Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Aepervius, I'm wrestling with the math you've described. I'll try to approximate some of it in pictures at some point today.
Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3
- Thread starter JcR
- Start date
- Status
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Your graphic suggests that Bob's arm may be fore-shortened...due to it being held-out, away from the body, in the direction of the camera....right?
In principle....that's possible....but the problem with that scenario is that, so far...in every comparison that I've seen, Bob's arm appears shorter than Patty's.
Is Bob's arm always fore-shortened....in every picture taken of him?? Of course it isn't.
Yes, I can.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
When?
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I hope I did not make an error in the calculation
. If you need help with a particular point send me a PM.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Sometime this week.
Here comes Peter RUG-ged tail...
Hopping down the RUG-ged trail...
....with his left hand about to fall off...
Yup....no 'hand extension' there...
Last edited:
There are several sources, as the weeks rolled by, Patterson and Gimlin seemed to want to make the stay longer, 2 or three weeks. However, historiographically speaking, the contemporaneous interview "rules," and according to that they were in the area for one week:
They arrived on the previous Saturday, October 14, according to both Patterson's interview given on Friday, the 20th of October, 1967 (the day he said he shot the film). This is corroborated by Bob H's testimony about how long they kept his horse (8 days) and Bob H.'s family's testimony on when the horse was returned (Sunday, the 22nd). The shooting of the film seems to have been on Tuesday the 17th or Wednesday, the 18th. Bob H. mailed the film that afternoon. Assuming it was actually sent airmail to the Kodak lab in Palo Alto, it could have been received, processed and mailed to DeAtley in Yakima by Wednesday or Thursday. What we can be pretty sure of is that by 6pm on Friday, the 20th, Al DeAtley had seen the film, and told Patterson by phone that it was good, so Patterson could make the big publicity splash with the locals in Willow Creek. If anyone could find out when DeAtley or Patterson invited the folks to the "first" screening at DeAtley's house, then that would help to determine when DeAtley first saw the film or when he spoke with Patterson.
Last edited:
I have seen criticisms of Bob H.'s story on the grounds that it made no sense for Bob H. to have mailed the film to DeAtley in Yakima, when Bob H. was actually going to be driving there and so could have hand delivered it to DeAtley.
Well, Bob H., Patterson, and Gimlin all agree that it was mailed. And in fact, all three of them were about to drive back to Yakima, where they could have hand-delivered it to DeAtley, if they so chose.
The fact is there was no reason to mail it or hand-deliver it to Yakima, because there was no facility there to develop the film. The only thing that made sense was to get the film to Palo Alto. And neither Bob H, Patterson nor Gimlin was driving in that direction.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Actually if you look at my post above
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6115121&postcount=3576
My .wmv is the sequence from frame 1 to frame 2 of the .gif, and I believe it was originally Gigantofooticus who made the .gif..
He said it was frames 61 and 72 ..
The clip I used was 19 DVD frames, about .6 seconds ...
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,480
Bob Heironimus is recorded saying that he was filmed at Bluff Creek on either October 5th or 12th. Both of those are Thursdays.
BH said...
I'm waiting for Kitakaze to explain why (or if) BH drastically changed his own timeframe at Bluff Creek.
yes, I am also aware of the discrepancies in the dates in Bob's story, and have questioned kitakaze about this; he indicated that the suit was retrieved on Sunday Oct. 22, and that Mrs. H regularly used the trunk of the Buick, and that this was only a day after Bob H. returned to Yakima. One has to decide which is the best evidence.
If the film was shot a week or two beforehand, then we have to postulate that Patterson and Gimlin came back to Yakima, returned the horse, collected the suit, rested up for a few days, saw the processed film and then returned to Northern California sometime before 6pm on October 20, when they showed up in Willow Creek, announced the amazing encounter, and made the tracks, and drove back to Yakima for the screening. I don't think this is impossible, and it does fit with Patterson's personality. ie would he have relied on Al DeAtley's word that the film was convincing? or would he have wanted to see it himself, before making the announcement? If the latter is true, then he would have had to drive to Yakima, see the film, then drive back to Willow Creek for the announcement, dragging Gimlin along. That would mean the film was shot at least a week before Oct. 20. I guess I always saw all that driving as kind of unlikely, but, then, why not, I guess. Neither Patterson nor Gimlin had a job. I do think the film mailing processing timeline is very tight if the film was shot on Thursday, Oct. 19. I don't know at this point why Bob thinks it was shot on a Thursday, but if it was, then that would add some credibility to an earlier date.
Patterson certainly lied to the reporter on Oct. 20 about having encountered a bigfoot. There is no reason he might not have lied about when he arrived in Bluff Creek, if he had something to conceal.
If the film was shot a week or two beforehand, then we have to postulate that Patterson and Gimlin came back to Yakima, returned the horse, collected the suit, rested up for a few days, saw the processed film and then returned to Northern California sometime before 6pm on October 20, when they showed up in Willow Creek, announced the amazing encounter, and made the tracks, and drove back to Yakima for the screening. I don't think this is impossible, and it does fit with Patterson's personality. ie would he have relied on Al DeAtley's word that the film was convincing? or would he have wanted to see it himself, before making the announcement? If the latter is true, then he would have had to drive to Yakima, see the film, then drive back to Willow Creek for the announcement, dragging Gimlin along. That would mean the film was shot at least a week before Oct. 20. I guess I always saw all that driving as kind of unlikely, but, then, why not, I guess. Neither Patterson nor Gimlin had a job. I do think the film mailing processing timeline is very tight if the film was shot on Thursday, Oct. 19. I don't know at this point why Bob thinks it was shot on a Thursday, but if it was, then that would add some credibility to an earlier date.
Patterson certainly lied to the reporter on Oct. 20 about having encountered a bigfoot. There is no reason he might not have lied about when he arrived in Bluff Creek, if he had something to conceal.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
He hasn't. I'm trying to nail it down exactly, but he has always said to me the first, possibly second week of October. One of the first times we spoke he said maybe the last week of September, but felt pretty sure it was October, as it was hunting season and he was scared of getting shot by a hunter. I will post my breakdown ASAP (working now).
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,480
???? You have been saying that the new filming date is Oct 17 or 18 or 19 (I think). Those choices are not the first or second week in October. Those dates all fall within the 3rd week of October.
Attachments
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, but you have to be wrong because you clearly show vertical motion...so that must not be the correct two frames. Must be two other frames sweaty is talking about...
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
I'm having a hard time reproducing the Spektator effect, even using (what part I understand of) Aepervius' math as a guide. Here's my first pass at achieving the effect, using a 1976 MEGO Lt. Uhura (STAR TREK) doll.
ETA: Totally unconvincing and irrelevant to the discussion. I may be ill-equipped for this kind of analysis.
ETA: Totally unconvincing and irrelevant to the discussion. I may be ill-equipped for this kind of analysis.
Attachments
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Would Roger the bigfoot hunter and documentary maker wait very long, after getting reports of fresh tracks at Bluff Creek, to get to the area?
If he did wait, do we know why.
By this account, he waited a while to get to Bluff Creek and check out the reported tracks.
If he did wait, do we know why.
By this account, he waited a while to get to Bluff Creek and check out the reported tracks.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
I think you're going to continue to have a hard time (reproducing it) too.
Before I would make any 100% (FWIW 99% isn't 100%
) declarations, I have a few questions (or one long one) about the photograph's 'conditions' (that would inevitably also pertain to the math). Is the story: He simply walked in the room, turned the light on, dangled a doll from a towel bar (or other apparatus adjacent the wall), took a picture with the camera at position A, rotated the doll B degrees, then simply took another picture with the camera in the same position A, with no other pertinent changes/factors?If all that is the case, there's no doubt in my mind the doll hand was manipulated in some manner. Actually, if those are in fact the true conditions, it's already been (mostly) 'proven' to be fraudulent in several posts above 'by others'. A huge clue is 'the nature of the shadow', which in an irony of ironies, doesn't lie (something 'shadows' are designed for and notorious for doing).
Anyway, a cursory search of the forum has left me still wanting as to the original post(s) and such regarding the original experiment; can somebody point me in the right direction for some/any/all the pertinent information?
BTW I'm not arguing anything at all to do with the PGF itself. I know Sweaty is applying all this hoopla to the PGF specifically, but my 'agreement' with his POV on this is with the DOLL HAND PICTURE ONLY. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the PGF and/or applying it to such. Just clarifying to keep it real.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Fun Fact.......
kitakaze THINKS spektator's and wolfy's 'doll-hand illusion' gifs are correct...and awesome!!!.......and I've demonstrated both of them to be 100% PURE, meaningless, contrived and manipulated BS.
You write like an insane person. It really is creepy and jarring to the people you are trying to communcate with. Anyway, I also like Correa's awesome action figure demo. It had action. You obsess and dance about all Gollum-like about what I think about something I don't ascribe to the PGF. You are a debate pirate. You care nothing for integrity in your arguments so long as you can try and score mindless points. To everyone who observes you, you look for all the world like some kind of ransom note fetish internet version of Zed.
That's funny you say that because I have asked him. I'ved asked Phil, too. They both told me there was no hand extensions in the suit used at Cow Camp in Yakima. What's better is that I have photos of Bob putting on the suit and there are no hand extensions. But there you have it, Sweaty. You've banked on scribbles and gone ahead and stated as fact something you don't actually know. I think we should have a friendly wager on who is right and who is wrong.
Here are the terms, if there were no hand extensions used in the suit at Cow Camp, you spend a week with an avatar I put together that simply reads, "I was owned by kitakaze." No embarrassing images or heads up butts like poor Alex had to do. And if there were hand extensions used, you or I jimmy together a nice ransom note avatar for me reading, "I was owned by Sweaty," which I keep on for a week.
What do you say? Do you have the courage and confidence in your scribbles to put them on the line or will you just get a case of the turtles?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
No, I am thinking it was around Columbus Day to be precise. And that is what banner I think Bob saw. Not the Bigfoot Jamboree and Parade thing that Long was putting for BH in early September.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I think Roger laid those tracks for Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy to find. It perfectly fits Roger's M/O and reported behaviour in Yakima. The timing is right. He was in Northern California in '67 in the summer before coming back. He lays the tracks, sets it up, gets a call from Hodgson, and makes his way down there like he has no idea.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,480
- Status