Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

I've read that Steindorf was paid something like $100,000 for that work.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't see why skeptics would want to push that. It effectively rules out Bob Heironimus.

That is hardly the point ...

The point is that you offer the inaccurate skeleton as evidence for your position ..

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

That is hardly the point ...

The point is that you offer the inaccurate skeleton as evidence for your position ..

Its all there is- derived mathmatically from that excellent BF "photogrammetry"

 

[LAL]

That is hardly the point ...

The point is that you offer the inaccurate skeleton as evidence for your position ..

The "inacurate skeleton" was done using reverse kinematics on 116 frames of the PGF.

The digital hairless figure was done using forensic technology to see how it would look without hair.

If you have a problem with this take it up with Steindorf and Hajicek.

More here:

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

Note it does NOT say that's Patty. It's a digital bigfoot without hair.

 

[LAL]

I've read that Steindorf was paid something like $100,000 for that work.

Yes. The other bid was $300,000.

 

[Óðinn]

Dfoot has demonstrated quite enough. At least to a rational observer. Is Longtabber uttering heresies?
Sounds like he is running the risk of becoming a "Suppressed Person".

Yes I am ( according to PM's and some posts)

I have a running battle over there and if anyone follows the thread ( and others on the subject)

ALL I have said is the film doesnt have the necessary information to measure it ACCURATELY ( and is doesnt) so all the trig, all the math, all the ratios et al are nothing more tha a GUESS based on estimated data. ( no matter how many times sweaty wants to argue in circles, as was stated in an old ST eposide- "his words are not important and we dont hear him") and I dont argue facts against denial ( its the never ending circle and I just dont have the time for it)

I realized I was posting against someone who has a working knowledge of the subject ( and i knew he knew he was misrepresenting the facts) and finally called him out and even he finally admitted the film couldnt be measured accurately ( big surprise there) but "relative measurements" could be made. ( despite the circular reasoning and back walking from original positions and "explaining it away" which I found rather entertaining)

relative measurements= educated guess= scientifically useless for any meaningful study ( thats how it works)

The question of X with a (+/-) added to it ( this "relative measurement") doesnt mean anything unless "X" is a known. ( and it isnt) ( try building a part to tolerance without knowing what the baseline measurement is)

all the kings horses, arguments, ignorance, denial, jabberwocky, talking around, quoting "pseudo experts" isnt going to change the MATERIAL FACT presented into evidence. It all boils down to this:

1) the film subject CANNOT be measured accurately with any degree of certainty ( the camera internals are not known, proper field measurements do not exist and enough images at necessary angles dont exist) Nothing is going to change that.

2) This "relative measurement" issue is a simple back door attempt to skirt 1 above. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the film subject of the PGF has a range between X and Y. ( plug in whatever number suits you at that point because they are all equally worthless) Theres your woo "relative measurement"

The proof is equally as simple- show the measurements and show how they were derived ( nothing else matters) You either have them and can validate how they were derived from field data or you dont. ( there aint a 3rd answer)

This talk about me "proving" it cant be measured is straw. I admit I cannot solve A+B+C=X in any meaningful manner and nobody else can either.

I am not sure I follow you entirely. There are no reliable field measurements granted but the relative measurements are by nature, unitless. Pixels/pixels in this case. You do not need to know the distance to the object or the object height or the camera specifications. I am not saying relative measurements would necessarily have any meaning but I can tell you the image is X pixels by Y pixels, +/- R pixels. If the orientation of the figure can be determined you can reverse engineer the 3-D view. You still only have relative dimensions but this is what the IM index is all about anyhow. Unitless dimensions wrt the aspect ratio of the image. CGI uses relative dimensioning. The error for these estimates would be based strictly on the image and on how you guesstimated where the joints were and the foreshortening of the body angles. The knees, elbows, wrists, and ankles might be established over several frames but then there is the body orientation to match up. Who knows what kind of an error margin you could establish but whether it would be meaningful is another matter. I doubt it will ever happen but there is nothing preventing you from measuring images this way. It is standard practice.

 

[LAL]

Right. Roger the dodger "didn't need a rifle". In a Bigfoot hunt. The Bigfoot of Ostman, and Roe lore plus other scary tales. This isn't just some Wildebeest or Kodiak Bear. This is Ninja Bigfoot.

Where are you getting this stuff? There wasn't anything particularly scary about Roe's encounter. Roger included Ape Canyon and the Argosy article by Ivan Sanderson, which mentioned two miners being pulverized, but overall most of his book is reprints of newspaper articles from California and Canada about sightings. They're pretty ordinary.

 

[LAL]

I am not sure I follow you entirely. There are no reliable field measurements granted but the relative measurements are by nature, unitless. Pixels/pixels in this case. You do not need to know the distance to the object or the object height or the camera specifications. I am not saying relative measurements would necessarily have any meaning but I can tell you the image is X pixels by Y pixels, +/- R pixels. If the orientation of the figure can be determined you can reverse engineer the 3-D view. You still only have relative dimensions but this is what the IM index is all about anyhow. Unitless dimensions wrt the aspect ratio of the image. CGI uses relative dimensioning. The error for these estimates would be based strictly on the image and on how you guesstimated where the joints were and the foreshortening of the body angles. The knees, elbows, wrists, and ankles might be established over several frames but then there is the body orientation to match up. Who knows what kind of an error margin you could establish but whether it would be meaningful is another matter. I doubt it will ever happen but there is nothing preventing you from measuring images this way. It is standard practice.

Bravo.

Do you have any CGI software we could borrow?

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

If you meant my post only, the top one is Australopithecus afarensis.

Gotcha. Is it meant to suggest a sasquatch would have characteristics similar to an enlarged afarensis? An adult afarensis would be much smaller than a modern human. Or is it for contrast with the proposed Patty skeleton?

 

[Óðinn]

Bravo.

Do you have any CGI software we could borrow?

Yes, I believe Maya is still free CGI software from Autodesk. Very sophisticated. It takes some dedication to learn to use it. You can Google for a link to the installation software.

 

[captain koolaid]

There wasn't anything particularly scary about Roe's encounter...overall most of his book is reprints of newspaper articles from California and Canada about sightings. They're pretty ordinary.

No, Roe isn't a good example in respect to RP himself. That came to mind via the PGF screenplay. It isn't the details of the story, with that one, but the sensational illustration, that prompted the inclusion. The nature of Bigfoot that Patterson presents might come across as "ordinary" to the huggable-squatch proponents, but Patterson forwarded a profile of Bigfoot that varied in the extreme. From peaceful vegetarians, to organized warriors and murderous phantoms. Did Patterson not believe the more extreme tales of aggession, stealth and strength? If not, why take rifles at all? What was he concerned about when he halted Gimlin's pursuit? Even if it is argued that RP was "not sure", he certainly seemed cautious enough when it came to the crunch. If Bigfoot encounters can range from the pastoral, to scenes from the movie "Aliens", then some serious preparation would be in order.

Unless there was little to no belief in such things.

 

[captain koolaid]

*double post deletion*

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

When I am talking about the left foot and how it does not display the same possible movement that may be occuring in Patty's right foot why would you show again the image featuring Patty's right foot and attempt to make it appear as though I was talking about the right?

Dishonest representation or retarded reading comprehension?

Sorry about that, kitty....I misunderstood the 2nd statement of yours, in this quote:

I see a foot moving but I see nothing in the manner of an articulated movement within the foot itself. Nothing at all in the manner of what may or may not be occurring in Patty's right foot.

I thought you were refering to the animated-gif of Patty's right foot.


But, in that same post, you did have this to say about her right foot...

Patty's right foot may or may not be showing some clown foot upward movement.
It has not been established.

So....you are pretending, nonetheless, when it comes to Patty's right foot.
The front part, or half, of Patty's right foot clearly has some upward movement. It's fine with me if you can't see it.....I really don't care.

All I'm interested in, is seeing a skeptic....who is so sure it's a fake foot....replicate what the animated-gif shows.

Whoever gives it a try can use the shadow of their head, if they want...it's fair game......or anything else they want to use.

The only thing I recommend, is to start as soon as possible....'cause it's gonna take a LONG time to replicate!

 

[William Parcher]

Did Patterson not believe the more extreme tales of aggession, stealth and strength?

He claimed that a Bigfoot lifted his car. I think this is his graphic illustration of that incident...

 

[Crowlogic]

Bob "American Legend" Gimlin, with a bolt 06? Damn he must have been some kind of shot. Even if ole Bob had of packed a Bazooka, I still would have had my own insurance. That is, if I really believed what RP did.



Right. Roger the dodger "didn't need a rifle". In a Bigfoot hunt. The Bigfoot of Ostman, and Roe lore plus other scary tales. This isn't just some Wildebeest or Kodiak Bear. This is Ninja Bigfoot.



No doubt. After all, there was supposed to have been any number of these things at Bluff creek. RP was so concerned, that he prevented BG from pursuing the find of the century (with a loaded camera). They could have attacked, in some sort of Bigfoot pincer movement, from the tree line, when he was left alone by BG... But Rodge didn't need a rifle. No sir.



Thing is, either RP didn't think this thing through, or he didn't really believe his own spin about Ninja Bigfoot. Or in Bigfoot period.



But that's the whole problem. The same guy that is "training" at getting the camera out "just in case", is not putting any thought or preparation, let alone "training", into self preservation. The circumstance was self-created. Either RP wasn't a "Bigfoot hunter's" armpit (despite being a woodsman and ex-army), he did not believe his own spin, or he was 100% certain that the only threat would be a cranky dude in a suit, at Bluff Creek.




Sure. Considering Patty is a guy in a suit, in a low budget monster movie.

I agree 100% with you. Roger didn't need a rifle at Bluff creek. Guy in suit just doing his job for the camera. Or big hairy biped that could have posed a safety problem if it got mean. But once again there's Bob Gimlin with 180 grain 30.06 load. If Patty was real she weightd 600-700lbs. Now I've never fired a 30.06 but I've been present more than once when one has been fired. Have you ever seen what a 30.06 will do to its target? I saw one slug go through several layers of cinder block wall. Had it been a Bigfoot and Bob hit it in the head from 100' away Patty's head would have done a fair impersonation of a hand grenade. Check the photo of Roger in the camping photo. There's a rifle right next to him. According to Gimlin Roger had a British 303 with him on the Bluff Creek expedition. In any event no shots were fired and nobody got hurt only some people didn't get paid. However trying to incorporate the weapons issue into an argument to discredit Patterson's cleverness in crafting the tale is stretching things a bit. I'm sure if Patterson said he grabbed his rifle and movie camera and rifle in one hand and camera in the other filmed the creature the argument would be that Patterson couldn't have done both so he's lying. But he didn't do both now did he?

 

[Crowlogic]

William I once inquired at BFF whether Patterson ever saw or claimed to have seen an other Bigfoot. Seems the answer was negative. When did the VW incident takeplace and was he claiming to be in the car? I think I heard that the VW incident was passed along to him fro another source.

 

[kitakaze]

As for 'bending fingers'...that "fact", together with arms too long to be an actor's arms.....reduces the likelihood that Patty is a man-in-a-suit, since a remote-controlled device would be required in the suit to cause the fingers to bend.

SneakyYeti #875.

Hi, Sneaky:

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Sorry about that, kitty....I misunderstood the 2nd statement of yours, in this quote:

I thought you were refering to the animated-gif of Patty's right foot.

What I wrote was easy to understand, you just weren't interested in understanding it. In your panicked rush to score points you end up doing a face plant with your shorts around your ankles.

But, in that same post, you did have this to say about her right foot...

So....you are pretending, nonetheless, when it comes to Patty's right foot.
The front part, or half, of Patty's right foot clearly has some upward movement. It's fine with me if you can't see it.....I really don't care.

All I'm interested in, is seeing a skeptic....who is so sure it's a fake foot....replicate what the animated-gif shows.

Whoever gives it a try can use the shadow of their head, if they want...it's fair game......or anything else they want to use.

The only thing I recommend, is to start as soon as possible....'cause it's gonna take a LONG time to replicate!

If you showed even the slightest interest in observing forum courtesy and addressing posts which you have been repeatedly requested to address for extended periods of time then people may possibly show something other than amusement and mild contempt at your assinine invitations. Indeed, you haven't even demonstrated that the duck foot thing is occuring in both feet. WP did show that it can't be accounted for by what are supposed to be Patty's footprints.

Happy flailing.

 

[captain koolaid]

...Or big hairy biped that could have posed a safety problem if it got mean. But once again there's Bob Gimlin with 180 grain 30.06 load. If Patty was real she weightd 600-700lbs. Now I've never fired a 30.06 but I've been present more than once when one has been fired. Have you ever seen what a 30.06 will do to its target?

Yes.

...I saw one slug go through several layers of cinder block wall. Had it been a Bigfoot and Bob hit it in the head from 100' away Patty's head would have done a fair impersonation of a hand grenade.

But you got to actually hit it in the head, in order to get the effect. Even a big running figure at 100', is no easy shot. A bolt 30.06 won't give you much time with a miss. Factor in more than 1 attacker, and... well. Both BG and RP would be well aware of this. The difference being that Bob apparently wasn't a believer, but Rodge WAS, and knew an "Aliens" scenario could unfold at Bluff Creek.

...However trying to incorporate the weapons issue into an argument to discredit Patterson's cleverness in crafting the tale is stretching things a bit...

I know we've covered this before. And will concede it isn't a "smoking gun". But it is yet another of those seemingly endless, odd, contradictions and logic holes that crop up in in this story, that goes way beyond mere understandable variations in retelling.

...I'm sure if Patterson said he grabbed his rifle and movie camera and rifle in one hand and camera in the other filmed the creature the argument would be that Patterson couldn't have done both so he's lying. But he didn't do both now did he?

No. But he easily could have...

I agree 100% with you. Roger didn't need a rifle at Bluff creek. Guy in suit just doing his job for the camera.

Well we agree on the most important part, regardless of the details.

 

[kitakaze]

(snip) But sure after the PGF Patterson had connections to Hollywood.

Before.

BTW, log, feel free to stop pretending you think the PGF is a hoax anytime now.