is within human range, they're rather important errors to make.

Actually, you haven't. I asked for the range of error on the IM index and you shrank away from the request. Now you present this trig exercise as some sort of refutation of what Daegling wrote. From what I can see, it does not.

Back to the fact of the matter, Krantz stated the subject was something like 6'6" tall. If we use the range of error in the little trig exercise you linked, the subject could have been 6'3" tall or 6'9" tall. In either case, the subject height is well within normal human standards. So I am trying to figure out what your point is.

You need to do your homework. He had articles published in an anthropological journal (I'm not sure of the name so I won't say 'til I find it), which is lightly reviewed, but by no means a bigfoot publication.

And the articles were titled what? What was the point of the article? Did he just say, I have proof of bigfoot or did it involve how he was trying to resolve the PGF issue with measurements? There is a difference.

If you're trying to imply no one's tried to publish you're wrong there too. Meldrum, Fish and Meldrum/Swindler all wrote for publication. Meldrum has had papers accepted for presentation by the AAPA Pacific Division.

Same thing here. What were the articles titles and what were they about? These articles could be about anything but do they water down their opinions in these papers.

Feel free to send me links or the actual tlitles and sources if you want me to read them.

Yes, we know. Tell the no-kill groups they're just going to have to bring in a body.

Oh come on. The failure of all the expeditions to get anything that is substantial says a lot. A body would be great, a live bigfoot would be better, a skeleton would be nice. I might even accept a CLEAR video of bigfoot taking an apple from a bait trap. Sorry, his buttprint just doesn't cut it.

If the sightings are just stories, someone needs to do a study to find out why so many people see an animal that doesn't exist.

Why do so many people report UFOs? Why did people report seeing elves and fairies? One needs to examine the human psyche for why people report things that are not there or why people see things they want to see when they actually saw something else. Some are liars, some are delusional, some see or hear things they don't understand or never saw before and then exaggerate or misreport the event. Eyewitness testimony has an error associated with it that can not be resolved. As a result, science has a low opinion of eyewitness testimony. Something more substantial is needed to back it up. So far, nothing significant has been presented.

 

[tyr_13]

Well there you have it. Young lean Bob heronimous. He'll need that midsection padding he's never mentioned as part of the suit and perhaps having his arms pulled out if their sockets so they'll be as long as what's seen in the PGF. Heck he was promised $1000 so what's a couple of dislocated shoulders.

First of all, a lot of costumes create the illusion of bulk because they hang and hold their shape, like semi-solid drapes. That could work easily with the shoulder pads. Second, why jump to a ridiculous solution such as out of socket arms when just half inserting his hands into the gloves works much, much better?

Besides that, never mentioning does not mean the same thing as saying there was none. But I have to put more padding in my drapes.

 

[mangler]

Lu,

Nothing personal. There’s a right way and a wrong, if wrong it needs to be corrected, plain and simple. You know Lu, you sound just like my teenage daughter who has bitched and moaned all the way to a cumulative 3.92 gpa. Don’t blame it on the machine, it’s operator error, in this case it’s specifically called monitor calibration, maybe you should read up on it.

Nice try, Bill Millers still a Hack.


m

 

[Crowlogic]

First of all, a lot of costumes create the illusion of bulk because they hang and hold their shape, like semi-solid drapes. That could work easily with the shoulder pads. Second, why jump to a ridiculous solution such as out of socket arms when just half inserting his hands into the gloves works much, much better?

Besides that, never mentioning does not mean the same thing as saying there was none. But I have to put more padding in my drapes.

There are a lot of things Bob never mentions. A baggy hanging suit would be an answer if a baggy hanging suit was what we see in the PGF. Observe the motion and firmness of the creatures mass. Also the breasts which are very firm and very (perhaps to firmly) attached to the body. A baggy suit would wallow with the movement. At no time is this evident in the PGF.

Wrenching Bobs arms from his sockets is a joke! But I still don't think he wore the suit. His proportions aren't right. His height is in his legs and his arms are too short. He needs shorter legs and a longer torso. Sombody else walked at Bluff Creek is my opinion.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Well, it boils down, I think, to personal perceptions. I think Patty's body is just too bulky (especially the lower body) for an erectus-like being.

Oh...I thought the face was the point of contention. Yeah, most of the figures (save for the male on the left in this) are skinny. Then again, the Bigfoot bodies in these drawings by Patterson look plenty bulky. Or, as I believe was noted earlier, the bulk could have been a feature of a preexisting costume piece.

You also have Bill Munns (have you listened to the interview yet?) doing some actual research which is something Stan Winston apparently didn't do.

Emphasis on "apparently." We have no idea about how much work Stan Winston did, as we're only shown whatever segments of Mr. Winston talking that White Wolf Entertainment wanted us to see. And let's not forget Bob Burns and Rick Baker's frame-by-frame analysis (although that was done for themselves and not for the general public).

From post 174 here:

Actually the wrinkle is not being ignored at all. I've looked at it very closely and even did my own animation sequence going close on it to study and the more i study it, the more i am certain that what I'm seeing isn't part of any kind of suit i know to exist.

I personally recommend watching "War of the Gargantuas" (available on DVD and VHS) and "Half Human" (VHS only).

The concave contour I diagrammed remains a very powerful indication of a real body, and your example of the suit clearly has nothing like it. It may, in fact, be one of the features that settles this discussion with some finality.

Have you prepared a .gif or series of consecutive frames showing that is indeed the feature you claim it is and not the result of light and shadows? If not, you definitely should. I feel that it is not wise to use a feature that's "rare" to see on a suit as a sign of something being real. After all, Patterson using a suit with such a feature would invalidate your argument. This is why I opt to look elsewhere for signs that the film is a hoax. Besides, it's not like Patterson couldn't have requested such a feature on a costume, seeing as how he included similar-looking features in some of his Bigfoot artwork. Here's a flipped version of that last image.

I want to present a complete analysis that factors in every consideration, documents all materails and anatomical structures, and illustrates the underlying structures and their physical dynamics. takes time. Can't be rushed.

Good to hear.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

"My Quote (from BFF):
The concave contour I diagrammed remains a very powerful indication of a real body, and your example of the suit clearly has nothing like it. It may, in fact, be one of the features that settles this discussion with some finality. "

Your remark:

"Have you prepared a .gif or series of consecutive frames showing that is indeed the feature you claim it is and not the result of light and shadows? "

I don't do .gifs tp prove something. What I'm looking at is actual internal structures that result in concavities, folds, and the like, on real bodies and in suit pieces. So I'm working on an analysis of how concavities might occur in suits as compared to how they might appear on living anatomy, and what distinguishes the two.

So it's being worked on. No ETA for completion yet.

Bill

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh...I thought the face was the point of contention. Yeah, most of the figures (save for the male on the left in this) are skinny. Then again, the Bigfoot bodies in these drawings by Patterson look plenty bulky. Or, as I believe was noted earlier, the bulk could have been a feature of a preexisting costume piece...snip...

No problem. I have a tendency to look at the "whole picture" and sometimes this is not clear in my posts. Let me see if I can become more transparent...

1. Body:
Patterson's sketches, I think, show basically two different types of bigfeet:
a) Slender H. erectus-type (yep, can be more muscular); that picture where he stands beside a "full-sized" drawing is an example and the "Brokeback mountain bigfoot incident" rendering is another.
b) Barrel-chested upright gorilla-type (the Ape Canyon incident rendering, the female bigfeet drawings as well as those from the Ostman "abduction").

Both could have been created back in te 60s. This is from 1925's "Lost World", for example...

BTW, still trying to figure out how chickens in rubber suits would account for quadruped dinosaurs and two-legged dinos with moving tails...

Back on track, females usually are more slender than males, and Patty IMHO looks just too bulky to be a female from the species of those males he drawed (the H. erectus on steroids)... Its an upright gorilla! She's just too bulky even when compared with that old rendering of a Neanderthal male.

2. Head:
Now, when it comes to face, we have drawings which look like those "apeman" (or H. erectus or old neanderthal rendering) renderings and others which are more gorilla-like, whith a pronounced saggital crest. Again, not impossible for the time, and we have examples of both cases. The funny thing is that Patty has a more pronounced crest than most of the drawings, including the males! Perhaps something inherited from an adapted gorilla costume?

 

[kitakaze]

I'm still waiting for you to give me the name of a Patty claimant other than Heironimus or withdraw your claim.

I would if I could. Maybe you can get names out of John Green.

So can you please concede that you do not know of any specific individual other than Heironimus to claim to have been Patty, that when you stated otherwise as fact that was mistaken, and that you based that statement of fact on an unverified anecdotal statement by Bigfoot enthusiast John Green? Exactly the type of person we would expect to perpetuate such myths.

 

[LTC8K6]

Since Patterson did not measure where he was and it is not clear where Aunt Bunny was located, how can we "almost guarantee" such a measurement was accurate to within 5 feet?

It also rained heavily that very night, to the point of flooding and washing out roads, and swelling Bluff Creek to a much wider flow. Gimlin only protected a few of Patty's prints with some bark.

There is no disagreement here at all. It rained heavily and flooded the area, washing out the road, and Gimlin only claims to have protected a few tracks with some bark he pulled off of trees.

Yet Laverty walks by a few days later and takes pictures of perfectly preserved tracks.

Titmus has trouble even finding the site, but does finally, and then claims to be able to find all the relevant tracks and the positions of Roger when he was filming. Amazing!

(Except that he has Patty stopping for a squat and a smoke on the hillside.)

But he never finds any sign of Patty entering the site. Claims she must have come down the mountain or down the hard road and that's why he can't find her arrival tracks.

Does anyone think Patty's unprotected tracks would survive a heavy rainstorm in that soil? Does anyone think a piece of bark would do anything to protect them in a heavy rain?

Now, I believe that Laverty does report pulling bark off the tracks he photographed.

The questions would be when was the track made and when was the bark put there?

In my mind, it does not make sense for it to have been prior to the heavy rain.

 

[kitakaze]

In this animated-gif of Patty's left foot....we can see exactly the same foot movement that we see with Patty's right foot....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/LeftToesGif1.gif[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif6Repeat.gif[/qimg]

Sweaty, you really must not put the guano on the crackers. Do you really think just by saying so you can convince anyone that we can see the exact same movement in the left foot that is seen in the right? No you have not established that a shadow can be ruled out at all. I don't see any upward movement of toes in that gif and I certainly know that you are trying to see something that is not there.

Any other foolish alternate explanations out there......something other than the SIMPLE truth?

I can absolutely annihilate your realistic foot assertion. You just let me know if you would like me to do that for you.

 

[kitakaze]

Why did it take him over three decades to "remember" he was the man in the suit when he saw it on TV?

You are perpetuating a Bigfoot enthusiast myth. Bob Heironimus did not suddenly remember and start talking three decades after the fact. He had been telling his story continuously for a great many years.

 

[LAL]

Emphasis on "apparently." We have no idea about how much work Stan Winston did, as we're only shown whatever segments of Mr. Winston talking that White Wolf Entertainment wanted us to see.

White Wolf? The interview was on Sasquatch Odyssey (1999) in the Special Features section. That's a Gryphon Production.

He gave his reasons.

 

[LAL]

Mark Chorvinsky seemed to believe Ray Wallace when he said he had film 10 years before Patterson did:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/strange.html

 

[LAL]

Well there you have it. Young lean Bob heronimous. He'll need that midsection padding he's never mentioned as part of the suit and perhaps having his arms pulled out if their sockets so they'll be as long as what's seen in the PGF. Heck he was promised $1000 so what's a couple of dislocated shoulders.

Since it's so obviously distorted on the site it's inconceivable to me that was intentionally done.

With my banner, posted full size on MABRC, it scrolls right on my laptop and is just as I designed it, but on my desktop and on others I've viewed it on it's fit to the MABRC page width and that distorts it. I have no idea why this happens, but all the monitors were correctly set.

In any event, Bob gave his height and weight at the time to Greg Long and the picture is in the book.

He'd have needed to break his humeri, too, to get the width of the shoulder joints if Krantz was correct.

In Miller's article as it appears on Bobbi's Short's site, the Patty heads are stretched horizontally, so maybe it has to do with how the images were uploaded.

This is one. Note all the glass eyes.

 

[LAL]

You are perpetuating a Bigfoot enthusiast myth. Bob Heironimus did not suddenly remember and start talking three decades after the fact. He had been telling his story continuously for a great many years.

Read Long.

 

[LAL]

Both could have been created back in te 60s. This is from 1925's "Lost World", for example...
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/Ape_man_from_The_Lost_World.jpg[/qimg]

Have you seen that in motion?

It's near the end of this collection of deleted scenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl3cCKA5S_w&feature=related

I have the other one you posted in a clip in Sasquatch Odyssey. It's not very convincing.