Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
wolftrax said:
Hi all,
Juat trying to catch up. Yes that image looks like one I did a few years ago. I htink I lost it once and remade it another time. It's pretty suspicious all the sketches Patterson made pre-filming that have an uncanny resemblance to Patty.
Click to expand...

Hey my canine brother, it's about time, glad you made it.

We need to catch up one of these days, I'll give you a call soon.
 
Thanks Kitakaze, John, Ray, and K9 Bro!

Here's a comparison of some of his other sketches with the film subject:
 

Attachments

  • PatSketchcomp1.jpg
    PatSketchcomp1.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 16
  • PatSketchcomp2.jpg
    PatSketchcomp2.jpg
    36.7 KB · Views: 12
William Parcher...

Thanks for the welcome, I've noticed your criticisms of some of the things I presented and have been wanting to respond for a while now.

The CGI Patty that you posted saying that is what I am saying Patty looks like was taken from one of two threads at BFF. There was a talent thread in the member's section where I stated that I just threw it together very quickly and wasn't meant to be accurate, and another thread where I was taking a human figuire, matching it to Bob H, and then to Patty. In that same thread I was critical of my own attempts to match the limbs as well as my own understanding of Bob H's comments at that time. I then compared the ease of posing the Patty figure I previously made with that of the human figure. That wasn't meant to be an accurate representation with muscle/padding mass placement, just rough mass. That particular tool I used at that time was limited but was fast in regards to limb ratios and matching movement and basic mass. I also stated that any comments I made at that time were limited by not having an actual copy of the film and the relatively small amount of time I spent on it at that time.

The Wallace wooden feet and the Onion Mtn. tracks. You said that they didn't match and that the software matches the topology of the photo, and that I should have used it to match the track instead. First, the software doesn't automatically match topology from the photo, there are similar functions in that the displacement can be achieved by using the various degrees of color from white to black to be translated as depth, but dealing with shadows and angle of light would make that inaccurate and take more work to straighten out. Plus the turned angles of both the footprint and the wooden foot would throw off any model made, so neither image was used for the construction of the model. Instead, there was a photo of one of Titmus's casts of the 15" print from a previous year that was a straight shot. This was the one that was used, and then the model posed to match the wooden foot and the track and further adjustments made to the Z axis. The problem you are having is you are mistaking the depth of the model for the outline of the track. You have to remember that the wooden foot is turned at an angle, exposing the side of the foot, thus in order to show that match you have to show the depth of the foot at around 3/4". So when you flip it around at an opposite angle, you have about 3/4" hanging out from the outline of the track. If you watch the wireframe carefully you can see it, I spent several hours on it so maybe it's a lot more apparent to me and will have to think of a way to make it more clear. Add to that the other image, of the other foot matching a track perfectly without any 3d model being made, it becomes apparent that the Wallace feet made the 15" Onion Mtn tracks.

If you have any other criticisms I haven't addressed I'll be more than happy to address them.
 
Last edited:
wolftrax said:
William Parcher...

Thanks for the welcome, I've noticed your criticisms of some of the things I presented and have been wanting to respond for a while now.

The CGI Patty that you posted saying that is what I am saying Patty looks like was taken from one of two threads at BFF. There was a talent thread in the member's section where I stated that I just threw it together very quickly and wasn't meant to be accurate, and another thread where I was taking a human figuire, matching it to Bob H, and then to Patty. In that same thread I was critical of my own attempts to match the limbs as well as my own understanding of Bob H's comments at that time. I then compared the ease of posing the Patty figure I previously made with that of the human figure. That wasn't meant to be an accurate representation with muscle/padding mass placement, just rough mass. That particular tool I used at that time was limited but was fast in regards to limb ratios and matching movement and basic mass. I also stated that any comments I made at that time were limited by not having an actual copy of the film and the relatively small amount of time I spent on it at that time.

The Wallace wooden feet and the Onion Mtn. tracks. You said that they didn't match and that the software matches the topology of the photo, and that I should have used it to match the track instead. First, the software doesn't automatically match topology from the photo, there are similar functions in that the displacement can be achieved by using the various degrees of color from white to black to be translated as depth, but dealing with shadows and angle of light would make that inaccurate and take more work to straighten out. Plus the turned angles of both the footprint and the wooden foot would throw off any model made, so neither image was used for the construction of the model. Instead, there was a photo of one of Titmus's casts of the 15" print from a previous year that was a straight shot. This was the one that was used, and then the model posed to match the wooden foot and the track and further adjustments made to the Z axis. The problem you are having is you are mistaking the depth of the model for the outline of the track. You have to remember that the wooden foot is turned at an angle, exposing the side of the foot, thus in order to show that match you have to show the depth of the foot at around 3/4". So when you flip it around at an opposite angle, you have about 3/4" hanging out from the outline of the track. If you watch the wireframe carefully you can see it, I spent several hours on it so maybe it's a lot more apparent to me and will have to think of a way to make it more clear. Add to that the other image, of the other foot matching a track perfectly without any 3d model being made, it becomes apparent that the Wallace feet made the 15" Onion Mtn tracks.

If you have any other criticisms I haven't addressed I'll be more than happy to address them.
Click to expand...

Wolftrax, are you sort of on Longtabbers's position? (Did you and him both have sightings, but do a great job sorting out the alleged evidence?)
 
I've been in & out of town for the last five days, so haven't been able to get back to this thread.

Thanks Makaya, Mangler, and Longtabber! Makaya, I believe but am not convinced by the evidence, weird as that sounds.
 
wolftrax said:
I've been in & out of town for the last five days, so haven't been able to get back to this thread.

Thanks Makaya, Mangler, and Longtabber! Makaya, I believe but am not convinced by the evidence, weird as that sounds.
Click to expand...

So your Like Jane Goodall? Do you want to believe?
 
Forgive me, but that's absurd. Such a person might be considered a hypocrite, but they would definitely by considered a loonburger (<---technical term).
 
From the BFF thread Patty shot with rifle?


Volsquatch said:
A river of flowing blood? Please. And people wonder why some on the outside still think sasquatch researchers are a bunch of loons and idiots - who could blame them after reading something like that?
Click to expand...


This is not why the general public (outsiders) thinks the way it does about Bigfooters. They don't know about Davis and they didn't know about Beckjord either. That stuff (and 90% of Bigfootery) is deep subculture and is entirely off the radar of society in general. What they do think is what they know. They know that Bigfoot has never been confirmed to exist even after over 400 years of civilized inhabitance in North America. They may know that there have been determined believers who have combed the forests for about 50 years. Nothing at all has worked to show that Bigfoot is not a myth. They know this. They also know that if a Bigfoot were ever found, it would be announced in the worldwide media, not kept as mumble hush within the Bigfooter community. They have trouble understanding why "intelligent and rational" people would believe that such a creature actually does exist, let alone that they would devote time and energy towards being an active social Bigfooter.

Many Bigfooters seem to hold a mental image of the ideal Bigfooter. One who is ready to meet-and-greet the general public. They are supposed to be intelligent, rational, good-natured, critical thinking and curious. Yet at the same time, they believe, or may claim their own encounter. This is what many Bigfooters want to be seen as and want the public to think of. But the loons and the "proper" Bigfooters have the same fundamental thing going on. They both think that Bigfoot exists even though the world itself seems to show that it doesn't exist. Well, that's what the skeptics say. The general public is smart enough not to care.
 
William Parcher said:
From the BFF thread Patty shot with rifle?





This is not why the general public (outsiders) thinks the way it does about Bigfooters. They don't know about Davis and they didn't know about Beckjord either. That stuff (and 90% of Bigfootery) is deep subculture and is entirely off the radar of society in general. What they do think is what they know. They know that Bigfoot has never been confirmed to exist even after over 400 years of civilized inhabitance in North America. They may know that there have been determined believers who have combed the forests for about 50 years. Nothing at all has worked to show that Bigfoot is not a myth. They know this. They also know that if a Bigfoot were ever found, it would be announced in the worldwide media, not kept as mumble hush within the Bigfooter community. They have trouble understanding why "intelligent and rational" people would believe that such a creature actually does exist, let alone that they would devote time and energy towards being an active social Bigfooter.

Many Bigfooters seem to hold a mental image of the ideal Bigfooter. One who is ready to meet-and-greet the general public. They are supposed to be intelligent, rational, good-natured, critical thinking and curious. Yet at the same time, they believe, or may claim their own encounter. This is what many Bigfooters want to be seen as and want the public to think of. But the loons and the "proper" Bigfooters have the same fundamental thing going on. They both think that Bigfoot exists even though the world itself seems to show that it doesn't exist. Well, that's what the skeptics say. The general public is smart enough not to care.
Click to expand...



Great rant, William. :) Too bad it don't mean ----.



For anyone who wants to answer...


What is the most likely explanation (with specific details) for how this footprint, from the PG trackway, was formed?.....and why...


LavertyFoot2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rigid fake (carved in wood?) foot pressed over wet mud or silt. Rear part of the foot was pressed first, front part later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom