• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

Jodie said:
Exactly Correa....so for the time of the PGF, was that quality of video the best available? Did the technology exist then to alter it? Did the scientific community back then just assume that it was a suit or is there a record for analysis in trying to establish the provenance? I'm just wondering why no one took it seriously back then since that is the best footage( bad pun intended) to date.
Click to expand...
pssst! Its film, not video... Portable cameras with systems such as VHS and Betamax are quite younger.

Quality: Film image quality and resolution depend on emulsion, optics, exposure, aperture, focus and steadiness. PGF has exposure issues and is shaky. Yes, it could be better, way better, even if the Patty-camera distance were the same. A steady camera, propper shutter speed and aperture would improve the image quality and resolution. My 2 cents? With better image quality, even those who wish to believe would notice its a costume and a rather ordinary one.

Techology to alter it: A number of FX tricks were available even back then and are still being used. Forced perspective, collages, montages, filmed projections and splicing are the the ones that came to my mind. Montages and collages would be easy to spot, quite possibly even in copies. Splicing, obvious in the originals. Same is valid for filmed projections. Forced perspective would be harder to notice and I suspect its the cause of some extreme height estimates (not that P & G deliberately used it, its belief-induced bias).

Academic reaction: IIRC what people who know better its history wrote, the film was indeed shown to selected academics, but they had to sign some sort of agreement regarding exposing their opinions. Again IIRC, few were impressed. As for the provenance, think about this: You've been introduced to a film supposed to be of "Amerca's abominable snowman". The film actually shows something that can be a guy in a gorilla costume (actually looks a lot like it). The film was shot by a rather shady guy. The film becomes a circus attraction and more rather shady guys are making money out of it. Oh, the film's backstory is quite fishy too.

Do you still wonder why no one took it seriously back then?
 
Last edited:
parnassus said:
snowy egret, photographed by me yesterday (used a circular polarizer). One of the more entertaining birds. Unlike some predators, they don't rely on stealth. They stomp around, stirring up the prey, then nabbing it. Hunted to dangerously low numbers by man for their plumage, they are now common.

I pretty much ruled out a hoaxer in a snowy egret suit. I am less certain about an image of a purported California ground squirrel and another of some pelicans, so I am not posting them until a costume designer can review them.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=491&pictureid=6264[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Nice Egret pic there Parn !
 
Correa Neto said:
pssst! Its film, not video... Portable cameras with systems such as VHS and Betamax are quite younger.

Quality: Film image quality and resolution depend on emulsion, optics, exposure, aperture, focus and steadiness. PGF has exposure issues and is shaky. Yes, it could be better, way better, even if the Patty-camera distance were the same. A steady camera, propper shutter speed and aperture would improve the image quality and resolution. My 2 cents? With better image quality, even those who wish to believe would notice its a costume and a rather ordinary one.

Techology to alter it: A number of FX tricks were available even back then and are still being used. Forced perspective, collages, montages, filmed projections and splicing are the the ones that came to my mind. Montages and collages would be easy to spot, quite possibly even in copies. Splicing, obvious in the originals. Same is valid for filmed projections. Forced perspective would be harder to notice and I suspect its the cause of some extreme height estimates (not that P & G deliberately used it, its belief-induced bias).

Academic reaction: IIRC what people who know better its history wrote, the film was indeed shown to selected academics, but they had to sign some sort of agreement regarding exposing their opinions. Again IIRC, few were impressed. As for the provenance, think about this: You've been introduced to a film supposed to be of "Amerca's abominable snowman". The film actually shows something that can be a guy in a gorilla costume (actually looks a lot like it). The film was shot by a rather shady guy. The film becomes a circus attraction and more rather shady guys are making money out of it. Oh, the film's backstory is quite fishy too.

Do you still wonder why no one took it seriously back then?
Click to expand...

Not if they asked the academics to sign something before viewing. I never heard of anyone doing that for any other kind of animal. I would have refused
because I would have figured they were intending to sell it.
 
Just that?

The shady and fishy background of the film and its makers and managers would not count?

The fact that it looks like a guy in a gorilla costume would not count?
 
Correa Neto said:
Just that?

The shady and fishy background of the film and its makers and managers would not count?

The fact that it looks like a guy in a gorilla costume would not count?
Click to expand...


I don't know that they were aware of the shady background before hand were they? I'm just putting myself in the academics position at the time. If someone asked me to sign anything I wouldn't bother with it.

If I were the one with the video, and I wanted academics to view it for their opinion on it's authenticity, it would never occur to me to ask them to sign a non disclosure agreement about what they thought. It defeats the purpose of trying to establish provenance so my only guess is they were going to cherrry pick the positive opinions to boost marketing the film.

Correa, on the anatomy of Patty, it's either a shaggy suit or a frumpy old hairy naked woman. I'm not able to see much difference when delving into the details of the image, they both look the same to me.
 
Jodie said:
Correa, on the anatomy of Patty, it's either a shaggy suit or a frumpy old hairy naked woman. I'm not able to see much difference when delving into the details of the image, they both look the same to me.
Click to expand...

Imaging the latter part of that is really.. um.. well.. not good ? I mean.. now it is stuck in my thought. So it is a post menopausal nice nudist lady that has shaving issues?
 
Jodie said:
I don't know that they were aware of the shady background before hand were they? I'm just putting myself in the academics position at the time. If someone asked me to sign anything I wouldn't bother with it.
Click to expand...
WARNING:
The following text contains anecdotal information.

Let me share some tidbits of experience wich I believe may shed some more light on this. I am a geologist. I've been working with mineral exploration since the mid-90's. My mission was (is) to find and evaluate projects, mines and deposits of Au, Fe, Cu, Zn and Pb. Two years ago I re-entered the academic world and now I have a new mission: teach people how to find mines. OK, so what?

My profession puts me in contact with all sorts of people involved in this trade. From highly ethical and highly skilled professionals to snake oil sellers, passing through all sorts of dreamers, etc. OK, so what?

So, when someone comes to me with a (mining or exploration) claim, especially the fantastic ones, containing millions of ounces of gold, I, as well as most of the people in this trade can quite easilly detect the smell of fish. OK, so what?

On the same line, biologists, antropologists, etc., when someone comes to them with a claim, especially the fantastic ones, like a film of America's abominable snowman, most of the people in those trade can quite easilly detect the smell of fish.

Jodie said:
If I were the one with the video, and I wanted academics to view it for their opinion on it's authenticity, it would never occur to me to ask them to sign a non disclosure agreement about what they thought. It defeats the purpose of trying to establish provenance so my only guess is they were going to cherrry pick the positive opinions to boost marketing the film.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it seems this is exactly what they made. Our residents experts on PGF can confirm this or not. It is exactly what bigfootery still does regarding other famous pieces of evidence, like the Skookum cast, for example.

Jodie said:
Correa, on the anatomy of Patty, it's either a shaggy suit or a frumpy old hairy naked woman. I'm not able to see much difference when delving into the details of the image, they both look the same to me.
Click to expand...

I, for one, can´t buy Patty as an old naked hairy woman. Even an old woman with an extreme case of hypertrichosis would not make it, IMHO. Why? First, any human with such a big butt would be a fat person and thus have a big belly. Second, Patty's breasts are way too rigid, static. Natural breasts, especially without a bra, bounce when a woman walks.

So, "its a gorilla costume" is the most likely veredict, regardless of what Meldrum and Munns say.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
What's so steamy about being in a rut? :confused:
Click to expand...

The rut is the mating season of ruminant animals such as deer, sheep, elk, moose, caribou, ibex, goats, pronghorn and Asian and African antelope.

During the rut (also known as the rutting period, and in sheep sometimes as tupping), males often rub their antlers or horns on trees or shrubs, fight with each other, wallow in mud or dust, and herd estrus females together.

 
tsig said:
The rut is the mating season of ruminant animals such as deer, sheep, elk, moose, caribou, ibex, goats, pronghorn and Asian and African antelope.

During the rut (also known as the rutting period, and in sheep sometimes as tupping), males often rub their antlers or horns on trees or shrubs, fight with each other, wallow in mud or dust, and herd estrus females together.
Click to expand...

I'd tell you my deer joke, but it might get me banned.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Most scientists wouldn't trust something like the pgf. The most logical explanation would of course be a man in a suit.

But is it the right explanation? I really think if it was hoaxed we wouldn't even be discussing it 45 years later like this. The film would at best be around the level of what Ivan Marx made



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovL1mT6443M
Click to expand...

Says the person who thinks this may be a real bigfoot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aLH2AimUXP8

OntarioSquatch @ BFF said:
Posted Yesterday, 01:02 PM
plussed! It looks like something humanoid. I'd say this is possibly the real deal.
Click to expand...
 
GT/CS said:
Says the person who thinks this may be a real bigfoot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aLH2AimUXP8
Click to expand...

Why does the guy who produced the video call that "central" Oklahoma? Lake Eufaula is clearly in the eastern part of the state. That's just odd.

So . . . the best way to approach bigfoot is in broad daylight, while talking, and crunching in the dry litter. Be sure to do this in some scrubby oak forest with an open canopy. The best way to not obtain proof of bigfoot is to somehow convince yourself not to just go over to where the bigfoot is and try to get a better shot. Got it.
 
Jodie said:
OS - I have question for a proponent, or anyone that can answer. Why do you think no one from the scientific community took the PGF serious and descended on the site to look for this creature?
<snip>
Click to expand...

I think a better question would be: Why did Patterson and Gimlin both leave the site asap and never return to find/or film the creature again even though Patterson raised a good sum of $$$ to supposedly continue his pursuit of Bigfoots?

When I go hunting regular critters, I return to the places I've had the best success.

Edit: I should add that the question is not an original one. It has been asked many times by many different people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom