• 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.
SweatyYeti said:
Diogenes wrote...

"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."
Click to expand...

Ah, but just wait until August when all the skeptics will be forced to eat their words concerning Patty!!!;)
 
This thread seems to have dropped off from the subject, so let's inject a new article by Noah David Henson, claiming to analyze the film in a way that sets Patty's height to 7 feet 3 inches +/- one inch, arms are longer & legs are shorter than most humans in proportion to the body etc. (maybe these points has been addressed earlier, in such a case, please give a link or a hint on what to search for)

I'm highly sceptical of large unknown mammals in such populated areas as the US pacific northwest, so I'd like to read a discussion of what the arguments in Henson's analysis are worth, if anything. You'll find the article at anomalymagazine dot com (i got the link from the Anomalist, interesting links to weird stuff daily)
 
Last edited:
Hepcat65 said:
This thread seems to have dropped off from the subject, so let's inject a new article by Noah David Henson, claiming to analyze the film in a way that sets Patty's height to 7 feet 3 inches +/- one inch, arms are longer & legs are shorter than most humans in proportion to the body etc. (maybe these points has been addressed earlier, in such a case, please give a link or a hint on what to search for)

I'm highly sceptical of large unknown mammals in such populated areas as the US pacific northwest, so I'd like to read a discussion of what the arguments in Henson's analysis are worth, if anything. You'll find the article at anomalymagazine dot com (i got the link from the Anomalist, interesting links to weird stuff daily)
Click to expand...

Already debunked. Give us some points you want to see debunked, and maybe someone will be kind enough to revisit them. His article has no new PRO-PGF arguments in it. In fact, it has some items in it, that I think even most PATTYPhiles have long since given up on. (Like the 7'3" height)
 
Someone linked to the thread over at BFF ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25510

It looks like Noah David Henson is referring to the NASI report when he comes up with the 7+ height .. But he seems to sidestep the NASI weight figure of 1500 lb...


Much of his of his analysis seems based on personal incredulity - and quoting from the Roe account, rather than what we see in the film.

He gives his academic credentials then states that ' the subject's muscles slide over the skeleton'... That's not what real muscles do. He also observes ' pendulous ' breasts..
He must have missed school, the day ' pendulous ' was discussed ..


I don't see anything we haven't discussed, but I'm sure we can address any particular point/s you may be interested in..

P.S.

I see Drew has beat me to the punch..
 
Last edited:
Hepcat65 said:
This thread seems to have dropped off from the subject, so let's inject a new article by Noah David Henson, claiming to analyze the film in a way that sets Patty's height to 7 feet 3 inches +/- one inch, arms are longer & legs are shorter than most humans in proportion to the body etc. (maybe these points has been addressed earlier, in such a case, please give a link or a hint on what to search for)

I'm highly sceptical of large unknown mammals in such populated areas as the US pacific northwest, so I'd like to read a discussion of what the arguments in Henson's analysis are worth, if anything. You'll find the article at anomalymagazine dot com (i got the link from the Anomalist, interesting links to weird stuff daily)
Click to expand...

Don't get too hung up on these mindless reports from rank beginners. The real report will be released in August. It will blow the minds of all bigfoot skeptics and believers!!!!!!
 
2839649b19437e2f19.jpg

U of Foot
 
Last edited:
bobbieshort said:
Gawd I love this forum, you guys tear me up... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Me too! Isn't it great? I'm always happy when you stop by, Bobbie, and you know we love your site. I have a favour to ask you, if I may. There's some questions I had in the Bob Heironimus thread concerning the PGF and its veracity which other Bigfoot enthusiasts have been having an awful hard time even answering at all. It seems to evoke some kind of cognitive dissonance and fear response in them.

I think you are different. I think you are a Bigfoot enthusiast who is sincerely interested in the truth even if that perceived truth is unpopular with your fellow enthusiasts. You have my respect for that. The questions are in the following post (#817):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4486824&postcount=817

I would really appreciate it if you could tackle those questions which weren't even directed to you to at the very least show your fellow enthusiasts here some intellectual courage. Have a smart lady show 'em how to man up, so to speak.

Cheers.
 
Kitakaze....I honestly can't make heads or tails of post #817...I would better respond to your direct questions (if I know the answers...) Try me...
 
Hello all! My name is Noah D. Henson. A few days ago I wrote an article analyzing the P-G film which was published at AnomalyMagazine.com and which was discussed, briefly, in this thread. Having recently discovered this excellent forum, and in particular this informative and entertaining thread, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points about my research, my sources of information, and my skills in the area of human and primate anatomy.

First, when I said "the subject's muscles slide over the skeleton", I was referring to the back muscles, specifically the teres major and minor, and the infraspinatus, both of which groups can accurately be said to "slide" or glide over the scapula beneath. The shoulder blade is a kind of floating anchor of bone, which slides like a gate with every movement of the arm. In the P-G figure, these muscles can clearly be seen sliding over the shoulder blade beneath. Thus Diogenes' stated opinion that "That's not what real muscles do" is incorrect.

Second, regarding my use of the word pendulous, to which Diogenes also objected, my Oxford defines the word as "1. hanging down; drooping and esp. swinging. 2. oscillating." Obviously the second denotation is not intended, since no breast, whether comprised of fatty tissue or of latex rubber, can be said to "oscillate". This leaves the first. Even the most severe critic of the P-G film will have observed that the figure's pectoral sacs hang down and droop; and many have commented here and elsewhere that the left sac, at the least, can be seen to swing. Herewith I submit the observation that it is Diogenes, and not myself, who "must have missed school, the day ' pendulous ' was discussed."

Third, it is absolutely correct that many of the observations I made in my above-referenced article have been debunked. In the interest of intellectual honesty, allow me to explain. When I wrote up my analysis of the film and published it at AnomalyMagazine, my conclusion -- that "Patty" could not be a person in a costume -- I had reached based on all the information I had at the time. This information consisted largely of the film itself (various versions, but especially MK Davis' enhanced digitization), the 1998 NASI report by Jeff Glickman, and my own skill in the area of human muscular anatomy.

Since then, in my efforts to shed light on various facets of the P-G film, I've discovered these remarkable forums, which have provided me a wealth of information I had never before seen, heard of or known about. Reading through every consecutive page of this thread and following perhaps 90% of the offered links, I've been enlightened as to: 1. The existence of mechanical prosthetics as early as 1940. 2. The "Gorn" muscle suit created in 1966. 3. The detailed account of the Roe sighting of a female bigfoot given by Patterson in his 1966 book, with attendant illustrations of a bigfoot with breasts. 4. The human skeletal overlay, showing how "Patty" has normal human proportions. 5. The inaccurate measurements in the NASI report and the five other studies which show a height of around 6'. All of these pieces of information and more combined to shatter my previous conclusions about the P-G film and its subject. All of these were unavailable to me at the time I wrote my initial analysis.

It would have been intellectually dishonest of me to cling to my prior conclusions when faced with all this new, damning information. It would have been prideful and foolish. My only choice, as an avowed skeptic and rational thinker, is to be frank about my new discoveries. I am not stating firmly nor with total assurance that there is NOT an uncatalogued primate roaming the woods of the Pacific Northwest (or elsewhere). However, I can state that I can no longer exclude the possibility that the P-G figure is a person in costume. Whether the other evidence for bigfoot's existence is invented, misidentified, the result of perceptual distortion or of willful manufacture, or demonstrably legitimate, I cannot yet say.

I will continue to examine the phenomenon, and to present what I consider to be the best evidence both for and against the possibility that this animal exists.

I look forward to many stimulating discussions on this and other questions.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forun and congrats on th honesty!

Just a minor nitpick- human female breasts, pendulous or not, can oscilate! And quite often on a rather hypnotic way. I have had multiple sightings of this very interesting phenomena. Its also very well documented in many a remarkable piece of footage.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Hello all! My name is Noah D. Henson. A few days ago I wrote an article analyzing the P-G film which was published at AnomalyMagazine.com and which was discussed, briefly, in this thread. Having recently discovered this excellent forum, and in particular this informative and entertaining thread, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points about my research, my sources of information, and my skills in the area of human and primate anatomy.

First, when I said "the subject's muscles slide over the skeleton", I was referring to the back muscles, specifically the teres major and minor, and the infraspinatus, both of which groups can accurately be said to "slide" or glide over the scapula beneath. The shoulder blade is a kind of floating anchor of bone, which slides like a gate with every movement of the arm. In the P-G figure, these muscles can clearly be seen sliding over the shoulder blade beneath. Thus Diogenes' stated opinion that "That's not what real muscles do" is incorrect.

Second, regarding my use of the word pendulous, to which Diogenes also objected, my Oxford defines the word as "1. hanging down; drooping and esp. swinging. 2. oscillating." Obviously the second denotation is not intended, since no breast, whether comprised of fatty tissue or of latex rubber, can be said to "oscillate". This leaves the first. Even the most severe critic of the P-G film will have observed that the figure's pectoral sacs hang down and droop; and many have commented here and elsewhere that the left sac, at the least, can be seen to swing. Herewith I submit the observation that it is Diogenes, and not myself, who "must have missed school, the day ' pendulous ' was discussed."

Third, it is absolutely correct that many of the observations I made in my above-referenced article have been debunked. In the interest of intellectual honesty, allow me to explain. When I wrote up my analysis of the film and published it at AnomalyMagazine, my conclusion -- that "Patty" could not be a person in a costume -- I had reached based on all the information I had at the time. This information consisted largely of the film itself (various versions, but especially MK Davis' enhanced digitization), the 1998 NASI report by Jeff Glickman, and my own skill in the area of human muscular anatomy.

Since then, in my efforts to shed light on various facets of the P-G film, I've discovered these remarkable forums, which have provided me a wealth of information I had never before seen, heard of or known about. Reading through every consecutive page of this thread and following perhaps 90% of the offered links, I've been enlightened as to: 1. The existence of mechanical prosthetics as early as 1940. 2. The "Gorn" muscle suit created in 1966. 3. The detailed account of the Roe sighting of a female bigfoot given by Patterson in his 1966 book, with attendant illustrations of a bigfoot with breasts. 4. The human skeletal overlay, showing how "Patty" has normal human proportions. 5. The inaccurate measurements in the NASI report and the five other studies which show a height of around 6'. All of these pieces of information and more combined to shatter my previous conclusions about the P-G film and its subject. All of these were unavailable to me at the time I wrote my initial analysis.

It would have been intellectually dishonest of me to cling to my prior conclusions when faced with all this new, damning information. It would have been prideful and foolish. My only choice, as an avowed skeptic and rational thinker, is to be frank about my new discoveries. I am not stating firmly nor with total assurance that there is NOT an uncatalogued primate roaming the woods of the Pacific Northwest (or elsewhere). However, I can state that I can no longer exclude the possibility that the P-G figure is a person in costume. Whether the other evidence for bigfoot's existence is invented, misidentified, the result of perceptual distortion or of willful manufacture, or demonstrably legitimate, I cannot yet say.

I will continue to examine the phenomenon, and to present what I consider to be the best evidence both for and against the possibility that this animal exists.

I look forward to many stimulating discussions on this and other questions.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out here from a more seasoned investigator and scientist.

First welcome to the boards.

Just to give you a feel for the people here, I'm technically a BF "believer in the probable existence" based on personal experience with a "not sure" encounter (s). So, my mindset isnt based on the PGF and whether its fact or fiction has no bearing on what I experienced. ( its "possible" BF does/did exist and the PGF is still a 100% fake)

I was a 51% believer in the PGF until i started digging into the backstory ( which is being saved to possibly rebut another forthcoming analysis of the PGF) and am now 100% convinced the PGF is a staged event. ( just so you know where I formerly stood and where i stand now)

No legitimate study of the PGF can be considered valid unless it also encompasses all the conduct of the actors involved and all the ancillary issues. ( they tell a story all of their own)

What you commonly see referred to as ( you guessed it) "BIGFOOT science" is in reality an agenda based pseudoscience bordering on intelligent fraud.

The original is unavailable for any critical analysis so whatever you use ( regardless of how "claimed" it is) has been enhanced in some fashion thus skewing the image.
Be careful about what you think you see because the film itself is fuzzy and the resolution doesnt fare well for detailed analysis.

You will find all of that here in these threads
 
Vortigern99 said:
..... I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points about my research, my sources of information, and my skills in the area of human and primate anatomy.
.........................................
First, when I said "the subject's muscles slide over the skeleton", I was referring to the back muscles, specifically the teres major and minor, and the infraspinatus, both of which groups can accurately be said to "slide" or glide over the scapula beneath.
The shoulder blade is a kind of floating anchor of bone, which slides like a gate with every movement of the arm. In the P-G figure, these muscles can clearly be seen sliding over the shoulder blade beneath.
Click to expand...
They cannot be seen clearly - because nothing can be clearly seen in the film, unless you count some of the trees and stuff that was close to the camera, and in focus.

Thus Diogenes' stated opinion that "That's not what real muscles do" is incorrect........
Click to expand...

May I change that to " That's not how real muscles look .. " ?

