Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

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.

When were those pictures taken Luminous ?

___________________

Never mind, I found a source..

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi2.html

An accurate spatial reference has been established from research photographs taken by Byrne and Hodgson in 1972 at the Bluff Creek site [Byrne 1972].

The McClarin film was taken in the spring of '68 ...

There's a clue in there somewhere...

 

[Pope130]

These two pictures show the ground litter that Patty had to transverse. Again, a man in a mask and suit with foot-shaped “slippers” would have a difficult time walking in some of these areas. The fact that Patty walked through the debris-ridden sections without even looking down speaks volumes. I don’t believe a man in a suit could have done this, especially in one take.

Luminous,
There is no need to form an opinion on whether a man could walk over broken ground in a mask and suit with foot shaped slippers. Just ask someone who has done it.
As noted in an earlier post I've spent a good deal of time in a chem warfare suit. This is a bulky, padded multilayer garment worn with big floppy boots, several layers of gloves, a mask and hood. Wearing this garment a man can walk, run, complete a confidence course (obstacle course to outlanders), run through the woods, climb a tree, drive a truck, type on a keyboard (slowly), load and fire a rifle or pistol accurately, preflight and load a C-130, fly a C-130, complete paperwork and numerous other tasks. I know this because I have done it. I've seen others operate heavy equipment, provide first aid, fire crew served weapons and fly helicopters. There was even one woman in our unit who could do a walk-over handstand. I never tried that in a chem suit, because I couldn't do that in gym gear to start with.
I can say from a position of experience that I see nothing in Patty's movements on the PGF that is inconsistent with a man in a suit.

Robert Klaus

 

[kitakaze]

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

I never said it does.

You're a funny one, Sweaty. There's an argument in your head that your trying to impose here but you don't really seem to have worked it out beyond the initial proclamation concerning bending fingers. Over uncounted pages, invitations, chances to articulate something beyond that there is always... turtle.

Let's have the discussion you want to have, Sweaty. Let's hear it. Fine, fine, it doesn't prove anything. Let's talk about probabilities. Please substantiate your assertion. Explain how finger bending gives more probability to a living sasquatch than a man in a suit. You wouldn't spend so much effort making a point of it without having formulated your hypothesis, right?

 

[GT/CS]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see finger bending, I see hand twisting. It looks to me that the fingers are slightly bent by the same amount in both frames. What we're seeing as additional bending is just the arm and hand twisting, showing the slightly bent fingers, and the clearly defined band connecting the glove to the arm.

IMHO the 2 stills are more evidence of a bloke in a suit.

 

[Luminous]

When were those pictures taken Luminous ?

___________________

Never mind, I found a source..

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi2.html


The McClarin film was taken in the spring of '68 ...

There's a clue in there somewhere...

The McClarin film was shot about 8 months after the Patty incident I believe. That's what Lu told me anyway. Looks like you have another source at your disposal.

 

[Luminous]

Luminous,
There is no need to form an opinion on whether a man could walk over broken ground in a mask and suit with foot shaped slippers. Just ask someone who has done it.
As noted in an earlier post I've spent a good deal of time in a chem warfare suit. This is a bulky, padded multilayer garment worn with big floppy boots, several layers of gloves, a mask and hood. Wearing this garment a man can walk, run, complete a confidence course (obstacle course to outlanders), run through the woods, climb a tree, drive a truck, type on a keyboard (slowly), load and fire a rifle or pistol accurately, preflight and load a C-130, fly a C-130, complete paperwork and numerous other tasks. I know this because I have done it. I've seen others operate heavy equipment, provide first aid, fire crew served weapons and fly helicopters. There was even one woman in our unit who could do a walk-over handstand. I never tried that in a chem suit, because I couldn't do that in gym gear to start with.
I can say from a position of experience that I see nothing in Patty's movements on the PGF that is inconsistent with a man in a suit.

Robert Klaus

Hi Robert,

It's not just the "slippers" I was referring to. It's the debris deposits that litter the ground just after you leave the sandbar. Most people have not seen the entire P/G film. It's usually cut off early. But the whole film shows the figure moving into areas that appear to be more and more rugged. My contention is that no one in a bulky suit and mask could navigate the terrain without stumbling or without getting snagged by the many rocks, sticks, boulders, logs, gravel and so on. That's just my opinion.

This figure seems to almost glide through the area, as if it was designed to navigate through such treacherous terrain. It never even looks down. Someone in a mask would be constantly looking down. That, along with the accurate groups of viscus musculature both in the front and back, leads me to conclude that we're looking at a living creature, not a man in a baggy suit.

Luminous

 

[Pope130]

Hi Robert,

Most people have not seen the entire P/G film. It's usually cut off early.

That, along with the accurate groups of viscus musculature both in the front and back, leads me to conclude that we're looking at a living creature, not a man in a baggy suit.

Luminous

Luminous,
First, it's my understanding that no one but Patterson saw the entire PGF. I've seen several versions which purport to be complete.
The point I was making is that, with practice, a person in a suit can do most anything they could in normal clothing. It will be more tiring, uncomfortable and hot, but not impossible. I've done much heavier work in worse terrain while wearing a suit than anything that appears in the PGF. This issue is a non-starter, get yourself a suit and try it.

The second point about muscle groups is separate and does not bear on the question of what can be done in a suit. It has also been addressed earlier in this thread by those much more qualified than I.

Robert

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The McClarin film was shot about 8 months after the Patty incident I believe. That's what Lu told me anyway. Looks like you have another source at your disposal.

And your pictures were taken 5 years later ..

You think the stream bed might have changed at all ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Maybe it's just me but I don't see finger bending, I see hand twisting. It looks to me that the fingers are slightly bent by the same amount in both frames. What we're seeing as additional bending is just the arm and hand twisting, showing the slightly bent fingers, and the clearly defined band connecting the glove to the arm.

IMHO the 2 stills are more evidence of a bloke in a suit.

That's pretty perceptive of you.
One of our members had the same idea, and took a couple of shots of a rigid plastic doll hand ..

Surprise ! Surprise !

Of course, we never have been able to get Sweety to tell us exactly what the significance of slightly bending fingers is ; whether we are looking at rubber or flesh ..

The actual genesis of this particular question, arose out of the claim by some Pattycakes, that the subject exhibits sophisticated finger movement, that could have only been accomplished by elaborate prosthetic appliances.

The two frame animation you see is all they could come up with, and it hardly supports their contention.

 

[GT/CS]

Sorry, if I repeated something that was already posted. I suppose on a thread that is 7429 posts long some things will be missed and repeated.

 

[RayG]

The two frame animation you see is all they could come up with, and it hardly supports their contention.

Two non-consecutive frames, animated so that the fingers appear to bend.

Gah, without a suit or a body all kinds of claims can be presented but not supported.

RayG

 

[Peter S.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that monkey suit had a concrete core.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry, if I repeated something that was already posted. I suppose on a thread that is 7429 posts long some things will be missed and repeated.

I hope you realize I was complimenting your observational skills.. I didn't intend for my response to your post to be taken as sarcastic..

The rest of us missed ( early on ), what you seem to have latched onto, quite easily..

Besides, I think the animated doll hand was in the other Bigfoot thread with over 5,000 replies...

99% Of this thread is rehashing old arguments.. Nothing new in the two years since this thread was started.. ( Not to mention the 40 years since the film was made .. )

Any new perspective is welcome.. Please continue to participate..

 

[GT/CS]

My fault. I misunderstood the intent.

 

[William Parcher]

Why don't we ask a blind skeptic with a fertile imagination....

LOL. You're one of those guys that believes in Bigfoot. LOL.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sweaty is still thinking that BH's arm should appear to be the same length in and out of a bigfoot suit?

No, he can't be....

 

[kitakaze]

Two non-consecutive frames, animated so that the fingers appear to bend.

Gah, without a suit or a body all kinds of claims can be presented but not supported.
RayG

Would Wn'W (Woods and Wildmen) Players have it any other way?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm

Good lesson on perspective with different lenses. Shows how the apparent distance between objects is distorted with different lens focal lengths.

 

[kitakaze]

Why don't we ask a blind skeptic with a fertile imagination....

LOL. You're one of those guys that believes in Bigfoot. LOL.

It's hard not to get hit by the shrapnel of an ironometer going super nova. A Wn'W joker who sees Martian civilizations in the rocks and lifting babies in the MDF talks about fertile imaginations. It's pretty text book Sweaty. He get's frustrated at the short-comings of his fantasy play and tries to project them on those who point them out.

Sweaty's greatest short-coming though, the one that keeps him permanently at the little table is not so much the spectacular hilarity that comes out when he opens his mouth, it's the silence. The biggest failures and the most telling are the frightened turtle retreats from the simplest of common sense points. Too much Wn'W play may have taken its toll but he still knows common sense when he sees it, IMO. That's why he's desperate to deflect from it. He needs imaginary evil skeptics dreaming up remote controlled devices and DIY animatronics as the only pathetic attempt to counter the profound and compelling display showing sophisticated digital articulation. Surely it shows a living sasquatch for anyone who isn't a complete denialist dunce fearing the sea-change of modern human reality that will come about through the ackowledgement of The Wildmen in the Woods.

Unfortunately, in the absence of such people willing to initiate the argument, the game-winner that he sorta kinda has an idea about, he just goes ahead and starts it himself. Pure stick man. Anyone decides to spot him and he couldn't be more gleeful, more relieved at the success of his deflection. Anyone insists on him getting to the point... *crickets*

Yes, you're a funny one, Mr. Sweat. A funny one indeed.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.roshsillars.com/images/compression.gif

Another good example of the depth problems you can run into.