Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Look at the similarities between perfectfoot and Wallace foot.
Wallace feet are from Tube's website.

And he got them from BFF.

The feet, by actual measure, are not a match for anything. They may have been carved in imitation of Titmus' casts, but it's not known for sure who carved them, or when. They hung on the wall of Wallace's souvenir shop, in Toledo, Washington, for years, openly.

 

[LAL]

It doesn't matter if you find it ludicrous, Lu. Unless you have eliminated the possibility, then you need to keep considering it. The film, until authenticated or debunked, is actually not very useful.

Lots of people fall into the trap of assuming the film shows this or that.

The difference is that by default the assumption is supposed to be that Patty is a hoax, until it can be established otherwise.

So, it's a bit of a double standard that believers have to overcome because they are attempting to make the unusual claim.

No, the default position should be neutral, until the evidence firmly points one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned any possibility of a hoax was ruled out years ago.

Meldrum pretty well destroyed Daegling's arguments in his book, the bootprint in the film (if that's what it is) puts the lie to Heironimus' claim Roger filmed him from horseback, as does the angle (yeah, I know, Peanuts was short) and Jerry Merritt dismissed Heironimus as someone who might have been trying to get a little leverage while hanging around taverns getting drunk. (The Making of Bigfoot, pg. 122)

I'm amazed at how skeptics seem to put the critical thinking on hold while accepting explanations such as "Wallace did it", "Bob Heironimus did it", "an elk did it" or those ridges are nothing but "dessication ridges".

Makes for some interesting discussions, anyway.

 

[LAL]

Ahh. The image went straight from Lund to Henry May.

It also went to Greg Long. He showed it to Jerry Merritt and asked him to identify the riders. Those are his identifications.

 

[LAL]

Since Lu probably still has me on ignore, ask her why the Steindorf model has Patty under six feet ..

When she waffles about the model not being accurate, ask her why she accepts the gait analysis as valid...

You're not on ignore, but I can fix that.

Got anything original yet?

The Steindorf model was not to scale; the height was determined by tube stacking up the feet. This is somewhat akin to proving there was no debris at Bluff Creek by using photos of Murphy's model.

The digitalized skeleton was done by using reverse kinematics, but you knew all this from the discussion with Gigantofootecus, didn't you?

 

[Óðinn]

No, I think I have the correct frames. There is a branch that lines up with the little toe of perfectfoot that pegs the correct frame, imo.

No, you're using frame 62. Here's perfectfoot (61) from the LMS DVD

 

[LAL]

Also, this site notes the problems with the "Bigfoot as a Gigantopithecus" theory and also details some issues that point away from Patty being a "real Sasquatch." I love how Krantz tried to argue that Patty was a male...

He didn't argue Patty was a male. He suggested the chest bulges could be air sacks a la orangutans, but he didn't belabor the point.

I wish you'd post your links in the usual way to save me the trouble of clicking. If it was clear the site is the Bermuda Triangle site, I'd know I've already read it. Did you note where it said the Ruby Creek print was undeniably authentic as the Sasquatch foot?

I'm back to those things we used to read before the Internet. What were they called again? Oh, yeah...........books.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, you're using frame 62. Here's perfectfoot (61) from the LMS DVD

I disagree, and LMS is enlarged and enhanced anyway. You need an original frame.

Also, the foot in that frame is an indistinct blob, anyway.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, there's no need to click on those links to find out where they go. When your cursor is on them, the actual link is displayed for you in the staus bar.

And welcome back to ignore...

 

[LTC8K6]

The Bermuda Triangle reference to the Ruby Creek print being an "authentic" sasquatch print is to distinguish between the early prints that were labeled sasquatch prints, and the later circus of fake "bigfoot" prints that coopted the sasquatch name.

It's an authentic example of what people were calling a sasquatch print before the bigfoot profit machine moved in and took over.

Gian is simply distinguishing between his belief in the older sasquatch and the fake bigfoot scam machine.

 

[LTC8K6]

That scratch has moved quite a bit over one frame, as well.

 

[LAL]

A dog! The PGF just gets better and better. I love it.

I've never read anything about a dog at Bluff Creek. Have you?

This seems to be more South Fork of the Ahtantum footage. Pat Mason edited it into the twenty-minute "Bigfoot" shown in between full length films. Mason and his wife were the Northwest Research Association. They wrote the newsletter and sold memberships. Mason gave Roger the money. (The Making of Bigfoot, pg.140)

 

[GT/CS]

Soarwing on BFF found pictures of gorillas showing every one of Dfoot's supposed suit lines. You might want to check them out. See the cibachromes in Murphy's The Bigfoot Film Controversy. The "line" does not appear in frame 339 or frame 343.

Just how would a glove line (which looks too low to begin with) move around and disappear like that?

Please post a picture, or a link, that shows a picture of a gorilla with a line that looks like this.

 

[LAL]

The Bermuda Triangle reference to the Ruby Creek print being an "authentic" sasquatch print is to distinguish between the early prints that were labeled sasquatch prints, and the later circus of fake "bigfoot" prints that coopted the sasquatch name.

It's an authentic example of what people were calling a sasquatch print before the bigfoot profit machine moved in and took over.

Gian is simply distinguishing between his belief in the older sasquatch and the fake bigfoot scam machine.

Are you writing a novel?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Second link is messed up, AMM.

Here's the corrected version.

Oh, and I found those other comparison pictures that mangler did. For the sake of space, I'll post them as links instead of as embedded images.

McClarin vs. Patty:

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4

Measuring:

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Please post a picture, or a link, that shows a picture of a gorilla with a line that looks like this.

Screw the picture, let's see that on a gorilla in motion.

 

[RayG]

The shoulder joints were a foot father apart than on a man of comparable size (Green, from the reenactment).

And by which scientific method did Green arrive at that tidbit of information?

Krantz came up with a few estimates for shoulder width, 29.1", 28.5", 27" (page 106, Big Footprints), and 28.2" (pages 108 and 118, Big Footprints). None have been verified, and all are within the range of an appropriate human wearing padding.

My own experiment showed how I measured nearly 27" without resorting to suits or padding of any type.

The experiment involved two chessboards (each measuring 13 and 3 eighth inches, or 26 and 3 quarter inches overall) held edge to edge and flat against my chest. I was photographed from a distance of about 10 feet, and I'm betting if I strapped on shoulder pads, I'd have no problem looking even larger (maybe even 29.1" wide).

Even football pads from decades ago appear to increase shoulder size.

When it comes to Patty's height, there seems to be no agreement amongst those who have studied the film. Even Patterson and Gimlin disagreed by over 12 inches and they supposedly saw it in the flesh.

"Patterson thought his subject was 7 feet 4 inches tall, while Gimlin estimated it at 6 feet 1 or 2 inches". -- Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 96

It's not possible to widen the space between joints with padding. Read Krantz. (I haven't said that for a long time, have I?) The arms would have to be surgically altered in mid-humerus.

Krantz also says,

• "At 28.2 inches, these shoulders are 36.2% of the subject's full standing height, or 35.1% allowing for hair thickness at shoulders and head. My own 19.5-inch shoulders are only 26% of my 75-inch standing height--and I am rather broadly built for a man of my size. Human shoulders can be as much as 30% of stature, or even a bit more, but only in rather short men of extreme lateral build, like Eskimos. Most human shoulder breadths are about 25% of stature, or a little less." (page 108, Big Footprints)

My bare shoulders actually measure 21.5" and my height is 72", which works out to 29.86%. I am neither Eskimo, nor am I rather short. As shown in my experiment, my bare shoulders can appear to be almost 26" wide, which equates to 36.11% of my standing height, or very close to the 36.2% Krantz calculated for the film subject.

Shouldn't Krantz have conducted a little more experimentation before making bold assertions? Ones like, "I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly". (page 118, Big Footprints)

RayG

 

[catbasket]

Just how would a glove line (which looks too low to begin with) move around and disappear like that?

Just why would a bigfoot appear to be wearing gloves?

 

[LAL]

Please post a picture, or a link, that shows a picture of a gorilla with a line that looks like this.

I don't think it is a line, but here's the classic thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13887

Enjoy.

 

[Óðinn]

I disagree, and LMS is enlarged and enhanced anyway. You need an original frame.

Also, the foot in that frame is an indistinct blob, anyway.

No, all I'm saying is that you used frame 62 in your gif (#8856). Here's 61 & 62. You definitely used 62, that's all.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, all I'm saying is that you used frame 62 in your gif (#8856). Here's 61 & 62. You definitely used 62, that's all.

Ahhh..., well it's actually Diogenes' gif. I also forgot that I am at home on dialup and running propel accelerator, which degrades picture quality for faster loading...