Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

The film was discussed for about the first 50 pages of the thread. Most of the things you mention were covered ad nauseum. Go back and read it. I am sure Huntster and kitakaze are surprised they are members of this back patters alliance you speak of.

Kitakase or Usula? Mutual back-patting society? Well, I can't speak for Huntster but I personally am a member of a noggin-scratching society as well as possibly a nail-biters society. Cedrip, in the other hand... well, he's just an army of one, isn't he? (Soapbox spouters, I believe.) And why would Cedrip want to go back and properly read any of this thread? He'd just end up getting informed...icky!

 

[Huntster]

The film was discussed for about the first 50 pages of the thread. Most of the things you mention were covered ad nauseum......

Yeah, but new things still show up from time to time.

It's surprising what can be found in something old if you just keep looking.

Since LTC doesn't seem to mind referring to the BFF, here's a rather new look at Patty's upper back:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14905&hl=

 

[UrsulaV]

Kitakase or Usula? Mutual back-patting society?

Huh? The what now? Uh...uh...Nobody saw me doin' nuffin! I deny everything categorically! It was Professor Plum, in the conservatory, with the lead pipe! I am not an animal!

Man, even secondhand exposure to beckjord before coffee hurts my brain.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow! Shifting blobs of blown-up reddish-brown colors.

I'm convinced.

The longer you stare at the shifting pixels, the more you think you see.

 

[kitakaze]

Yeah, but new things still show up from time to time.

It's surprising what can be found in something old if you just keep looking.

Since LTC doesn't seem to mind referring to the BFF, here's a rather new look at Patty's upper back:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14905&hl=

Thank you Huntster, that's a very interesting read. I'm not saying this to be negative but I don't think it's unfair to say that many here may simply sniff at an invitation to read a BFF thread. That would be unfortunate because again, it is quite interesting. Now I'm going to crawl out on a little branch I have staked out for myself for ad nauseum points and say that, while I've read this entire thread and I'm quite familiar and agree with the reasons the PGF can not be submitted as reliable BF evidence, I look at the PGF and am convinced not by possible scapular movement or other single anomaly but rather a harmony of features that to me make a man in a suit seem silly. Subsequently, I have to take into account all the very good points skeptics make against BF and get a bad headache. *sigh* I know, I know... my problem. I have to deal with it.

 

[Huntster]

.....I'm not saying this to be negative but I don't think it's unfair to say that many here may simply sniff at an invitation to read a BFF thread....

No doubt about it, and the same is true of "real" scientists.

...while I've read this entire thread and I'm quite familiar and agree with the reasons the PGF can not be submitted as reliable BF evidence, I look at the PGF and am convinced not by possible scapular movement or other single anomaly but rather a harmony of features that to me make a man in a suit seem silly....

Your words mirror soarwing's:

...For the longest time, I couldn't fully accept the PGF simply because what was depicted on it was incredible. But after thousands of viewings and studying other findings on the film and related items, the idea that this is a man in a suit is far more incredible to me than the alternative. This isn't some guy wearing his clothes underneath a gorilla costume - or any gorilla costume for that matter.

Admittedly, from a scientific perspective, this film has not been accepted as proof and I think this is totally understandable and reasonable.....

...Subsequently, I have to take into account all the very good points skeptics make against BF and get a bad headache. *sigh* I know, I know... my problem. I have to deal with it.

This is an illustration of the chicken-egg problem with science. Science doesn't recognize it until you provide proof, you will be denied authority and resources because of the weak evidence, you will be castigated by pseudo-scientists for even accepting possibilities, and nothing gets done toward discovery until (if?) the chance photo (unlikely, considering the nit-picking over the PG film) or chance logging truck puts the proof in the "expert's" hands.

Clearly, photography ain't gonna cut it. We have 93 pages and thousands of posts to establish that as reality. The question only has two possibilities: either it's a man in a suit, or it's an uncatalogued animal. My opinion is that it is almost silly to propound that it is a man in a suit.

Science, in this case, bound by it's ideological foundation and lack of central, judicial guidance, is failing miserably.

 

[LTC8K6]

Everybody knows that plenty of scientists have worked on bigfoot, and some still are. The idea that science is ignoring it is a smoke screen. Hairs and other possible evidence are immediately tested by scientists.

These descriptions of the PGF sound similar to the experts who described the Sonoma bigfoot.

We see a skeletal anatomy that is not consistent with a human.

Which begs several questions.....

 

[kitakaze]

No doubt about it, and the same is true of "real" scientists.

Anybody? ...Anybody? *clicks stopwatch*

Your words mirror soarwing's:

See? See?! I knew it wasn't just me. Jeez!

This is an illustration of the chicken-egg problem with science. Science doesn't recognize it until you provide proof, you will be denied authority and resources because of the weak evidence, you will be castigated by pseudo-scientists for even accepting possibilities, and nothing gets done toward discovery until (if?) the chance photo (unlikely, considering the nit-picking over the PG film) or chance logging truck puts the proof in the "expert's" hands.

I have often thought of this and I, too, find it troubling.

Science, in this case, bound by it's ideological foundation and lack of central, judicial guidance, is failing miserably.

Anybody? *tick, tick.*(ETA: LTC...too fast!)

 

[kitakaze]

These descriptions of the PGF sound similar to the experts who described the Sonoma bigfoot.

Sorry LTC, honest question- which experts?

 

[Huntster]

Everybody knows that plenty of scientists have worked on bigfoot, and some still are.....

Plenty:

A full or completely adequate amount or supply: plenty of time.
A large quantity or amount; an abundance: “Awards and honors came to her in plenty” (Joyce Carol Oates).
A condition of general abundance or prosperity: “fruitful regions gladdened by plenty and lulled by peace!” (Samuel Johnson).

Your claim isn't accurate. Most accreditted scientists in appropriate fields have not and are not working on the sasquatch phenomenon at all. There are even some who are interested incognito who participate on the BFF.

Do you think those who are interested, but incognito, can accomplish much?

Do you think they prefer anonymity because of their peers, or because of people like yourself and the media?

....The idea that science is ignoring it is a smoke screen....

There's lots of smoke, but it isn't my fire.

...Hairs and other possible evidence are immediately tested by scientists...

Bullspit.

...These descriptions of the PGF sound similar to the experts who described the Sonoma bigfoot....

And your statements sound exactly like all the other apologies for science from the pseudo-science community.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry LTC, honest question- which experts?

The BFRO, of course.

Huntster's continued denial of what is already documented only reflects on himself.

Shoot, we just had some hair found and tested immediately. Too bad it was from a bison.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology
Idaho State University
Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology
Idaho Museum of Natural History
Affiliate Curator of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

 

[LTC8K6]

Krantz
Fish
Bindernagle
Bambenek
Meldrum
Heuvelmans
Etc.

Many professors, anthropologists, biologists, etc. are listed as having gone on BFRO expeditions:

Alton Higgins, Assistant Professor, Biology (Oklahoma)
Reid Nelson, Anthropologist (New Mexico)
Curt Nelson, Research Microbiologist (Minnesota)
Dan Nedrelo, Biologist & Wildlife Photographer (Wisconsin)

Kathy Moskowitz (U.S. Forest Service Archeologist)

 

[LTC8K6]

Fahrenbach

Dr. James R. Butler
Dr. Michael S. Trachtengerts
Dr. Colin P. Groves
Dr. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa
Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffmann
Dr. David Chivers

 

[Huntster]

Krantz
Fish
Bindernagle
Bambenek
Meldrum
Heuvelmans
Etc.

Many professors, anthropologists, biologists, etc. are listed as having gone on BFRO expeditions:

Alton Higgins, Assistant Professor, Biology (Oklahoma)
Reid Nelson, Anthropologist (New Mexico)
Curt Nelson, Research Microbiologist (Minnesota)
Dan Nedrelo, Biologist & Wildlife Photographer (Wisconsin)

Kathy Moskowitz (U.S. Forest Service Archeologist)
Fahrenbach

Dr. James R. Butler
Dr. Michael S. Trachtengerts
Dr. Colin P. Groves
Dr. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa
Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffmann
Dr. David Chivers

Pretty impressive (I think). Let’s review:

1) Did you get this information from a single site; to wit, the BFRO website?

2) If so, and since you have repeatedly condemned the BFRO as discredited, why would you glean information from their website?

3) Of the 18 names you cited, I know of 7 of them. I have no idea who the others are.

4) You didn’t mention any of the Russians involved in Asia.

5) Of all those you mentioned, at least one is dead, and only 5 I know are active to some extent.

6) Of all those you mentioned, only one is reported to have gotten any dedicated funding for a sasquatch search ($10,000), and I haven’t seen that report confirmed.

7) To my knowledge, none are spending anywhere near full time researching the phenomenon.

 

[LTC8K6]

Your point is what?

I backed up what I said, noted that there were more that I could have listed, mentioned a Russian, and I also already noted those I found at the BFRO.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I look at the PGF and am convinced not by possible scapular movement or other single anomaly but rather a harmony of features that to me make a man in a suit seem silly.

But there are other features that make a real creature seem silly..

Did you look at the ' arm ' thread at BFF ...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993

The final verdict was more or less, that the unnatural looking ' donuts ' on Patty's arm must be light, shadow and poor resolution ...

But since the scapula movement satisfies those who want it to be real,
that feature is sharp and clear..

Yeah, right...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/biology-meets-bigfoot/

Another scientist looking into bigfoot without a closed mind. Now, you may not agree with him, but he does think bigfoot might be in the PNW. He would certainly test any evidence brought to him, I would think.

 

[kitakaze]

But there are other features that make a real creature seem silly..

Did you look at the ' arm ' thread at BFF ...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993

The final verdict was more or less, that the unnatural looking ' donuts ' on Patty's arm must be light, shadow and poor resolution ...

But since the scapula movement satisfies those who want it to be real,
that feature is sharp and clear..

Yeah, right...

Yes I did look at that thread. You mean to say there is a feature in the PGF which you feel is silly. Diogenes, I admire greatly you're continued observations and contribution to the conversation over at the BFF. Given my postion the BFF seems the wrong place to offer mine. I also disagree with your assessment of the 'verdict'. I feel rude in saying so, but it seems to me your focus on features you feel are silly is hardly different than the focus by proponents to features which they feel show the realness. That said, those who became convinced by the 'scapula' bit seemed hasty, to say the least.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think Diogenes is just pointing out the double standard here.

No one has yet defeated the resolution problem. That is, you can only resolve things down to a certain size due to the film grain. For the PGF, it is 2". A feature needs to be much larger than 2" to be seen well with the film used for the PGF. Couple that with the enlarging and enhancing done to the versions we are allowed to see these days, and you introduce a whole lot of noise. Then add the computer's compression artifacts.

I admit however, that I clearly saw what Diogenes was pointing out, and I do not see Count Scapula.

I clearly see a massive calf bulge in Patty's right leg when there should be none, and I see the thigh flap.

 

[LTC8K6]

Massive calf bulge visible here as well. The circled item is just an interesting something.