Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[GT/CS]

From the photos I've seen the left and right prints are nearly in line with each other. There is no way a stocky creature like Patty made those tracks.
It'd be a hoot to watch her try, though!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Titmus basically says that Patty had no tracks from coming into the site, only tracks leaving it.

He also said...

"I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar..."


That seems like a plausible scenario, to me.


And what is not a plausible scenario is Roger starting Patty's trackway in a way that the first tracks appear, suspiciously, "out of nowhere"...and then ending the trackway by going through the unnecessary back-breaking effort to continue it for a few hundred feet after the spot where the filming stopped.

That scenario is total non-sense.

 

[SweatyYeti]

From the photos I've seen the left and right prints are nearly in line with each other. There is no way a stocky creature like Patty made those tracks.
It'd be a hoot to watch her try, though!

Have you seen images of Patty from directly behind?...

It looks as though she's placing her right foot very close to being 'in-line' with her center.


Also, worthy of note....is that she has a distinctly different shape from Heirony.....from top-to-bottom.

 

[Drewbot]

He also said...

"I also spent little time in trying to backtrack Bigfoot from where his tracks appeared on the sandbar since it was soon obvious that he did not come up the creek but most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek onto the sandbar..."

A good tracker would follow the hard road until the beast exited. This isn't a racoon he's tracking, it's a frikkin' GIANT bigfoot. He spent a whole day just looking for Roger and bob's location, and now he is going to give up because he assumes the beast came down the hard road.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

When I don't have clue. and there is no evidence, I can just say " most probably ", and cover all my bases..

Well sweety, the hard road didn't butt up against the sandbar ..

Well I guess " most probably ", that Patty leaped from the hard road onto the sand bar.. Yeah that's it ! That's where the 3' deep tracks were ..

 

[Cainkane1]

Have you seen images of Patty from directly behind?...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob%20Two/PattyBobFRView1.jpg[/qimg]


It looks as though she's placing her right foot very close to being 'in-line' with her center.


Also, worthy of note....is that she has a distinctly different shape from Heirony.....from top-to-bottom.

Its a good monkey suit but thats all it is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

When I don't have clue. and there is no evidence, I can just say " most probably ", and cover all my bases..

Well sweety, the hard road didn't butt up against the sandbar ..

Well I guess " most probably ", that Patty leaped from the hard road onto the sand bar.. Yeah that's it ! That's where the 3' deep tracks were ..

The tracks were, for the most part, 1" deep...not 3.

 

[LTC8K6]

most probably came down the mountain, up the hard road a ways and then crossed the creek

This is Titmus explaining why there are no arrival tracks, Sweaty. It's not a description of what Patty did. It's not Titmus describing tracks that he saw or signs he saw of Patty's arrival. It's an explanation of how she could have left no tracks coming in.

That is, her tracks just appear at the creekside, and leave, they never arrive.

Titmus explains how Patty could have done that. It's not valid to me, because he doesn't really know, but that's what Titmus is doing, explaining a large anomaly he finds at the site, in order to have it dismissed.

Namely, that Patty just appears at the creekside as if she dropped in from a helicopter, and then walks away. Or maybe dropped off a horse?

I'm surprised the explanation isn't that Patty walked up the creek itself to hide her tracks...but that's another argument altogether, I think.

Now, one could say that if P/G were going to hoax this, they wouldn't have been dumb enough to make that error. They would have had tracks coming in. But we really don't know what they were thinking if they were making a hoax film, or what the situation at the site was at the time.

Perhaps they had to get the shot done quickly because a lot of folks like timber and road crews were wandering in and out? So perhaps the actor could not risk going out very far to walk back in? We just don't know.

What we can be pretty sure of, I think, is that if Patty made 3.5" deep tracks at the creek, that a good tracker would have been able to see her tracks coming and going from the spot at the creek where she was supposedly first encountered.

We have already seen bigfoot prints in the cut roads in the area, so we know you can see them in the "hard" road.

I find it interesting that Titmus glosses over the arrival anomaly with a terse explanation, but claims to have followed Patty up the mountain to where she sat and watched proceedings at the creek.

He is already many days behind Patty, so why try to follow her up the mountain, but be uninterested in the tracks she must have left coming in?

Wouldn't you want to see these and maybe cast or photograph a few?

As a tracker, if you lost her trail going out, wouldn't you then go and backtrack her coming in to see what you could learn? Perhaps she circled right back around to where she came in?

Perhaps she was with her family a little ways back, but came into the creek site by herself? So, perhaps there's a set of several tracks together to be found if you backtrack her?

 

[Drewbot]

Does anyone else see why LTC would not make a good Bigfoot hunter?

You are a bad bigfoot hunter! thoroughly exhausting possible explanations before writing your report. Shame...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We have already seen bigfoot prints in the cut roads in the area, so we know you can see them in the "hard" road.

Right, but Bigfoot usually makes a point of walking in the soft dirt on the shoulder. Seemingly for the purpose of leaving nice sharp prints behind.. Another reason to suspect Patty was not a real Bigfoot ..

 

[Blackdog]

But they avoid mud at all costs when they want an apple.

 

[Óðinn]

Last post, right before Kit posted a quote from BFF, where he called Spektator a fraud ( liar ) ..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5910936&postcount=1242


Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus @ BFF


I even bet him $100 that the effect was easy to duplicate..

I'm sure he's been absent for some other reason, and just a coincidence that he went missing after this exchange..

A little birdy told me you were talking about me. It was just a coincidence that I stopped posting on these damn bigfoot threads when I did. Kit knows why and it had nothing to do with the doll hand thing.

I must have missed all the fun tho. Did the doll hand animation get replicated? And I'm talking about the same effect that Spektator achieved with a fused, cupped doll hand. This had to be done with the same type of doll hand, using the same orientations. Unless that was the case then you won't be collecting your $100. But I don't want to take your money anyway .

This is why I claimed the animation was bogus. If you dangle a doll hand from a string tied to the wrist and allow it to turn 360 degrees the lowest point never changes. The distance from the ground remains the same over 360 degrees. For Spektator's animation the hand was rotated maybe 5 degrees and suddenly the length of the hand changes considerably. Note that the red lines below should be the same length. So unless one of the pictures employs forced perspective and not just a simple rotation, I have no choice but to think something else caused the fingers to lengthen. These type of doll hands are simple to bend open enough to stage this effect, in spite of Spektator claiming otherwise. I'm just surprised that no one else wondered how a slight rotation could unbend a doll hand.

I've got nothing against Spektator and personally even if he did stage it, I don't think fabricating the doll hand animation is a big deal. Some of you thought otherwise and used it as gospel against Sweaty's constant use of the bending finger GIF (which I originally created years ago, sorry). So if Spektator cares enough to pursue this, then I'm more than willing to get taken to task. And with a simple re-enactment using the SAME doll hand and an explanation of the methodology behind the pictures, I'll apologize AND eat a bug (but one of my choosing) . I'm always willing to learn and I've been wrong before.

Hope that clears up the mystery. But then who really cares? Ahhh..great to be back here with yooz lugs.

 

[jhunter1163]

Quote:
I agree UP. How many "artifacts" are sitting in museums brought forth by frontiersman? I doubt many of PT Barnum's exhibits have survived to present day. Lugging around a trophy would have been impractical. And who knows what relics were found then lost to antiquity. Most things, I would imagine. But a frontiersman that shot one might have told you them bigfoots was good eatin. Tasted like chicken, but a bit gamey.

He hasn't been to the Barnum Museum, right here in Bridgeport, CT. A lot, and I mean a LOT, of ol' Phineas Taylor's exhibits are in there.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Óðinn:

..........Hope that clears up the mystery. But then who really cares? Ahhh..great to be back here with yooz lugs

Rotations can occur on more than one axis ( the object and/or the camera ) .. But you know that ..

You're going to way too much trouble, rather than admit it is possible for the fingers to appear to bend by changing the position/orientation of the camera ..

It's clear that the finger bend in question in the PGF is the result of this effect..
You can do much better than shmoozing up with SweatyYeti ..

Saying Spektator was trying to hoax anyone was out of line..


But, welcome back ..
You ought drop in over at the Bigfoot Questions thread and say hi to Mellisa.

 

[Óðinn]

Óðinn:


Rotations can occur on more than one axis ( the object and/or the camera ) .. But you know that ..

You're going to way too much trouble, rather than admit it is possible for the fingers to appear to bend by changing the position/orientation of the camera ..

It's clear that the finger bend in question in the PGF is the result of this effect..
You can do much better than shmoozing up with SweatyYeti ..

Saying Spektator was trying to hoax anyone was out of line..


But, welcome back ..
You ought drop in over at the Bigfoot Questions thread and say hi to Mellisa.

Nope, the doll is hanging almost against a wall in both photos. From a towel rack as I recall (TOWELY:you're a towel!). Only the camera can change its position/orientation. But if you note the width of the ellipse created by the cuff is almost the same for each photo. This means the camera height was about the same. Only a combination of macro & or telephoto photography could have pulled this one off, IMO. But why not just post a re-enactment, that is apparently sooo easy peasy?

 

[GT/CS]

You sound EXACTLY like Bill Munns.
<Paraphrasing> "Because I can't understand it it can't be possible!!!!" <Paraphrasing>

 

[Óðinn]

You sound EXACTLY like Bill Munns.
<Paraphrasing> "Because I can't understand it it can't be possible!!!!" <Paraphrasing>

Maybe you can show me, instead of whatever it is you do.

 

[SweatyYeti]

This is why I claimed the animation was bogus. If you dangle a doll hand from a string tied to the wrist and allow it to turn 360 degrees the lowest point never changes. The distance from the ground remains the same over 360 degrees. For Spektator's animation the hand was rotated maybe 5 degrees and suddenly the length of the hand changes considerably. Note that the red lines below should be the same length. So unless one of the pictures employs forced perspective and not just a simple rotation, I have no choice but to think something else caused the fingers to lengthen. These type of doll hands are simple to bend open enough to stage this effect, in spite of Spektator claiming otherwise.

I'm just surprised that no one else wondered how a slight rotation could unbend a doll hand.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/dollhandanim.gif

I wondered about it, too, Odinn....way back when...and noticed that the overall length of the doll's hand increased.

I didn't bother posting a graphic, since, ultimately, it didn't matter whether the doll-hand illusion of Spektator's was real, or faked......it's not what's going on, with Patty's hand. Her fingers are actually bending.

But I may try replicating the illusion, myself, just out of curiosity. It would be nice to prove whether Spektator's gif is legit, or faked. It's a simple enough thing to do.



Btw...since you're reading this thread....I'd like to show you something I noticed, in your review of Bill Munns' Height Analysis...which I think is slightly in error. (It's not a big deal, since this image wasn't used for any actual measurements.)


It looks to me like Patty is positioned a little too low, in the comparison, relative to the guy....based on where Patty's left foot is located....(the animated-gif is pretty self-explanatory)...

What do you think?


I must say....that is a pretty impressive analysis you put together, Odinn.

 

[Óðinn]

I wondered about it, too, Odinn....way back when...and noticed that the overall length of the doll's hand increased.

I didn't bother posting a graphic, since, ultimately, it didn't matter whether the doll-hand illusion of Spektator's was real, or faked......it's not what's going on, with Patty's hand. Her fingers are actually bending.

But I may try replicating the illusion, myself, just out of curiosity. It would be nice to prove whether Spektator's gif is legit, or faked. It's a simple enough thing to do.



Btw...since you're reading this thread....I'd like to show you something I noticed, in your review of Bill Munns' Height Analysis...which I think is slightly in error. (It's not a big deal, since this image wasn't used for any actual measurements.)


It looks to me like Patty is positioned a little too low, in the comparison, relative to the guy....based on where Patty's left foot is located....(the animated-gif is pretty self-explanatory)...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/ManPattyHeightFixAG1.gif[/qimg]


What do you think?


I must say....that is a pretty impressive analysis you put together, Odinn.

That's because that's Bill Munns graphic. That is what convinced him that the 25mm lens was in error. But that was based on the historical distance estimates, which were in error. IMO they got Roger's position wrong, which makes all the difference.

 

[SweatyYeti]

That's because that's Bill Munns graphic. That is what convinced him that the 25mm lens was in error. But that was based on the historical distance estimates, which were in error. IMO they got Roger's position wrong, which makes all the difference.

Thanks for the info, Odinn.

From reading the explanation above the image, in your report, I wasn't sure who put that comparison image together....you or Bill.
I wasn't implying that it was your error, anyway...only that it was an error.