Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
For what is supposed to be a truly massive bipedal hominoid, I would expect to see bratwurst-sized fingers in at least some of the images.
 
Not many big hairy rack sasquatch reports coming to mind. Oh right, Patty was lactating. You gotta hand it to Patterson, he had flare if nothing else.
 
William

I agree with your assessment, the Shroud of Turin owners trot that thing out occasionally. It would be nice if an agreed upon set of images where the only ones used to look for details. And why doesn’t the fact that the film is so guarded elicit suspicion from proponents?

I keep looking at it (PGF) curious as to why someone would keep thinking this is true. For myself I try to take a methodical approach looking at the evidence piece by piece trying to clearly layout what is actually known, are there any controls, what are the confounding factors.

I have read where you have called the PGF believers, cultish in behavior, to me I do think there is a connection in believing in some 1st century apocalyptic road map and other “magical/mystery” stories. It seems that culturally we have rewarded faith and unquestioning belief and made this the norm, not something that even if pointed out is considered incorrect or worth reconsideration. I am curious as to what the evolutionary advantage was to this trait.

Have you ever read Cornell’s study on incompetence? It’s telling…

“Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”

geocities.com/sgraessle/folder1/incomp.htm (sorry cant post URL’s yet add www)

My best assessment seems to be that proponents view the film in real time, and get a “feeling” that’s it’s a real animal nothing more nothing less. Then based on this bias “I feel it’s real” details are looked for. If the film is viewed at original speed and size (even more telling is no one actually knows that info for certain) there are no curling fingers, there are no flexing of calf muscles there are no foot prints being made etc. It is not until a version of the film (lineage unknown) is cropped, zoomed up to 100X, converted to digital media, color corrected all outside the know resolving power of 16mm film, that miniscule anomalies appear which in turn again reinforce the “feeling” the original viewing elicited.

For me all I see is practically a case study on how to use all known logical fallacies in one sitting.

Rick
 
rgann wrote:
So Sweaty where exactly did you get your source file for the finger curl GIF and how many times has that image been enlarged (source + detail)?
Click to expand...

I didn't create the animated gif myself.
I found two PG frames posted in a thread on the BFF, about a year or so ago....and re-posted them side-by-side to point out the difference in the fingers.
Someone else took those 2 frames, cropped them, and made the animated gif.

I can try looking through old PG film threads on the BFF to see if I can find the 2 original, larger frames I used.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I didn't create the animated gif myself.
I found two PG frames posted in a thread on the BFF, about a year or so ago....and re-posted them side-by-side to point out the difference in the fingers.
Someone else took those 2 frames, cropped them, and made the animated gif.

I can try looking through old PG film threads on the BFF to see if I can find the 2 original, larger frames I used.
Click to expand...

Sweaty:

Thanks for the response; if you find those images it would be great however I do have a follow up question. Based on Farenbach’s explanation of the resolution of 16mm film (Magnification x Lines of resolution) would you reconsider your claim that those two frames CLEARLY show fingers flexing if it can be shown that the images you found at BFF are enlarged outside the capacity of 16mm film to show the details you are claiming?

Rick
 
Diogenes said:
Don't forget the mysterious, Bigfoot breast tissue, that keeps Bigfoot breasts from bouncing..
Click to expand...

Bounce? Hell, they don't even twitch. This massive female biped rotates her entire torso towards the camera while striding and the big breasts don't even flinch. With this kind of body movement, those breasts should be flopping around like... well.... like breasts! MK Davis did one of his signature enhanced animated gifs that was supposed to show breast movement. They do seem to slightly move. They make a brief and smooth lateral movement that perfectly coincides with the surrounding chest area. This is to be expected with rigid fake breasts attached to a costume skin.

Not only do the breasts not bounce, they defy gravity as real mammary glands. There is no apparent sag even though they have significant outwards extension from the chest. Human breast implants cannot even achieve this kind of appearance. Further, the location of the breasts on Patty's chest does not coincide with any living primate. They are positioned too low on the chest. Instead of appearing from the upper-mid chest/ribcage, they seem to be located at the lower-mid chest/ribcage. From my visual estimation, Patty's breasts are located about 4" lower than they ought to be... if this is supposed to be a real live hominoid rather than a costume.

Furry breasts? Oh yeah, Patty has very hirsute titties. Her dangling baby presumably would have special adaptations so that hairs would not cause hydraulic leaking as the little tyke nursed. That won't prevent the swallowing of hairs, so it would be recognized as good Bigfooter Theory to suggest that mama hairs serve some kind of unknown (but imaginable) function in baby Bigfoot digestive processes. Natural selection would never exclude Bigfoot from its blind naturalistic stepping-stone of cause -> effect. Darwin would have been a solid Bigfooter if he only knew... if he only knew... don't ya think?

Patty's breasts are unnatural because they do not bounce and are improperly located. Patterson envisioned and constructed them as part of his Bigfoot costume. The breasts, as a component of the entire fake creature, continue to fool a small subculture of society. This small group of people are sometimes referred to as "PGF believers".

I am now going to switch to a different moniker for PGF believers. Lu (LAL) refers to PGF skeptics as "Suitniks", which essentially suggests that these people think the PGF subject is somebody in a suit. I have a suspicion that the term was originally coined by Roger Knights (RogerKni on BFF). So, in an equivalent response to that stereotypical style of naming, I now have created one of my own. Believers in the authenticity of the PGF subject are now called "Pattycakes" by me.

Suitnik = one who believes that the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin Film is a person in a suit or costume.

Pattycake = one who believes that the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin Film is an actual North American bipedal primate that has not yet been described or confirmed by conventional biological or organismal science.
 
Spektator said:
I shot these two pictures moments ago, in the wilds of the guest bathroom upstairs (the towel rack provided a nice support for Kenfoot). I rotated the doll slightly and stepped back a little bit for the second image.
Click to expand...

This is very good. It's one of those kind of things that's so dead simple that it becomes like that old TV ad for V8 juice, where the actor slaps his forehead and announces, "I could have had a V8"...

I think it totally appropriate that this comes forth on the JREF board, as anyone who follows the spoon bending career of Uri Geller knows, how the bent key or spoon is displayed and turned adds greatly to the illusion. In both the Ken doll hand and the bent spoon, we see a perspective illusion.

One more possible prosaic explanation for what we see on the film...

Again, good work Spektator.
 
tube said:
This is very good. It's one of those kind of things that's so dead simple that it becomes like that old TV ad for V8 juice, where the actor slaps his forehead and announces, "I could have had a V8"...

I think it totally appropriate that this comes forth on the JREF board, as anyone who follows the spoon bending career of Uri Geller knows, how the bent key or spoon is displayed and turned adds greatly to the illusion. In both the Ken doll hand and the bent spoon, we see a perspective illusion.

One more possible prosaic explanation for what we see on the film...

Again, good work Spektator.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Tube--that means a great deal coming from you. Somewhere way upstream I mentioned the spoon-bending perspective illusion. I had a hunch it would work with the doll's hand--and when I had taken just two photos, I saw it had indeed worked and didn't bother to take any more. It's one of those things that seems so simple once you've done it!
 
William Parcher said:
...............
Believers in the authenticity of the PGF subject are now called "Pattycakes" by me.

Suitnik = one who believes that the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin Film is a person in a suit or costume.

Pattycake = one who believes that the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin Film is an actual North American bipedal primate that has not yet been described or confirmed by conventional biological or organismal science.
Click to expand...

That's as good as ' Woogasm ' !

:clap:​
 
rgann said:
Sweaty:

Thanks for the response; if you find those images it would be great however I do have a follow up question. Based on Farenbach’s explanation of the resolution of 16mm film (Magnification x Lines of resolution) would you reconsider your claim that those two frames CLEARLY show fingers flexing if it can be shown that the images you found at BFF are enlarged outside the capacity of 16mm film to show the details you are claiming?

Rick
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this will scale on everyone's display, but it gives you an idea about the size of of 16mm film..

Here is frame 352 ... ( Turn & Look )

16mm.gif


Here is an animation of the entire ' bending finger ' frames from the LMS copy of PGF .. ( scaled down from DVD -720x480 - )

bendpov.gif


Just to give you a feel for what we are working with here..

Of course the resolution of 16mm film is much higher than DVD, but when you start converting it back and forth, you get mush..
 
Here is one of the frames from the "extras" section of the LMS dvd....
...the fingers in the bent position are easily seen....by most people.....


PDVD_000.jpg
 
rgann wrote:
Sweaty:

Thanks for the response; if you find those images it would be great however I do have a follow up question. Based on Farenbach’s explanation of the resolution of 16mm film (Magnification x Lines of resolution) would you reconsider your claim that those two frames CLEARLY show fingers flexing if it can be shown that the images you found at BFF are enlarged outside the capacity of 16mm film to show the details you are claiming?
Click to expand...



You're welcome, Rick. :)

As for reconsidering my claim that the fingers can clearly be seen bending....I'll wait until after seeing some proof that they are indeed below the film's resolution.
I don't think that's the case, though.

Rick, in the frame pictured above....does Patty's hand look like it's below the film's resolution to you?
Does it look like 'film grain' or 'noise'?

Notice how much smaller her toes are than her fingers and hand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom