Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
microstillesasgorillawcm.jpg


Ha! That picture seems familiar....

wookie-love.png


RayG
 
Sweaty, let's see the original frame.

How can we work with a cleaned up, blown up, enhanced copy of a frame?

Why would anyone who is seeking the truth, want to use anything other than the original frames?

Let's presume you are correct about the "frame" you posted. Are you correct because of the enhancements? Is it possible that the original frame doesn't match your claims?

Why aren't we allowed to see the original PGF?
 
I read the first few pages of this thread a few months ago and I have just popped back in to ask if anyone has found BF yet.

Let me know if you do.

I can't wait to see the TV documentary of David Attenborough hunkered down somewhere in British Columbia while a mob (flange? whoop? stink?) of BFs graze placidly in the background.
 
William Parcher said:
Yes, Glickman calculated Patty's height at 7'3" and her weight at 1,957 pounds. That is absurd and sounds like an April Fool's joke.
Click to expand...

This is what he said:

"The mass of all primates has been shown to be allometrically related to chest size [McMahon 1983]. Whether this equation is applicable to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film is open to debate. It is nonetheless interesting to note the mass estimated by this equation."

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

He didn't make a big deal of it.

If the height estimate is off, the chest measurement would be too.

I'll use some photos to try to make my points....
Click to expand...

Krantz used various methods to get the height, one of which was to use the known foot length (and a ratio of 5; 6 puts it very close to Glickman), another was the measured stride and a ratio. He took McClarin's walking height into consideration. That reduced the figure's height to between 6' and 6'5". Krantz went with his more conservative figures.

The size of the tree in the photos didn't change, but with either the position of Hodgson or the cameraman off by a few inches, the apparent height would be affected. McClarin said on BFF they could still see the beginning of the trackway a year later, but Bryne was there in 1972.

Here is Bob Heironimus (recent photo and not from NASI) compared to Patty. Bob was about 6"2" in 1967, and weighed 170-200 pounds. He's probably close to 300 pounds in this photo - he is still about 1,650 pounds lighter than Patty.
Click to expand...

Did you note his proportions in relation to the figure's, even scaled to size?

The IM index was another big problem for Glickman. If it's a guy in a costume, then he cannot properly locate the joints. But he went ahead and did it anyway, coming up with an inhuman index.
Click to expand...


Just where did he do this? Source it. I'm not finding where he took a IM index at all.

Green did. As far as I know, he was one of the first. (That's surprising, since Napier thought to do it for the MIM, but not, apparently for Patty. It's the same: 88. He thought both were a ridiculous mixture of ape and human, writing before the Australopithecine IM index of 88 was known.)

The index is a ratio; exact height doesn't matter.

Glickman seems to assume it's not a guy in a costume when he tries to locate the joints in order to calculate the IM index. Then he feels the resultant IM index shows it can't be a human. But if Patty is a guy in a costume with headpiece, (football) shoulder pads, pillows in the butt, and padding in various places .... how can Glickman decide to locate the joints where he does?
Click to expand...

Where did he do this?

They make you want to bang your head on a brick wall.
Click to expand...

I'm doing that right now.

This stood out for me since it's my old stompin' ground:

"Figure 2 shows a high density of reports in and near Hood River County, Oregon. While the hot spot toward the center appears to be reporting the bias, the diagonal band from the upper right to the lower left is of interest. This area corresponds to the maximum altitude portion of the Cascade range to the south and west of Cascade Locks, Oregon, and to the north and east of Stevenson, Washington and Carson, Washington. These areas are very rugged and inaccessible. It is interesting to note that this high density area of reports originates from a low-population density area."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi1.html
 
Interesting how the description morphs. Another sign of hoaxing.
Click to expand...

Roger had no idea that Patty and her hair would look different on 16mm film.

Not only does he miss on the hair, but he often claims her breasts are droopy, pendulous, etc., when they aren't at all.

The breasts on the costume were probably droopy, and Roger may have intended this, but that was not the case when the costume was actually worn by someone who fit it fairly well.
 
LAL said:
This is what he said:

"The mass of all primates has been shown to be allometrically related to chest size [McMahon 1983]. Whether this equation is applicable to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film is open to debate. It is nonetheless interesting to note the mass estimated by this equation."

If the height estimate is off, the chest measurement would be too.
Click to expand...

All the estimates are "off" if it's a guy in a Bigfoot costume. The error is compounded if the angle and distance from the lens to the subject is unknown.

He didn't make a big deal of it.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean. Glickman made an absurd calculation of the weight and included it in the NASI report. Chris Murphy made his own calculation and found Patty to weigh just over 2,000 pounds. This led him to think that both he and Glickman were in good agreement. Again, this estimate (about one ton) is for a female, and the males would be expected to be even larger and heavier.

Krantz used various methods to get the height, one of which was to use the known foot length (and a ratio of 5; 6 puts it very close to Glickman), another was the measured stride and a ratio. He took McClarin's walking height into consideration. That reduced the figure's height to between 6' and 6'5". Krantz went with his more conservative figures.
Click to expand...

All of that presumes that the Patterson-Titmus Patty casts actually came from the feet of the filmed subject. When you are evaluating a potential hoax, you cannot proceed that way with any scientific confidence. Those guys exhibited profound confirmation bias. The subject is either a real Bigfoot, or a guy in a costume. The tracks either came from the subject (real or hoaxed), or they were created to appear as if they came from the subject. Any proper analysis must entertain all possible alternative explanations. If Patterson was hoaxing the tracks themselves (this is the testimony of Heironimus), he would be able to use a different foot size/shape than the costume feet, as well as strategically placing the tracks to give a longer stride than the guy in the costume could produce.

Did you note his (BH) proportions in relation to the figure's, even scaled to size?
Click to expand...

Hell yes! If you put BH in a Bigfoot costume, you have Patty. The most compelling feature is that Bob Heironimus walks like Patty. Bob is about 6' tall (I previously erred in saying he was 6"2"). The costume adds height to BH by way of the feet and the head crest. This suggests to me (as a BH believer) that Patty stood 6'4"-6'8".

Just where did he do this? Source it. I'm not finding where he took a IM index at all.
Click to expand...

Glickman didn't create an IM index. I confused parts of his report with Green's. But my original point on this about Glickman remains. He did try to locate the joints to do his knee kinematics, which led to gait analysis. It's the same fundamental problem because the "actual" joints cannot be easily located when it's a guy in a suit.

nasi26.jpg


From NASI...

These positions of the joints were estimated by observing the relationship of the surface deformation. For example, the hip joint was estimated by looking at the relationship of the torso to the upper leg and selecting the position that closely approximately the intersection of the medial axes. This type of estimation can be inaccurate and result in noisy data. At least four types of error can contribute to the noise including the:

  • surface deformation which can cause the same surface point to change relationship with the underlying joint,
  • repeatability of the surface plasticity which can change with the relationship of the underlying joint,
  • subjective judgment of the human performing the digitization, who may not make repeatable judgments,

and

  • perspective error resulting from the oblique angle of the subject with relationship to the camera.
Click to expand...

Glickman left out...

  • subject is a man in an oversized costume which does not allow for accurate estimations of joint positions.

Green did. As far as I know, he was one of the first. (That's surprising, since Napier thought to do it for the MIM, but not, apparently for Patty. It's the same: 88. He thought both were a ridiculous mixture of ape and human, writing before the Australopithecine IM index of 88 was known.)
Click to expand...

The establishment of the IM index for Patty is not grounded by science. A proper peer review of their reports would explain why the margin of error would to too great to reach a firm conclusion. Even still, a proper analysis must include IM's from a number of known costumed men. This would show what an IM index can look like for a a guy in a suit. I would not expect that IM index to match the same guy when he is outside of the suit.
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
Yes, I left Bayanov out. Consider that one added to my post as well. It also was non-scientific and conducted by believers.
Click to expand...
How do you know there was no scientific analysis done by them?

Why should anyone believe that their work was completely unscientific?

It's a nice thought...for the skeptics...but your wishing it to be so doesn't make it true. :)
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
How can we work with a cleaned up, blown up, enhanced copy of a frame?
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with enlarging an image...to a point.
Is the image I posted blown-up too much?
If so...can you show why?

As far as it being "cleaned-up"......what exactly was done to it?

As for "enhanced"......exactly how was it enhanced?

Why would anyone who is seeking the truth, want to use anything other than the original frames?
Click to expand...

Because if that's all we have....that's what we use.
 
We know that Glickman fixed the frames up with software because it's part of the report. I don't know what happened regarding LMS, but it seems likely that this was done for the LMS dvd as well.

Where is the Bayanov scientific report on the PGF?

PGF is either film of a sasquatch, or it's film of a man in a sasquatch suit.

There is nothing out there that rules either possibility out. It might be either. I can't tell one way or the other.

Unless you have suspended the rules and decided that you believe the PGF is film of a sasquatch, rather than waiting for proof that the film is of a sasquatch, I don't see what use the film is to the world.

It is whatever it is, and we don't know what it is yet.
 
What does Patty look like again?

Most of the images presented were processed with either image restoration or image enhancement software. Some of the enhancement algorithms operate only on gray-scale, or result in gray-scale images after processing. The original scanned images are RGB, and gray-scale images are the Y component of the YIQ transform. The image contained on the first generation copy that was scanned resulted from the optical superposition of a Kodachrome original onto Eastman Safety stock. This is important because the dyes used in the film for the three colors are not the same size. For this reason, in some instances, the green layer of the film is processed alone because it has the smallest grain and hence captured the highest spatially-resolute image. The image restorations involved motion and focal blur removal which was performed using FIR and IIR filters. Image enhancement included Wallis enhancements, homomorphic equalization, histogram equalization and curve adjustments.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I guess we can consider that Sweaty concedes the grammatical point.

Belz... 1
Sweaty 0

Let's move on.

Okay... now... where's the evidence ? Huh ? Still nothin' ?
 
belz wrote:
Well, I guess we can consider that Sweaty concedes the grammatical point.
Click to expand...
Can you explain that "grammatical point", belz? I don't understand.

Are you going to answer the questions that I've asked you?
 
William Parcher said:
Glickman didn't create an IM index. I confused parts of his report with Green's. But my original point on this about Glickman remains. He did try to locate the joints to do his knee kinematics, which led to gait analysis. It's the same fundamental problem because the "actual" joints cannot be easily located when it's a guy in a suit.
Click to expand...

You are indeed confused.

Steindorf used inverse kinematics and came up with 88 independently, which is a good match for Meldrum's preliminary estimate of 80-90.

"Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM), which is the ratio of combined arm and forearm skeletal length (humerus + radius) to combined thigh and leg skeletal length (femur + tibia) x 100. The human IM averages 72.

The intermembral index is a significant measure of a primate's locomotor adapatation. The forelimb-dominated movements of the chimp and gorilla are reflected in their high IM indices of 106 and 117 respectively.

Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes."

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Do you have a rear view of BH showing his ordinary shoulder width? How about a suit that would produce the inhuman proportions and still move fluidly?
 
LAL said:
You are indeed confused.
Click to expand...

Don't get carried away. My confusion was limited to making the error of who did the IM index. My main point of there being a serious problem with trying to establish an IM index for a costumed man remains independent of who does the analyisis.

Steindorf used inverse kinematics and came up with 88 independently, which is a good match for Meldrum's preliminary estimate of 80-90.
Click to expand...

Their agreement is meaningless, because both assumed that their calculations would not be confounded if they were analyzing a man in a costume. If agreement alone constitutes sound analysis - then Glickman & Murphy hit the nail on the head when they estimated Patty's weight around 2,000 pounds.

"Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM), which is the ratio of combined arm and forearm skeletal length (humerus + radius) to combined thigh and leg skeletal length (femur + tibia) x 100. The human IM averages 72.
Click to expand...

They are working with actual skeletons in which the location of the joints is not ambiguous. If Patty was a guy in a suit, his joint locations and bone lengths do not have to coincide with the outward appearance of the suit. In fact, tricking the viewer is part of the design of any costume.

The intermembral index is a significant measure of a primate's locomotor adapatation. The forelimb-dominated movements of the chimp and gorilla are reflected in their high IM indices of 106 and 117 respectively.
Click to expand...

Nothing to disagree with there.

Identifying the positions of the joints on the film subject can only be approximate and the limbs are frequently oriented obliquely to the plane of the film, rendering them foreshortened to varying degrees. However, in some frames the limbs are nearly vertical, hence parallel to the filmplane, and indicate an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes."
Click to expand...

Again Lu, the analyists are evaluating Patty as if her joints are located where they would be if she is a real animal. If she is a costume, the joints (of the guy inside) are quite possibly located in "unexpected" places.

Do you have a rear view of BH showing his ordinary shoulder width?
Click to expand...

I don't have a rear view photo of BH showing his shoulder width. I don't think that matters much. In my opinion, the PGF shows BH inside of a modified gorilla suit in which football shoulder pads have been added in addition to some strategic padding. Bob's own shoulders are somewhere inside of that structure. The suit is not skin-tight and form-fitting in the sense that it would be a single-layer of fabric tight against his body and revealing his own physiology. The suit contains internal three-dimensional structures (padding & hip waders) that produce an outward appearance that differs from the man inside. Bob Heironimus was not as bulky and muscular as the suit makes him appear. The butt looks huge because Patterson put pillows there inside the modified gorilla suit. This is why the Patty butt is much bigger than the butt of the guy inside. If it looks like a real butt to someone watching the PGF, then the hoax worked for that person.

How about a suit that would produce the inhuman proportions and still move fluidly?
Click to expand...

How about a guy in a Bigfoot costume walking across sand in clownish feet which force him to adopt a compliant gait? Is that what you meant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom