Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[Crowlogic]

Now Crow, you know it doesn't work that way .. ( ... not here, anyway )

Forget which forum you were posting on ?


But putting that aside - the evidence I have that Patty didn't sit on the side of the hill watching , is the total lack of evidences she ever existed ( as a non-human North American primate )...

How do we know that the mime (if it was indeed a mime) Didn't continue up the hill with Patterson and Gimlin in pursuit filming the event. Do I need to remind you that there is no proof that what we see as the PGF is all that's on the film. Perhaps the filming of the ascent into the woods looked too fake because the mime was tireing and struggling under the load. Perhaps the "watching" point was where the mime stopped to get unsuited.

 

[Crowlogic]

What happened to your certainty that BF went extinct? Have you changed your position?

I haven't changed my position. During the times when I'm leaning towards the PGF being real I attribute it to the capturing on film what is one of the last remaining subjects of a micro population of individuals teetering on the edge. Did they teeter over the edge and into the abyss? You betcha!

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Measuring Patty with CAD

Interesting thread at BFF. The contention is that the LeClerc panorama trackway image is distorted and gives false measurements (causing Meldrum to use a bad stride length). I guess the correct stride is about 41". That is enormous!

Can anyone work backwards from that and estimate the necessary height to achieve this walking stride?
I know that mangler has fit a CAD skeleton into Patty (for the BH comparison). Can he (or maybe Bill) use that same CAD skeleton and create a 41" stride? What does that skeleton look like when making a 41" stride?

Not really without more information and heres the major hurdle

( back in my days from forensic orthopedics training [ which is a lot more advanced now] and knowledge of joints)

The first thing is the tracks themselves- they dont give the indications of a toe off ( they look like flat stampings) and they are almost in a straight line ( no accounting for a normal pelvic arc) ( dont take a normal step[ with the angled foot indicating hip movement but do "heel to toe" in a straight line like on a water ski)

given the knee joint is a lever ( basically) and the hip is a ball joint and the ankles are basically ball joints too- for those prints to have been made ( flat) and inline ( almost putting a leg in front of another and not to the side as in normal walking) taking into account joint articulation ( which we dont know) those legs would have to be 6 feet or so to accomplish that.

( use the "full nelson" example- you can put that on the average person but if a person rolls both shoulders forward, the arms cant adapt to that angle and you cant apply it)

The film subject isnt walking like that ( leg over) and that "gait" cant make those angles ( represented by the footprints) unless each leg was over 6 ft.

try it

without moving your hips see how far you can step with your rear foot flat ( and the lead foot almost linear in front)

Then if you want to move, the rear foot wants to tilt ( due to wanting to move the hip)

Those prints were not made by anything "walking" and certainly not from whats seen in the PGF

 

[William Parcher]

Those prints were not made by anything "walking" and certainly not from whats seen in the PGF

In that BFF thread Jack uses his CAD to try to determine Patty's height...

...I would have to conclude that the height of Patty standing erect would be LESS then the 5'-10 3/4" calculated.

He later acknowledges the stride length...

...this confirms that a single stride is about 41".

Is he going to have one of those light-bulb moments next?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

In that BFF thread Jack uses his CAD to try to determine Patty's height...
He later acknowledges the stride length...
Is he going to have one of those light-bulb moments next?

Probably because back in the older CAD thread, several of us ( with CAD and SolidWorks) plugged in the numbers he used and came up with basically the same thing.

The flaw is using the 14.5 measurement- first we dont know if thats the foot length ( without going into photogrammetry and the measurement comes from the print not the foot et al)

The clue really isnt in the measurements as it is in the joint structure and mechanics of motion.

For example, you, me or anyone else ( if we could do a full split) could make those measurements from a static position. ( I made it but I can still split even tho I dont actively train much but I still stretch) Thats not the problem.

The problem is matching the foot imprint flat ( with the weight over it) with no evidence of mechanical articulation in the print or from the film subject with that distance.

I tried to explain before ( I dont know anything about BIO "mechanics" other than what they taught us when I was an 18D [ SF Medic] but as an engineer, I KNOW "mechanics" and articulation of joints and a hip joint is a ball joint and a knee is a lever- they function no differently than the tie rods and such on a car)

The clue is in that "linear' walk as evidenced in the alleged track path.

One thing we did to determine gaits and such back in my day was measure the distance INBETWEEN the L and R foot ( draw a centerline down the foot path and measure centerline to center print and the deflection angle ( angle to outside depth as most people even tho they step down are also stepping outward slightly and the foot compensates) ( thats how size and weight can be determined by forensic podiatry, NOT by jumping off a log)

Look at the PGF, its using normal articulation for walking (the legs are going outward from centerline as anything with a pelvis would be expected to) so those prints from the film subject would HAVE to be apart from that centerline relative to those ( patty sized proportions) unless her leg bones were "bowed' inward like a ballerina doing a pirouette. But they visably arent.

In the track path those prints ( using my calibrated eyeball) cant be more than an inch or 2 apart ( if that much) ( thats small for even a normal human)


For something like patty ( and her 7 ft alleged height and "wide" frame) to get them that close, she would have to be doing the "crescent" walk ( like we do in hyungs [ katas for those why practice Japanese Arts])

Shes not doing that in the film.

then you have the problems that the prints dont show the articulation necessary for the foot to shift if she "sank" so much ( joint articulation cant be faked- it either had to happen with the body or show in the foot moving in the suubstrate or the film subject couldnt locomote)

Those prints were NOT made by the film subject as seen in the film. I doubt they were made by any being that has a hip either.

Wood feet are one thing but faking the laws of Physics is another.

Take an old GI Joe ( with the legs) and scale down the experiment. Just use the foot ratio and slide the front foot to the approximate scale leaving the trailfoot flat. Watch the play hip joint. ( not identical to human but its basically 2 45's tham make the 90 like a real hip) The hip has to turn almost in the line to put them in front of each other- then it wants to pop out. GI Joe can do that but a normal hip width with muscles,tendons, ligaments cant ( and keep that rear foot flat as evidenced by the print and lack of articulation from such a depth)

Those prints were stamped and are NOT from the film subject

 

[William Parcher]

This shows 3 pics taken by Laverty. Note the caption: part of the "2nd Roll" was given to Dahinden. There is an error on the Laverty date.

 

[makaya325]

well, it wasnt like roger was looking to capture it. he set out to film recent tracks he found in a hotspot for bigfoot. regardless if its authenticity, it sounds reasonable. also patterson was quite guillable. he spent time raising money to visit a sherpa who claimed to have a captive bf, which was a lie

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

WP,

They actually illustrate my point.

Compare those prints and the trackway photos. They are almost perfectly parallel to each other and in their depth, they show no signs of ankle articulation ( something has to absorb that energy and shift so the next movement can be made)

Thats one of the reasons we could get good "flat" prints from a shoe ( the shoe didnt move in a print) but the foot inside the shoe moved [ which gave us foot patterns to match the foot to the shoe]

I could buy those were made with "fake feet" from a human hoaxer IF they were wide enough apart for a normal human hip.

They werent made by a human wearing fake feet ( the ones in that trackpath) they were probably pressed in flat and rocked a bit from front to back) and they couldnt have been made by the film subject ( real BF or man in a suit) because of the articulations seen. ( the articulation doesnt match the path)

Its process of elimination.

Now the same margin of error exists making this deduction from a questionable picture as all other margins of error but had this been done correctly with strings pulled and measured from the heel angle and all the points- this would be able to actually be proven.

You dont "study" a print for information by casting it- you string them, measure them at angles and depths for these articulations, weight distributions and evidence of movement.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

well, it wasnt like roger was looking to capture it. he set out to film recent tracks he found in a hotspot for bigfoot. regardless if its authenticity, it sounds reasonable. also patterson was quite guillable. he spent time raising money to visit a sherpa who claimed to have a captive bf, which was a lie

Honestly, if he raised money for a trip he never took ( and thats what many stories say he did) to me that makes the "investors" the gullible ones and RP a scam artist.

 

[makaya325]

longtabber, when i saw patterson talk in an interview, he sounded like some hick. he was dumb as dirt. if it were a hoax, patterson got fooled, not the other way around

 

[makaya325]

heres another theory on the possible hoax: chambers and janos prohaska were involved, and bob h. was not involved. instead, they got a huge guy and glued hair on to some type of ultra tight spandex and filmed it

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How do we know that the mime (if it was indeed a mime) Didn't continue up the hill with Patterson and Gimlin in pursuit filming the event. Do I need to remind you that there is no proof that what we see as the PGF is all that's on the film. Perhaps the filming of the ascent into the woods looked too fake because the mime was tireing and struggling under the load. Perhaps the "watching" point was where the mime stopped to get unsuited.

Or maybe the mime jumped into the hole left by the large uprooted tree we see in the film.
It's interesting that the film ends as the subject approaches that tree ..

Why do you defend the Titmus tracking story, when P & G said they tracked the creature beyond where Titmus said it squatted and observed ?

...And don't give me the " ... it must have back-tracked and did the squat thing later " story; because the Titmus tracking map shows the subject going directly from the film site, and up the side of the hill; in clear contradiction to both Patterson and Gimlin.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

longtabber, when i saw patterson talk in an interview, he sounded like some hick. he was dumb as dirt. if it were a hoax, patterson got fooled, not the other way around

I guess thats why I'm an investigator ( former LE) and you arent.

People who are "dumb as dirt" dont write books, develop a business plan, secure funding, obtain equipment, launch expeditions, film documentaries and then develop/execute a marketing plan to sell it. ( even if the PGF was authentic [which it aint] RP did all the above and more. That level of performance is light years beyond someone who was 'dumb as dirt")

 

[LTC8K6]

Charles Edson and Red Collier claimed to have seen Roger and Bob go galloping by them at Bluff Creek just 30 minutes before Patty was filmed.

Why they were galloping shortly before running into Patty is not explained.

Apparently Bluff Creek was quite busy that day...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/charlie-edson.htm

 

[makaya325]

lt, i thought eyewitnesses are unreliable? im just saying that neither proponents or skeptics should bring up eyewitness accounts to support there belief/view. take it for what it is: a story, anecdotal, untestable.

 

[William Parcher]

That article is occasionally used to try to show that Bob Heironimus was not in the suit. But BH doesn't claim to have been at Bluff Creek on Oct. 20th.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

lt, i thought eyewitnesses are unreliable? im just saying that neither proponents or skeptics should bring up eyewitness accounts to support there belief/view. take it for what it is: a story, anecdotal, untestable.

Statistically speaking yes but individually most are accurate enough on salient points and many are 100% dead on. ( conversely, many go the other way too)

Testimony can be tested to a degree of usable accuracy by sensory tests, comparing the testimony to factual evidence, comparing multiple witnesses etc. Not absolute or bulletproof but nothing is perfect.

Besides, if you discard eyewitness testimony. the world of BF will cease to exist like being sucked into a black hole because there isnt a single solitary piece of scientifically conclusive forensic or fossil evidence that supports the existence of such a creature.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

That article is occasionally used to try to show that Bob Heironimus was not in the suit. But BH doesn't claim to have been at Bluff Creek on Oct. 20th.

The PGF was filmed earlier, BH wasnt there that day because they were just faking tracks and pouring plaster. ( they knew the rain was coming)

They had to get the scene right so those who came looking could find something

 

[mangler]

WP,

The formula (average males) for stride vs. height is Height x .415. Now add to this 25-35% for a somewhat compliant gait and/or partial stride out and your ballpark for a 6’-6’3” man. As I have tried to explain before (probably on the BFF) the numbers show that this could absolutely be a man striding out and or walking with a somewhat compliant gait. There are obviously variables here, for instance, substrate, substrate elevation changes, debris in the trail etc.

These people weren’t even sure how to measure stride length and/or stride interval, heel to toe, toe to heel, heel-to-heel, toe-to-toe, its fricking ridiculous.

One of the major problems I have with the whole tracking thing and these supposedly great impression tracks is that nowhere do I ever read any words that remotely suggest that anyone involved had any knowledge of tracking, animal or tactical. No mention of transfer, scuff marks, trail width/straddle, nothing, ever. I would expect some mention of the tracks at and around frame 352 something like “look it, you can see where it’s whole upper body turned”. To place any credibility what-so-ever in the words of those on site people is very, very difficult for me to do.

Like LT is trying to explain the pressure release for the foot digits is simply wrong as well as pressure ridges not being where they belong. Plain and simple the impression (photos) and/or impression casts that we see are not from a large moving bi-pedal subject. When a subject is in transit it moves a specific way and leaves specific marks/spoor. By analyzing this spoor one can decipher what the hell is going on, how fast, how heavy, how tall, how tired, is it nervous, does it have a handicap, which way was it looking, etc.

OK I’m done, back to the real world for me.

The almighty Bobbie Short likes the 52” stride http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49847

Post #62 for other stride crap http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19769&st=33&p=402372&#entry402372



m

 

[LTC8K6]

That account puts even more people in the area if Red and Charles went there in response to tracks seen a few days earlier by hunters.

We've got Roger and Bob, Laverty and a timber cruising crew, Charles and Red, some hunters, and Patty...all in the same area in the same time frame.