Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such).

Fahrenbach, not finding anything inconclusive at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where are these hair and fecal samples that were inconclusive?

Where are the test results?

 

[LTC8K6]

We do get folks writing things like below, where Fahrenbach ID's the hair as human but they say it was inconclusive anyway....

The hair samples gathered by the three men were sent to Ohio State University for DNA analysis. Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach “determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length, and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.” Ultimately, the tests were inconclusive. The researchers said that the “DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing.”

Of course the footers can just claim that sasquatch hair is indistinguishable from human hair....

 

[LAL]

As far as the MN Iceman goes, Chambers did claim he made it. I read an item to this effect soemwhere on the web, and Googling for half an hour would probably turn it up. Additionally, within the past week, in response to an inquiry I'd sent him on another matter, Peter van Puttkamer, producer of the 1999 documentary "Sasquatch Odyssey" (available for $30 on Amazon--less for a used copy), told me that Chambers had told him from his nursing home (presumably by phone) that he'd made the Iceman.

Or AN Iceman. It would depend on the date he made it whether this was the "original" or the "copy." Too bad the date wasn't nailed down.

Two minor implications of this statement occur to me. First, that the OTHER folks who claim to have made the Iceman were just attention-seekers. (Or Chambers was. Or both were. Or the other family made the original Iceman and Chambers made the replacement. Or vice versa. Whatever. Anyway, not every “confession” can be taken at face value.)

Second, that Chambers didn't feel bound to keep mum about such deals. (Unless the pledge of confidentiality in the Patterson deal had been stronger than in the Iceman deal, as would have been more than likely.)

It's a Hall of Mirrors and Maybes!

(Chambers also repeated to van Puttkamer his denial that he'd made the Patterson Bigfoot.)

According to Hansen (and who believes him?) all Chambers did was point him to Pete and Betty Corral.

"In January 1967, I made sketches of the real creature and went to Hollywood to confer with the men who make models for the motion picture industry. I talked with Bud Westmore, the director of make-up at Universal Studios. He informed me that such a model might cost up to $20.000. Westmore didn't have the time to make the creation, but he agreed to offer his technical knowledge if I needed it. He also agreed that it would be a "challenging" endeavor. I then consulted with a staff member of the Los Angeles County Museum. He suggested that I contact Howard Ball, an independent artist who was creating life-size fiberglass elephants to be displayed at the La Brea tar pits. I later engaged Ball to sculpture the carcass and mold the body.

John Chambers, a make-up artist and academy award winner from 2Oth-Century Fox suggested that a small wax studio in Los Angeles could implant the hair according to my specifications. I approached Pete and Betty Corral. They agreed to do the work and implanted each hair individually with an open-end needle. I constantly directed this portion and their work was magnificent. They were great artists and a pleasure to deal with."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/hansen.htm

Sanderson said this:

"However, two separate companies specializing in model-making for waxwork museums, exhibits, and film companies in Hollywood California, have been traced, and individual model-makers working for both have stated that they made copies with wax or latex and using hair from bears. Mr. Hansen, the caretaker, informed us in January of this year that such a model had been made in April of 1967 because the owner of the original was worried about its safety. An object such as this could possibly be constructed, starting with the skin of a large male, pale-skinned chimpanzee, using a human skull, glovemakers wood racks for the hands, and so forth. The original could have been of this nature, and then a copy, or copies, made from it."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/iceman.htm

"The relevance of this question became especially clear with the publication in FATE (March 1982) of the piece, "The Iceman Goeth", in which debunkers referred to one Howard Ball, "who died several years ago" and who "made models for Disneyland." "He made (the Iceman) here in his studio in Torrance (Calif.)," Ball's widow Helen told Emery. "The man who commissioned it said he was going to encase it in ice and pass it off, I think, as a prehistoric man." Ball's son Kenneth helped his father build the figure. He says its "skin" is half-inch-thick rubber. "We modeled it after an artist's conception of Cro-Magnon man and gave it a broken arm and a bashed-in skull with one eye popped out." (p.59)."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/iceman_update2005.htm

Of course Hansen had already named Ball in 1970, but I guess the debunkers didn't let that interfer with their debunking.

Hansen also said there were several counterfeits, some even being shown under his name.

Chambers did make the Burbank Bigfoot, which was fashioned over a body cast of Richard Keil.

As to the thigh hernia, I thought that was only noticed when the PGF was digitalized for LMS. Am I wrong about that? Did Bourtsev even know about it?

 

[LAL]

Give the right people $50,000 per year, and maybe it will happen.

Got any figures on what Slick spent?

Patterson?

Byrne?

Meldrum?

Notice the title of the article?:



Let's see an organization like the U.S.F.S. get "eager" to study sasquatchery, and let's see if we can just get some confirmed sasquatch sightings".

I found Wolverine tracks on a fresh skid road on my land in Washington years ago and a friend told me he'd seen one on the county road ten years earlier. I didn't bother to report it because I didn't know they were thought to be extinct in the area, at least until someone committed roadkill on one near Carson. I didn't think it was any big deal.

Another friend saw wolves rather frequently. They were thought to be extinct around there, too. It's rather easy to appear extinct in a mountainous densely forested area that has few people out looking for you, I guess.

Freeman spent about $50,000 on his quest, Byrne a few million of "other people's money" (he had a grant from the Academy of Applied Sciences), Slick's family would apparently prefer no one knows, Krantz figured over $100,000 in expenses and lost wages. Meldrum applied for an $11,500 grant, but I doubt he got it. DeAtley figured he got his investment back. Dahinden died broke, but his shot retrieval business kept him in cigars and chuch steak.

 

[Huntster]

....Is there any more info on these tests? An asian primate could mean a human, after all.

Yes. This particular story is extremely interesting, and I found it very compelling because:

* It involved a Native Corporation logging subsidiary which got the initial report from a contracted timber cruiser

* The corporation officials then decided to report the find to state wildlife and forestry officials (converse to the speculation that logging firms conspire to keep such information secret for fear of environmental restrictions)

* One of the biologists had been to Africa, seen gorilla nests, and remarked that it was very similar

* Hair and feces samples (as of the writing of the book) still exist

This book is well written and very interesting.

 

[Huntster]

Where are these hair and fecal samples that were inconclusive?....

Those submitted to the lab for analysis were "thrown out" after analysis.

Some collected and not submitted are in the possession of a retired school teacher and outdoorsman who lives in a nearby community.

...Where are the test results?

I have no idea.

 

[Huntster]

The hair samples gathered by the three men were sent to Ohio State University for DNA analysis. Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach “determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length, and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion.” Ultimately, the tests were inconclusive. The researchers said that the “DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing.”

Of course the footers can just claim that sasquatch hair is indistinguishable from human hair....

It appears that way, doesn't it?

Now, what were the circumstances of the hair find? (or are you interested in that part of the story?)

Was there other evidence at the site? A nest? Giant footprints? A sighting? Feces?

Are we going to fully investigate the complete event, ponder the similarity between this submitted sample and human hair with consideration of the rest of the evidence, or simply say that since the sample was "was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion" that the hair sample was human and throw it all out?

 

[Correa Neto]

It was no more an evasion than your silly questions and diversions toward werewolves.

Nope, it was another evasion of yours. Remember: You claimed a certain myth can be used to back the existence of bigfeet as a real creature. I explained why this approached is flawed, I presented examples. And you? What have you done? Have you managed to counter the reasonings presented?

No. You evaded, asking if there are any fotprints associated with the myths I cited as examples. To your dismay, there are some alleged ones.

Silly? Silly IMHO is to accept weak evidence and to avoid the use critical thinking.

The point, which you repeatedly deny, is that there is something out there making footprints. You try to belittle the phenomenon by referring this to werewolves, and I'm saying that I don't care if you call it werewolf or sasquatch.

There is evidence that something is out there.

Guess what I am going to write now?

Huntster, I am sorry, but you are wrong. Again.

Not a single poster here seems to deny that ~something~ is out there leaving footprints. However, based in the evidence shown so far, I think its very unlikely that this ~something~ is bigfoot.

...snip...Considering the fact that they have invested lots of time and effort in hands-on research into this phenomenon, I'd consider their conclusions better informed than yours.
...snip...
And I'm not much impressed with a "critical thought" rendered without a "critical look" into the phenomenon.

Have you Huntster, carried out a "critical look" in to it?

The lack of knoweledge on the subject you quite often display indicated that the answer is a "no".

 

[Correa Neto]

BTW, wanna get funding to look for bigfoot?

Wanna be taken seriously by scientific community?

Here's what you've got to do:

1) Stop the pesudonihilistic rants.
2) Dump all the "evidence" that can not be really defended and work with what remains.
3) Analize the remaining evidence with caution, and create hipothesis over it carefully, avoiding immagination stretches such as mating behavior, etc.

I know of at least two footers that are doing this, good work IMHO. And of a lot of creduloids that still desperately hang to what have become dogmas. Bigfeet will be no less real or unreal if PGF is shown to be a hoax and if the footprints we discussed here are shown to be misidentifications and hoaxes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I would have used the photo that was posted, but it disappeared on me. I think a drawing or carving can be helpful, if it was properly done, as it can make it easier to locate body landmarks. (My suspicion is that the legs in Green's drawing are a bit too short, those in Bourtsev's statuette are a bit too long, and a photo would come out neatly in between them.)

Also, because of the file-size limit here, I've encountered problems posting photos, but my low-pixel-count line drawings have squeeked through.

(Incidentally, I can't see the image YOU posted in post #2670 either, your lower-leg challenge. Have I got something set wrong in my control panel?)

And I didn't try to get accurate measurements from a drawing, but ratios. I agree Green's 7-foot estimate is 6 inches high. His estimate of the inch-difference between his arm and Patty's is probably a bit inaccurate, and anyway it's not the proper way to go when comparing such things, primarily because it leads to complicated discussions like this one (and others of a similar ilk on BFF). Ratios are the way to go. We can use his drawings to do so, or anyway make a start.

How can you get a ratio if you only have one measurable length that only comes close to being accurately measured.. This is the knee to ankle..

Of course you have the 14.5" foot, but it is only useful if you assume it is not a clown foot...

Even if Patty is a real Bigfoot, we do not have another Bigfoot to compare it to, with which to assume that Patty has an average size foot, in order to draw any conclusions about Bigfoot proportions..

Patty really seems to have small feet compared to many reports, while her butt is,... well, really challenging those feet..


The image was the one RayG posted..

 

[LTC8K6]

simply say that since the sample was "was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion" that the hair sample was human and throw it all out?

Fahrenbach hasn't thrown the samples out, and yes we should assume they are human if they are indistinguishable from human.

 

[LTC8K6]

Some collected and not submitted are in the possession of a retired school teacher and outdoorsman who lives in a nearby community.

So why aren't they being tested? It's clear that there are scientists who will take the job seriously.

 

[Roger Knights]

Patty's legs relative to torso are only 87% of human legs relative to torso

Roger, I know we've been over this before, but on the BFF you've mentioned how Patty's lower leg is "disproportionately shorter", that the subject has "inhumanly short lower leg, in proportion to height", and that a man in a suit would require "legs that were inhumanly shorter." Using this film frame, can you clearly explain (again) how you came to that conclusion?
[I'm having trouble making the image below appear. Maybe it's just my ongoing browser problem--RK]

RayG

I took a 24-hour break from the internet after making all my posts here on the 24th. I’ve composed this post offline and haven’t read posts subsequent to the one I’m replying to in the interim. Here are a few preliminaries:

First, I’m not claiming that it would be impossible for an actor with legs as short (relative to costumed height) as Patty’s to fit into an appropriately padded and droopy-drawered suit, and even to walk in it. I’m only adding a body-parts ratio to a requirements list for a re-enactment. It’s similar to a “required element” in an ice-skating routine. (I’ve referred to my list this elsewhere as a “Patty-Walk Scorecard,” which persons judging the authenticity of a re-creation should consult.) My belief is that shoulders that are built-up and widened to match Patty’s would cause the sweeping arm swing during the turnaround frames to look unnatural. Similarly, droopy-drawers, thickly padded thighs, and a pelvis that is as wide and deep (relative to height) as Patty’s is would create an unconvincing awkwardness in the re-enactor’s walk.

Second, “the penny has dropped” on why you (Ray) were saying I was using the statuette to bolster the authenticity of the PGF: Because I’d used it in computing my thigh-to-torso ratio. (I found that Patty’s was 79% of an average human’s.) But that was ’cuz I figured Bourtsev wouldn’t have made more than a trivial mistake there—not anything that could have washed out such a great difference as what I found. The statuette looked so close in its torso and leg-lengths to the photo of Patty alongside it on p. 96 of Murphy’s Meet the Sasquatch that I didn’t think there’d be any problem with using it. I’d have preferred to use the photo image you or someone had posted earlier, but my browser wouldn’t display them. (After posting this I’m going to log off and then log back in and see if that solves the problem. If not, I’ll shut down I.E., and start it up again.)

Third, I realize, as one poster mentioned, that it’s not clear where joints like ankles and wrists are. But it is clear where the feet and fingers end. So measurements and comparisons can be made using those as the endpoints, rather than the ankle and wrist.

The hip joint is located along the midline of the thigh at the same distance from the knee as the length of the tibia (lower-leg’s bone), which is 86% the length of the lower leg.

The shoulder joint can be located using a similar technique. (The average upper arm is 74% the length of the lower arm + hand (.188 / .253).) Or it can be “eyeballed” (which is what I’ve done, to avoid possible confusion of the issue by an arm-extender) and placed about an inch beneath the top of the shoulder (or 1.5 inches beneath the top of a furry shoulder). In views from the back, there’s only a minor risk of over-estimating the torso length by locating the shoulder too high when using “eyeballing,” as believers would be tempted to do, because there’s so little “real estate” above the shoulder joint. (However, this is less true of an oblique view like this one, where there is substantial muscle-mass (supporting the neck) sloping upwards above the joint.)

Additional methods of increasing the accuracy of shoulder-joint and hip-joint locations would be to take the average opinion of several anthropometrists or primate experts, to take the average of multiple frames, and (if cost is no object) to stabilize frame-sequences around various joint-location estimates and chose the location wherein there is no jumpiness around the pivot point.

Now to the matter at hand. Here are figures from the schematic average human figure in the diagram (reposted below) from Engineering Anthropometry Methods, by J.A. Roebuck et al., p. 176, which shows various average longitudinal body measurements as a decimal fraction of height ("H" in the diagram):

Hip height: .530
Knee height: .285
Knee-to-hip length (“thigh”): .530 - .285 = .245

Shoulder height: .818
Hip height: .530
Hip-to-shoulder length (“torso”): .818 - .530 = .288
Torso as a percent of thigh = 85% (.245 / .288).

Knee-to-ground (lower leg): .285
Knee-to-ankle (tibia): .285 - .039 = .246
Tibia as a percent of thigh: .245 / .246 = 100%
Thigh as a percent of lower leg: .246 / .285 = 86%

Here are the measurements of Patty I took off my 21” monitor, using a pair of dividers to reduce error:

Patty’s lower leg: 30 mm (measured down the midline to the point where the sole begins to bend—i.e., about 3 mm to the left of the point where it intersects the log)
Patty’s thigh: 25.8 mm (computed as .86 * 30 (length of lower leg). The hip joint is located at the point where the white patch on the torso intersects the arm.)
Patty’s torso: 35 mm (measured vertically by sliding the dividers to the right. The shoulder joint is located along the arm’s midline at the same height as “the turn of the shoulder” on the leading edge of the arm. This height looks to be about 1.5 inches below the top of the shoulder along the midline, which is where the joint should be (right?).)

Therefore:
Patty’s torso as a percent of her thigh: 25.8 / 35 = 74%
Patty’s leg/torso ratio (74%) as a % of the human leg/torso ratio (85%): 74 / 85 = 87%

Wow—you’re right. That’s not as good (from my perspective) as the 79% figure I obtained by measuring the statuette. Still, 87% is safely outside the human range. (Unless tube’s got supernatural attributes—as I’m beginning to fear.)

Additional measurements of this and other photos, ideally by forensic analysts and anthropometrists, would supply a range of values and an average ratio in which we could have more confidence.

 

[Roger Knights]

There were many more examples of personal attacks that I chose not to post huntster. Not just to me, either. "Sherlock", for example. While it was personal, I am not sure if I should be offended.

"Sherlock" can't be personal in referring to you, only me!

 

[Roger Knights]

You meant on a good suit, right?

That's another of these weird blobs. (Or maybe one in a different category.) I don't think that such weirditudes would turn up on a cheap suit either. (Can anyone find or take a photo of such things on any suit?) And I think they'd have been detected and corrected during practice-walk sessions. Maybe one weirditude would have slipped by, but not the half-dozen-and-counting that have turned up.

 

[Roger Knights]

Not sure what 'charge' you think I'm making. You made reference to the thigh-bulge on the statue, even giving possibilities for what it might be -- hernia, costume fold, or anomaly. I voiced my opinion that the evidence for Patty must be very weak if we are debating a carving of Patty. My opinion has not changed, and my pea shooter is neither clever nor scoftical, regardless of your assumptions.

No, NOT “on the statue” or “a carving,” but in the “frames” (my word) of the film on the “body” of the creature. And I was doing so in part of my post separate from the discussion of the statuette—a caboose of afterthoughts to the discussion. It contained three numbered items, all of which referred only to the creature and the film, and none of which made a single reference to the statuette, as I pointed out before you made your remark above. Item 1 read, in its entirety:

1. Costume fold or thigh hernia?: The ripple of the thigh bulge lasts only four frames, or .25 seconds. A muscle twitch can occur that rapidly. Can a costume crease do so with equal rapidity? Can it do so in all sorts of material, or only in certain sorts? If the material is stretched as tightly as it appears to be over a “well-defined” body, how could there be enough slack in it for such a large ripple to manifest itself?

You willfully misread what I wrote. “Trigger-happiness” is a reasonable conjecture as to the motive. Now you’ve compounded your offense by trying to cover it up. You should have said, "Wow--you're right."

 

[RayG]

Not sure what 'charge' you think I'm making. You made reference to the thigh-bulge on the statue, even giving possibilities for what it might be -- hernia, costume fold, or anomaly. I voiced my opinion that the evidence for Patty must be very weak if we are debating a carving of Patty. My opinion has not changed, and my pea shooter is neither clever nor scoftical, regardless of your assumptions.

No, NOT “on the statue” or “a carving,” but in the “frames” (my word) of the film on the “body” of the creature.

Are you certain? The search function easily and quickly found your exact words on the subject of the carving/statue, to which I had originally responded to. Just to refresh:

Post #2666
Postscript on my post regarding the Bourtsev statuette of Patty:
I obtained, from Chris Murphy, a large photo of the image of the statuette shown on p. 96 of his Meet the Sasquatch. I was unable to post it, because it was too big. But I’ve subsequently realized that I can crop around the thigh-bulge and post only that portion, which I’ve done below. The bulge is not as prominent here as it is in two of the four frames in which it is visible in the film. But it is prominent enough that a person closely examining the figurine would ask himself and others what it was. Therefore, the sculptor did not conceal it.

Should he have made it more prominent? Perhaps. But it’s understandable why he didn’t, especially in an early stage of the investigation: it would have diverted attention to a side-issue. Perhaps it was an authenticating feature—a thigh hernia. Perhaps it was a damning feature—a costume fold. Perhaps it was some unknown anomaly. That would have been seen as an issue for specialists to debate. The main intent of the statuette was to communicate to the general public Patty’s ordinary appearance: her dimensions and posture (e.g., her forward lean and knee-bend):

THAT was the portion of your post I was referring to when I stated my opinion/question -- "...surely the evidence is not so poor that we're reduced to debating an artistic recreation of the film subject?"

My point seemed especially valid because you even included a thumbnail pic of the thigh-bulge of the statue/carving, NOT of the film.

And I was doing so in part of my post separate from the discussion of the statuette—a caboose of afterthoughts to the discussion. It contained three numbered items, all of which referred only to the creature and the film, and none of which made a single reference to the statuette, as I pointed out before you made your remark above. Item 1 read, in its entirety...

My reply only addressed the part of your posts that referenced the statue/carving, nothing else. (Your post #2616 also attempted to use the statue/carving details as valid evidence, and that, in addition to the portion of post #2666 I have indicated, led me to voice my opinion/question.)

I'll ask again just so there's no misunderstanding, and you can address it specifically instead of engaging in some sort of Riverdance -- Surely the evidence is not so poor that we're reduced to debating an artistic recreation of the film subject?

You willfully misread what I wrote. “Trigger-happiness” is a reasonable conjecture as to the motive. Now you’ve compounded your offense by trying to cover it up. You should have said, "Wow--you're right."

I believe the links I provided above show that I didn't misread anything, and you're attempting to use the statue/carving as evidence to support the reality of the film. I'm perfectly willing to stand corrected when I've made an error, I do it all the time. In this instance however, we were both addressing the statue/carving, and that seems pretty clear.

Will you address my question, or are you content to refer to other portions of your post which have no relevance?

RayG

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by RayG :
Not sure what 'charge' you think I'm making. You made reference to the thigh-bulge on the statue, even giving possibilities for what it might be -- hernia, costume fold, or anomaly. I voiced my opinion that the evidence for Patty must be very weak if we are debating a carving of Patty. My opinion has not changed, and my pea shooter is neither clever nor scoftical, regardless of your assumptions.
Originally Posted by RogerKni :
"No, NOT “on the statue” or “a carving,” but in the “frames” (my word) of the film on the “body” of the creature."

RayG:
Are you certain? The search function easily and quickly found your exact words on the subject of the carving/statue, to which I had originally responded to. Just to refresh:

Originally Posted by RogerKni :
Post #2666
"Postscript on my post regarding the Bourtsev statuette of Patty:
"I obtained, from Chris Murphy, a large photo of the image of the statuette shown on p. 96 of his Meet the Sasquatch. I was unable to post it, because it was too big. But I’ve subsequently realized that I can crop around the thigh-bulge and post only that portion, which I’ve done below. The bulge is not as prominent here as it is in two of the four frames in which it is visible in the film. But it is prominent enough that a person closely examining the figurine would ask himself and others what it was. Therefore, the sculptor did not conceal it.

"Should he have made it more prominent? Perhaps. But it’s understandable why he didn’t, especially in an early stage of the investigation: it would have diverted attention to a side-issue. Perhaps it was an authenticating feature—a thigh hernia. Perhaps it was a damning feature—a costume fold. Perhaps it was some unknown anomaly. That would have been seen as an issue for specialists to debate. The main intent of the statuette was to communicate to the general public Patty’s ordinary appearance: her dimensions and posture (e.g., her forward lean and knee-bend):"

RayG:
THAT was the portion of your post I was referring to when I stated my opinion/question -- "...surely the evidence is not so poor that we're reduced to debating an artistic recreation of the film subject?"

Let’s start from the beginning. Parcher posted:

Another example of contemporary modification of Patty to make her look authentic. This is a sculpture of Patty as shown in frame 352. Notice that the creasing of the suit (thigh hernia) is gone …

The second (three-paragraph) quote of mine that you posted above was a continuation of my attempt to clear the sculptor of any suspicion of deviousness by demonstrating that the creasing/hernia was not "gone." My purpose is clearly evident in the last sentence of my second paragraph, “Therefore, the sculptor did not conceal it.”

In the third paragraph, I was trying to forestall a comeback by Parcher that the sculptor should have made the hernia more prominent, and had been devious in not doing so. I countered that by stating that the sculptor’s purpose had been “to communicate Patty’s ordinary appearance,” and that highlighting the bulge would have diverted attention to a “side-issue.” The three possible interpretations of the thigh bulge were listed to illustrate its unsettled or indeterminate nature.

This interpretation of my two paragraphs should be self-evident. Your words below are a gross misinterpretation of them.

It seems rather weak though, to be using an artistic recreation of the film subject as supportive evidence. RayG

I believe … you're attempting to use the statue/carving as evidence to support the reality of the film…. RayG

In the two paragraphs you quoted I was mentioning a feature on the statuette solely to refute Parcher’s contention that the sculptor had omitted it, or Parcher’s possible comeback that the sculptor should have highlighted it. Nowhere in them did I use the statuette as supportive evidence for the PGF.
Continuing:

My point seemed especially valid because you even included a thumbnail pic of the thigh-bulge of the statue/carving, NOT of the film.

But of course I would do so, since I was showing Parcher that he was incorrect in saying that the sculptor had omitted it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Who would Chambers have signed a non disclosure agreement with ?