Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Aepervius]

Funny things

I've read that article before.

All the words don't change what the picture you posted shows. "Patty's" right hand is between just below the level of her buttock to mid-thigh. Her upper body is leaning slightly forward and she's somewhat stoop shouldered. In that pose, that hand placement is not at all out of normal for a human being. It does not show an inhuman IM index.

I just looked myself on a "footmirror" and even without being stooped my finger tip is halfway between my hip and my knee (an nch or two bit highier actually). A bit lower when I stoop.

From that I conclude I am either a bigfoot, or i am terribly disformed and have long arm (if so it is non obvious). Or the most likely : the pgf show only a human-proportionned being.

 

[RayG]

Depends on the POV, I guess.

""Big Footprints," written by physical anthropologist Dr. Grover Krantz, is the only book on the subject of the Sasquatch that explores the enduring mystery from a scientist's point of view. In a lucid, highly readable style, Dr. Krantz separates the solid evidence from the dubious, corrects many famous misconceptions, and, in the end, really takes the skeptics to task. Perhaps the most commendable aspect of this work is the professional and level-headed treatment Krantz gives his topic - a topic that courts the lunatic fringe. The detailed study of the famous "Patterson/Gimlin" film of bigfoot, along with thorough investigation into the veracity of the dermal ridges found in some footprint casts, show this book to be the work of a serious scientist. Personally, I've loaned this book to skeptics who've come away scratching their heads, wondering if we humans might actually share the planet with large, bipedal primates. "Big Footprints" is beyond doubt the finest book ever written on the Sasquatch enigma."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...omer-reviews.sort_by=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Was that review written by A. Reader? I see he's posted numerous reviews.

Seriously, I couldn't find the review you've quoted, is it your own, or has it been removed from the Amazon page?

RayG

 

[LAL]

And a few posts later wolftrax and ToeToe (who started out debating) agree that the object circled in red below is probably some background object and not part of "Patty."

I think so too, and I reached that conclusion on my own.

Which gives me hope. Some bigfooters do seem capable of analyzing data and changing their view in the face of evidence.

Even Davis.

Edit:
And just to be clear - MK is not Gigantofootecus. Some people reading the exchange here, may get that impression.

MK is MK Davis, the man who does the gigantic blow-ups. He's primateer.

 

[LAL]

That same anomaly shows up all over the web and is featured in Meet the Sasquatch, and credited to E. Dahinden too. So, the author of Meet the Sasquatch published a retouched photo? Did E. Dahinden or maybe R. Dahinden retouch the photo? It's also the same image featured on the BFRO, did the BFRO retouch the photo? What are you trying to say?

RayG

I'm saying it's an artifact.

 

[Hitch]

That same anomaly shows up all over the web and is featured in Meet the Sasquatch, and credited to E. Dahinden too. So, the author of Meet the Sasquatch published a retouched photo? Did E. Dahinden or maybe R. Dahinden retouch the photo? It's also the same image featured on the BFRO, did the BFRO retouch the photo? What are you trying to say?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Smalfut.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b9/180px-Smalfut.jpg
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/images/binder6.jpg
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/thumb/b/b9/180px-Smalfut.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/photo/pgfilm.html (make sure you click on frame 352)
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/images/f352.jpg
http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/images/sasquatch01.jpg

RayG

I think it's some background object in frame 352 which took on the appearance of fingers when the frame was enhanced to bring out as much detail of "Patty" as possible. I doubt that it was drawn in for nefarious reasons. But the fact that it has been seized upon and debated by bigfooters so much indicates (to me) that they need to read up on pareidolia.

It might be enlightening in other ways, too.

 

[RayG]

...if someone would post the link to the thread from which the pictures were swiped...

You're implying the image was stolen from the BFF, yet it's available all over the web. The image is copyrighted to E. Dahinden no matter where it was obtained online.

RayG

 

[Z]

It looks like something in the background to me rather than a finger or a drawn in finger, rather like part of Diogenes "donuts". The edges aren't sharp. Now looking for the next few frames to see if it stays behind when she moves forward. I'll have to dust off LMS again.

I thought the same thing when I took a closer look - and the more I manipulated the image, the more disjointed it was from the rest of the alleged bigfoot. So it is either part of the background, somehow enhanced during the process that made that print; a poorly-done forgery (VERY poor); or some kind of process artifact that, in fact, isn't even part of the image itself (still a decent probability).

I'm curious to see what the frames preceeding and following this one show.

ETA - Now that I've read the rest of the posts to this point - yep. Just a bit of background noise.

In which case, the arm length argument weakens considerably.

 

[LAL]

Are you agreeing with me?

He also says:

(I can quote mine too.) He clearly believes his estimate of arm and hand length.


and a telling quote from Davis:

"I just worry about the interpretations you continue to put forward and fear that these things will contribute to ever present credibility issues for both you and the BF community in general."

Davis didn't say that. Apeman said that to Davis. If you're going to quote mine, at least get the attributions right. I posted that; it shouldn't be hard to look up. (See above)

It's really hard to decide which bigfoot evidence you want us to accept. Every time the flaws are pointed out, we get variations on, "that guy doesn't speak for us" or, "when he said something completely different another time is what you should go by." (Yes, I know niether of those are exact quotes of anyone, but I daresay they will sound familiar to many readers of these the bigffot threads here.)

Well? Can you find a "typical sceptic" on this board? Does one of you speak for all of you? BFF is made up of people from all walks of life. There are a couple of real researchers there, but you'll find the Who's Who's in the list of advisors to the new organization.

They're there to see things are kept "scientific" and on track.

 

[LAL]

Was that review written by A. Reader? I see he's posted numerous reviews.

Seriously, I couldn't find the review you've quoted, is it your own, or has it been removed from the Amazon page?

RayG

The Greatest Book on one of the Greatest Mysteries, April 4, 2000
Reviewer: Michael B. Bruneio (Easton, PA United States) - See all my reviews

"Big Footprints," written by physical anthropologist Dr. Grover Krantz, is the only book on the subject of the Sasquatch that explores the enduring mystery from a scientist's point of view. In a lucid, highly readable style, Dr. Krantz separates the solid evidence from the dubious, corrects many famous misconceptions, and, in the end, really takes the skeptics to task. Perhaps the most commendable aspect of this work is the professional and level-headed treatment Krantz gives his topic - a topic that courts the lunatic fringe. The detailed study of the famous "Patterson/Gimlin" film of bigfoot, along with thorough investigation into the veracity of the dermal ridges found in some footprint casts, show this book to be the work of a serious scientist. Personally, I've loaned this book to skeptics who've come away scratching their heads, wondering if we humans might actually share the planet with large, bipedal primates. "Big Footprints" is beyond doubt the finest book ever written on the Sasquatch enigma.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0888394470/104-1952500-8489508?v=glance&n=283155

First one. I may have posted the wrong link. Sorry.

Now, about the Skookum roll.........do I need to post the instructions again?

 

[LAL]

I think it's some background object in frame 352 which took on the appearance of fingers when the frame was enhanced to bring out as much detail of "Patty" as possible. I doubt that it was drawn in for nefarious reasons. But the fact that it has been seized upon and debated by bigfooters so much indicates (to me) that they need to read up on pareidolia.

It might be enlightening in other ways, too.

Did you note the consensus seemed to be against Davis' interpretation? Other than Davis on BFF I know of no claims it's a finger in the first place. How is it debated so much if there's only a small portion of a single thread on a message board about it? If there's more, show me.

Please stop trying to paint us with the same brush. It tickles.

 

[LAL]

I thought the same thing when I took a closer look - and the more I manipulated the image, the more disjointed it was from the rest of the alleged bigfoot. So it is either part of the background, somehow enhanced during the process that made that print; a poorly-done forgery (VERY poor); or some kind of process artifact that, in fact, isn't even part of the image itself (still a decent probability).

I'm curious to see what the frames preceeding and following this one show.

ETA - Now that I've read the rest of the posts to this point - yep. Just a bit of background noise.

In which case, the arm length argument weakens considerably.

There we go agreeing again. What will people think?

I'm not aware of anyone basing the arm length argument on that frame in the first place. Frame 72 is the one where approximate measurements can be taken.

 

[LAL]

You're implying the image was stolen from the BFF, yet it's available all over the web. The image is copyrighted to E. Dahinden no matter where it was obtained online.

RayG

Is that René's ex-wife?

I was actually referring to the practice of taking images from BFF without crediting the board or the poster, which is a violation of BFF rules. Some of the images posted were enhancements and gifs by Davis (who allegedly did some swiping himself), but you know the BFF guidelines being a member and all, don't you?

 

[LAL]

I just looked myself on a "footmirror" and even without being stooped my finger tip is halfway between my hip and my knee (an nch or two bit highier actually). A bit lower when I stoop.

From that I conclude I am either a bigfoot, or i am terribly disformed and have long arm (if so it is non obvious). Or the most likely : the pgf show only a human-proportionned being.

Mine does too.

Do you know what the IM index is?

 

[RayG]

Now, about the Skookum roll.........do I need to post the instructions again?

What about the Skookum roll? I've yet to see definitive proof that a squatch left its butt prints in a mud hole. Meldrum and a host of others can speculate to their hearts content, but it won't provide evidence.

Not sure I see the correlation.

RayG

 

[Hitch]

I'm sorry. I trusted you when you posted:

Davis too:

"With all due respect and appreciation for your hard work, dedication, and MANY fruitful efforts, you have been proven wrong twice in just the last few weeks (the hand and the quadrupedalism) and as these cases build up in appears that you are stretching the observations and you are undermining all the hard work you have done SO well for SO long. I'm not going to try to lecture or stand on a soapbox, you are clearly an expert well beyond my capabilities in enhancing images and I have been and continue to be proven wrong about many things. I just worry about the interpretations you continue to put forward and fear that these things will contribute to ever present credibility issues for both you and the BF community in general. I'm sure you don't want to be lumped with 'he whose name will not be spoken' here? Right? Your work is appreciated and mostly respected. Please don't get sucked into feeling like you need to make some huge new discovery every so often."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107&st=260

I'll know better than to go by what you post in the future.

 

[Hitch]

Mine does too.

Do you know what the IM index is?

Does Meldrum?

He seem to think this:

Shows a figure with an arm proportion outside the human range. We can see that it doesn't.

 

[RayG]

Is that René's ex-wife?

I imagine so.

I was actually referring to the practice of taking images from BFF without crediting the board or the poster, which is a violation of BFF rules. Some of the images posted were enhancements and gifs by Davis (who allegedly did some swiping himself), but you know the BFF guidelines being a member and all, don't you?

Yes, and the guidelines, set up for BFF members, only mention original creations. In this case frame 352 is not an original creation by a member of the BFF. If I were to repost frame 352 with a red circle on it, I may be flattered by the acknowledgment of my red circle, but I cannot copyright the image because it wasn't mine to begin with. Many websites claim the content is copyrighted, I did that on my own website a few years back. Even if something is copyrighted, such as an image, there's something called 'fair use' that allows copyrighted images to be used, such as they are here. It's normally common courtesy to provide a source of information, but I doubt the lack of that courtesy would stand up in court.

RayG

 

[M.K.Davis]

Right hand.

Whew, does this thread bring back memories. That hand on frame 352 could have been drawn in, could be an artifact, could be a hand, I don't know. I really would like to know, but probably will never. There are other small clips that do appear to show the hand. I'll post this very small clip for the edification of all. Please don't shoot to kill. The still frame photography for the construction of this gif clip was by Rick Noll. The source material is superb. M.K.

 

[M.K.Davis]

photo didn't upload.

The file is too large, but it is very good. Sorry folks. M.K.

 

[LAL]

That casting looks like the wonky "toes coming out the side of the foot" footprint that was shown in the still images (from film) I posted here of Patterson making plaster casts under mid-day sunlight.

Huntster, is this a casting from Patty, or what?

Gad, Parcher, click the link. I've posted this article so many times you all should have every picture on it memorized, not just the famous Meldrum "bear track".

"Relative Toe Length and Mobility

Variations in toe position are evident between footprints within a single trackway, as well as between individual subjects. In some instances the toes are sharply curled, leaving an undisturbed ridge of soil behind toe tips resembling "peas-in-a-pod." In other instances the toes are fully extended. In either case, the toes appear relatively longer than in humans. Among the casts made by the author in 1996 is one in which the toes were splayed, pressing the first and fifth digits into the sidewalls of the deep imprint, leaving an impression of the profile of these marginal toes. This is the first such case that I am aware of. Expressed as a percent of the combined hindfoot/midfoot, the Sasquatch toes are intermediate in length between those of humans and the reconstructed length of australopithecine toes. Furthermore, the digits frequently display a considerable range of abduction."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Three photos are below the description above, two evidently by Meldrum, taken in Washington State near Walla Walla. The one on the left was taken by Dahinden in 1967 on Blue Creek Mountain. It's 13" long and was found in deep dust dampened by a light rain. It shows the peas-in-a-pod look.

Meldrum cast and photograhed ones that were of interest to an anatomist, not the "most perfect" as Patterson did. None of the three are from the Bluff Creek trackway.

The photos could have been labled. Maybe Meldrum thought people were smart enough to figure it out.