Bigfoot - serious, not follies

Thurkon said:
Has there been a history of Bigfoot hoaxers doing a particularly good job of hoaxing?


No.

Or has it been one big stupid mess of bison fur, rubber feet and blurry video?

You have evidence of rubber feet? The only fake feet I know of were carved.

The Yukon case is the first instance I know of involving a misidentification of Bison hair.
I think you may be giving Patterson and Co. far too much credit in the thinking department. Does the fact that Patterson revealed he was renting a camera to film Bigfoot prove he wasn’t out to hoax, or it is proof of Patterson’s incredible stupidity?

There had been tracks in the area for years. He'd already written a rather poor book on it and wanted to make a documentary. He knew he was dying. He'd been in on the investigation for six years prior to the filming. Bryne's honest opinion was that Patterson and Gimlin weren't smart enough to pull off such a hoax. Krantz said Patterson looked blank when asked about some of the technicalities he would have had to know to pull it off.

If the film is so blurry, what makes you think you can see seams?

Do you have those names yet? I haven't seen one successful debunking, let alone hundreds.
 
Diogenes said:
Meldrum said;



" typical Bigfoot toes are as long as my fingers "

We have no evidence to support it ...
None that you could find, anyway.
Bad science. Not a credible source..

We should question anything he says...

I'm sure he has the answers. If he gives the actual measurements in his book when it comes out, will you retract?
 
This whole thread is a joke right?

My favorite bit was when somebody claimed to have found an anomaly in the PG footage that proved that it was a fake, only for someone to write an entire screed about how you shouldn't read too much into footage that had been zoomed into much as you could pretty see whatever you wanted to see. I don't know, like quad ruptures and calf muscles perhaps...

If it wasn't this thread it was definately linked to from here somewhere. It seems to be the same old "blind them with science" approach to try and convince the heathens. Mid tarsal bend, dermal ridges, IM ratios. It all stinks of desperation to me. If the PG footage was that clear it would be undeniable, but surprise surprise it isn't. Well what do you know...
 
LAL said:

Other than Noll, who left? Your source? Not EB, I hope. I was told it was because of his overbearing personality.

Noll left quite some time ago, but I can think of a handful of others who left the BFRO, and they all frequent the BFF. Let's see...

Hairy Man and RB (posted Aug 1, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12233

"RB and I are no longer a part of the BFRO. After years of being associated with the group, it was just time for us to part ways." -- Hairy Man

Redwolf (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115

"I am sure this will not come as a surprise to anyone, but after five years, I am resigning from the BFRO and my associating with Matt Moneymaker."

Fishbone35 (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12119&st=0&#entry249092

"I completely agree with everything Kathy said. The only difference is that I quit on Saturday."

Tsiatko (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249194

"As you know. I was lied to and accused of being on drugs. after I tried to tell people what Matt was doing."

JayleeD (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=20&#entry249285

"Yes, I left after being a member for a little over 3 months because I didn't agree with the way that MM was handling things, or NOT handling things I should say"

StacyInMi (posted July 26, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249125

"Heck, I only stuck it out 5 months before I bailed, and that was plenty long enough to be able to verify that everything Kathy's stated above is dead-on accurate."

Silva is another ex-BFRO member who was 'booted' some time ago.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772
(posted June 6, 2005)
"As recently as September 2004 (2 months before he [MM] booted me)..."

She also makes this comment about 3000 BFRO members (something you've mentioned a couple times):

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772
"Last thing though, the BFRO never had anywhere close to 3000 members. The most I ever saw was 114. Currently it stands at approx 106 (insider info)."

Where do you get your numbers (3000) from?

Not counting Noll, that's at least EIGHT other BFF members who are now ex-BFROers. I'm pretty sure that's not a complete list either.

Please don't insult me by suggesting I use EB as a source for ANYTHING other than amusement. The man is delusional.

RayG
 
LAL writes:

You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years...

We're all seeing what we want to see. So are you, because there's nothing really to see. The film is not good enough. What do you mean that the film has held up to intense scrutiny? It's been called a hoax and a fake by many, and accepted by others, hasn't it? It hasn't been accepted as scientific evidence by anyone, has it? That it has continued to be scrutinized at all for 40 years seems a testament to the tenacity of bigfoot hopefuls more than to its quality.