Here is a diagram that shows the way real muscles are shaped and oriented
on a real hominid. It bears little resemblence to what is seen in the PGF.

back3.gif


1. The trapezium and deltoids present diagonal shapes across the back. Not
the horizontal line seen in the film.

2. Real arm muscles are aligned longitudinally to the skeleton. Not tubular lumps encircling the arm.

3. There are no muscles in the shoulder or back that produce the longitudinal
bifurcations seen on the shoulders of the film subject.

Your training in anatomy should help you out here..

back2.gif



should1.gif


Perhaps you can tell us what's wrong with the shape of the deltoid area in this view ?
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Hello all! My name is Noah D. Henson. A few days ago I wrote an article analyzing the P-G film which was published at AnomalyMagazine.com and which was discussed, briefly, in this thread. Having recently discovered this excellent forum, and in particular this informative and entertaining thread, I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points about my research, my sources of information, and my skills in the area of human and primate anatomy.
Click to expand...

Hello, Noah! I hope you don't mind but I will refer to you as Vort. Before I move on to the rest of your post I want to extend to you as well a great big welcome to the JREF and thank you for the time you've spent researching here.:)

Now on to your post.

In the P-G figure, these muscles can clearly be seen sliding over the shoulder blade beneath.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I would like to welcome you to have a look at this lecture given by Eugenie Scott and pay attention to what she says regarding claims of being able to see individual muscle movements on Patty:

http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and_Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest#chapter_03

This is not a zoomed in version but keep for anyone who wants to have a quick look at the film without hunting for it, here it is:

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

Even the most severe critic of the P-G film will have observed that the figure's pectoral sacs hang down and droop; and many have commented here and elsewhere that the left sac, at the least, can be seen to swing.
Click to expand...

I don't see any drooping on Patty's hairy tummy rocks. And any miniscule movement on the left is far less than should occur for a creature with large breasts walking around in the forest all her life. She's quite a sad-sack and there's absolutely no way a creature that moves like that could be any kind of effective hunter.

People with anatomical knowledge like Jeff Meldrum know how problematic Patty's breasts are and as an alternative, as you alluded to, suggest that they might in fact be air sacs on a male. This is also to adress tthe very male-looking physique and features such as the head. What it doesn't address is that Patty should not at all be having such a prominent looking nuchal crest as what is apparent in the film. Here is an excellent discussion on the issue started by wolftrax at bigfootdiscussions:

http://bigfootdiscussions.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3192

What is far more like is that the Patty suit was designed to very specifically feature the sloping back head that is mentioned in the William Roe story so important to Patterson.

Since then, in my efforts to shed light on various facets of the P-G film, I've discovered these remarkable forums, which have provided me a wealth of information I had never before seen, heard of or known about. Reading through every consecutive page of this thread and following perhaps 90% of the offered links, I've been enlightened as to: 1. The existence of mechanical prosthetics as early as 1940. 2. The "Gorn" muscle suit created in 1966. 3. The detailed account of the Roe sighting of a female bigfoot given by Patterson in his 1966 book, with attendant illustrations of a bigfoot with breasts. 4. The human skeletal overlay, showing how "Patty" has normal human proportions. 5. The inaccurate measurements in the NASI report and the five other studies which show a height of around 6'. All of these pieces of information and more combined to shatter my previous conclusions about the P-G film and its subject. All of these were unavailable to me at the time I wrote my initial analysis.

It would have been intellectually dishonest of me to cling to my prior conclusions when faced with all this new, damning information. It would have been prideful and foolish. My only choice, as an avowed skeptic and rational thinker, is to be frank about my new discoveries. I am not stating firmly nor with total assurance that there is NOT an uncatalogued primate roaming the woods of the Pacific Northwest (or elsewhere). However, I can state that I can no longer exclude the possibility that the P-G figure is a person in costume. Whether the other evidence for bigfoot's existence is invented, misidentified, the result of perceptual distortion or of willful manufacture, or demonstrably legitimate, I cannot yet say.

I will continue to examine the phenomenon, and to present what I consider to be the best evidence both for and against the possibility that this animal exists.

I look forward to many stimulating discussions on this and other questions.
Click to expand...

You just deserve massive applause...

:clap::clap::clap:

:wave1

:bigclap

You have showed true intellectual honesty of a type so very rare with those who argue the PGF's authenticity around here. I am very impressed and congratulate you on having a truly open mind. The Patterson footage has not been proven a hoax and there is a chance, however small, that it could be real. This does little to subtract from the fact that we now have an overwhelming amount of information, some of which you very clearly detailed, that indicates glaringly that the PGF was a hoax.

Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to rue those words of yours and you can expect to see them quoted at various Bigfoot sites.

Welcome again to the JREF. Please stick around.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom