Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Also...Bob H in the suit and Bob H not in the suit aren't even at the same angle...so to me the comparison is moot.

Here you go.....

The same angle. Bob's arm comes up short....again.

Any way you compare them....Bob comes up short. It's a shame, isn't it?!

You're a sharp cookie, Mad Hom....but your analytical skills suck.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Just so both comparisons are on the same page.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wow Sweety !

Did you come up with the idea that since a monkey suit arm can be made to look inhumanly long, Bigfeets must be real , all by yourself ?

I'm sure the gang at MABRC will be impressed.

When can we expect the published paper ?


P.S.

Drawing lines and circles on a monkey suit, and saying ..

" Trust me, the joints are really located inside the suit where I say they are .. "

doesn't cut it around here ....

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


Yes. I would (very proudly) assume that if Roger built into his suit a mechanically-operated hand extension....that it would have been used in a section of the film where Roger was holding the camera steady....SO THE FINGERS COULD BE SEEN BENDING.

Excuse me for thinking logically.

Why don't you respond by saying "where's the proof...got a body?"

You're good at that.

You're excused.

Sweat you're applying logic to an event that you weren't at and that you had no hand in planning so feel free to believe that ANYTHING you say about how good a time for anything to happen is NOTHING but making an ASS out of U and ME.

Mistakes can be made Sweat. Let's say Roger told Bob to use the flexy fingery thingee...but Bob H forgot...hmmmmmmm....did that thought ever enter that bowling ball you call a skull??

To the best of my knowledge..this was a one take hoax....err....film....if Bob H forgot to flex the finger flexing mechanism than Roger was S.O.L as far as showcasing it...he just had to settle for the "Check out these fake Titts" turn for the camera.

I mean the look at these ridiculous breasts turn for the camera is one of the reasons I feel the thing is a little to hoaxy anyhow...if it would have flexed it's fingers at too perfect a moment...all the more hoaxy.

Oh and as long as you have your Mr Big Boy Logic hat on...what's the logical reason for a creature to be flexing it's fingers why it walks anyhow?

Flex your fingers alot while you walk Sweaty???

 

[kitakaze]

Now if this forum only had skeptical members who wanted to discuss the evidence intelligently....I'd be willing to continue a lengthy discussion here.
But, as this finger-bending animation shows.....the skeptics here are not interested in the truth......only "alternate possible explanations" which are the product of imaginary thinking....rather than logical thinking.

Fanfrickentastic! Sweaty's had enough of mutual back-patting and JREF lurking and has come for his bi-monthly PGF hump. With finger bending even! Could we be in for a long shunned answer? Will Sweaty tell us what we must pretend if the fingers bend? Did this suddenly become some long quested for reliable evidence of bigfoot or just reliable evidence of the absence of mannequin hands?

 

[Mad Hom]

Fanfrickentastic! Sweaty's had enough of mutual back-patting and JREF lurking and has come for his bi-monthly PGF hump. With finger bending even! Could we be in for a long shunned answer? Will Sweaty tell us what we must pretend if the fingers bend? Did this suddenly become some long quested for reliable evidence of bigfoot or just reliable evidence of the absence of mannequin hands?

40 flippin years and he brings us a finger bending animation.

I'd like to see some more of this finger bending...I mean does this finger flexion take place throughout the film...say in more than what appears to be a few frames...I'd also continue on my previous line of thinking...take a short walk across where ever you are right now...as you do this flex your fingers..does it seem at all natural to you??

 

[GT/CS]

Re: post 7394 and the close-up of the hand. Does anyone else see the banded piece that connects the rubber hand to the arm of the suit?

 

[William Parcher]

Bob's arm comes up short....again.

We should expect his own arms to be shorter than they appear when he's wearing the costume. One reason is because his own hands may not have fully extended into the costume hands. The other reason would be if shoulder padding was used. This could cause one to locate the shoulder joint in a false position.

I would expect a similar error of illusion if we compared arm length of American football players when suited-up and when not. When the shoulder pads are installed, we have to locate the shoulder joint in a non-intuitive position (it's actually lower than suggested when we view the padded shoulders) because we know there is added height from the padding. If we don't account for this, the arms of NFL players will 'calculate' to be several inches longer when they are playing versus when they are in street clothes.

 

[Mad Hom]

Re: post 7394 and the close-up of the hand. Does anyone else see the banded piece that connects the rubber hand to the arm of the suit?

Well it could be a banded piece....but I try to leave the seeings thing that may or may not be there...to Sweety.

 

[kitakaze]

40 flippin years and he brings us a finger bending animation.

I'd like to see some more of this finger bending...I mean does this finger flexion take place throughout the film...say in more than what appears to be a few frames...I'd also continue on my previous line of thinking...take a short walk across where ever you are right now...as you do this flex your fingers..does it seem at all natural to you??

Sadly it didn't cut the mustard 40 years ago and hasn't cut much but cheese since. The upswing, mind you, is that it's been more than enough time for throngs of Woods and Wildmen players to draw any numbers circles and squiggles on it and call it 'research'. Maybe severe pariedolia fits cause a lack of common sense or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, we should give Sweaty a hand with the finger bending as he's either given it little thought or a whole lot of warped thought (door number 2?).

Sweaty, as I already said, your finger bending fixation at the most can establish only that a rigid hand shaped extension was not used but nothing in terms of separating squatch from suit. If Patty turned around and flashed some gang signs or started Native American-type sign language (read- extensive, clear digital movement) then maybe you might have something. Now... bupkis.

 

[Mad Hom]

If Patty turned around and flashed some gang signs or started Native American-type sign language (read- extensive, clear digital movement) then maybe you might have something. Now... bupkis.

If Patty would have bolted for the trees like an actual wild animal they might have something.

If Patty would have been filmed ripping an elk's left hind leg off and beating the elk to death with it they might have something.

If they had something...anything...other than just Patty and 10,000 plaster casts....they might have something.

 

[William Parcher]

It would be nice to have an aerial view of the location from that time but I doubt such a photo exists. But these two pictures show debris on the ground in an area where we know Patty crossed.

You still don't understand how camera lenses create illusions of depth and therefore the relative locations of objects shown. The stills you post show debris in Patty's vicinity, but create an illusion of its exact location and composition. Two discrete debris piles (one closer to the camera than the other) can appear to be a single much larger pile. If we don't account for perspective errors at all when we look at these images, it can look as if there is so much substantial debris that the path is unwalkable by a man or a Bigfoot. It could only be navigated by an impala.


Here's an aerial view of the filmsite that was posted here over six weeks ago.

Here's a scale model of the filmsite, also posted here before.

Here's a film clip of McClarin walking through a section of the filmsite that is relatively free of debris.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

..I'd also continue on my previous line of thinking...take a short walk across where ever you are right now...as you do this flex your fingers..does it seem at all natural to you??

You're actually making an argument in favor of the film being legit, Mad Hom.
There are only a few frames, if that, in the entire footage where the fingers can be seen to bend.
You're saying that it would be much more likely that an animal would not be bending it's fingers as it simply walks along....and that's exactly what we see in the PG film...with the exception of a frame or two.
In 99.9% of the film, the subject's fingers stay in virtually the same position.

Are you confused, Mad Hom?

Maybe you should just stick to saying "Got a body?"

 

[kitakaze]

You're actually making an argument in favor of the film being legit, Mad Hom.

Heh, heh... 'fraid not. That would be speculating on an argument that does nothing for the film.

There are only a few frames, if that, in the entire footage where the fingers can be seen to bend.

At many times throughout the film Patty could have been wiggling her fingers crazy and we wouldn't have seen. That we don't or by comparing two different parts of the film that seem to show slight movement does nothing to support a squatch over a suit. You will of course continue to ignore this point.

In 99.9% of the film, the subject's fingers stay in virtually the same position.

Wow... That a fact? 99.9%?

Are you confused, Sweaty?

Maybe you should stick to saying "If the fingers bend, you must pretend."

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:


You're actually making an argument in favor of the film being legit, Mad Hom.
There are only a few frames, if that, in the entire footage where the fingers can be seen to bend.
You're saying that it would be much more likely that an animal would not be bending it's fingers as it simply walks along....and that's exactly what we see in the PG film...with the exception of a frame or two.
In 99.9% of the film, the subject's fingers stay in virtually the same position.

Are you confused, Mad Hom?

Maybe you should just stick to saying "Got a body?"

First of all Mensa...I inquired as to whether there was more finger flexing...as in it was kind of a flipping question...shall I travel in the way back machine to...oh what is it 6 posts ago..and point this out to you?

Sweety...your finger flexing theory proves exactly...NOTHING AT ALL...other than that a stiff hand appliance was not used....that's it...and that's all.

I am saying that...a rubber glove could do that...bounce a bit as Bob H...errr...I mean Patty walked along the sandy bluff....notice I say could do that...not did do that. You on the other hand are bellowing that finger flexing means it's the real deal....which couldn't be further from the truth...but continue bellowing...if it makes you feel good.

Also...why is "Got a body?" such an outlandish question? You have finger flexing animations,crayon scribbles,forty eleven hundred plaster casts,bison hair,an arse cast,lot's and lot's of spooky stories,and one completely ambigous 40 year old flick...yet nothing of any real substance....you know like a body...so until such time as you or any intrepid +5 Bigfeetsus Warrior can produce one...the question will always be a valid one..oh and Sweety..this is not something that you have to like,nor is it something that you have to love...but it is something that you should probably learn how to live with.

 

[kitakaze]

First of all Mensa...I inquired as to whether there was more finger flexing...as in it was kind of a flipping question...shall I travel in the way back machine to...oh what is it 6 posts ago..and point this out to you?

Sweety...your finger flexing theory proves exactly...NOTHING AT ALL...other than that a stiff hand appliance was not used....that's it...and that's all.

I guess we really shouldn't expect too much from someone who considers the images here as evidence of Martian civilization. That's really more of an FYI for any unfamiliar with Sweaty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Sweat you're applying logic to an event that you weren't at and that you had no hand in planning so feel free....

You're right, MH.....I was applying logic to the event....and I wasn't there.

Very good!
Now explain exactly what is illogical about what I said earlier.

The fact of the matter is, you can't....because what I said was indeed logical.

Your "logical reasoning" skills suck, also.

BTW...do you still stand behind your analysis that the mis-match in angle makes the comparison images meaningless??

Mistakes can be made Sweat. Let's say Roger told Bob to use the flexy fingery thingee...but Bob H forgot...hmmmmmmm....did that thought ever enter that bowling ball you call a skull??

Sure, that is a possibility.
But analysis is all about weighing probabilities....not just imagining possibilities.

To the best of my knowledge..this was a one take hoax....err....film....if Bob H forgot to flex the finger flexing mechanism than Roger was S.O.L

It's logical to assume that Roger, after working on his "creation" for years, probably would have had Bob rehearse the walk, once or twice...before putting it on film. That rehearsal would.....logically....have included the use of the remote-control gadget.

Therefore, there is a low 'degree of probability' that Bob would have forgotten to use the gadget.
A rehearsal doesn't eliminate the possiiblity of a mistake...but it does, in fact, lower the probability of it happening.



These statements by Mad Hom highlight the complete lack of interest in logical and scientific analysis of the evidence by skeptics here.

There is never any mention of probabilities by them.......only possibilities.

All the skeptics here seem capable of doing is spouting "well, it's possible...."

That is not true analysis of the evidence.....it's actually the exact opposite of it.

Anyone can sit and imagine all kinds of possibilities, with regards to anything......but only a person with a scientific, analytical mind can narrow 'possibilities' down to what is most 'probable'.

 

[kitakaze]

You're right, MH.....I was applying logic to the event....and I wasn't there.

Very good!
Now explain exactly what is illogical about what I said earlier.

The fact of the matter is, you can't....because what I said was indeed logical.

Your "logical reasoning" skills suck, also.

ahem... I think I may be able to help you.

Yes, Imagination is a wonderful thing...for a blind skeptic. (snip)

Imagination is a beautiful thing.

"Well, they had remote-controlled hand devices back then".

Who said that? And let's not forget from the first quoted post:

It's logical to assume that Roger, after working on his "creation" for years, probably would have had Bob rehearse the walk, once or twice...before putting it on film. That rehearsal would.....logically....have included the use of the remote-control gadget.

I guess when skeptics make the simple points you want to ignore it's easier to create the arguments you want to have. At least you know your logic sucks.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

Sweety...your finger flexing theory proves exactly...NOTHING AT ALL

You're right, Mad Balls....it doesn't prove that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

I never said it does.

Every time you speak.....you prove that you're not interested in weighing the evidence.

You have not a clue as to what that is...how it's done....or what the word "evidence" even means.


Please......continue...

 

[Luminous]

You still don't understand how camera lenses create illusions of depth and therefore the relative locations of objects shown. The stills you post show debris in Patty's vicinity, but create an illusion of its exact location and composition. Two discrete debris piles (one closer to the camera than the other) can appear to be a single much larger pile. If we don't account for perspective errors at all when we look at these images, it can look as if there is so much substantial debris that the path is unwalkable by a man or a Bigfoot. It could only be navigated by an impala.


Here's an aerial view of the filmsite that was posted here over six weeks ago.

[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/hoaxcreek.jpg[/qimg]

Here's a scale model of the filmsite, also posted here before.

[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/member_images/ibfs/P9140031.jpg[/qimg]

Here's a film clip of McClarin walking through a section of the filmsite that is relatively free of debris.

[qimg]http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/images/McClarin.gif[/qimg]

This piece of footage seems to be on the sand/gravel bar I was talking about. I see no identifying markers that places the man in the same place as the pictures I have presented...Just look at the ground where these figures are standing and compare it to the sand bar footage you posted. There's a big difference in ground litter.