Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vortigern99 said:
The last page or so has been excruciating to say the least. All I want to do is research and analysis, and to post my findings to the community so that others may review them and point out flaws or possible progress, but instead I'm having to constantly address these bizarre accusations regarding my "agenda" and more understandable ones regarding my qualifications. As a result I have little time for actual research, which deficit of production fans the flames of criticism from those who seem to be under the impression that Rome was built in about a week and a half.

What I'd like to do is take a step back from this thread for awhile, conduct some research and analysis on my own, and return here to post my findings. Then the members here can demolish, exalt or ignore me as they see fit.
Click to expand...

>>>The last page or so has been excruciating to say the least.

The last page or so has shown the many flaws and errors in my analysis and demonstrated to me that BS wont fly here

>>>All I want to do is research and analysis, and to post my findings to the community so that others may review them and point out flaws or possible progress, but instead I'm having to constantly address these bizarre accusations regarding my "agenda" and more understandable ones regarding my qualifications.

I came here after writing an article touting my expertise ( of which I have little) and got my hiney blistered. Now I have to justify everything I say after challenge and its hard. I need straw.

>>>As a result I have little time for actual research, which deficit of production fans the flames of criticism from those who seem to be under the impression that Rome was built in about a week and a half.

I stated before I have had an interest for years and wrote an article. After all that vested time, my "conclusions" didnt last a page and it expoused many flaws in my process. I need more time, maybe 3 or 4 years or so this time.

>>>What I'd like to do is take a step back from this thread for awhile, conduct some research and analysis on my own, and return here to post my findings. Then the members here can demolish, exalt or ignore me as they see fit
I need some time to change my MO and regroup.


There, I fixed it for you
 
Vortigern99 said:
EDIT: I posted the above before I read LONGTABBER's latest post. LT, I appreciate your more reasonable tone and your guidance in the areas of proper scientific methodology. I trust you'll keep me on my toes as I continue to conduct research to the best of my ability.
Click to expand...

You can bet on it
 
xblade said:
It's probably a bigfoot.

If it leaves an imprint resembling an elk lay, leaves elk tracks, and elk hair....it's probably a bigfoot.
Click to expand...

That was actually proven to be a BF.

The hairs came back as elk ( BF was in his elk suit) and the DNA from the apples came back unidentified.

Thats a BF, no doubt about it.
 
I know the subject (Patty) is not complying for a controlled
analysis. And a somewhat close approximation to height can be established, I think.
But margin of errors still nag at me.
things that can lead to measurement errors, so on, and so forth.
Sometimes even a real primate's foot, in certain pictures can look quite unnatural.
Some of my gorilla pics look like they have flat board feet.
But without a question they are the real deal.
Awkward and overexposed pictures,and other noise can complicate things.
Along with Roger Patterson's foot castings, and other back catalog
stuff, from the all the character's involved here.

 
LONGTABBER PE said:
That was actually proven to be a BF.

The hairs came back as elk ( BF was in his elk suit) and the DNA from the apples came back unidentified.

Thats a BF, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Wow, bigfoot really is as smart as they say he is....maybe smarter.
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
>>>The last page or so has been excruciating to say the least.

The last page or so has shown the many flaws and errors in my analysis and demonstrated to me that BS wont fly here
Click to expand...

Final revision: I'm grateful for any demonstration of flaws in any previous and future analyses. It's the unfriendly tone that I dislike and find counter-productive.

LONGTABBER said:
>>>All I want to do is research and analysis, and to post my findings to the community so that others may review them and point out flaws or possible progress, but instead I'm having to constantly address these bizarre accusations regarding my "agenda" and more understandable ones regarding my qualifications.

I came here after writing an article touting my expertise ( of which I have little) and got my hiney blistered. Now I have to justify everything I say after challenge and its hard. I need straw.
Click to expand...

Final revision: The circumstances of my first article were informal and organic, decidedly lacking in the degree of skeptical inquiry I'm fortunate to have encountered at this site. After being disabused of my former, largely unsubstantiated opinion, I'm prepared to move ahead with the next stage of my research, which will include a closer adherence to scientific principles. To this end I hope to engage my considerable expertise as an anatomical artist and my undergraduate studies of primatology and anthropology.

LONGTABBER said:
>>>As a result I have little time for actual research, which deficit of production fans the flames of criticism from those who seem to be under the impression that Rome was built in about a week and a half.

I stated before I have had an interest for years and wrote an article. After all that vested time, my "conclusions" didnt last a page and it expoused many flaws in my process. I need more time, maybe 3 or 4 years or so this time.
Click to expand...

Final revision: That about sums it up, actually.

LONGTABBER said:
>>>What I'd like to do is take a step back from this thread for awhile, conduct some research and analysis on my own, and return here to post my findings. Then the members here can demolish, exalt or ignore me as they see fit

I need some time to change my MO and regroup.
Click to expand...

Final revision: I need to take a step back from this thread, modify my MO towards a deeper degree of skepticism, and conduct some research and analysis with an enhanced comprehension of the standards of the scientific method, before returning here to post my findings. Then the members here can demolish, exalt, ignore, accept or reject me and my findings as they see fit.


Fixed it back.
 
Last edited:
As I begin my research, I would appreciate a substantive rebuttal to the following post, which some of you may have missed in the imbroglio. I've modified the language to reflect a more skeptical approach. Since a proper testing of a hypothesis might begin with a consultation of one's peers, I present the following hypothetical diagram for your comment:


1. Deltoid (three masses)
2. Triceps
3. Biceps

In the SUBJECT FIGURE, below far bottom, I've been able to match the groups marked 1., 2. and 3. with corresponding groups in two live pics (Figures I. and II., below) and an anatomical drawing (Figure IIIa., below).

In the SUBJECT FIG., the circle above the deltoid mass represents the conjectured area where the shoulder muscles would attach to the clavicle.

Note in Figure I. the arc line that occupies the interior body of the biceps is similar to the arc line visible in the SUBJECT FIG.

Note in Figure II. the similarity of muscle group location and shape to the corresponding groups in the SUBJECT FIG.

Note also in Figure III.a. the similarity of muscle group location and shape to the corresponding groups in the SUBJECT FIG.


Figure I. A left arm, in all ways except the angle similar to the right arm, and with the bicep "arc line" visible:

8c0f05eea31d7402


Figure II. Another exaggerated, bulging muscle pic, with shape and position sufficiently instructive despite distorted size:

biceps-chest.jpg


Figure III.a. An anatomical drawing, left, and b. Diogenes' green-line study, right:

attachment.php


SUBJECT FIGURE:
 

Attachments

  • arm3.jpg
    arm3.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
What is the reasoning behind the assumption that one could see the lines of muscles so well on the subject in the PGF?

You need to explain why these would be so visible on the very hairy Patty in the first place. And then explain why they would be visible in the very poor resolution PGF, even if you could see them on Patty in person.

Patterson's shortest hair length report is 2" long. He also said 3-4" long. But let's go with the shorter version of 2" long hair covering Patty.
 
I have added a dividing line between the actual fairly skinny arm inside the suit on the left, and the hanging ill fitting suit material on the right. This material is hanging off the arm of the person in the suit like loose skin. It is bunching in the front of the armpit, as you'd expect.

That's as good an explanation of what can be seen as any.

 
Last edited:
JcR said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2839649b84d7f0cf16.jpg[/qimg]
This shows Butt wear and tear?
Never mind the appearance of an elongated heel here.:D
Well, at least we have real creatures here.
That Poop, get diseases, shed, and have living habits.
And need to eat something else besides garlic from Janice's farm. :D
Though we would not know a Bigfoot's natural eating habits.
Insects, Larvae, Toad stools etc. But whatever goes in must come out.
Maybe they have a unique Toiletry system in the woods.
Click to expand...

JCR perhaps you need to observe a few more primate butts. Not ALL primates (in this case Gorillas) will exibit abrasions. Please note the photo's below.
gfb.jpg

gorilla_back2.jpg

aback.jpg
 
LTC8K6 said:
What is the reasoning behind the assumption that one could see the lines of muscles so well on the subject in the PGF?

You need to explain why these would be so visible on the very hairy Patty in the first place. And then explain why they would be visible in the very poor resolution PGF, even if you could see them on Patty in person.

Patterson's shortest hair length report is 2" long. He also said 3-4" long. But let's go with the shorter version of 2" long hair covering Patty.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm game. Let's discuss!

QUESTION: What factors could explain the presence of visible muscles on the P-G figure, given a. the likely thickness of fur and skin, whether real or synthetic, and b. the known limitations in the resolution of the film (which Fahrenbach pegs at 2 inches*)?

Here are four ostensibly rational, possible answers to the question:

1. It's a suit with developed, "Gorn"-like musculature. a. The synthetic muscles are so large and well-defined that they either I. show through the fur or II. push the fur into clumps that appear distinct because of displacement, and b. at two inches, the film resolution is high enough to record the image.

2. It's a standard, non-muscular suit, but there is a bulky, muscular person underneath. a. The real muscles are so large and well-defined that they either I. pull the fur suit tight or II. push the fur into clumps that appear distinct because of displacement, and b. at two inches, the film resolution is high enough to record the image.

3. It's a living creature with bulky muscles. a. The real muscles are so large and well-defined that they either I. show through the fur or II. push the fur into clumps that appear distinct because of displacement, and b. at two inches, the film resolution is high enough to record the image.

4. It's an optical illusion akin to pareidolia, in which a viewer projects his/her own interior beliefs and expectations onto a sighted object, or is otherwise fooled by the mind into believing that a non-existent image exists within the observed area.

Can anyone think of other possibilities (he asked, ducking).

*meaning, acc. to Fahrenbach, that the smallest object that can be made out clearly at that distance is two inches. Anything smaller is invisible or absorbed by the surrounding information.
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Here is a modified diagram of the profile arm, showing:

1. Deltoid (three masses)
2. Triceps
3. Biceps

You'll be able to match these up with any anatomical drawing or live pic, including the arc line that occupies the body of the biceps. The circle above the deltoid mass is the area where the shoulder attaches to the clavicle.

EDIT: A pic of a left arm, with the bicep arc line visible:



And another exaggerated, bulging muscle pic, with shape and position sufficiently instructive despite distorted size:

biceps-chest.jpg
arm3.jpg
Click to expand...


The problem still remains, your lines don't match up with the human..
The tail of your triceps goes toward the front of the elbow while the human's goes toward the back..
And again, the lines you have drawn on the deltoid bear little resemblance to the real thing. Most notably the line bisecting the lobe, and the concavity seen on the bottom edge of the film subjects contrived deltoid..
 
Why are the muscles so visible on the P-G figure
Click to expand...

Bzzzzzt! Not what I asked. Nice try, but that's what you need to show. The muscles are not "so visible" until you can provide some evidence that what you keep coloring in are muscles in the first place.

So far, you seem to expect that to be a given...

It's not...
 
Later on maybe we'll play, "Let's assume they are muscles for the sake of argument."*

I warn you though, Sweaty is very sneaky at that game.

* Quote police disclaimer - Not a quote
 
Last edited:
Vortigern wrote:
I have two observations to make regarding those frames:

1. The toes appear to move in a manner consistent with the bigfoot "shoes" seen in the Stanford gait study, and
Click to expand...


I'm going to download the video with the Stanford Gait study...and put together an animated-gif of the Bigfoot shoes's moving toes....and then compare it to Patty's moving toes.

But first...I have to find the video.


2. The calf bulge appears to be consistent with the expansion of a real animal gastrocnemius as the weight of the leg and body are placed on the lower extremities.
I can't imagine how a latex, fur or foam suit could approximate so lifelike a muscular expansion...
Click to expand...


Me neither.


EDIT: ... unless the conjectured suit were so tight as to adhere to the muscle beneath.
Click to expand...


The problem with that scenario is the bulk of Patty's leg.
It seems like the amount of padding required to achieve that bulk would hide any movement of the actor's calf muscle.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Bzzzzzt! Not what I asked. Nice try, but that's what you need to show. The muscles are not "so visible" until you can provide some evidence that what you keep coloring in are muscles in the first place.

So far, you seem to expect that to be a given...

It's not...
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough. I changed the question to include your point:

QUESTION: What factors could explain the presence of visible muscles on the P-G figure, given a. the likely thickness of fur and skin, whether real or synthetic, and b. the known limitations in the resolution of the film (which Fahrenbach pegs at 2 inches*)?

EDIT: I should have thought that my inclusion of #4. It's an optical illusion akin to pareidolia.... would have sufficiently indicated a conditional tone, but regardless, once more I appreciate being taken to task.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
JCR perhaps you need to observe a few more primate butts. Not ALL primates (in this case Gorillas) will exibit abrasions. Please note the photo's below.
Click to expand...

Where did I say they all have observable abrasions? The wear and tear, callous butt is not even that apparent in my picture. I am perfectly aware of this already. I have seen plenty of animals up close and personal. But thanks anyways. :)
Next time I see a necrotic and maggot infested rectum I'll take a picture, and post it. Oh! but that would mean I am implying that that all rectums are in this state.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom