Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Will Munns tell us the answer to the original question of whether or not the toes were visible in the hi-res scans?

 

[GT/CS]

"Munns will try to tell you that you can't use the foot as a ruler to determine the height of the subject because the foot is moving fast/you can't tell the length/it's moving too fast. What ever."

Munns will not tell you any such thing.

Munns will tell you that the foot is one of the fastest moving parts of the body in a walk cycle, and so there should be an analysis of motion blur as a factor before the foot-as-ruler concept is accepted as a determination. Where is that analysis of how much of a variable the motion blur issue might afect the apparent foot size as seen in the image?

Munns will say that there is a variable apparently not yet considered, but should be, before a conclusion is reached.

Please beware of other people telling you what Munns is trying to tell you, because they clearly don't know what Munns is actually saying.

Bill Munns

Thank you for confirming what Parnassus said you'd say.

 

[Bill Munns]

Other than the fact he's explaining it wrong, and I'm explaining it right, yeah, I'm confirming the general concept.

The foot as ruler concept is currently flawed by lack of consideration of all the operative variables, which is why i don't endorse conclusions offered by others in that matter.

Bill

 

[GT/CS]

Well, it's certainly good to know that you reject it for those reasons instead of just for the fact that it contradicts your intended result.

So is the foot any clearer in your scans or not?

 

[kitakaze]

Other than the fact he's explaining it wrong, and I'm explaining it right, yeah, I'm confirming the general concept.

The foot as ruler concept is currently flawed by lack of consideration of all the operative variables, which is why i don't endorse conclusions offered by others in that matter.

Bill

7'4" Patty is dead. Even accounting for variables in track lengths and blur, they could not add a full 1½ ft that you would get from using her foot as a measure. Add to that that using the same method you use, GF got a height in the 6ft neighbourhood. Patty is not 6ft because her feet made the tracks that could not possibly be from one animal. Patty is in the 6ft neighbourhood because that is the height of the man in the costume.

 

[Bill Munns]

"So is the foot any clearer in your scans or not? "

I answered this question for Drew in another venue, but here's what I replied:

"Your example of frame 61 (actually VFC frame 63) looks to be a copy of the cibacrome of that frame, and it has detail no PGF regular film copy of any generation has, including the copies I scanned. It's very close to a Noll frame, but I just checked and my Noll frame of that doesn't have any clear toe detail equal to the cibachromes.

Generally, only an enlargement print (where the print is a physically larger format than the 16mm film frame size) from the camera original can hold 100% of camera original detail, because the print stock grain is so much finer (in relation to image content) than the original, so there's no grain loss. I see this in Mrs. Patterson's transparencies, especially her F352 transparency) which is 4" x 5" and holds 100% of the true original film detail.

So you will not see even as much detail in any PGF film copy (which is also a 16mm copy) as in that Cibrachrome print (or the transparencies of Mrs. Patterson), regardless of copy generation."



Kit:

I don't know what height Patty is, right now. That's all under review. But when it's done, I'll believe the math over testimony.

Lot of work there yet to be done though.

Bill

 

[LTC8K6]

You should be able to find a few frames where the foot is nearly motionless though. At the end of the backswing. So motion blur regarding the foot length really should not be a problem for anyone analyzing the film, imo.

Munns should have frames where the foot is well defined.

 

[I Am He]

Kit:

I don't know what height Patty is, right now. That's all under review. But when it's done, I'll believe the math over testimony.

Lot of work there yet to be done though.

Bill

Oh ? Is that so, Bill? It seems that you said on MQ that it was 7'2". By any chance, did you contact MQ and inform them that you changed your mind?


I Am He

 

[kitakaze]

Good luck with all that. I know you have your work cut out for you. I think it's hard, considering you came from a position of hard confidence about 7'4", and that didn't pan out with the certainty you had before. We can't rule out a normal human in a suit and we can't rule out Bob. You may not know what Patty's height is, but whether it's CAD/photogrammetry/foot measure etc, Patty keepscoming back 6ft. Not some monster behemoth she-beast. When you just go right in and look closely at the area and put people in there, it's easy to see there is just no way Patty is monster height or inhumanly proportioned. Everything I keep bringing to the table keeps showing this.

What you are left with is your opinion of seeing something that is biologically real. I say with all due respect, you were a pro suit guy, but better pros than you have looked and seen an apparent hoax. It's not as though they didn't look hard. You may say they didn't have everything available to them that you have now, but that is non sequitur. You are on the record from back in 2001 calling the film real, and we know you didn't have any better than they did back then. You remain determined to stay focused on the film, just as Dahinden said. But Dahinden himself followed the same path as me and looked at the people who were there and it all starts falling apart.

Look here, Bill. Look at how they describe the place to Ivan Sanderson in Feb '68...

This was some twenty miles beyond the end of an access road for logging and about thirty-five miles in from the nearest and only blacktop road in this vast, as yet not fully mapped area of National Forest.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/first.html

Lies, lies, lies. Look at the area...

And check this map...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Patty keeps coming back 6ft.

Wrong, kaze.

Patty starts at 6'0"....in this graphic....

..and after correcting for ALL of the 'error factors' listed....you will end-up with a Patty that is significantly taller than 6'0".


Here is a graphic....which allegedy....(by YOU ).....shows how just ONE of those error-factors...(Patty's upper-leg at an angle....'not fully vertical')....would affect Patty's height...

Do you think that the 'height change' illustrated by the skeleton, in this graphic, is accurate??

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, 6-5...counting the suit, we get a guy that's 6-0ish

 

[kitakaze]

Wrong, kaze.

Patty starts at 6'0"....in this graphic....

..and after correcting for ALL of the 'error factors' listed....you will end-up with a Patty that is significantly taller than 6'0".

You FAIL.

You're not keeping up...

1) You are relying on the concept that the feet made the tracks. The tracks show changes in shape and size that can not be made by one animal.

2) It only comes back to the idea that a 6ft person fits when you apply other methods of determining the height.

3) Bob's shoulder pads and head padding will appear to make him larger. With the suit on, I'd say Bob looks maybe a few inches over 6ft.

Which number will you ignore? Any chance I can get you to provide the same courtesy I've been giving you?

I love tennis.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

3) Bob's shoulder pads and head padding will appear to make him larger.

First off....the question is height....not "Large/bulk".

Shoulder padding does not make a person appear taller.

1) You are relying on the concept that the feet made the tracks.

That is the CONCEPT in the 'foot-as-a-ruler' graphic, above.

That is the CONCEPT being discussed, at the moment.

With the suit on, I'd say Bob looks maybe a few inches over 6ft.

See your favorite graphic, in my post above.

That factor alone could add a few-to-several inches onto Patty's height....and...when you add-in the other correction factors....you have a subject which is significantly taller than Bobby-Boo.....(in the scenario where Patty's foot is actually 14.5 inches in length).....MUCH more than the 2-3 inches, potentially added to his height by a pointy head.

 

[bobbieshort]

Referencing Kitakaze's post # 3929 and the photo he uploaded in the middle; that set of photographs were taken from Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" page 232.

The photos on that page in LMS are attributed to Lyle Laverty but they were NOT photographed by Laverty or Bob Titmus.

They were photographed on the evening of Sunday August 28, 1967 by Rene Dahinden in the dusk hours after he and John Green arrived by chartered plane from Canada, landing at the little airstrip in Orleans w/the tracking dog, "Lady" and the handler Dale Moffitt. Met by Al Hodgson and his son Mike in the family station wagon at the airstrip, they drove to the area along side Bluff Creek where these tracks had been seen. It was getting dark. (see JG:*Chapter 4 pag 74)
"At the first sniff the dog turned as rigid as if she had been given an electric shock, but no one cared to try following the tracks off into the woods in the dark. At dawn the dog’s reaction was entirely different."

It was getting dark and they were afraid to put the tracking dog on scent because night was falling fast. Before calling it a night, Rene took these pictures with his flash camera; his signature Dunhil pipe laid by the track for comparison size is a dead-giveaway. He was never without it.

In fact, I believe all these photos taken with a flash, dark around the outer edges were taken by Rene that same first night in August.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It's important to note that, in the Poser 7 skeleton graphic, above....Patty's 'walking height, with her leg bent'...is approx. 6" shorter than Bob's standing height......approx. 5'6".

And in the 'Foot-as-a-Ruler' graphic, kitakaze posted, Patty's 'walking height, with leg bent' measures 6'0".


Adding 5-6", for the straighening of the leg....would bring Patty's height up to about 6'5-6'6".

Then there are the other correction factors, which will add more height, to that figure.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It was getting dark. (see JG:*Chapter 4 pag 74)
"At the first sniff the dog turned as rigid as if she had been given an electric shock, but no one cared to try following the tracks off into the woods in the dark. At dawn the dog’s reaction was entirely different."

Pages 131-132 of Bigfoot: the life and times of a legend by Joshua Blu Buhs tells a different version of the same story. Here are some choice quotes:

The tracks were too old to interest the dog.

That night, White Lady was raring to go, but by the time Green and the rest had reached the construction site, night had fallen and, in his words, "none of us wanted to follow those tracks into the bush in the dark."

The next day, White Lady refused to run the tracks

In short, the dog was not afraid of "Bigfoot," as it was eager to track the freshly made footprints and only refused after the trail was "cold" the next day. What we have here is a clear example of proponents trying to spin an event that made them look bad. Just like when Green referred to Marx's cripplefoot film as an obvious hoax in a book and neglected to mention that it had fooled him.

Oh, and page 133 has some good notes as well (as do the pages up to and beyond page 143)

 

[kitakaze]

Referencing Kitakaze's post # 3929 and the photo he uploaded in the middle; that set of photographs were taken from Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" page 232.

Hi, Bobbie. Always a pleasure to have you stop by. I have some things I would really like to discuss with you privately, and your considerable knowledge and experience is needed. I'm going to shoot you a PM and see if we can get on the phone.

 

[Bill Munns]

"Oh ? Is that so, Bill? It seems that you said on MQ that it was 7'2". By any chance, did you contact MQ and inform them that you changed your mind?"

1. As a rule, no documentary program goes back and re-edits after it's been broadcast.

2. I had extensive discussions with the MQ people about a revised program, but the History Channel was already contemplating pulling the plug, so that revised program never got an okay for production.

3. Almost any investigation, if it is fair, may later reveal information which alters a prior analysis, when the investigation progresses. We do the best we can at the time the program is made. Sometimes revisions need to be made. publishers can thankfully do a revised edition of a book, and make corrections or updates. TV programs don't have that tradition, so once they broadcast, that's basically it, unless the revision is sufficiently substantial to justify a new program.

As my height determinations are under review and i don't have a new result, they wouldn't know what to revise. Had they OK'd the new program, I'd have had funding to complete the new analysis and get a better result. Obviously that being my first documentary experience, I learned a lot from doing it, and was far more cautious in facts offered in the second, and will be even more cautious in any future ones if i am asked to do them.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

It's important to note that, in the Poser 7 skeleton graphic, above....Patty's 'walking height, with her leg bent'...is approx. 6" shorter than Bob's standing height......approx. 5'6".

And in the 'Foot-as-a-Ruler' graphic, kitakaze posted, Patty's 'walking height, with leg bent' measures 6'0".


Adding 5-6", for the straighening of the leg....would bring Patty's height up to about 6'5-6'6".

Then there are the other correction factors, which will add more height, to that figure.

You're relying on the hypothetical scenario that the feet made the tracks. Those feet could not have made the tracks. The sizes and shapes of the tracks change more than is possible for one animal to make. Also, the tracks from the horses were said to not reach as deep as Patty's at some points. These hoaxers do not understand physics. A 1100 lbs horse with a 160 llbs rider and whatever else including saddle and gear with four small diameter hooves vs a large human sized animal that you are saying is in normal human height range, even if on the quite tall side. Let's say Patty is going to weigh something like Shaq - say 325 lbs. Hell, let's be liberal. Let's chuck on another 25 and say Patty's 350 lbs. 350 lbs of not so lean Californian Sasquatch. Each stepp that she-beast is taking is on what looks like big honkin' slippers. Now one great old Big Foot on Patty is going to go deeper than the hoof of 1300 lbs of horse and rider? WTF?

Yeah, that's a problem. You need me to go with you and have Patty making the tracks to even play this round with you. Not going to happen. You need to work on that slice, old boy...

Oops for you.

 

[LTC8K6]

Referencing Kitakaze's post # 3929 and the photo he uploaded in the middle; that set of photographs were taken from Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" page 232.

The photos on that page in LMS are attributed to Lyle Laverty but they were NOT photographed by Laverty or Bob Titmus.

They were photographed on the evening of Sunday August 28, 1967 by Rene Dahinden in the dusk hours after he and John Green arrived by chartered plane from Canada, landing at the little airstrip in Orleans w/the tracking dog, "Lady" and the handler Dale Moffitt. Met by Al Hodgson and his son Mike in the family station wagon at the airstrip, they drove to the area along side Bluff Creek where these tracks had been seen. It was getting dark. (see JG:*Chapter 4 pag 74)
"At the first sniff the dog turned as rigid as if she had been given an electric shock, but no one cared to try following the tracks off into the woods in the dark. At dawn the dog’s reaction was entirely different."

It was getting dark and they were afraid to put the tracking dog on scent because night was falling fast. Before calling it a night, Rene took these pictures with his flash camera; his signature Dunhil pipe laid by the track for comparison size is a dead-giveaway. He was never without it.

In fact, I believe all these photos taken with a flash, dark around the outer edges were taken by Rene that same first night in August.

That seems a rather large point, Bobbie. That would mean that those tracks are not from Patty's PGF stroll. The track with the pipe was cast by Titmus as a Patty PGF track. We can see it clearly as one of the Titmus PGF trackway casts. It would throw a whole lot of things into question about the PGF if you are correct about those photos not being taken by Laverty when he visited the site on Monday. Obviously if that track was there on 8/28, then it cannot have been a PGF track. Nor can Titmus have cast it nearly 2 months later and still have it show the fine detail that it does.

So something is seriously wrong here if the track with the pipe was photographed on 8/28.

It would also mean we are back to one photo from Laverty.

Pipe track cast is at top center: