Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[Crowlogic]

Sweaty's famous animation of 2 unrelated frames shows the band at the wrist pretty well, but there are better pics of it.

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/handmove.gif[/qimg]

LT Thanks. That band does show up in the arrowed photo I posted. Its not duct tape so we can conclude that Red Green didn't make the suit.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty's famous animation of 2 unrelated frames shows the band at the wrist pretty well, but there are better pics of it.

Correction....the word should be non-consecutive.

The 2 frames are most definitely related to each other....they are very close to each other in the film, and they show the fingers in two distinctly different shapes. That is enough to show that the fingers were moved by the subject in the film.

 

[GT/CS]

Never mind.

 

[kitakaze]

For the second and last time pioerection perhaps. And just so there's no mistaking I say perhaps. Got it kids? Now then that said what caught my attention was the abruptness of the widening of Pattys arm (highlighted for the sight impaired) compared with the abruptness of the widening of the gorilla's arm in relation to its wrist, (also highlighted). So obviously this happens in nature it could be happening in the film in question and if so how. In the farther shots it seems non apparent.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_18755493740a697943.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18755493740ca033c5.jpg[/qimg]

I think you would have been safer claiming Patty poop. You simply have nothing of any note in those images on which to base an argument.

 

[captain koolaid]

...The 2 frames are most definitely related to each other....they are very close to each other in the film, and they show the fingers in two distinctly different shapes.

Indeed. At least, that is what these poor images from a poor copy appear to show.

That is enough to show that the fingers were moved by the subject in the film.

But how was this done, if there are actually bones in the fingers? Explanation?

 

[Crowlogic]

Indeed. At least, that is what these poor images from a poor copy appear to show.



But how was this done, if there are actually bones in the fingers? Explanation?

One way its done is a big hand at the end of a long arm in a big glove. Big hand slightly flexes hand and we see movement in the fingers. IMO Patty has longer arms than Bob H. But Bob is not my Sasquatch suit god. Bob's a guy who was close enough to the players to slip a little bit into the game. A human in that suit simple, wider than Bob with longer arms.

 

[captain koolaid]

One way its done is a big hand at the end of a long arm in a big glove. Big hand slightly flexes hand and we see movement in the fingers. IMO Patty has longer arms than Bob H. But Bob is not my Sasquatch suit god. Bob's a guy who was close enough to the players to slip a little bit into the game. A human in that suit simple, wider than Bob with longer arms.

Dfoot's clip demonstrates, extremely well, how you can simulate finger movement with a partially filled glove. Natural movement. However, the "flex", as it appears in the clip showing "evidence of an articulated hand", is anything but the natural bending of the finger joints. This can be done with a rubber glove though, if it is a relatively flimsy one. The type that Dfoot uses may be of too high a quality to get the same effect, as all the finger joints may follow each other, providing a natural bend.

 

[LTC8K6]

Individual finger movement is never seen with Patty, though.

At best, Sweaty's famous unrelated frames show a change in hand curve.

 

[captain koolaid]

Am not saying that a single frame, of a poor image, necessarily shows an individual finger in motion. The curve, or at least the shape, is the issue with the argument that the frame shows a finger "flex". Doesn't really matter whether it is a result of angle, poor resolution, or a glove. A real hand shouldn't bend in such a manner. But, a glove can explain the unnatural curve.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....and they show the fingers in two distinctly different shapes. That is enough to show that the fingers were moved by the subject in the film.

They do not .

They show the hand/fingers ( glove ) in two different positions .. You seem unable to grasp this .. ( .... pun coincidental - but I'll take it ... )

The same, slightly bent fingers can be seen throughout the film .


Time to ask once again ...

Assuming I am wrong, and the hands are fully and demonstrably articulating; how does this further the case, that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

Time to ask once again ...

Assuming I am WRONG... , and the hands are fully and demonstrably articulating...

......how does this further the case, that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

When one combines the above moving fingers, with the demonstrably shorter arms of Bob, below...

...one can see that Bob's fingers are not directly moving Patty's fingers.

This means the probability that Patty is a 'Bob-in-the-suit' goes down, considerably.

BTW.....has Bob ever mentioned, in any of his many interviews, the "fact" that the suit had special gloves to make the fingers move, or a remote-control device in the arms??

 

[Crowlogic]

Diogenes wrote:



When one combines the above moving fingers, with the demonstrably shorter arms of Bob, below...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty7a.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/BobH4.jpg[/qimg]


...one can see that Bob's fingers are not directly moving Patty's fingers.

This means the probability that Patty is a 'Bob-in-the-suit' goes down, considerably.

BTW.....has Bob ever mentioned, in any of his many interviews, the "fact" that the suit had special gloves to make the fingers move, or a remote-control device in the arms??

Sweaty you've time and time again demonstrated better than anyone else that Bob's not in the suit. We need wider body and longer arms. But in spite of your efforts you can bet that the usual suspects will have a counter. So I'm going to offer a counter that will be at least as rational as what's likely to follow.

So here goes. Sure Bob's arm appear too short but he's leaning against a Corvette. There is a rare anomoly that certain people undergo an intense tightening of the tendons, ligaments, and muscles when in close proximity to certain fiberglass resins used in the 1950's and early 1960's. The Corvette in question seems to be a 1960. Bobs arms are severely cramping. Its a painfull condition, heck look at his face poor baby couldn't even smile for the camera.

 

[LTC8K6]

So Bob's not in the suit. Who cares?

That doesn't prove that Patty is a sasquatch. It doesn't even move the bar a millimeter towards Patty being a sasquatch.

Remember where the burden is.

 

[GT/CS]

Sweaty you've time and time again demonstrated better than anyone else that Bob's not in the suit. We need wider body and longer arms. But in spite of your efforts you can bet that the usual suspects will have a counter. So I'm going to offer a counter that will be at least as rational as what's likely to follow.

So here goes. Sure Bob's arm appear too short but he's leaning against a Corvette. There is a rare anomoly that certain people undergo an intense tightening of the tendons, ligaments, and muscles when in close proximity to certain fiberglass resins used in the 1950's and early 1960's. The Corvette in question seems to be a 1960. Bobs arms are severely cramping. Its a painfull condition, heck look at his face poor baby couldn't even smile for the camera.

You two need to get a room.

 

[Crowlogic]

So Bob's not in the suit. Who cares?

That doesn't prove that Patty is a sasquatch. It doesn't even move the bar a millimeter towards Patty being a sasquatch.

Remember where the burden is.

I agree 100% the argument does not move the bar towards Patty being real. However when someone does a decent job of helping to clearify the nature of this film then its worth giving them their due.

 

[mangler]

Off the rack Poser7 model. Same model three time zones. Seems like a pretty close fit, why again could it not be a man in a suit? Anyone. Hello. What's that! Out of crayons?


m

 

[Crowlogic]

Mangler you're using a scaled down Patty. If you scale Patty up so she's as tall as Bob it throws the reference lines you drew off. I've scaled Patty up keeping the lower reference line as is and highlighting in color the points of reference. When you make Patty as big as Bob the #7 poser no longer works. I've also added color to where the finger tips end. Poser #7 needs longer arms.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

All this talk about arm length finally gives me an excuse to post a link to this video. He would've been too short/young to play the original Patty, but I think George "The One Man Gang" Gray would do a bang-up job in a recreation attempt.

 

[mangler]

Logic,

The creature is crouched down the only true reference points are the ankle and knee, and the ankle is questionable.

Patty’s proportions are not known, BH’s proportions are known. One must start with known facts if they are ever to make sense of this. Therefore the scale is based on a known number. The skeleton is a Poser7 6’ model (off the rack), it’s a close match to the model in Meldrums Book as well as BH. I swapped out the BH photo and inserted the Patty photo from my archives there was no scaling involved, the Photo is as it should be not as you would like it to be. Pat’s knee joint is bent as well as his hip, mid-spine and neck, just because you believe something is not right doesn’t make it so.

In the future I would prefer you not manipulate my work. Maybe you should start from scratch like myself and others have and create an original argument. The bottom line is that this creature is well within a human’s IM regardless of anyone’s fancy footwork.

I have 29 gigabytes of work backing up what I say, what do you have???????????


m

 

[Crowlogic]

Logic,

The creature is crouched down the only true reference points are the ankle and knee, and the ankle is questionable.

Patty’s proportions are not known, BH’s proportions are known. One must start with known facts if they are ever to make sense of this. Therefore the scale is based on a known number. The skeleton is a Poser7 6’ model (off the rack), it’s a close match to the model in Meldrums Book as well as BH. I swapped out the BH photo and inserted the Patty photo from my archives there was no scaling involved, the Photo is as it should be not as you would like it to be. Pat’s knee joint is bent as well as his hip, mid-spine and neck, just because you believe something is not right doesn’t make it so.

In the future I would prefer you not manipulate my work. Maybe you should start from scratch like myself and others have and create an original argument. The bottom line is that this creature is well within a human’s IM regardless of anyone’s fancy footwork.

I have 29 gigabytes of work backing up what I say, what do you have???????????


m

Do you have any copyrights? What original argument did you start? However I couldn't help but notice that you scaled down Patty to make the reference points line up. I don't care if you have 29 tetra bites of information. IMO your misscaled example is worthless. However if you try it with different poses and photos of the characters and keep them scaled you may have something. If I was Sweaty I'd ream you for using the same photos he's been demonstrating with.