• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
StankApe said:
I asked Bill why my "foot as ruler" method of determining height differed from his "careful measurements" that determined height by over a foot (mine was 6'1-6'4 his was 7'0-7'6) and that I was sure that my method had a large margin of error doubted it was 13 inches (or roughly 80% of one Patty foot) wrong.

His response was that his experience and extreme care in measuring made his results infallible and my method was inherently wrong.

Now, let's be honest here, can you really say that using the foot as ruler method could really be off an entire foot?


it's either that or the reported size of the Patty tracks is off by 3 inches each (making them 11.5 inches )
Click to expand...


Or the feet seen on the actor/suit are not the same that left the imprints. This is why the foot as a ruler method may not be accurate. If the film were to represent a "real animal" as Munns claims the foot as a ruler would be fairly accurate.
 
River said:
Or the feet seen on the actor/suit are not the same that left the imprints. This is why the foot as a ruler method may not be accurate. If the film were to represent a "real animal" as Munns claims the foot as a ruler would be fairly accurate.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that, which is why the "foot as ruler' method accomplishes one very simple goal:

EITHER the footprints are a fake or Patty is only 6 foot tall or so. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to be true.
 
StankApe said:
I'm well aware of that, which is why the "foot as ruler' method accomplishes one very simple goal:

EITHER the footprints are a fake or Patty is only 6 foot tall or so. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to be true.
Click to expand...


My bolded = the footprints were faked. http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

Yeah the foot as a ruler method should not be ruled out by proponents of the films authenticity. My own estimates using that method put the actor between 5' 10 and 6' 3".
 
StankApe said:
I'm well aware of that, which is why the "foot as ruler' method accomplishes one very simple goal:

EITHER the footprints are a fake or Patty is only 6 foot tall or so. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to be true.
Click to expand...

Why is it impossible for both to be true? I either haven't read or can't remember that particular deduction.
 
the casts made at the site measure 14.5 inches long, using 14.5 inches as the foot size in the "foot as ruler" method for measuring Patty's height, you end up with a range of 5'10" to 6'4" (and that is a generous margin of error).

Munns has said Patty exceeds 7 feet. (based on his careful measurements) for Patty to be 7 feet the footprints must be fake.
 
StankApe said:
the casts made at the site measure 14.5 inches long, using 14.5 inches as the foot size in the "foot as ruler" method for measuring Patty's height, you end up with a range of 5'10" to 6'4" (and that is a generous margin of error).

Munns has said Patty exceeds 7 feet. (based on his careful measurements) for Patty to be 7 feet the footprints must be fake.
Click to expand...

Ah. My apologies. It was a mis-parsing on my part. I kind of broke your previous sentence down as a propositional logic statement:

(the footprints are a fake) or (Patty is only 6 foot tall or so).
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for both to be true.

Obviously it's possible for Patty to be 6 ft AND the footprints be fake, but that's not what you were saying.
 
correct, and I admit that the way i wrote it could have been interpreted this way.

so that was my mistake.


like River said, the prints can't be real AND Patty is 7 feet tall. if the prints are fake AND Patty is 7 feet tall then the feet have to be something like 18 inches long and that's and odd foot to height ratio indeed.
 
StankApe said:
I asked Bill why my "foot as ruler" method of determining height differed from his "careful measurements" that determined height by over a foot (mine was 6'1-6'4 his was 7'0-7'6) and that I was sure that my method had a large margin of error doubted it was 13 inches (or roughly 80% of one Patty foot) wrong.

His response was that his experience and extreme care in measuring made his results infallible and my method was inherently wrong.
Click to expand...

I haven't kept up with all of Bill's textburgs, but has he ever given his own measurement of the feet seen in the film? It would be very interesting to see what he would come up with.
 
my memory of it is that he accepted the 14.5 inch measurement of the casts allegedly made at the site.
 
With Bill's highly advanced methodology, he should be able to drop a 14.5" plaster cast into his virtual Patty world and match it right up to the 7' Squatch. That'd be fun to see, actually.
 
StankApe said:
the casts made at the site measure 14.5 inches long, using 14.5 inches as the foot size in the "foot as ruler" method for measuring Patty's height, you end up with a range of 5'10" to 6'4" (and that is a generous margin of error).

Munns has said Patty exceeds 7 feet. (based on his careful measurements) for Patty to be 7 feet the footprints must be fake.
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

pattyrogcompare.jpg


RayG
 
actually no, that's not what i meant.

Use Patty's actual foot as the ruler. (not the cast) because:

IF she made the tracks, we know her foot is 14.5 inches long . The cast in the picture with Patterson may not be that cast so we can't assume it is. By using Patty's own foot, we "know" we have a 14.5 ruler in which to measure her.

i end up with a 6'0 to 6'4 measurement which takes into account the scaling as the foot is closer to the lens than her body is.
 
Last edited:
You know .. I have been reading this thread now for maybe just a little bit over a year.

I have to confess and I um.. hope it is not taken the wrong way ?

But I am starting to have certain feelings for the girl ? I mean.. her movements in slow motion especially.. and also the way she turns her head to look back at me ? I am starting to think to myself.. "What if she had longer hair ? " You know ? Sort of an old Prell Shampoo Commercial sort of thing.. just me I guess.. Some other Old Spice Commercial Issues also.. but.. anyway..

She is kind of nice ?
 
Slocie's said:
Just don't let her get on top of ya ! :eek:
Click to expand...

Well.. yes, of course not !

On the plus side she would not want me to purchase a fur coat for her ? Just Zagnut Bars, venison, a coyote or two, some tree limbs, and some well fitting shoes .. anyway. It is just the slow motion shots.

She is cute ! I suppose that is why we all sort of love her ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom