Drewbot:
Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? "
"We don't even know if the casts came from the costume's feet. Are you implying that the foot shown in the video is smaller(or the same as)the person who is wearing the costume's foot? "
I'm not implying anything. I was just giving Kit suggestions of possible questions, which he specifically asked other forum people to contribute. If Bob H. is in the film, in a fur suit, the trackway at Bluff Creek was either made by his walking when they filmed him, or made separately. My question #9 did not imply either alternative. It simply asked if the costume feet worn were the same size as Bob H's feet, or bigger than his feet.
rockinkt
"So Bill - since you seem to now understand this very important point - why do you pretend that the analysis of the film is of any importance when the facts are that Gimlin's and Patterson's own words show them to be liars?
I have learned over the years to rate evidence as follows:
Most reliable - Empirical evidence, testable and repeatable, not dependent on a person's testimony or endorsement to be believed.
generally reliable - physical and photographic evidence that can be studied. Suffice to say, individual pieces of evidence may be altered, but we can at least evaluate the probability and the cost or effort expense in doing so, to factor that into our appraisal of reliability.
Less reliable - personal recollections, where some personal or profit agenda may influence a person's testimony. Usually needs to be appraised with caution and independent verification.
least reliable - personal stories of "I knew a guy who told me. . . ." and similar "hand me down" recollections.
The analysis of the film, including image data in the film, and the material aspects of suit design and construction, and furcloth folding dynamics, are in the first category, most reliable, and the second category, generally reliable.
Personal recollections (like "Gimlin's and Patterson's own words") are in the third category, "less reliable"
Most of the backstory is in the fourth category, "least reliable"
Finally, many people for 40 years "pretended that the analysis of the film is of some importance" before I started my work two years ago. Have you questioned them as to why they all pretended the analysis of the film was of any importance? Even books and documentaries which are skeptical of the film's authenticity pretend that the analysis of the film is of some importance, because they expend considerable time analyzing the film to make their arguments.
Analysis of the film itself is not a pretense, but a realistic and essential part of any solution to this controversy.
"Their stories changed in major points in pretty well each telling and they contradict themselves and each other in huge, glaring ways.
The multiple and impossible lies regarding how the film was sent for developing must shake you to the very core."
Just me, or should it shake everybody to the very core? If so, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of shakin' going on.
"Or - are you only interested in applying your new found investigative skills to everybody except Patterson and Gimlin?"
Lots of people are investigating Patterson and Gimlin, and have been doing so for 42 years. Most of you in this thread are actively investigating P & G. Any reason I should be another cook in the kitchen? I am trying to investigate things that few people have looked into, and topics that haven't been investigated enough, things like verifying the camera used, verifying that the filming ended in a film load runout, verifying the frame count, verifying the true image size of a true full frame, verifying image artifacts and claims of splices, and trying to reconstruct a 3D computer model of the Bluff Creek site as it was in 1967.
I'm not investigating people. Many others are. I'm investigating the film itself.
Investigation is a variant of research and analysis, and my skills are not newfound. I've been doing such most of my life.
It's the JREF way.
