Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Welcome Dfoot.. I'm ' Skeptical Greg ' over at BFF..

We have linked to some of your work over at BFF, and have seen how the stories and belief of ' couldn't have been a suit in ' 67 ' ', are just credulousness at it's best...


I'm sure you can appreciate that Bigfoot is just kind of chewed on here in the ' Paranormal ' section, and draws relatively little attention aside from this persistant thread.

There is only so many ways to look at 30 yeard old ' evidence ', but it remains an amusing distraction..

Looking forward to your participation.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hello, Dfoot. Let me add my welcome as well. I have also read a lot of your posts.

We are just churning up water that is already well churned, but I also look forward to see what you can add.

 

[LAL]

Foul!

Ten yard penalty for attempting the reverse the burden of proof.

Good thing I have no interest in football and have no idea what that means.

 

[LAL]

More on Ivan Marx:

Some tidbits from a review of THE LEGEND OF BIGFOOT (1975) --



RayG

Yeah, I've read that. I think I'd like to see the film. It must be hilarious.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good thing I have no interest in football and have no idea what that means.

That you do not understand ' the burden of proof ', explains a lot.. ( the football context notwithstanding )

Actually it has been quite apparent; it's just interesting to see you admit it..



I'm sure there will be lots of spin to follow..

 

[LAL]

Um. I think you're missing my point, here.

Guy's a known fraud, right? He was KNOWN to have faked something related to Bigfoot evidence.

Is Bigfoot evidence really so incredibly thin on the ground that Footers'll believe the evidence presented by a known fraud? I mean, we're talking a field absolutely riddled with accusations of fraud already--it seems to me that if the guy's actually proved to have faked something, he has ended his ability to be taken seriously.

How can you trust anything he says? How can we trust the tracks were taken where he said they were, or from what he says? The man has been caught in a lie. His data is now worthless. He's a con artist. Period.

He's dead.

What's a "Footer"?

“Many researchers do not give any credibility to findings by both Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. In other words, the researchers consider such findings hoaxed or fabricated. Without doubt, Ivan Marx was a notorious practical joker and Freeman’s ‘luck’ in finding sasquatch footprints and handprints goes far beyond reason.”

In a section of his book devoted to John Green, Murphy says he has found Green “exceedingly critical and accepts absolutely nothing at face value. John is very careful where doubt is involved with people and sasquatch related evidence. He is highly uncomfortable with all findings by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. It is only through my insistence that some material provided by these individuals is included in this work.” - Chris Murphy

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/record_shows.htm

"During the summer of 1970, handprints of two of these animals were photographed and plaster casts of them were made by Ivan Marx, a game guide in northeastern Washington state. Marx loaned the original casts to the writer who then made latex molds from them in order to produce exact duplicates for further study. The copies are illustrated here rather than the original casts so that they would have a uniform color.

The authenticity of these casts is impossible to demonstrate by any direct means. That they were not faked is strongly indicated by the fact that these are only the best two out of several prints that were cast, and that photographs of many more were taken. For a hoaxer to have made them all would have involved a considerable amount of difficulty."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/hprint.html

Neither Marx nor Freeman had any training in anatomy.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

For a hoaxer to have made them all would have involved a considerable amount of difficulty."

Well, that settles it..

Another argument from the " I don't know how it was hoaxed, so it must be real .. " school of thought...


Just like Kranz' " I'm too smart to be fooled .. "

Yeah, right ...

 

[LAL]

Come on... That's not what you are doing. And we both know it. <snip>

If I was insinuating anything, it was that you weren't writing a paper.

You're not writing a paper. That's all you needed to say.

 

[RayG]

"Without doubt, Ivan Marx was a notorious practical joker..."

Practical jokers play tricks on people for the fun of it, not for profit.

The authenticity of these casts is impossible to demonstrate by any direct means.

Ain't that the truth.

Neither Marx nor Freeman had any training in anatomy.

That didn't seem to prevent either of them from engaging in hoaxes.

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Neither Marx nor Freeman had any training in anatomy.

So the really good prints could have been faked by someone with training in anatomy ?


No, wait ! The really good prints have to be real, because they could not have been hoaxed without going to a lot of trouble !

No wait ! ......................................................

 

[LAL]

I can't tell either. It may be a lost cause, looking for the culprit behind "the smoking hand." But, it's not so trivial that bigfooters have used the hand to support their claims about "Patty" when a bit of investigation shows that it's not part of "Patty."

Other than on BFF I've seen no mention of this as something that might be supportive of anything. I don't recall Dahinden saying anything about it, or Bryrne, or Green, or Noll, Or Krantz, Or Meldrum......well, you get the idea.

Some "bigfooters" see orbs and Bigfoot coming out of worm holes. Other "bigfooters" vehemently don't agree. Why don't you try naming the people you're referring to instead of trying to throw them all into the same bag?

 

[UrsulaV]

What's a "Footer"?

LAL, I appreciate that you don't want to give an inch to a skeptic, but c'mon, now. Playing that dumb does neither your cause nor the discussion any good.

 

[William Parcher]

So the really good prints could have been faked by someone with training in anatomy ?


No, wait ! The really good prints have to be real, because they could not have been hoaxed without going to a lot of trouble !

No wait ! ......................................................

................... wait. Any footprint that doesn't conform to known or expected morphology.................. is an injured Bigfoot. It's all Bigfoot. Big footprints come from a gigantic undocumented wild ape living right here in North America.

10-4 good buddy. Roll on through and watch your donkey for them smokey bears. Bigfoot's 10-20 is on the side. The big monkey is holdin' tight up in that freeway shrubbery. If ya see him... good on ya buddy. If ya miss him... better luck next time. Roll on brother. Them Bigfoots don't just have big feet The whole damn animal is big. I'm talkin' 'bout a hairy ape that might be 'bout 9 to 12 feet tall. Take a looky here. That corn-fed fella is standin' next to an average-sized Bigfoot reeproducsheeon. Hooo lordy... they gits way bigger than that...

 

[Hitch]

LAL, I appreciate that you don't want to give an inch to a skeptic, but c'mon, now. Playing that dumb does neither your cause nor the discussion any good.

We need to get used to it. She's kept it up for over 1300 posts already. If Meldrum or Krantz said the sky was green, she wouldn't believe it if a skeptic told her it was blue. And if you tried to point out the obvious, she'd feign ignorance of the term "up" for twelve hours then claim that black was a special case of green.

 

[Huntster]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10366061

And Jane Goodall, one of the world's most distinguished primatologists, is an unashamed Bigfoot and Yeti enthusiast.

"You'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist," she said in a 2002 interview with National Public Radio in the US.

"I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. The existence of hominids of this sort is a very real probability."

 

[William Parcher]

And Jane Goodall, one of the world's most distinguished primatologists, is an unashamed Bigfoot and Yeti enthusiast.

"You'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist," she said in a 2002 interview with National Public Radio in the US.

"I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. The existence of hominids of this sort is a very real probability."

In that same interview, Jane Goodall went on to say...

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)

Ira Flatow: Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This is probably the highest quality single print ever produced from the film. The only reason that I called this a boil, is because it looks like one to me. It appears to be a raised artifact. When I say "raised" , I mean that it appears to be catching sunlight. Low sun angles cause "high relief". Astronomers like to wait until the surface of the moon is being illuminated obliquely so that the details appear to "stand up". Light on top, in shadow on the bottom, strongly suggests that this is not a film artifact.

On the contrary.. It can't be anything but an artifact


Quality is not resolution. But I'm sure you know that..


According to this:http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/filmres.html

It is doubtfull that any resolved detail in frame 352 ( or any frames in which Patty is approximately the same distance from the camera as frame 352 ) can be smaller than 2 inches; and more likely half ( or less ) of that.

Stated differently, the smallest interval that can reliably resolved (under optimal conditions) in this film is (1 mm = 31,000m) divided by 31.5 lines = 31.7 micrometers or microns on the film. This is the physically limiting value for Kodachrome II, below which you may see assorted patterns that are part of the emulsion, but that carry no image information and are, by definition, background noise.

Now all one has to do is to multiply the maximal possible resolution that this film allows with the magnification to arrive at a value that constitutes the absolute smallest resolvable detail in the pertinent print. This value will inevitably be overly optimistic (too small) because one is not dealing with a stark black-and-white image nor a steady camera. For the vertical images (Frame 323 and 352) this value is (133 x 31.7 microns) = 4,216 microns, or 4.2 mm. Cut out a paper circle with this diameter and it will approximate the smallest detail (optimistically) resolvable, in very rough terms about 2 inches on Patty's body. (Actual resolution, for the above-mentioned cautionary reasons is apt to be worse than that, possibly by half) Upon inspection of this juxtaposition, the resolution in these large pictures is virtually the same as the largest blobs like the nose and the ear projection, but anything below that level of detail does not contain information.

I'm confused about the ' 2 inches ', because 4.2 mm is short of 2 inches by a factor of 10 ..

So really M.K., you can call ' it ' ( what you think is a boil ) anything you want and not have to be concerned about anyone proving otherwise..

The white line on the inside of the wrist in the two photos , looks like a scar. I'm perfectly willing to call it something else. Perhaps you have a suggestion?

Again; any suggestion is as good as another.. If ' scar ' makes you feel good, have at it.. But I feel you are being disengenuous ( because you should know better ) by continuing to suggest this film contains the kind of detail you would have us believe.

 

[Hitch]

So really M.K., you can call ' it ' ( what you think is a boil ) anything you want and not have to be concerned about anyone proving other wise..

Again; any suggestion is as good as another.. If ' scar ' makes you feel good, have at it.. But I feel you are being disengenuous ( because you should know better ) by continuing to suggest this film contains the kind of detail you would have us believe.

It's hesitation marks. "Patty" is suicidal because no one believes in her.

 

[Dfoot]

Why, Dfoot? Would North America be a sad and bleak place if Bigfoot never did live here? Is it sad to think that myths might really be myths? Or, are you possibly holding out hopes that modern hicks and dead Indians weren't really flat-out wrong after all?

Couldn't a myth still be a myth even on Flores?

But even putting that aside, if my great-grandfather really did shoot Passenger Pigeons in Missouri... must it also be true that a great-grandfather who claims shooting these these same pigeons in South Africa is therefore likely to be another truth teller?

Thanks for the welcome everybody. I'm just posting things as I learn about them. It's a fun topic to investigate for a lot of reasons.

William... I can only answer that by saying that when I first heard about the FLORES discovery in 2004 I was elated. Flores had become a happy fun-time place for me full of joy and vindication. Mostly vindication. (*In your face Mr. It-cannot-exist guy!)

But then... other scientists decided the Hobbit people were only a few poor souls with a disease that made them tiny. Drat. I felt the sadness come over me once more.

Suddenly tests were done by other scientists and Flores Man became real once more. I was thrilled until I found the news media tended to focus more on Britney Spears dating habits than dead Hobbits. I was determined to go there and soak up the Hobbit victory for myself. Perhaps even tell the locals they were right all along and I really wasn't with those other white guys who doubted them.

Unfortunately my cousin informed me that man-eating dragons lived on the nearby islands of Komoda and Ringa. Some, he claimed were even on Flores.
I became too afraid to go there and once again felt there was no way that I would ever bask in the proofiness of the Hobbit folk discovery.

Then I read JREF and it all came into focus. Obviously my cousin was lying. When he claimed the dragons ran as fast as dogs and their saliva was poison, I knew he was full of it.

I now plan to go there and wear a steak necklace just to show him there are no such animals. Vindication is mine.

But I digress...

About the Bigfoot: Yes, my world would be much better should he be found. Based on the gorillas I've seen I feel certain that my penis will dwarf his despite his height. Thus, I'll feel much better about myself for his simply existing.

(*Please be real Bigfoot.)

Now get to spelunking or whatever they call it. I need my proofiness.

- Dfoot

 

[Hitch]

But I digress...

About the Bigfoot: Yes, my world would be much better should he be found. Based on the gorillas I've seen I feel certain that my penis will dwarf his despite his height. Thus, I'll feel much better about myself for his simply existing.

(*Please be real Bigfoot.)

Now get to spelunking or whatever they call it. I need my proofiness.

- Dfoot

Be careful. The human genital size anomaly might be even more pronounced in Bigfoot. Consider the reports of testicle prints...