So let me see if I have this straight. Patterson, a notorious deadbeat and ne-er do well so desperately in need of money he went to jail for not paying his rent, is acknowledged probably to have rented a suit "since he intended to make a documentary and reenactments were a standard way of doing things" (WOW!) but there's no reason to suspect he used it. I mean, just because someone who planned to do a reenactment in a bigfoot suit just happened to be instrumental in the production of a bigfoot movie, it would presumably be excessive scoffticism to find the coincidence a little odd? Gimlin, who rented a camera whose operation he seems not to have mastered and without enough film, believed at one point that he was hoaxed, but thought better of it for reasons not quite made clear, but we're expected to accept this whole film because it's generally agreed Patterson and Gimlin were too stupid to carry off a good hoax?

How could I possibly doubt such an outstanding piece of evidence?

edited for typos
 
bruto said:
LAL writes:

You're seeing what you want to see. The film has held up to intense scrutiny for nearly forty years...

We're all seeing what we want to see. So are you, because there's nothing really to see. The film is not good enough.
Of course it is. I saw it first on a big screen and I have it on DVD. I've lost count of how many times I've watched it.
What do you mean that the film has held up to intense scrutiny? It's been called a hoax and a fake by many, and accepted by others, hasn't it? It hasn't been accepted as scientific evidence by anyone, has it?

Only by some scientists who aren't and weren't afraid to stick their necks out, beginning with Yerkes. I've posted three or four reports so far. Have you followed any of the reasons it can't be a man in a suit?

That it has continued to be scrutinized at all for 40 years seems a testament to the tenacity of bigfoot hopefuls more than to its quality.

Or the tenacity of sceptics in clinging to their denial no matter what.
So let me see if I have this straight. Patterson, a notorious deadbeat and ne-er do well so desperately in need of money he went to jail for not paying his rent, is acknowledged probably to have rented a suit "since he intended to make a documentary and reenactments were a standard way of doing things" (WOW!) but there's no reason to suspect he used it.
There's no evidence he had a suit, but even if he did, that's not what's on that film.

He didn't go to jail for not paying his rent. He failed to get the camera back on time. He wanted to leave something for his wife, according to one of Long's witnesses. Long seems to have found something evil in that.
I mean, just because someone who planned to do a reenactment in a bigfoot suit just happened to be instrumental in the production of a bigfoot movie, it would presumably be excessive scoffticism to find the coincidence a little odd?

Why would it be odd for a couple of men out to photograph tracks to stumble on the trackmaker? Would it have been better if they didn't know about tracks and went filming where there'd never been any?

Gimlin, who rented a camera whose operation he seems not to have mastered and without enough film,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Patterson rent the camera? There were a couple of reels of film.

believed at one point that he was hoaxed, but thought better of it for reasons not quite made clear, but we're expected to accept this whole film because it's generally agreed Patterson and Gimlin were too stupid to carry off a good hoax?

Do you know the state of the art of costume making at the time? Biomechanics? They weren't stupid, but they had neither the money nor the expertise to pull it off. The BBC with money and expertise couldn't pull it off. Bob Heironimus certainly didn't. Have you seen him in motion?

It was suggested a third party hoaxed them both, and Gimlin considered that, but saw no way that was possible. What's your source on him ever believing he was hoaxed?
How could I possibly doubt such an outstanding piece of evidence?

How could you possibly think character assassination disproves the authenticity of the film?
 
RayG said:
Noll left quite some time ago, but I can think of a handful of others who left the BFRO, and they all frequent the BFF. Let's see...

>snip<

She also makes this comment about 3000 BFRO members (something you've mentioned a couple times):

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11373&st=60&#entry233772


Where do you get your numbers (3000) from?
Not sure. The BFRO website, possibly, or Alton Higgins. I have his e-mails in a saved folder, but AOL is telling me they're not currently available. I belong to a group (not Sasquatch related) that has over fifty members but I've only seen a couple of dozen. There are over 400 members in BFF, according to their website, but how many post? Maybe 3000 people have joined the BFRO and were never heard from again. ;)
Not counting Noll, that's at least EIGHT other BFF members who are now ex-BFROers. I'm pretty sure that's not a complete list either.

How many were curators?
Please don't insult me by suggesting I use EB as a source for ANYTHING other than amusement. The man is delusional.

Sorry. He was the one who brought up Noll and Powell and others leaving. There's no whistling smiley on this board.

I ran across the thread on Kathy quitting earlier this evening while looking for something tube pointed me to. No one seeems to be trashing the group as a whole, and not all seem to be trashing MM.

Even if it's disintegrating now, I think they've accomplished a lot. I wish them a speedy repair.
 
"Hoax Hallmarks

True hoaxes have certain hallmarks, and such is the case with hominoid hoaxes. In fact, the Fox TV show used two such "genuine" hoaxes in an effort to smear the Patterson film by association. A hoaxed hominoid film will usually not be attributable to any specific person, it will be provided anonymously, so whoever filmed it cannot be grilled by specialists who will be able to quickly expose the fraud. Also, the place where the filming occurred will not be provided, so experts cannot return to the scene and check for footprints, measure the creature against items (tree limbs, rocks, etc.) in the background, or bring tracking dogs to see what their reaction will be. (Because of a hominoid's overpowering stench, even tracking dogs will recoil from it, while a human in a suit will be pursued as if the suit did not exist.)

In contrast to a hoaxer's typical behavior, Roger Patterson went right out
from the sighting and called several area experts, begging them to come to the scene and to bring tracking dogs. None of the experts would come. However, several friends within the community of bigfoot hunters did come to the scene to thoroughly examine it for several days afterward, so there is no doubt that the creature was there, she left numerous clear tracks that were photographed and cast in plaster, and her weight was in the 600 to 800 pound range because the tracks she left sank a full inch into the hard-packed sand at the creek bank, while a 200 pound man walking near her tracks sank only about a quarter of an inch. These facts are utterly undeniable, and they were utterly avoided in the piece presented as fact on "World's Greatest Hoaxes."

Technical Evidence

1) It was a bright, cloudless day with sunlight glinting off the creature's hair as she walked. In close-up and at very slow motion it is easy to see her muscles rippling in her right shoulder and in her right thigh, just as they would be visible in a human with those body parts exposed. If it had been a human in a suit, the suit would have to have been glued to the skin to achieve such an effect, but in the act of gluing, the subtle interaction between muscle and skin would be lost. Even today, in 1999, Hollywood special effects wizards find it extremely difficult to portray such subtle subcutaneous movements. In 1967 it was flatly impossible (check out "Planet Of The Apes").

2) The creature's arms are markedly longer than human arms, with elbows that clearly articulate well below where the elbows of a human in a suit would articulate. The added length of the humerus (shoulder to elbow) is four, five, or even six inches, which in anatomical terms is a light-year, and which causes the hands to swing down near the knees, whereas in a human the hands reach only to mid-thigh or above. There is literally no reasonable comparison between the two.

3) The creature's breasts are large, pendulous, and quite noticeable when she turns to face Patterson as he films. In close-up and slow motion (conspicuously avoided in the Fox show), it is easy to see their fluid sway as she turns, and their distinct "bounce" as she takes two steps. They are indistinguishable from human mammary tissue in motion, yet if they were an attachment to a modern body suit they would move more like silicone or gel implants. And in 1967 they would no doubt have looked like the original implant "nosecones."

4) The creature's body is extraordinarily thick throughout all of its parts and in every dimension, much more so than a similarly proportioned human (as seen in the accompanying "true" hoaxes). The thighs are massive and flow quite naturally into equally thick buttocks. When the creature turns to observe Patterson, the movement begins with a smooth shift of the hips that follows up through a swing of the entire upper torso, which reveals a shoulder width of approximately 30 percent more than humans have. Such outsized dimensions are not possible to duplicate with a human in a suit and still retain even a semblance of the "natural" movements seen in the film.

5) The creature's walk has been carefully analyzed by specialists in biomechanics in both England and Russia. Their conclusion is that its walk is completely natural, yet unmistakably non-human. The torso never rises above several degrees from vertical, while humans walk with their torsos at or near vertical. The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step. Humans lock their knees with each step. So once again, there is no reasonable comparison to be made except that humans and the Patterson creature walk upright on two legs."

And:

"One more such breach that needs to be mentioned is this: Bob Gimlin is still alive, yet his name was not mentioned in "World's Greatest Hoaxes." Why? Because Gimlin has insisted all of his long life that the film is genuine. Now, to question the authenticity of the film is to question the integrity of Bob Gimlin, and that is not easy to do for the following reason. When money for the film began to roll in, Roger Patterson ruthlessly cut Bob Gimlin out of any participation in the proceeds. If the film had been a hoax and Bob Gimlin had known about it, that would have been an insane move for Patterson to make. All Gimlin would have had to do was expose the hoax to make the $25,000 that was being offered at the time for conclusive proof about it one way or the other. Gimlin did not offer such proof, even at the lowest point in his relationship with Patterson.

What that means is this: If Patterson did indeed fake the film, he clearly did so without Bob Gimlin's knowledge. And that means the person in the suit (Jerry Romney if you believe the Fox TV hoaxers) was parading around in front of a man armed with a high-powered hunting rifle who would have been well within his legal (if not moral) rights to shoot him dead and take him home as a priceless "trophy." So it seems unlikely that Jerry Romney, or anyone short of a complete imbecile, could have been talked into getting into that suit on that particular day."

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-FoxTV.htm
 
LAL said:
There are over 400 members in BFF, according to their website, but how many post? Maybe 3000 people have joined the BFRO and were never heard from again. ;)

Not sure where yer getting yer info from, but on the main page of the BFF it states:

We have 1,971 registered members

That's significantly more than 400. Are we talking about the same BFF? As for your 3000 membership claim for the BFRO, since you're 'not sure' where you got those numbers, are you willing to quit flashing it about as though it were factual?

Members, not curators. You said there was an exodus of curators.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115
"Saturday, a long time Curator quit. Shortly afterwards Matt removed two other Curators over assumed associations with the one who quit. Matt lied to the group about why they left or were removed. Matt doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy and seems unable to tell the truth if it incriminates himself. When he is caught, he will make up any rumor that he can think of to discredit person’s statements. He stated that one Curator was power hungry, when in fact he was just trying to get some organization started in the group. This is something that many of us Curators have been promised by Matt, but never saw. We will never see it because Matt will not give control to any other member. The BFRO is a dictatorship not a democracy."

Redwolf is a former curator, and indicates three other curators quit/were removed. That's four in addition to Noll. Fishbone35 may have been one of those four, because he also calls himself a curator and he indicates he quit on a Saturday. In any case, that's at least FOUR additional curators.

Sorry. He was the one who brought up Noll and Powell and others leaving. There's no whistling smiley on this board.

All the info concerning members/curators leaving the BFRO came directly from the BFF board. The ONLY reason to visit Beckjord's website is for entertainment purposes, there's certainly little if anything there that's newsworthy (or truthful).

I ran across the thread on Kathy quitting earlier this evening while looking for something tube pointed me to. No one seeems to be trashing the group, and not all seem to be trashing MM.

I agree, no one seems to condemn the group as a whole, but I've not seen very many kind words for Mr. Moneymaker.

Even if it's disintegrating now, I think they've accomplished a lot. I wish them a speedy repair.

They DO have a rather extensive database, but if many of those individual reports are examined too closely they seem to be lacking any verifiable evidence. There's even an accusation that MM has inserted info in the database that's just not factual. (claiming he interviewed all three witnesses for example, when he only spoke with one -- that one's on the BFF too)

RayG
 
fsol said:
This whole thread is a joke right?

My favorite bit was when somebody claimed to have found an anomaly in the PG footage that proved that it was a fake, only for someone to write an entire screed about how you shouldn't read too much into footage that had been zoomed into much as you could pretty see whatever you wanted to see. I don't know, like quad ruptures and calf muscles perhaps...

If it wasn't this thread it was definately linked to from here somewhere. It seems to be the same old "blind them with science" approach to try and convince the heathens. Mid tarsal bend, dermal ridges, IM ratios. It all stinks of desperation to me. If the PG footage was that clear it would be undeniable, but surprise surprise it isn't. Well what do you know...

What do you know?

Are you referring to the "bell-shaped object"? There isn't one.

So, the cry goes out for scientists to look at it, but when they do, scofftics don't understand a word they say. Noted.

Here's something else you won't understand:

"Dear Editor,

I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool.

I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less contrive.

Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected?

Ah..the mystique of it all.

Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"
 
RayG said:

That's significantly more than 400. Are we talking about the same BFF?


That's how much they've grown since I joined last year, apparently. I hadn't checked since then.

As for your 3000 membership claim for the BFRO, since you're 'not sure' where you got those numbers, are you willing to quit flashing it about as though it were factual?


Sure. I thought I could pull it right out of Alton's e-mails, but I can't. I'm afraid to find out what else is gone.

Redwolf is a former curator, and indicates three other curators quit/were removed. That's four in addition to Noll. Fishbone35 may have been one of those four, because he also calls himself a curator and he indicates he quit on a Saturday. In any case, that's at least FOUR additional curators.

All the info concerning members/curators leaving the BFRO came directly from the BFF board. The ONLY reason to visit Beckjord's website is for entertainment purposes, there's certainly little if anything there that's newsworthy (or truthful).


I checked to see if there was any substantiation for his claims about MM, but I couldn't find anything but more raving.

I agree, no one seems to condemn the group as a whole, but I've not seen very many kind words for Mr. Moneymaker.


He seems to have a talent for ticking people off.

They DO have a rather extensive database, but if many of those individual reports are examined too closely they seem to be lacking any verifiable evidence. There's even an accusation that MM has inserted info in the database that's just not factual. (claiming he interviewed all three witnesses for example, when he only spoke with one -- that one's on the BFF too)

RayG

Yeah. That's too bad. But from the same post:

"The Great thing about BFRO is they have the best clearing house for Bigfoot sightings in North America. I think they do a pretty good job in weeding out the phony reports, obvious hoaxes, and the nuts who spotted Bigfoot stepping off a UFO."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12121&st=0&#entry249115

I use the sight sometimes for articles and very occasionally for sightings (Skamania County lost it's lead, last time I checked, so I'll have to stop saying it has the highest sighting rate in the country). It's still a great website even if MM is a jerk.

There's an interesting list in Murphy's book on # of sightings with tracks in several states. Someone asked about a per cent. There's one, as soon as I figure it out.
 
LAL said:
What do you know?

Are you referring to the "bell-shaped object"? There isn't one.

So, the cry goes out for scientists to look at it, but when they do, scofftics don't understand a word they say. Noted.

Here's something else you won't understand:

"Dear Editor,

I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus; allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the film, you are a fool's fool.

I have had the opportunity to examine the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?

The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less contrive.

Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected?

Ah..the mystique of it all.

Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"


*sigh* We learnt the names of the muscles at school. What's not to understand? Whats interesting is that in one post you reason away the lack of arse jiggle by explaining it is all down to the compliant gait, whilst this guy you quoted talks about visible contraction and expansion of the gluteus maximus. Wouldn't that make the arse jiggle if it were true? Or is it a different type of jiggle we are talking about here?

Edit: Also, what does this guy know about making suits to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a suit could be made?
 
LAL said:
I checked to see if there was any substantiation for his claims about MM, but I couldn't find anything but more raving.

Why bother with Beckjord's site, when all the info is included on the BFF?

Three more BFRO 'members' indicate they're no longer members -- Blackdog, jimf, and Susan. (all posted on Aug 4, 2005)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12119&st=120

He seems to have a talent for ticking people off.

Doesn't he though? Keep reading that link above, it's a real eye-opener. (specifically the post from JayleeD concerning what Gregg Clay had to say)

I use the sight sometimes for articles and very occasionally for sightings (Skamania County lost it's lead, last time I checked, so I'll have to stop saying it has the highest sighting rate in the country). It's still a great website even if MM is a jerk.

I sometimes check it out to see what's the latest bullsh*t from MM, but I seldom check it out for its database. No matter how high we pile the anecdotes, it won't bag a squatch.

RayG
 
The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step.


Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..


lock.gif


The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..
 
fsol said:
*sigh* We learnt the names of the muscles at school. What's not to understand? Whats interesting is that in one post you reason away the lack of arse jiggle by explaining it is all down to the compliant gait, whilst this guy you quoted talks about visible contraction and expansion of the gluteus maximus. Wouldn't that make the arse jiggle if it were true? Or is it a different type of jiggle we are talking about here?

Must be. He's talking about contraction and expansion.
Edit: Also, what does this guy know about making suits to dismiss out of hand the possibility that such a suit could be made?


At sixty, he's old enough to remember what costumes were like back then. Planet of the Apes was the best that had been done, and Chambers himself said he didn't make the suit; he wasn't that good. He wished he were. Are costumers required to have a degree related to anatomy before they can give an opinion?

A spokesperson from Disney said they were the only ones with the facillities to make a suit that good and they didn't do it. They estimated cost at $300,000 (in 1967 dollars). Also, they wouldn't have attempted building a suit; they'd have animated it.

The BBC's attempt, using the only synthetic fur available at the time, Dynel, is here:

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

There'd have had to have been some sort of prosthesis to get the arms right. They're 25% longer than Heironimus' and bend properly. The back on the creature is 20% longer. There's no match on the shoulder joints; they're a foot farther apart than on a man 6'5". But Heironimus said no padding was used. And people believe him?

"Every attempt and failure to make a similar costume strengthens the case for authenticity of the Patterson footage. Comparing a man in a costume side by side with the Patterson creature in motion helps highlight the striking anatomical peculiarities."

If you guys really think that could be a guy in a suit, the line for the bridge and the waterfront property forms on your left.
 
I love how people are quite happy to say "you can quite clearly see..." in reference to the PG film. All I can see is a blurry, hairy figure strolling nonchalantly away, and that's after repeated viewings.

The film is so grainy and jerky that reading details into it like musculature movement beneath the skin is frankly a stretch. I'm no stanger to photography, film and checking images for details, and I am beginning to think there is some real wish fulfillment going on here. Like a Rorschach test, people project there own beliefs onto the almost blank slate that is the PG film. If we discard is as ambigous and a one-off, what are we left with to prove the existence of a viable population of scarily massive creatures? Footprints and nothing else?

Perhaps comedian Mitch Hedburg was right, perhaps the scariest thing about Bigfoot is the fact that he is blurry in real life too?
 
t sixty, he's old enough to remember what costumes were like back then. Planet of the Apes was the best that had been done, and Chambers himself said he didn't make the suit; he wasn't that good. He wished he were. Are costumers required to have a degree related to anatomy before they can give an opinion?
Planet of the Apes, didn't use ' suits '.. Only head pieces and hands..


Ever hear of ' 2001 A Space Odyssey '..

Check out the apes.. I heard a rumor, they weren't nominated for a costume Oscar, because it wasn't generally known that they were costumes ...

To suggest that a fake patty was some kind of technological impossibility at the time is absurd..
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
I love how people are quite happy to say "you can quite clearly see..." in reference to the PG film. All I can see is a blurry, hairy figure strolling nonchalantly away, and that's after repeated viewings.

The film is so grainy and jerky that reading details into it like musculature movement beneath the skin is frankly a stretch. I'm no stanger to photography, film and checking images for details, and I am beginning to think there is some real wish fulfillment going on here. Like a Rorschach test, people project there own beliefs onto the almost blank slate that is the PG film.

Does that apply to people who see seams and folds as well?
If we discard is as ambigous and a one-off, what are we left with to prove the existence of a viable population of scarily massive creatures? Footprints and nothing else?

Perhaps comedian Mitch Hedburg was right, perhaps the scariest thing about Bigfoot is the fact that he is blurry in real life too?

What version are you seeing and where?

Bryne noted that even if the film were a hoax, there's still plenty of evidence to indicate these creatures are real.
 

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