• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
footecus,

Do that overlay with two full frames and see what kind of problems you run into.


m
 
kitakaze said:
Hi, Bobbie. Just in case you might have missed it, I was curious about the questions in post #381.
Click to expand...
----------
Sorry, it got by me...
------------------------------
So you think they buried her.

I don't know....but what is on that film suggests "something" was...

Why didn't they bring her carcass in?

That I know of, nobody has ask Gimlin that question. There are any number of tough questions that have never been asked of him.

And even if they decided then to bury her, why didn't they come back and dig her up after the footage wasn't being accepted as proof?

I don't know.....I keep thinking of the 'hunter's creed" maybe he had an attack of conscience? I have more questions than answers lately...What do you make of it?

 
And even if they decided then to bury her, why didn't they come back and dig her up after the footage wasn't being accepted as proof?

I don't know.....I keep thinking of the 'hunter's creed" maybe he had an attack of conscience? I have more questions than answers lately...What do you make of it?
Click to expand...

Better question: Why haven't you and all the other believers who think there is a family of sasquatch buried at Bluff Creek swarmed the area yourselves to finally gather the missing piece of legitimate evidence that has eluded believers since the bigfoot story began? You could make history, and stick it to us skeptics at the same time.
 
bobbieshort said:
----------
I don't know.....I keep thinking of the 'hunter's creed" maybe he had an attack of conscience? I have more questions than answers lately...What do you make of it?
Click to expand...

Simple, the shooting never occurred. Theres not a single shred of legitimate evidence to shore up the outrageous claim in the first place.

If it were, "someone" would have dug up the remains by now and laid "proof" on the table.

Dont make something out of something it isnt
 
xblade said:
Better question: Why haven't you and all the other believers who think there is a family of sasquatch buried at Bluff Creek swarmed the area yourselves to finally gather the missing piece of legitimate evidence that has eluded believers since the bigfoot story began? You could make history, and stick it to us skeptics at the same time.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anywhere Bobbie advocating MK's clan slaughter, but rather just Patty. I may be wrong in that she does support the idea. The question remains valid in that we are told that P&G buried something and that the buried something is in a location that might be discerned with effort.
 
GOT IT!

Bill Munns wants to go to Bluff Creek with Monster Quest folks to dig and find, at last, proof that bigfeet are real!!!
 
The film tells a different story, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It seems so to me, but I'd really like to see the original rolls. :D

So why is Jim McLarin calling Ivan Sanderson that night, before the film has even been processed, to get help with handling it?

This means McLarin must be in on the whole PG film making deal, imo. Otherwise, he has no business calling Sanderson in the middle of the night before it's even known what the film shows.

Which brings up another question. Why the heck should we trust any Patty comparison films made by McLarin and Green? These two were knee deep in bigfootery from the get go...and McLarin was helping Patterson with his film...
 
GF-
I like the overlay, is that new work, or has that been available for a while?

The only problems I get from that, and it makes it difficult to judge height, are these:

1- Costume adds to height of Patty unkown amount
2- Their feet do not seem to be following the same path, patty is further back.
3- Patty appears hunched over, reducing her height by at least a few inches more.

I would think that a 6' BH, in a costume such as that alleged to be Patty, would probably, if standing straight, and on the same path, be about the same height or a little taller than a 6'5" Mclarin.
 
Drewbot said:
GF-
I like the overlay, is that new work, or has that been available for a while?

The only problems I get from that, and it makes it difficult to judge height, are these:

1- Costume adds to height of Patty unkown amount
2- Their feet do not seem to be following the same path, patty is further back.
3- Patty appears hunched over, reducing her height by at least a few inches more.

I would think that a 6' BH, in a costume such as that alleged to be Patty, would probably, if standing straight, and on the same path, be about the same height or a little taller than a 6'5" Mclarin.
Click to expand...

Nope, at least 7ft
 
makaya325 said:
Kitz, are you blind? How in the hell can you fit bob h's skeleton on patty? I realize that you dismissed someones attempt to but a squatch skeleton on patty, yet your being hypocritical
Click to expand...

Nothing hypocritical about it, since we know what a human skeleton looks like, so it would make sense to overlap a human skeleton to determine whether or not it's a guy in a suit.

Since we have no idea what a "squatch" (:rolleyes:) skeleton looks like, putting one on Patty is nothing more than making crap up. Which we seem to see an awful lot of from the Bigfoot "researcher" world.
 
Another way to look at the human vs. sqatch skeleton issue is to go back to the claim. Bob H. says he wore the Patty suit. So we can easily take a look at a photograph of Bob H. and derive a reasonable approximation of what his skeleton would look like. (We understand human skeletons.) Then superimpose than on Patty to see if it fits reasonably well inside her. It does.

Now the only value in deriving a squatch skeleton from a photograph of Patty (which would involve lots and lots of guesswork) would be to superimpose than on Bob H. The only reason to do that would be if anyone claimed Patty put on a Bob H. suit and borrowed money from Bob's drinking buddies in Yakima. So far, I don't think anyone's made that claim. Although I won't be surprised if that turns up.
 
mangler said:
I’m not going to comment on these two images at present but there is a basic principle as to why they should not be compared to one another. Anyone with a background in photography should be able to see it in a heartbeat.


m
http://manglertestsite.vndv.com/gif3.html
Click to expand...
Neat graphic and you are close except those frames don't have the same aspect ratio. This gets further complicated since you had to significantly rotate the PGF frame to vertical alignment. This means that the aspect distortion got applied in a non-vertical direction. Still correctable though.

Note as the images fade to the PGF frame they get compressed vertically. Your horizontal alignment is good and you've rotated the PGF frame to match but it looks like you need to either expand the PGF frame or compress the McClarin frame by 5% or so. Then the foreground log should match up better. If you do this then it should look more like my comparison (except they still should both be registered to a full frame to get the true aspect ratio.)

Other than that, there is no problem with your comparison frames. It doesn't help that the films were shot at different times of the day, but there are no inherent problems with this method. Same camera, same location, same camera position. Does it get any better? No, and it never will. But we still haven't confirmed whether they were at the same distance from the camera.

Did you notice that the "stick" behind Patty had moved a few feet in the McClarin frame? Also note there are other markers in the sand (near the stick) that are exactly matched in both frames.

Now that McClarin is registered to a full frame of film and we know his height, how about his distance from the camera? Anyone?
 
Last edited:
Hitch said:
Another way to look at the human vs. sqatch skeleton issue is to go back to the claim. Bob H. says he wore the Patty suit. So we can easily take a look at a photograph of Bob H. and derive a reasonable approximation of what his skeleton would look like. (We understand human skeletons.) Then superimpose than on Patty to see if it fits reasonably well inside her. It does.

Now the only value in deriving a squatch skeleton from a photograph of Patty (which would involve lots and lots of guesswork) would be to superimpose than on Bob H. The only reason to do that would be if anyone claimed Patty put on a Bob H. suit and borrowed money from Bob's drinking buddies in Yakima. So far, I don't think anyone's made that claim. Although I won't be surprised if that turns up.
Click to expand...

If it was only that simple! Problem is as soon as the someone not towing the party line here comes up with measurments and scaling that puts Bob H out to pasture the cries go up that things like camera perspective and lens distortion make it impossible to measure anything on the film and frames.

I've seen enough of Bob H to convince me that he's not the mime. But heck there is no mime.
 
GF-

Also, we would have to take into account the possibility that during the torrential rains, and the spring flooding that sediment has been picked up and deposited in different places. If that portion of the sandbar had been eroded 2" over the course of 8 months or whatever, then that would make a big difference in comparisons.

Right?
 
mangler said:
Óðinn,

Don’t quit your day job.


m
Click to expand...
m, rectifying photos is my day job. I still haven't figured out what yours is. Obviously not this.

I had another look at your graphic and whether you like it or not the aspect ratios don't match. The dissolve doesn't help matters. It looks like you were trying to force the log to fit when it doesn't quite. Even then, it looks like the PGF frame has some additional distortion besides the aspect (likely caused by motion and Kappa). Probably not the best frame for this comparison. You didn't think all the frames were suitable, did you?

Drewbot said:
Also, we would have to take into account the possibility that during the torrential rains, and the spring flooding that sediment has been picked up and deposited in different places. If that portion of the sandbar had been eroded 2" over the course of 8 months or whatever, then that would make a big difference in comparisons.

Right?
Click to expand...
Right, it would make a difference in their relative heights at ground zero (if it was common), but their image sizes depend exclusively on the distances from the camera (and any distortion).

Over and out for the day..
 
kitakaze said:
I haven't seen anywhere Bobbie advocating MK's clan slaughter, but rather just Patty. I may be wrong in that she does support the idea. The question remains valid in that we are told that P&G buried something and that the buried something is in a location that might be discerned with effort.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you're right. I just assumed that was the direction he was going in since MK was pretty much the one who started the "Patty got shot" story. Like you said though, he believes at least one bigfoot is buried there, so somebody ought to rent a backhoe and do a little digging.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom