Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

No, thank you.

The part about standing in the stream was probably to explain Patty's white feet.

Why not? Too technical for you? I read Dennett, Daegling and Long.

Roger first saw her squatting by the stream. Her feet could have been in it. She may have walked through damp sand at some point.

 

[LAL]

Yep.. Fits the tracks better.. Had to dump the NASI report ( 2,000 lbs ) ...


What's wrong with this picture?


Get distinguished forensic scientist to investigate film. Findings don't match other evidence. Disregard findings.
NASI and expert is never called upon for further investigation.

According to Murphy, Glickman has apparently stood firm on his figure. He has never revised it.

That's the main criticism voiced by other researchers. This is kind of like peer review, isn't it? One expert gives an opinion and others try to tear it apart. That's how science works.

 

[LTC8K6]

I thought the stream bed was dry ?

Dry, wet, whatever....

Who can tell anymore?

Maybe it's on the lost footage?

Why not? Too technical for you?

Yeah, my little pea brain can only take so much.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I already timed it with my watch before I read this post. I was refering to an official time given in a book and was reading Murphy to see if he gives one. I'm trying to weed, cut back Kudzu and burn old papers while I'm posting. While I'm doing my best to spend every waking moment on this board, I do have other things to do on my days off.

Why would I think you'd believe me if I gave you a time off the DVD?

Can you explain the problem of giving the running time of the clip on the DVD ?

Why would I not believe you ? I would consider such information an actual fact. Something that is real scarce in these parts..

I'm not trying to nail you on anything.. I'm just curious about what the DVD provides, when it claims it is the ' complete ' footage...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

According to Murphy, Glickman has apparently stood firm on his figure. He has never revised it.

That's the main criticism voiced by other researchers. This is kind of like peer review, isn't it? One expert gives an opinion and others try to tear it apart. That's how science works.

You left out:

" Those with foregone conclusion, disregard conflicting data. "

 

[William Parcher]

According to Murphy, Glickman has apparently stood firm on his figure. He has never revised it.

That's the main criticism voiced by other researchers. This is kind of like peer review, isn't it? One expert gives an opinion and others try to tear it apart. That's how science works.

Peer review of what kind of peers? There is no Bigfoot science, only an enthusiastic subculture. That subculture thrives on internally coherent debates or 'peer review' by other subculturalists. In the bigger picture, this is pseudoscience.

The argument over whether the PGF thing is 500 lbs or 2000 lbs is a red herring. Because that argument makes a complete end-run around the primary question of whether Bigfoot exists in the very first place.

Nearly all of the Bigfoot 'research' and 'peer review' is composed of subculturalists arguing with other subculturalists. For the most part, these people already accept that Bigfoot is a real creature. They ignore and obfuscate any sort of evidence or argument that reveals that the entire field of 'research' is a wild goose chase.

This is not peer reviewed science questioning the weight range of the Hairy-nosed Wombat. This is 'peer review' of the length of Unicorn horns.

Until it is shown that Bigfoot is not a myth, you are talking about a Unicorn.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..


We ( well some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.


( I'm going to post this in the PGF thread also, in case anyone wants a repast from long load times )

 

[LAL]

Okay, the things bothering me today:

Someone (Lu quoted them) said the film speed was 18fps. I find this unlikely since apparently the camera didn't have a setting for 18fps. The closest were 16fps and 24 fps. One of the settings may have been somewhat out of tolerance, but the claim an absolute 18fps seems unlikely.

I've been trying to get back to that and correct it for over five hours. I got sidetracked trying to answer older posts. I'm only on page 31 and I have dial-up.

The jiggle analysis narrowed it down to 16 or 18. Patterson said the speed was shifted, possibly when he pulled the camera from the saddlebag. He normally kept it at 24, but it was on 16 when he checked.

On pg. 96 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence Krantz states:

" Bourtsev reports that sprinters manage five steps per second. If the filming speed was 24 frames, Patterson was running at six steps per second, and this is clearly impossible. At 18 frames per second he was running at 4.5 steps per second, and at 16 frames he did four steps per second. Either of these last two are possible, though four steps seems more reasonable for most men who are not practicing athletes. On the other hand, Patterson stood only a little over five feet tall (160 cm), so his running pace would be notably faster than for an average man."

All of the footage" includes the other 190 feet of film Patterson took into the woods with him, not just the 10 feet with Patty. Apparently he had 2 100 foot rolls. Some of us want to see everything that was shot, even if the Bigfoot enthusiasts consider it unimportant. There might not be anything there, but at least we'll no nothing is being hidden.

On pg. 42 of Meet the Sasquatch, it says he took 24' / 7.3 meters of film of the creature.

On page 41 it says "he wished to find and film fresh footprints as evidence of the creature's existence."

On the same page it says he "used 76- feet/23.2m of his first film roll for general filming, including shots of himself, Gimlin and the horses."

Part of the second roll was used for filming tracks and Roger's experiments jumping off a log to see how far his tracks would sink in. He also filmed the horses' tracks alongside the creature's prints and Gimlin filmed Roger making casts. A shot from this is shown on pg. 43 of Roger holding them. This was after they tried to pursue her (Gimlin first on horseback) and turned back.

According to Lu again, Gimlin claimed Patty was standing in the stream when they first saw her,

No, he didn't and I didn't say that. He says on A&E's Bigfoot in the Ancient Mysteries series they first saw her standing by the stream, not in it.

She apparently went into the stream, but that was after they filmed her. They found a wet print on a rock.

then she walked into the woods. Why don't her feet or legs look wet? Wet fur should be noticable.

He said she was standing by the stream, not in it. She may have sand stuck to her feet.

Especially given the details some people see, like muscles rippling, the overlap between the body and leg pieces of the suit,

Would that be Chris Walas? That didn't hold up well. See the thread on BFF.

ruptured thigh muscles, etc.

You forgot "bell-shaped object".

I have to admit that and elk lying in the mud to eat apples without leaving hoof marks on the body imprint is unlikely. But I don't consider it less likely than a Bigfoot doing the same thing without leaving footprints.

Haven't we been through this before?

I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. I can never prove that. I feel it's unlikely, and the evidence I've seen is still far from convincing.

Exactly what evidence have you seen?

 

[RayG]

What I don’t understand is when those same individuals allow nonsense like the BFRO website to go unchallenged. I mean, where are your standards? Is this some kind of indication of the lack of scientific understanding within the Bigfoot community in general? That’s all I can imagine when this garbage is on a website of one of the more “reputable” Bigfoot sites on the net.

Visit the BFF and you'll see lots of negative comments about the BFRO, especially about their claim of being a 'scientific' organization. I have always grimaced at them calling themselves 'scientific'. The BFF however, has no control over what the BFRO put up as webpages. In many cases, BFRO claims and pronouncements HAVE been picked apart by those of us with an interest in bigfoot, and in some instances I believe their webpages have been modified based on comments made at the BFF.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11294&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11755&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12115&hl=bfro
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9158&hl=bfro

Here's part of an exchange between LAL and I on the BFF about skeptics and evidence.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

At about 1:30 p.m. that day, Friday, October 20, 1967, Patterson and Gimlin spotted a female Bigfoot down on a Bluff Creek gravel sandbar. Patterson estimated the creature to be about six feet tall, maybe taller, and weighing about 400 pounds. Patterson's horse reared in alarm at the sight of the creature, bringing both horse and rider to the ground, Patterson pinned below. Gimlin's horse and the pack horse, being led by Gimlin, also reacted. The pack horse panicked and Gimlin released its lead in order to control the horse he was riding. Patterson, being an experienced horseman, quickly disengaged himself and grabbed his camera. He ran towards the creature, stopping within about 80-feet and filmed the creature in the distance. While then running, stumbling, stationary, and later walking, Patterson took 24-feet of color film footage which expired the film roll in the camera. During this time, the creature crossed the creek and walked along the opposite sandbar heading upstream. At one point, the creature turned and looked towards Patterson. The creature then hastened its pace somewhat as it continued its passage into a sparsely wooded area directly ahead. In the meantime, Gimlin, on horseback, rode slowly towards the creature. Gimlin crossed the creek and dismounted. He then observed the whole scene, rifle in hand, in case his friend was attacked by the creature. The men had previously agreed that under no circumstances would they shoot a Bigfoot unless to protect themselves or each other. The footage taken by Patterson shows the creature as it disappeared and reappeared between trees in the distance.

Patty appears to have crossed the creek on camera.

 

[LAL]

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..


We ( well some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.


( I'm going to post this in the PGF thread also, in case anyone wants a repast from long load times )

Never mind Chambers denied any involvement. Mark Chorvinsky does little but repeat rumors people say they heard. Haven't we been over this before?

Is the PGF thread in this forum or do you mean one of the many, many threads on the PGF on BFF, where you would be torn to shreds (figuratively speaking)?

Post this too:

"Over the years, there has been claims that the film may be a hoax. However, all such claims were fully investigated by Bigfoot researchers and found to be totally without substance. One major claim involving John Chambers, the noted Hollywood make-up artist, was definitely proven to be unfounded. Chambers was personally interviewed by Bobbie Short, a registered nurse and Bigfoot investigator, in February 1997. In this interview, Chambers denied any involvement with the Patterson-Gimlin film. He also stated that in his opinion, not he nor anyone else could have fabricated the creature seen in the film. Chambers went on to state that he was good, but not that good. Chambers admitted he was aware of rumors concerning his involvement in the film. He never took steps to set the record straight because it was good for business. One final note — Chambers had never met or heard of Patterson or Gimlin prior to October 20, 1967. He has never heard of Al De Atley."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

Just before my last WAOL error, I was reading an article where Beck ( I think) of Universal said they might be able to do it for a million dollars. Ken Peterson, the senior executive at Disney Studios John Green interviewed in 1969, sems to have given a bargain price, even though they didn't do it.

This is Schlock, BTW:

 

[William Parcher]

Patty appears to have crossed the creek on camera.

... then walked on the creekbank before entering the forest and going out of sight.

But then she exits the forest and gets onto the logging road. Gimlin says he saw her walking on the road about 300 yards away (did this road allow a 300 yard vista?). She rounds a bend in the road and that is the last sight of her. P&G then track her on horseback up the mountain wilderness for 3.5 miles.

 

[RayG]

Yep.. Fits the tracks better..

[/QUOTE]

Actually, Krantz wasn't certain of the height/weight, nor apparently, is anyone else. Patterson himself thought the film subject was 7'4" and somewhere between 300 and 800 pounds, though he settled on 500, as did Krantz. Gimlin, on the other hand (or should I say horse), thought the subject was 6'1" or 6'2" and 350 pounds.

The 6'5" - 6'7" DOESN'T actually fit the tracks better. Krantz found ten frames "where the full length of the foot can be seen in a vertical position... measurement...shows that in these ten frames the average is just five of its foot lengths to its height. Five times the foot length is only 6 feet and that must be the actual walking height of the subject."

Krantz claims that the standing height of the creature is 6" taller, caused by the bend in the knees/waist and allowing an extra inch for the subject's footprints sinking into the ground.

Source: Krantz, Grover. Big Footprints. 1992. Johnson Books. page 97
RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin went on to say that he and Roger were riding up Bluff Creek, on the right-hand side. “We came around a downed tree, the creek had re-routed around the tree. As we came around the tree, the horses reacted... to the presence of the creature. Roger's horse reared onto its rear, un-saddling Roger” Patterson it seems was not "thrown to the ground" as has been reported by many people – in fact, Gimlin went on to explain that Roger had practiced getting the camera out of the saddlebag over and over again, and when he realized why the pony was rearing, grabbed the camera dismounted and ran across the creek and up the sandbar.

Hmmmm.....now Patterson was not thrown at all. He grabbed the camera and dismounted.

Quite a variation from being pinned under a mad bronco and having a bent stirrup to show for it....

Patterson was practicing getting the camera out over and over again to film tracks for a documentary? Nope. It had to be to film bigfoot. You don't need to get your camera out in a hurry to film tracks and scenery and stump jumps.....

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

 

[William Parcher]

You see LTC, the story by Patterson & Gimlin of what went on during and immediately after the 'Patty' filming is a complete fabrication. They filmed a hoax. Nobody tracked anything anywhere. They needed to create a dramatic story of the event as if it actually happened with a real Bigfoot. It didn't.

It's too bad that that there isn't a detailed graphic map showing the creek surrounds at the film site, the entirety of the logging road, the location of the '3.5 mile tracking' and the fern sofa overlooking the site that 'Patty' parked herself in.

Once again, skeptics are deprived of information that could immediately show this to be a fabrication.

 

[LAL]

Here's part of an exchange between LAL and I on the BFF about skeptics and evidence.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=80&#entry237876

RayG

And my experiments on the bed. I haven't gone so far as to put mud all over it.

I forgot to mention unicorns (usually pink). My bad.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

However, all such claims were fully investigated by Bigfoot researchers and found to be totally without substance.

Do telll...

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah and with Matt Crowley's rather devastating demonstration that Jimmy Chilcutt is wrong, linked to in my other thread, bigfoot is on it's last leg with me.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is the PGF thread in this forum or do you mean one of the many, many threads on the PGF on BFF, where you would be torn to shreds (figuratively speaking)?

That will be your assignment for today.. To find the PGF thread..


Why don't you invite some of your BFF friends over.. They're quite welcome to tear away.. Can't imagine them doing a better job than you have....

 

[LAL]

Hmmmm.....now Patterson was not thrown at all. He grabbed the camera and dismounted.

Nope.

"Roger's horse reared onto its rear, un-saddling Roger."

Roger said the horse was on his foot.

Quite a variation from being pinned under a mad bronco and having a bent stirrup to show for it....

Who said that?

Patterson was practicing getting the camera out over and over again to film tracks for a documentary? Nope. It had to be to film bigfoot. You don't need to get your camera out in a hurry to film tracks and scenery and stump jumps.....

Why would he have had to have the camera out in a hurry if all they were going to film was Bob Heironimus?

With tracks of three in the area, yeah, there was a chance they'd see one and get to film it. They had rifles and an agreement not to shoot unless absolutely necessary. They were in the St. Helens area (another hot spot) when Roger's wife let him know about tracks being found at Bluff Creek.

Glad you read the article I posted.