Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[JcR]

I find it interesting... Esteban Sarmiento talks of how dermal ridges
and scars etc can be faked. Just skip Chilcutt and go to 2:03 in the video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M15H9WGzWbw

And if you're really bored watch this. Seven parts,,, if you can take the torture.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GHK2O6ARpB8&feature=related

[mangler]

Logic,

Great image!

:clap:


m

[makaya325]

JCR, the ngc program is heavily biased. It is a travesty to the serious researchers. Why didnt it present the freeman and klamath footage? Why not the hair morphology? The gaussian curve?

[kitakaze]

I find it interesting... Esteban Sarmiento talks of how dermal ridges
and scars etc can be faked. Just skip Chilcutt and go to 2:03 in the video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M15H9WGzWbw

Whenever Chilcutt talks he reminds me of a certain someone (skip Doug, go to 00:40):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZDm0k_vzU&feature=related

And if you're really bored watch this. Seven parts,,, if you can take the torture.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GHK2O6ARpB8&feature=related

I actually sat through part one. You hurt my brain.

[JcR]

LMAO... I suffered through all 7

[JcR]

JCR, the ngc program is heavily biased. It is a travesty to the serious researchers. Why didnt it present the freeman and klamath footage? Why not the hair morphology? The gaussian curve?

Skip to 14:20

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfuZepS68A

And this isn't a travesty to researchers ?

[makaya325]

Jc, a man trying to imitate something is a travesty? Come on, ask anyone to do that, and all of them sound like complete morons, yet that doesnt mean there wrong.

[kitakaze]

Jc, a man trying to imitate something is a travesty? Come on, ask anyone to do that, and all of them sound like complete morons, yet that doesnt mean there wrong.

Yet you said that Bigfoot is extinct. That would make them wrong, right?

[makaya325]

Kitz, thats not the point. The point is that people are no more credible or less credible when they imitate a sound

[rockinkt]

JCR, the ngc program is heavily biased. It is a travesty to the serious researchers. Why didnt it present the freeman and klamath footage? Why not the hair morphology? The gaussian curve?



Makaya - please explain - in your own words - why each of those is good evidence and why it should be referenced by serious researchers.

[JcR]

Jc, a man trying to imitate something is a travesty? Come on, ask anyone to do that, and all of them sound like complete morons, yet that doesnt mean there wrong.

It is not an example of being wrong...I don't think they need help
in that department anyways.

[makaya325]

Rockin, the hairs are similiar to human, except that all 11 lack medullas, are thicker, cut, tapered ends.

[JcR]

Imitating sounds is just that...
And credibility is another creature altogether.

[rockinkt]

Rockin, the hairs are similiar to human, except that all 11 lack medullas,
are thicker, cut, tapered ends.

Human hair can lack medullas.
In other words - the lack of a medulla does not rule out the hairs being human.

What to heck does "thicker" mean?
Are you referring to the Maximum Shaft Diameter?
Is that measurement outside of known human hair?
If so - by how much? (Please cite reference)

Ummm..."cut". Please explain what you meant by that.

Tapered ends...do you mean the distal hair tip is tapered?
Human hair can have naturally occurring taper.
Is it a Natural Taper or a Rounded Taper?

[makaya325]

Rockin, 11 different hairs have features that are different from human hair

http://bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig.%202%20with%20caption.jpg

[kitakaze]

Rockin, 11 different hairs have features that are different from human hair

http://bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig.%202%20with%20caption.jpg

I thought you said the BFRO is crap, now you're using them for reference?

[rockinkt]

Rockin, 11 different hairs have features that are different from human hair

http://bfro.net/images/whatis/figures/Fig.%202%20with%20caption.jpg

I just pointed out my post that they do NOT have features that exclude human hair.
Did you read it?
Fahrenbach's work with alleged sasquatch hair is a complete joke.

[makaya325]

Sasquatch hair is cut and has different cortex color

[GT/CS]

Sasquatch hair is cut and has different cortex color

Looks like we need to add, 'cuts hair' to the bigfoot skills list.

[makaya325]

GT, i mean that the hairs are cut, which isnt found in human hair

Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate–and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world.

[makaya325]

Looks like we need to add, 'cuts hair' to the bigfoot skills list.

GT, i mean that the hairs are cut, which isnt found in human hair

Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate–and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world.

[LTC8K6]

Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate

How did he do that?

[LTC8K6]

Let's have the full quote, makaya. Why did you write it as if it were your own words?

Notable was a plenary address, by prominent anthropologist Carleton S. Coon: "Why There Has To Be A Sasquatch." Coon stated, "Even before I read John Green's book, Sasquatch: the Apes Among Us, I accepted the Sasquatch's existence ... Unfaked footprints are reported every year. (One can usually tell the difference because a man's weight is not enough to press the phony template down enough, among other things) ... Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate--and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world ... On this substantially impeccable evidence we may be justified to state that a primate other than man, which is either a pongid (ape), or hominid (kind of man) is alive in Washington ... It is easier to say what they are not than what they are. They are not Neanderthals."[1] To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...

[LTC8K6]

Also here:

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

Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate--and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world. He has given me permission to state that its scale pattern is primate, its pigment dense and black like that of a lowland gorilla, and its internal structure "unusual." This last refers to the medulla of the hair strand, which is quite variable among the living races of man.

Which indicates that the hairs do have a medulla...

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, Jack is still holding at 5' 10" +/- on Patty's height.

[Aepervius]

Apparently even rare elusive animal are getting caught on Camera. Not bigfoot....

venomous mamal studied (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7791989.stm)

(I know the argument on the quantum bigfoot (both elusive and easily found at the same time) have been beaten to death, but I thought of the finding might interrest some people here on its own value).

[makaya325]

Aep, tell me, how many videos do we have of a blue bear? Yes, im bringing it up again.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Aep, tell me, how many videos do we have of a blue bear? Yes, im bringing it up again.

For what purpose?

[makaya325]

Long, even wolverines are video taped tons of times. However, the blue bear has never been video taped, and if it were, it would be online

[LONGTABBER PE]

Long, even wolverines are video taped tons of times. However, the blue bear has never been video taped, and if it were, it would be online

That cant be stated with any degree of reliability. Theres no cosmic prime directive that anything filmed must be put on the internet. ( I myself have hundreds of hours of stuff thats not on the net and I'm sure millions of others do as well)

So, you cant say it was never filmed anymore than you can say you know it has ( unless you have seen a film of one)

The point is moot however because the BB is known to exist for over a century so the ABILITY to find and film one ( if desired) is readily available for anyone with the resources to do so. Thats what really matters.

I dont follow your reasoning.

Are you saying that because a known animal has not been filmed ( which is really a choice to NOT film it since it can be filmed) that in some way shores up the argument thats theres ZERO reliable "film" of BF especially since BF gets seen hundreds of times a year with a good bit of camera traps and people physically looking for him? ) and everyone else in the woods doing other things?)

[William Parcher]

However, the blue bear has never been video taped, and if it were, it would be online


This may not be true. There may be video of blue bears that is not online.

[Hitch]

Long, even wolverines are video taped tons of times. However, the blue bear has never been video taped, and if it were, it would be online
Wait.

"If anything that exists cannot be found as a video online, therefore anything we can imagine which also cannot be found as a video online can safely be assumed to exist."

Is that the point being made?

[makaya325]

No hitch. Bad case by me. Im still hellbent on the lack of continous bodies of the blue bear. This goes more than an analogy, its sad we have trouble finding them

[mangler]

First you need to define which species of Blue Bear. These bears are not quite as elusive as bigfoot, which is everywhere yet nowhere. Who needs video/film when you have one in a zoo?


m

Ursus arctos pruinosus aka Blue Bear
Got this one in a zoo.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/82644968e801bc562.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14825)

Ursus americanus emmonsii aka Blue Bear/Glacier Bear/Spirit Bear
This species is not quite as rare
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_82644968e85ff3c91.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14826)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_82644968e87a91d8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14827)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_82644968e8ea6c31d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14829)

[William Parcher]

Im still hellbent on the lack of continous bodies of the blue bear.

The blue bear is an endangered species listed on CITES Appendix I. It is illegal to trade or possess a body or body part outside of strictly permitted official scientific study.


This goes more than an analogy, its sad we have trouble finding them.

Why do you continue to make huge assumptions and pull numbers out of your ass?

[kitakaze]

No hitch. Bad case by me. Im still hellbent on the lack of continous bodies of the blue bear. This goes more than an analogy, its sad we have trouble finding them

Continuous bodies? What does that even mean, man? You need to quite it with the blue bears. It flies at BFF, not here. They are in zoos, we have there bodies living and dead to study, the Chinese chop them up into little bitty bits and put them in jars in apothecaries. There is a reason why they are rare.

Enough with the blue bears!
It's raining blue bears:

Tibetan blue bears:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281db02e9b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14775)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281f29bc1d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14776)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/89614962821bee6c7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14777)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896149628277711eb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14778)

Know them. Found Them. Put them in a zoo.

[kitakaze]

However, the blue bear has never been video taped, and if it were, it would be online

This is inching to the threshhold of willful stupidity.

:hit:

Hello? Hello??

I showed you two separate bears in zoos in Japan.

PEOPLE VIDEOTAPE THEM DAILY.

[Aepervius]

Aep, tell me, how many videos do we have of a blue bear? Yes, im bringing it up again.

If I remember correctly there is a blue bear in a zoo in Japan, as somebody already psoted you. I dunno why you are so hung on video as opposed to photo.

But, hey, pay me the travel to the japan zoo where there is one, and I deliver you tons over tons of blue bear video. Or ask kitakaze to film it.

[Aepervius]

This is inching to the threshhold of willful stupidity.

:hit:

Hello? Hello??

I showed you two separate bears in zoos in Japan.

PEOPLE VIDEOTAPE THEM DAILY.

Shhhhhhhh *whisper to kita*, she/he may be about to pay me a travel to Japan. HIHI.

[GT/CS]

If I remember correctly there is a blue bear in a zoo in Japan, as somebody already psoted you. I dunno why you are so hung on video as opposed to photo.

But, hey, pay me the travel to the japan zoo where there is one, and I deliver you tons over tons of blue bear video. Or ask kitakaze to film it.

He's young, and today's youth believe that the internet is the be-all and know-all of the civilized world. If it isn't on the internet (Youtube) it doesn't exist.

[tsig]

I was told? What do you mean I was told? What is this potty training? Well I went though photos I've posted and yes there are two photos where I highlighted the forearms of Patty.

IMO bristling.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1875549373eb843497.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14448)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/18755493740ca033c5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14450)

All I see are furry, blurry photos. You are seeing things that are beyond the limit of resolution.

"One of these laws defines the resolution limit of any optical system, any camera lens, even a perfect one with absolutely no lens errors. ......So, even a perfect lens with no lens errors is limited in its resolution! (Such a perfect lens does not exist. Even the most sophisticated lenses on this planet, the Carl Zeiss S-Planar lenses for the semiconductor industry are only approximations to the perfect lens, although very close ones.) Thus the term "diffraction-limited" has become the synonym for lenses that are so good their only per-formance limit is the law of diffraction. According to this law no camera lens used in photography, still or motion, can produce resolutions higher than given in the following table (Approximate, rounded off values for white light spectrum of even energy distribution. In unevenly distributed spectra of gas discharge light sources somewhat higher resolutions may be achieved.)


f-no......................resolution
.............................(line pairs per millimeter)
.45.............................35
.32.............................50
.22.............................70
.16...........................100
.11...........................140
...8...........................200
5.6...........................280
...4...........................400
2.8...........................560

In practical photography other limitations of resolution occur, too. The existing depth-of-field concepts, for example, lead to a limit at 30 line pairs per millimeter, simply because they assume that the image of a sharp point may be considered sharp as long as the unsharp disc it actually is (called the "circle of confusion") grows no larger than 1/1000th of the focal length of the respective standard lens. In 35 mm photography only 1/1500th is allowed. 1/1500 th of the 50 mm standard focal length equals 1/30th mm. So 30 fit into one mm, which means, we are talking 30 line pairs per millimeter (CLN 1 has more details in "Depth of Field – An Insider's Look Behind The Scenes", an article that meanwhile has been reprinted in many publications around the world). This is about the same limit set by diffraction for f/45 which was an aperture setting quite popular with 5 x 7 inch large format photography, producing images that can be viewed without any subsequent magnification.
"(Camera Lens News No. 2, fall 1997)

[makaya325]

Thank you for the blue bear pictures. We dont find them at high clips, like we find deer, despite deer are 30 million

[Jeff Wagg]

And thus we begin part 3....

[Jeff Wagg]

And now I've even unlocked the thread! My generosity never ends..

(sorry about that!)

[JcR]

Patty Nopoops sat on a stump.
Patty Nopoops had no Dumptys to dump.
All the Anthropologist and all the Footer's men.
Couldn't find Dumptys nor Patty again.

[kitakaze]

ROTFLMAO!!!:D:D:D

Oh, that would make a fine sig. JcR, you should use that. Patty Nopoops! I love it. Better than Patty McLumpy!

[JcR]

Done. and
Thank you. :)

[clayflingythingy]

If (a bif if) the PGF is the high water mark for evidence of the existence of BF, how many years must pass without proof positive before you conclude BF doesn't exist?

Is the 40+ years long enough for us to conclude BF is a cultural myth or must we wait 50 years? 100 years? How long without evidence before BF proponents give up?

[JcR]

It will go beyond that even time itself will dare not travel.
Until the Universe collapses onto itself.
Beyond even the most outer fringes of our Imaginations.
Beyond...
Beyond...
Beyond...

[Skeptical Greg]

What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )

[kitakaze]

What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Hmmm... I don't think Bill Munns matters anywhere nearly enough to do that. I'd call it maybe a 2-3 year boost tops among BFF members who don't leave their forum long enough to find out how well that opinion does beyond its nursing area.

[LONGTABBER PE]

At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.

[Hitch]

At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.

Why?

I mean, as long as nobody ever looks at the film to see what it really does and does not show, Bigfoot enthusiasts can claim anything they want. It's not like the PGF actually exists any more than the Bigfoot it supposed to show.

[tsig]

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )

That's happened to me at some jobs.

[tsig]

At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.

Not as long as long as there are wind bags like Meldrum who can pontificate forever about nothing and prove that what you never saw is proof it was there.

[clayflingythingy]

What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )

It has been clear that Munns was going to declare Patty a real BF from early on at his BFF postings. At least that has been my take on Munns.

Altho it has been a long time since I read Krantz, didn't he say the longer we went without a body, that was a promblem for BF proponents? Or am I remembering wrong?

The BFF members have been using Munns to bolster their "Patty was a real BF" from early on.

The lack of BF evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that BF doesn't exist as a real animal and that BF is a clutural myth. How else could they be undiscovered eating pancakes in KY?

[makaya325]

Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!

[makaya325]

Clay, the lack of a body. We have other forms of evidence

[Hitch]

Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
Are you debating Bigfoot (and by extension, the PGF) without knowing who Bill Munns is?

[Skeptical Greg]

Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!( What hitch said ... but, since you asked .... )

Best I can tell, he's got some super-secret glasses that enables him to see an extremely well made costume, when all I can see is a cheesy monkey suit that is starting to fall apart..


This, must just be a coincidence .. No wait ! I know .. Charlie Gemora modeled his suit after a real Bigfoot ....

[JcR]

They say things come and go. But I still gotta wonder sometimes.

[Aepervius]

I am happy to see the thread go on. I think I might be a little addicted and fascinated at the discussion here. *wear pom pom bigfoot costume* Please big foot enthusiast come here and discuss more ! I need my fix !


Clay, the lack of a body. We have other forms of evidence

Normally Before you try to cite those evidence I would advise you to read the other thread to see how far those evidence are either :
* utterly destroyed
or
* not an evidence of anything in the scientific sense

but I need a FIX this week end so please provide your so called evidence. it will be entertaining to see them destroyed another time again (and i bet for some of what you think are evidence it will be the 14th or 15th time they get trashed to nothingness).

[JcR]

Here is my demonstration... That crap is left in the woods.
The cycle of Poo.

[Skeptical Greg]

I think some people get confused about evidence .

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.

A print is evidence that something made a print. An elk, perhaps ? A joker with a wooden foot ?

A film is evidence that someone had a camera and film ..


We have to understand why a non-human North American primate is not even on the B list ..

[William Parcher]

I think some people get confused about evidence.

A sighting is evidence that someone saw something.

I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.

[kitakaze]

Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!

No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

That is the proper way to make an appeal to authority.;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

I would even argue that this can't even be assumed as is. A sighting report is evidence that a person gave a sighting report. To say that they must have seen something is already giving any hoaxer an advantage. The evaluation of the report may erroneously go straight to trying to figure out what they saw instead of maintaining the possibility that the report is fictitious.

I can sit here at my computer and create a wholly fictitious sighting report for myself. If I give some sort of decription of the "Bigfoot" then people will debate the actual thing I saw. That debate about the something that I saw requires an assumption that I really did go into the woods and see something at all.

I agree completely and thats one of the reasons Rock and i stayed on them.

I dont rule out that a large portion are legitimate misidentifications or simply honest errors and I dont rule out the small possibility some may have seen a real BF but i CERTAINLY dont rule out the PROBABILITY that a large percent are people who make them up.

You could have people who just want attention ( Florida and beans come to mind as well as garlic) or want to say they experienced one to be part of a crowd or simply because its "unusual" and may give them some kind of "status" or just to be "cool".

If youtube is an accurate representation, making a "bigfoot" story seems to be pretty popular.

[makaya325]

Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?

[kitakaze]

Kita, what about janos prohaska who said its unlikely to be a suit?

Yes, makaya, what about him?

[makaya325]

Kita, i remember him in an interview about the pgf. He said its unlikely to be a man in a suit, and if it were a suit, he said "its the best i have ever seen"

[kitakaze]

So what's your point? If we're going to make appeals to authority, doesn't it mean that the person with the bigger, better authorities wins?

[jayman]

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

[LONGTABBER PE]

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

Ask him who "proved it" and how and if it is proof positive, why hasnt BF been officially recognized as its own species by any official body.

That should stimulate the conversation PDQ

[kitakaze]

What would a good response be to a bigfoot proponent who claims that the Patterson film is proof positive for there being a bigfoot?

That they have a very bad understanding of what constitutes proof.

[makaya325]

Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?

[Crowlogic]

[QUOTE=kitakaze;4354730]No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.

[makaya325]

Crow, Munns is definitely no woo, like some people here contend he is. Does anyone here know more about fx effects and costumes more than Munns here?

[makaya325]

Kitz, its not proof, but it COULD qualify as POSSIBLE evidence, yet thats unlikely

[LONGTABBER PE]

Yet, long, how could you be a proponent if you like dismissing things, yet you argue your sighting of a blur of fur is valid?

I dont dismiss anything, I'm open to everything.

I dismiss these things because I AM a scientist and I KNOW how research is done properly and as such can show where this crap being passed off as science is utter BS because I have evaluated it.

I do not argue my NOT SURE encounters as valid other than the fact the incidents happened. I have NEVER said they were CONCLUSIVE of a BF. I have NEVER said they WERE a BF.

Thats how science actually works. I reported the sightings and the facts as they were and what little we did. Results were inconclusive in both. Inconclusive does NOT default or contribute to the possibility of BF existing.

[rockinkt]

[QUOTE=kitakaze;4354730]No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.

QUOTE]

So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection. And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.


Do you not understand that people who manufacture quality suits have the experience to see where the usual problems and identifiers of a suit are most likely to be found - and then look for those give-a-ways?

It is Like Randi watching a fraud who trying to pretend he is something other than an illusionist.
Randi does not have to be able to do what the fraudster does better than the fraudster - he just has to look for the usual tricks of the trade that give the hoax away.
Once he identifies the simple tell-tales - the hoax is exposed.

That is what Baker, Walas and Langdon have done. They looked for the tell-tales of a suit. Once they spotted the tell-tales - they did not have to do anything else.
The suit is busted.

[makaya325]

Rockinkt, yet Bill Munns is dismissed?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Rockinkt, yet Bill Munns is dismissed?

Bill isnt dismissed. Bill isnt finished yet and presented his final decisions and findings.

Its a cart before the horse thing

[makaya325]

Also, long, What do you think bf is? An ape?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Also, long, What do you think bf is? An ape?

Sounds good to me

[makaya325]

Long, i still cant believe your a proponent! Lol,

[LONGTABBER PE]

Long, i still cant believe your a proponent! Lol,

I am a proponent, what I am not is an idiot who checks his intelligence,education and experience at the door.

[Crowlogic]

[QUOTE=Crowlogic;4355130]


Do you not understand that people who manufacture quality suits have the experience to see where the usual problems and identifiers of a suit are most likely to be found - and then look for those give-a-ways?

It is Like Randi watching a fraud who trying to pretend he is something other than an illusionist.
Randi does not have to be able to do what the fraudster does better than the fraudster - he just has to look for the usual tricks of the trade that give the hoax away.
Once he identifies the simple tell-tales - the hoax is exposed.

That is what Baker, Walas and Langdon have done. They looked for the tell-tales of a suit. Once they spotted the tell-tales - they did not have to do anything else.
The suit is busted.

I guess this suit is busted then too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_187554895d5d5f421d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13294)

[JcR]

[QUOTE=rockinkt;4355437]

I guess this suit is busted then too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_187554895d5d5f421d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13294)

Nice monkey butt there. Nice to see you again Crow :)

[makaya325]

Crow, dont you understand that ape suits are SUPPOSED to display feature found in real great apes?;)

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess this suit is busted then too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_187554895d5d5f421d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13294)
It could be a suit, but we don't have any reason to suspect it is ..

Do you understand why we have reason to suspect the PGF subject is not a real Bigfoot ?

Why don't you google us up a real gorilla butt that looks like this ..

[makaya325]

Dio, the so called suit you provided has thin legs, compared to the massive quads on patty

[makaya325]

Dio, how do you know what your seeing isnt just a shadow?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Dio, how do you know what your seeing isnt just a shadow?

We dont ( which is the whole point) any more than the woo's see muscles, pileoerections, hernias and such.

[makaya325]

Long, dont the legs shake after each step it makes?

[Skeptical Greg]

Dio, the so called suit you provided has thin legs, compared to the massive quads on patty

Who says it has to be the whole suit ?

Why couldn't Patterson have acquired the bottom of that suit and modified the legs ?


Are you saying you can't see the similarity ?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Long, dont the legs shake after each step it makes?

They look like they might now is that from a suit,muscles,waders,shadows or what?

Be specific and able to prove your premise

[Skeptical Greg]

Long, dont the legs shake after each step it makes? Your point ?

Is there some postulate about costume legs not shaking ?

Do real boobs bounce ?

Why is Patty's right boob rigid ?

[JcR]

Its a big rigid mast cell tumor not a booby.
Oh and sorry I have no Proof to offer on my tumor theory.
Do I need one ?

[makaya325]

Your point ?

Is there some postulate about costume legs not shaking ?

Do real boobs bounce ?

Why is Patty's right boob rigid ?

Dio, answer my response: Why dont typical suits show shaking of legs?

[LONGTABBER PE]

dio, answer my response: Why dont typical suits show shaking of legs?

follow your own admonishments

[Skeptical Greg]

Dio, answer my response: Why dont typical suits show shaking of legs?

What typical suits are you referring to ? Who gets to decide if an example I provide is typical?


I find it easier to believe that the legs of monkey suits might bounce, than I do, that the subject of the PGF is a non-human North American primate ..



That you can't admit that Patty's butt, looks remarkably like the butt of an actual gorilla suit, says a lot about where you are coming from..

[GT/CS]

Has this been discussed in either 411 or reel 2?

It's a post from BFF. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24838&hl=)

It is said that the Sasquatch walk with their hands/arms to the side like we do, but instead of having the palms of their hands facing inwards towards their legs, the palms are turned facing behind them as they walk swinging their arms. If the Patterson subject's hands are turned like the Sasquatch hands are supposed to be then let me continue....


If I am walking with my palms facing behind me, the only part of my upper arm that is visible is my triceps, IE the backside of my arm. The figure in the film, however, shows the perfect side view of its arm, showing the Bicep as much as the Triceps, including the Shoulders.

Can anyone on this forum turn the palms of their hands to face behind them and show the side of their arm just as Patty does? Can any of you do that and swing your arms as the figure does?

[Skeptical Greg]

Haven't seen that before .. Good catch by XionComrade.

Bears further discussion ..

[LTC8K6]

I think we know very well, from Sweaty's favorite 2 frame animation, exactly how Patty's hands are oriented when she walks...

[kitakaze]

No where near as much as Oscar winners Rick Baker and Chris Walas and other master fx artists such as Verne Langdon who have studied Patty in detail and confirm it to be a bad suit.



So are there any truly great ape suits? Are there any that simply bowl the viewer over and defy detection.

Ding dong!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy52yueBX_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy52yueBX_s And what/who would the authority be to have made such a suit and where can it be seen? Any Rick Baker or Vern Langdon can say anyting is a bad suit. But until they exibit a masterful example either by themselves or another they're just blowhards.

I'm struggling to figure out what you're trying to say. It's often the case with your posts. Are you trying to say Rick Baker and Verne Langdon haven't made bad suits or good? Oscar winners Chris Walas and Rick Baker have looked in detail at Patty and after studying it concluded it to be a bad suit. How is their examination of poor quality and what makes thems blowhards?

[Drewbot]

Patty Nopoops sat on a stump.
Patty Nopoops had no Dumptys to dump.
All the Anthropologist and all the Footer's men.
Couldn't find Dumptys nor Patty again.
Because the interdimensional VORTEX closed
While the Anthropologoists dozed
and the Dumptys were gone from this world

[xblade]

Do real boobs bounce ?

Why is Patty's right boob rigid ?

And why are they attached to her abdomen?

[Skeptical Greg]

Aw, c'mon .. That must be unique Bigfoot morphology ..

We know RP did not have the skill or materials to attach boobs to an abdomen in 1967 ..

And if he did, why would he make such an obvious mistake? If he was really creating a hoax he wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake..:rolleyes:

[JcR]

Doctor: "You feel under the weather today?"

Bigfoot: "Grunt" "Grunt."

Doctor: "Do you have any bowel movements?"

Bigfoot: "Grunt."

Doctor: "Shouldn't you be seeing DVM?"

Bigfoot: "Ya!" "But he said to come see you."

[xblade]

Aw, c'mon .. That must be unique Bigfoot morphology ..

We know RP did not have the skill or materials to attach boobs to an abdomen in 1967 ..

And if he did, why would he make such an obvious mistake? If he was really creating a hoax he wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake..:rolleyes:

Good point. Maybe they weren't boobs at all, maybe they were balls. And all this time we thought Patty was a girl. :D

[Aepervius]

Good point. Maybe they weren't boobs at all, maybe they were balls. And all this time we thought Patty was a girl. :D

This is a breakthrough ! This perfectly explain the skookum cast !

[JcR]

A Hermaphrosquatch.

[JcR]

And a method to trap the Bugger.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964976eb54adbd4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14957)

[LTC8K6]

Cans of beans and a screwdriver, not pancakes!

Do I have to do everything?

[JcR]

Cans of beans and a screwdriver, not pancakes!

Do I have to do everything?

You have a truck with a hitch?
Bring some beans to.

[makaya325]

I think people make a mistake when they think the pgf is fake. The footage itself is not fake, the subject in question might or might not be fake.

[LTC8K6]

You have a truck with a hitch?

Yep. Grand Cherokee 4X4 with the Hemi. It won't even notice that bigfoot is hitched to it.

[LTC8K6]

The footage itself is not fake, the subject in question might or might not be fake.

Now why didn't we think of that? :rolleyes:

[bobbieshort]

I am a proponent, what I am not is an idiot who checks his intelligence,education and experience at the door.

Greg... In your research of Bob Heironimus, did you ever see him without his shirt on?...or ask him to remove his shirt?

[JohnWS]

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h72/John_WS/JREF/Grasshopper.jpg

'I think people make a mistake when they think the pgf is fake. The footage itself is not fake, the subject in question might or might not be fake.'

[Skeptical Greg]

And the winner of today's pedantic award is .... the envelope please ....

[JcR]

Yep. Grand Cherokee 4X4 with the Hemi. It won't even notice that bigfoot is hitched to it.

This (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=OcXA_pkfLso&feature=related) can help lure it to the Trap site. So we will all bring ear plugs.

[makaya325]

Bobbie, are you the bf encounters bobbie short?

[Skeptical Greg]

Take it to a PM ..

[mangler]

I have brought this quote over from the Munns thread since it belongs here and I would like to expand on it. LTC had mentioned how the color of patty went form brown to black.

This is an interesting issue. If Patterson made the suit or had a suit in his possession that he helped a mime get into then there is no way that he could describe erroneously. For whatever the reason the object on the film appears mostly black with its skin perhaps beaming up from the thinner sections of fur, or perhaps only reflection off of the fur. Did Patterson somehow describe the wrong suit? Or did he erroneously describe what he filmed before he saw the film? Was he just a dumb cowboy who wouldn't have known how to describe his way out of a paper bag? The fact that he seems to have gotten it wrong leads me to believe that he did not create or have previous contact with what we see on that film. Maybe Patterson was color blind?


How do we know the subject doesn't look more like this on the master?
http://manglertestsite.vndv.com/patty.html

16mm film, 50mm lens, 90ish feet, I would expect to get a fairly good image off of that, but who knows, maybe it was filmed at twice that distance since nobody knows for certain what camera was used, what film was used, what lens was used, what aperture was used or what film speed was used. Maybe the master is good film (too good) and they degraded it during the dupes.

There is an old saying that goes something like this, if you want people to interpret what is there, put it on film, but if you want them to see what is there put it on video. Film is alive by nature; it starts out soft then hardens then it’s soft again then hardened again. Film comes to life twice, once during the exposure and again during development, I think the odds are that what we see went through this process at least twice, once with the master and at least once with a dupe. Much of what results from these processes can be controlled by the operator.

I still don't think most people understand the gravity of what is said when people speak of optical printing. From my understanding I believe the dupes were optically printed, not so much because of what is said, but because of what hasn't been said, no bleed though on the edge etc.


Full report to come at a later date. Look at me, look at me. :bike:




BTW, I do entertain the possibility that bigfoot exists.



m

[Skeptical Greg]

Notice how the hair is laying correct from piece to piece ? Can't see any seams on that one either ..

http://manglertestsite.vndv.com/_wp_generated/wp2530850d_0f.jpg

PM me Mangler if you would rather I not hot-link your image..

[LONGTABBER PE]

Greg... In your research of Bob Heironimus, did you ever see him without his shirt on?...or ask him to remove his shirt?

Uuuuum Bobbie, I believe you have me mistaken for someone else. I'm not Greg, I have never researched BH ( or anyone else in the world of BF) before. ( with or without his shirt)

[Skeptical Greg]

Greg here ..

Was Bobbie addressing me ?

My answer would be no ..

May I ask the point of the question ?

[LONGTABBER PE]

I wonder which one of us she meant- your name and my quote

[makaya325]

Bff version blue bear style: Mangler, you cant be serious about even considering it exists?

[LTC8K6]

Patterson's descriptions of the hair, the breasts, etc., often seem to be at odds with the PGF itself, makaya.

Patterson says her hair is long and silvery brown. Then he says it's short and black.
Patterson says Patty stopped and looked back while he was filming her. She doesn't.
Patterson says her breasts are droopy/floppy/pendulous. They barely move at all.

Napier says he cannot see Patty's feet in his review of the PGF. Patty's feet are clearly visible in the PGF. So what film was Napier looking at?

[Hitch]

I think people make a mistake when they think the pgf is fake. The footage itself is not fake, the subject in question might or might not be fake.

I think the PGF is a fake.

I've never seen it. The only reproductions, stabilizations, enhancements, etc. that I've seen don't match what bigfoot enthusiasts describe.

No one seems to be able to say where it, or a complete low generation copy are.

No one has ever offered a plausible story of how, when and where it was filmed, including any sort of reasonable description of how, when, where and by who it was developed.

And yet, it often gets offered as the best evidence for bigfoot by bigfoot enthusiasts. Despite the fact that it doesn't even seem to exist.

[makaya325]

I think the PGF is a fake.

I've never seen it. The only reproductions, stabilizations, enhancements, etc. that I've seen don't match what bigfoot enthusiasts describe.

No one seems to be able to say where it, or a complete low generation copy are.

No one has ever offered a plausible story of how, when and where it was filmed, including any sort of reasonable description of how, when, where and by who it was developed.

And yet, it often gets offered as the best evidence for bigfoot by bigfoot enthusiasts. Despite the fact that it doesn't even seem to exist.

The only thing i saw on the subject is the leg jiggle, which if it is a part of the costume, its fantastic. I like when girls jiggle it! Slap the thighs, and ride the waves my man!:cool:

BTW Napier saw an inconsistency in the subjects upper and lower extremes, and the fact that female non-human primates rarely have a saggital crest. Did he imagine this, or was he on to something?

[Hitch]

I think we're making progress. He quoted a post without breaking the quote function for once. Although the post he made had nothing to do with the one he quoted.

[tsig]

Patterson's descriptions of the hair, the breasts, etc., often seem to be at odds with the PGF itself, makaya.

Patterson says her hair is long and silvery brown. Then he says it's short and black.
Patterson says Patty stopped and looked back while he was filming her. She doesn't.
Patterson says her breasts are droopy/floppy/pendulous. They barely move at all.

Napier says he cannot see Patty's feet in his review of the PGF. Patty's feet are clearly visible in the PGF. So what film was Napier looking at?

Patty seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

[Crowlogic]

I have brought this quote over from the Munns thread since it belongs here and I would like to expand on it. LTC had mentioned how the color of patty went form brown to black.




How do we know the subject doesn't look more like this on the master?
http://manglertestsite.vndv.com/patty.html

16mm film, 50mm lens, 90ish feet, I would expect to get a fairly good image off of that, but who knows, maybe it was filmed at twice that distance since nobody knows for certain what camera was used, what film was used, what lens was used, what aperture was used or what film speed was used. Maybe the master is good film (too good) and they degraded it during the dupes.

There is an old saying that goes something like this, if you want people to interpret what is there, put it on film, but if you want them to see what is there put it on video. Film is alive by nature; it starts out soft then hardens then it’s soft again then hardened again. Film comes to life twice, once during the exposure and again during development, I think the odds are that what we see went through this process at least twice, once with the master and at least once with a dupe. Much of what results from these processes can be controlled by the operator.

I still don't think most people understand the gravity of what is said when people speak of optical printing. From my understanding I believe the dupes were optically printed, not so much because of what is said, but because of what hasn't been said, no bleed though on the edge etc.


Full report to come at a later date. Look at me, look at me. :bike:




BTW, I do entertain the possibility that bigfoot exists.



m

Since the frame posted is one of the Cibarchrome prints the color is unreliable as there is speculaton that the frames were were altered. I've seen those frames where the figure is nearly black so what's the point? But it would be helpful if you could post links to Patterson's various descriptions of the figure's color. Personally I think the frame you posted looks very altered an unnatural with its color distribution.

[William Parcher]

Since the frame posted is one of the Cibarchrome prints the color is unreliable as there is speculaton that the frames were were altered.


The Dahinden Cibachromes show a black Patty.

[Crowlogic]

The Dahinden Cibachromes show a black Patty.

Virtually everything ever shown in moving images shows a black figure. Where does Patterson say it was brown and where does he say it was black?

[bobbieshort]

Greg here ..

Was Bobbie addressing me ?

My answer would be no ..

May I ask the point of the question ?

---------
Sorry LongTabber, I mistook you for GL...I don't really know too many individuals on JREF by their alias names & I don't post here (or anywhere) very often ...indulge me. Anyhoooo....yes I wondered if Greg L. ever had an occasion to see BH without his shirt... I thought it a legitimate question...I'm surprised that you haven't.

[William Parcher]

Virtually everything ever shown in moving images shows a black figure. Where does Patterson say it was brown and where does he say it was black?


LOL. I know you have ADD. :boggled:

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4365736&postcount=91).

[JohnWS]

Much of what results from these processes can be controlled by the operator.
Hey Mangler - are you talking about colour/color timing or grading here? Right off the bat I'll say I know next to nothing about it, but I'm guessing that's what you may be referring to?

[Skeptical Greg]

---------
Sorry LongTabber, I mistook you for GL...I don't really know too many individuals on JREF by their alias names & I don't post here (or anywhere) very often ...indulge me. Anyhoooo....yes I wondered if Greg L. ever had an occasion to see BH without his shirt... I thought it a legitimate question...I'm surprised that you haven't.I'm not Greg Long - but again - Can you explain the relevance of BH without his shirt .?

We have been discussing this for almost three years, and it has never come up ...

[William Parcher]

BH may have rigid boobs that pop straight out of his tummy. Just like Patty.

Maybe that's what Bobbie is curious about.

[Skeptical Greg]

Virtually everything ever shown in moving images shows a black figure. Where does Patterson say it was brown and where does he say it was black?I just posted in one of the threads, a quote from the Green interview with Gimlin; and Gimlin says it was brown ..

P.S.

... And we know Gimlin doesn't lie.

[bobbieshort]

I'm not Greg Long - but again - Can you explain the relevance of BH without his shirt .?

We have been discussing this for almost three years, and it has never come up ...
--------------

My question was to Greg Long because of his relationship with BH's claim.... I thought at some point in his investigation he would have had the occasion to......well listen, on second thought, I can explain better if I could post an example here, but I think the last time I posted there was some rule regarding the number of posts one must have before uploads and links are allowed....what is that number again? If I haven't reach that limit yet, maybe one of you would make the upload for me? (with text?) I think what I know is worthy of a discussion....so far you guys aren't even close to the real story.

[William Parcher]

I don't know if it's a set number. You should try it now. If it doesn't work, you can type in any web address like this...

www.bigfootencounters.com

[bobbieshort]

I want to upload a sequence of frames from the Patterson film, not sure how to do that here...

[William Parcher]

Click the "insert image" button. It looks like a picture of mountains and sun.

Are these images on your hard drive or at a web address somewhere?

[bobbieshort]

....these examples from the Pat film are on a thumb drive, I guess if push comes to shove I can upload them on a webpage and insert the link....I'll give it a go...thank you for your help.

[Crowlogic]

LOL. I know you have ADD. :boggled:

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4365736&postcount=91).

William I was looking for actual interview with Patterson not forum posts. To whom did Patterson say the creature was brown and to whom did he say it was black. What are the dates and places of those descriptions?

[Skeptical Greg]

We just made the interview stuff up..

How does that change anything ?


Why don't you try a little research of your own ?

[William Parcher]

William I was looking for actual interview with Patterson not forum posts. To whom did Patterson say the creature was brown and to whom did he say it was black. What are the dates and places of those descriptions?

Here (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm) and then here (http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm). But of course you've already seen those articles. :D

[makaya325]

Speaking of patterson, How is his wife's health? I heard from someone that she isnt doing to good?:(

[LTC8K6]

bobbie, you can upload files to this board.

In the lower right hand corner of the advanced reply box, there is a My Images area where you can upload images. There are size limits, though.

[bobbieshort]

Watch this sequence of frames from the Patterson film....direct your attention to the right side of Patty's back; specifically the lower right lung/kidney region. A few frames will flash by when nothing appears to happen then suddenly there is an anomaly in the region I directed you to watch.....I ask for your patience, it will take watching the sequence of frames many times over.......study it closely before you conclude that I'm nuts, ....I have studied & reviewed this sequence continuously since last summer and granted, it IS difficult to follow, but keep your eyes on that area of Patty's back.

Watch for the anomaly to appear; the image brightens as it occurs to help delineate the anomaly.... when you are finished, I have follow up images.....

Also take notice of how Patterson is unable to steady his camera despite standing in the same position in this sequence of frames, --something caused him to suddenly jerk, which blurs the Patty images... these frames are as stabilized as they can be...... http://bigfootencounters.com/images/JREFimage.htm

[LTC8K6]

"Its head was very human, though considerably more slanted, and with a large forehead and wide nostrils. Its arms hung almost to its knees when it walked. Its hair was two to four inches long, brown underneath, lighter at the top, and covering the entire body except for the face. And it was a female; it had big, pendulous breasts."

January 1969, Patterson says Patty's hair is 2 to 4 inches long again and brown again.

[bobbieshort]

........these files are huge, I wasn't able to load them directly here....... it is taking awhile to get them from my computer to the server, but there should be two
of them uploaded currently, hit refresh if you only have one.
The second sequence has helps.....an arrow to show the anomaly. There is yet a third which I'm trying to get on the server now.......stand by.

Bobbie

[William Parcher]

then suddenly there is an anomaly in the region I directed you to watch.....I ask for your patience,

something caused him to suddenly jerk, which blurs the Patty images...


OMG. Gimlin shot Patty in the kidney, and the bang caused Patterson to flinch. :eek: :D

[LTC8K6]

bobbie, I wasn't expecting giant gif movies. :D

So far, it's interesting. I actually had not thought much of the fact that Roger isn't moving much at that point, yet we still have earthquake camera shake...

[William Parcher]

Now I get it, Bobbie. Bob Heironimus is supposed to have a bullet scar in his back.

Lift up his shirt. No scar - no star!

[LTC8K6]

Well, we never would have seen this part of the film if there was anything incriminating. Roger would have "run out" a bit earlier.

For what it's worth, it looks like the suit comes apart to me, but it's hard to say if it's real, or just poor quality and noise.

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin shot Patty in the kidney, and the bang caused Patterson to flinch.

No wonder they tracked her for 3.5 miles...

[bobbieshort]

....the thought being, if this is "actual" ....(so far the issue is being denied for public consumption) I think Heironimus would be dead.....he couldn't have survived a shot like that, not as far away as the Bluff Creek Sandbar is from a medical facility......in fact, if you are of the mind that the subject is real, Patty couldn't have survived either. So if it's a man in a suit, where are Heironimus' scars??....from my studies, he should have three rounds to the back and one visible to the right thigh..... (I still have one more upload to get on that page...)

[bobbieshort]

No wonder they tracked her for 3.5 miles...


In my opinion, they NEVER tracked her at all, she dropped at the end of that film... also it's only been in recent time that this kind of detail could be seen in the film...

[William Parcher]

No wonder they tracked her for 3.5 miles...

She clambered up the hill and sat down on the grassy knoll. There she watched P&G as she swabbed a medicinal plant on her wounds. The Digger Indians know about that stuff.

I knew Gimlin was a liar! He said he didn't fire his weapon. Liar!

Patty is a real Bigfoot and Gimlin still is a liar. What a world.

[LTC8K6]

It actually looks to me like the suit comes untucked on the right side.

I don't subscribe to the rifle shot idea, but the stabilized sequence is interesting none the less.

Patty's arms appear to act funny, too. Almost looks like they bend where they shouldn't.

[bobbieshort]

Okay, the server has all three film sequences....the last one pretty much spills the beans.....

....and Titmus never tracked Patty across the creek to an overlook where she sat down. He lied. There was a bad rain storm that night which flooded Crescent City, the creeks would have been fully awash...tracks across a creek would have been washed out.....and Titmus himself said he didn't show up until nine days after the Patterson filming......

There are other rounds Patty took, I can upload some of those tomorrow.......if you are interested. Let me know.
B.

[William Parcher]

LTC, don't you dare talk about a suit anymore. Everything comes together now. Patty was a real Bigfoot and she got killed. There is no functional evidence for the existence of Bigfoot since Patty. Gimlin killed the last living Bigfoot. Patterson, Gimlin & Titmus... all those SOBs lied to us. Damn them all the way to hell.

[bobbieshort]

It actually looks to me like the suit comes untucked on the right side.

I don't subscribe to the rifle shot idea, but the stabilized sequence is interesting none the less.

Patty's arms appear to act funny, too. Almost looks like they bend where they shouldn't.
-------------------

...they should look funny, Patty has at this point been hit a number of times with steel jacketed 30.06 rounds...I was completely dumbfounded that she stayed upright for as long as she did...although there is another point at which she falters, she also falls forward dramatically for a brief frame or two....there is no way she climbed an overlook. Even if you think it's a costume, the wearer shouldn't have survive that incident....and I've worked enough trauma units to know the damage that was done here.....

[LTC8K6]

and Titmus never tracked Patty across the creek to an overlook where she sat down. He lied. There was a bad rain storm that night which flooded Crescent City, the creeks would have been fully awash...tracks across a creek would have been washed out.....and Titmus himself said he didn't show up until nine days after the Patterson filming

Well, I agree with all of that. :)

[LTC8K6]

they should look funny, Patty has at this point been hit a number of times with steel jacketed 30.06 rounds...I was completely dumbfounded that she stayed upright for as long as she did...although there is another point at which she falters, she also falls forward dramatically for a brief frame or two....there is no way she climbed an overlook. Even if you think it's a costume, the wearer shouldn't have survive that incident....and I've worked enough trauma units to know the damage that was done here.....

Copper jacketed maybe, but not steel.

Why wait so long to shoot Patty?

Because Gimlin's horse did run away and had to be caught to get the rifle?

[bobbieshort]

Copper jacketed maybe, but not steel.

Why wait so long to shoot Patty?

Because Gimlin's horse did run away and had to be caught to get the rifle?

-------
Uh...no, Gimlin's horse was under control at all times, Roger's horse ran off along with the pack horse and Roger's rifle.

LTC8K6, it appears that Patty was fired upon sooner than it shows on film, you can't see the round, but you can see fleshy impact in more frames than those I've uploaded. The "thigh shot" is very telling......heretofore, those frames have been deemed a hernia.....I'll upload that one too (tomorrow) ...when you see it, you know it's not a
hernia. The impact or entry wound clearly shows in a series of frames...

[bobbieshort]

Now I get it, Bobbie. Bob Heironimus is supposed to have a bullet scar in his back.

Lift up his shirt. No scar - no star!
-----------

Exactly.

[LTC8K6]

Uh...no, Gimlin's horse was under control at all times,

Not according to Patterson. We just discussed this a little while ago.


LTC8K6, it appears that Patty was fired upon sooner than it shows on film, you can't see the round, but you can see fleshy impact in more frames than those I've uploaded. The "thigh shot" is very telling......heretofore, those frames have been deemed a hernia.

I don't think anyone here deemed it a hernia, but we've been all over that thigh problem many times.

[LONGTABBER PE]

-------------------

...they should look funny, Patty has at this point been hit a number of times with steel jacketed 30.06 rounds...I was completely dumbfounded that she stayed upright for as long as she did...although there is another point at which she falters, she also falls forward dramatically for a brief frame or two....there is no way she climbed an overlook. Even if you think it's a costume, the wearer shouldn't have survive that incident....and I've worked enough trauma units to know the damage that was done here.....

You have no concept regarding weapons,bullets or wounds- thats obvious

( I've been in enough combat and triaged enough to know too as well as been the one doing the shooting and seen the process)

"steel" jacketed?

There was no gunshot evidenced by anything in that film

[mangler]

Hey Mangler - are you talking about colour/color timing or grading here? Right off the bat I'll say I know next to nothing about it, but I'm guessing that's what you may be referring to?


John,

As far as the color goes that’s exactly what I’m talking about, I’ll expand on what I mean in a day or two. Kind of busy right now digesting these last few posts.


m


:popcorn1 :bike: :popcorn1

[mangler]

I must concur with LT on this one. A fire-up of a 30-caliber projectile of 180-220 grain will do considerable damage. A solid thigh hit would, well lets just say, cause a bit of a limp, even in an elephant, and if I’m not mistaken the 220 actually has actually put an elephant down.


m

[LTC8K6]

Gimlin must be a rotten shot...

Also, there's really no reason for Patterson to be flinching on any but the first shot. Once he knows Gimlin is shooting, why would he flinch? I wouldn't.

Why would Patterson flinch, bobbie? He's no stranger to hunting and gunfire. The first shot might surprise him, and I even doubt that. Unless Gimlin had a round in the chamber, he has to cycle the action first, a sound which Roger would recognize.

[Skeptical Greg]

:o

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess our saving grace, is that this is the paranormal forum...

I wonder where Bobbie received her ballistics/forensic ballistics training...

[Hitch]

I guess our saving grace, is that this is the paranormal forum...

I wonder where Bobbie received her ballistics/forensic ballistics training...

Until a cranky mod comes along and this is justifiably moved to Humor.

I'm channeling Graham Chapman here.

[bobbieshort]

I guess our saving grace, is that this is the paranormal forum...

I wonder where Bobbie received her ballistics/forensic ballistics training...
----------

I admit readily I know nothing about firearms....I was repeating what I was told my the owner of Gimlin's rifle ..through another person. Both of them knowledgable. "if" I am wrong, I will post as much. In the meantime, I'll have to get in touch with him again and ask him to tell me again. I pretend to be an expert at nothing except my work.

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, I'm looking forward to taking a closer look at those GIFs .. I think we are seeing the top of the suit coming un-tucked from the fur diaper..

Perhaps Mr. Munns can comment..

[LTC8K6]

I think we are seeing the top of the suit coming un-tucked from the fur diaper..

Now that'd get a flinch out of Roger... :D

[Hitch]

Now that'd get a flinch out of Roger... :D
So the camera shake is Roger yelling, "Bob! Tuck your shirt in!"?

[xblade]

You'd think Patty would have teleported when she heard the gunfire to avoid being shot.

[Skeptical Greg]

I took a slow look at LMS.. The bulge is there.. I hadn't noticed it before ..

I think I see the the bulge earlier on also, only higher on the back ..
What I think we may be seeing is that marvelous scapular action that couldn't be fake, sliding down Patty's back ..
I'll try to put together some shots later, but I'm in no rush..

I must thank Bobbie for bringing in a bit of new fodder..

Here's a quick sample .. This is right after the turn-and-look .. Several seconds before the sequence Bobbie linked to.

[Óðinn]

Interesting to see that section of the film stabilized. Not sure what footage that was from. It was from a copy but no copyright notice. No comment on the bullet theory.

It is interesting that the overexposed frames at the end would coincide with the end of the reel. This is often the case for film that is removed from a camera and exposed to light.

Anything seen in that distorted footage from that distance would be pure speculation.

[Skeptical Greg]

That wasn't the end . It continues after Patty passes behind the tree, and it doesn't look over exposed , as LMS does it's fake ' running out of film ' effect ..
That brightness is someone jacking with it ..

This shows the bullet impact area from another angle ..

[Óðinn]

Yes, if the LMS is not overexposed then you are right. Did MK brighten it up?

[Skeptical Greg]

So Óðinn, if it's not overexposed, can we assume it's not the end of the reel ?

[Skeptical Greg]

So much for sliding down,
Lower back lumps are there from the begining.
I guess the angle at the end reveals that conical look..

[JcR]

Maybe Gimlin was reading from the wrong script.

[JcR]

Patterson: "What the Hec are ya shootin Bob for!"

Gimlin: "So I can tell everyone back at the bar I shot a Bigfoot."

Patterson: "Ya!, but its Bob your shootin at!"

Gimlin: "OH!"... Ya...Errr, "Sorry got too into the role."

Gimlin: "After a few beers nobody is gonna tell the dif anyways."

Patterson: "Well I guess ya could figure on that."

Gimlin: "Is he lookin kinda mad now?"

Patterson: "He'll get over it."

Gimlin: "We gonna have to start over?"

Patterson: "Nah!"... "We should still be ok."

Gimlin: "If we do it again... I might get off a better shot."

[Óðinn]

So Óðinn, if it's not overexposed, can we assume it's not the end of the reel ?
No, we cannot assume anything without the master.

[LONGTABBER PE]

No, we cannot assume anything without the master.

Lets remember this when the report comes out for review

[JohnWS]

As far as the color goes that’s exactly what I’m talking about, I’ll expand on what I mean in a day or two.
Thanks.

Kind of busy right now digesting these last few posts.


There's a lot to take in!

[Drewbot]

Bobbie Short- Thanks for you info on the bullets hitting Patty. But I have a couple questions:

1. Why didn't Patty take off running when the gunshots started popping off?

2. Couldn't Patty just jump dimensions and save herself?

3. How far do you think bobG was from Patty when he shot?

4. IF they murdered a Bigfoot, wouldn't it have behooved Rog and BobG to put Heironymous at the scene, and tell everyone it was a hoax instead of saying it was a real animal that got away? Why not either just A. Go public with the Bigfoot body, or B. Say it was a hoax with BobH in the suit?

[Skeptical Greg]

No, we cannot assume anything without the master.
I tend to agree, but you seemed eager to point out, that what you assumed were overexposed frames,supported the story that the film ran out.

[LTC8K6]

It is interesting that the overexposed frames at the end would coincide with the end of the reel. This is often the case for film that is removed from a camera and exposed to light.

The only way the film near the end would be damaged by removing it from the camera would be if it weren't actually the end. These rolls of film have a length of opaque leader at each end that allow removal and installation of the roll in daylight without damage. Assuming you are at the actual beginning/end of the roll.

[bobbieshort]

The only way the film near the end would be damaged by removing it from the camera would be if it weren't actually the end. These rolls of film have a length of opaque leader at each end that allow removal and installation of the roll in daylight without damage. Assuming you are at the actual beginning/end of the roll.
--------------
I think maybe some of you misunderstand.

Regarding what you all perceive as "overexposed frames" ...that isn't the case.

Viewers of this portion of the film frames are well able to decipher the anomaly and when it occurs for themselves... but some of us asked to have that moment of impact where the anomaly occurs "lightened in contrast" to "facilitate a better examination" of what may have been occurring at that exact moment....

What you all perceive as "overexposed frames" is simply an adjustment in "light contrast" to help the viewer see more clearly what was on that film strip. An old film meets up with modern technology revealing much of what really happened on that sandbar that week in Oct of 1967.

Also understand that ANYONE can make these determinations for themselves if they know what to look for... There are other moments in the Pat film where oddities like this one occur. I personally do not believe there was only one shot taken. In the right shoulder armpit for example if you want to have a look in that region. There is another anomaly that causes Patty's hair to fly dramatically forward, then of course there is the right thigh seen at clearer contrasts. There is another couple of frames where she falters, falling forward. Her struggle becomes more obvious.

It is a tedious job moving from one frame to another frame and making determinations of the changes that occur in each frame. But it can be done, new revelations are still being found...

These anomalies do not take away from the subject in the film itself; but it certainly DOES present the researcher with new questions. For example, if it was Heironimus in the suit, why would anyone unload with a rifle? What were the reasons Patty stayed out in the open when out of 4000 accounts, we know they duck for cover immediately or don't show themselves at all. Why was there a need for a packhorse on a day out shooting movies? What was in those boxes the packhorse was carrying? What was the point Titmus had for lying about tracking Patty? If he did track Patty, it was "at the time" not 9 days later as he testified. The questions are endless and I wrestle with them like anyone else.

I'll answer Drew Bot's questions in a while.....I'm at work.

[Hitch]

Let me say this. I find it absolutely unbelievable that Bob Heironimus, any other person in a suit, or a genuine bigfoot, could shrug off multiple rifle shots and continue strolling along as casually as the figure in the purported reproductions of the PGF seems to. I don't believe there's any need to check to see if Bob Gimlin's rifle had been fired, or to check for the presence of a convenient grassy knoll (or gnoll or Noll for that matter).

[Correa Neto]

I must be blind... I can`t see anything that`s being described...

[Hitch]

I must be blind... I can`t see anything that`s being described...

Oh that's standard for anything researchers "find" in the PGF. I gave up pointing out that the details simply aren't there and focus on pointing out the absurdity of the claims.

[Ravenwood]

I'm gonna have to chime in here & agree with LT. Having put more than my fair share of 30-06 rounds into game, the damage would be really noticeable & I cannot see the creature shrugging off those impacts. Heck, Have you ever seen the blow through & meat damage cause by hitting a deer at 150 yards? I won't normally take a shot at under 225 yards because it ruins too much meat for my liking. To take multiple 30-06 hits AND keep moving, let alone walking...something smells funny...

[bobbieshort]

I'm gonna have to chime in here & agree with LT. Having put more than my fair share of 30-06 rounds into game, the damage would be really noticeable & I cannot see the creature shrugging off those impacts. Heck, Have you ever seen the blow through & meat damage cause by hitting a deer at 150 yards? I won't normally take a shot at under 225 yards because it ruins too much meat for my liking. To take multiple 30-06 hits AND keep moving, let alone walking...something smells funny...
-----------------

How do you figure Patty "shrugged off the rounds?"
Show me where you see that.

[bobbieshort]

Let me say this. I find it absolutely unbelievable that Bob Heironimus, any other person in a suit, or a genuine bigfoot, could shrug off multiple rifle shots and continue strolling along as casually as the figure in the purported reproductions of the PGF seems to. I don't believe there's any need to check to see if Bob Gimlin's rifle had been fired, or to check for the presence of a convenient grassy knoll (or gnoll or Noll for that matter).
------------

To "Hitch" I would say that there has been no manipulation in the film, again I tell you.....do the film work yourself, I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm just showing you what has been found on the film. Multiple people have uncovered the same image on frame and watched as the changes occur.

As far as Patty shugging off multiple shots, she most certainly did NOT shrug off the shots. You forget the split seconds in time in which this all happened, the shortness of the film frames, she does falter, trip and fall forward and then the film ends....conveniently I say because the whole matter is a mere what? 24 or 5 feet out of what was a hundred foot roll of film? You see very little of the event itself. I think I have (somewhere filed) the moment she falters and falls forward separated from the other frames...if you're interested in seeing her go down, Hitch I can produce those images. I suggest you do the film work yourself....it's all there and very clear. I can find no other explanation.

Daniel Perez got most of the event "facts" right in his pamphlet, "Bigfoot at Bluff Creek" if you care enough to do the research. It's interesting reading & only 23 pages of your time.

[Skeptical Greg]

For example, if it was Heironimus in the suit, why would anyone unload with a rifle?
There is no reason to believe they did .

What were the reasons Patty stayed out in the open when out of 4000 accounts, we know they duck for cover immediately or don't show themselves at all.
Because it's not a Bigfoot, but someone in a suit ?

Why was there a need for a packhorse on a day out shooting movies? As Bob G. explained in an interview on your web site, they started out that day in anticipation of camping overnight.

What was in those boxes the packhorse was carrying?
Stuff for camping overnight?

What was the point Titmus had for lying about tracking Patty? If he did track Patty, it was "at the time" not 9 days later as he testified.
We have no reason to believe that Titus was untruthful about what his interpretation of the site was. We do have reason to believe he didn't know squat about tracking.

The questions are endless and I wrestle with them like anyone else.

Yes they are.. But most of them have mundane answers, that don't include anyone being shot in this film.

I have already pointed out, that the bulge you are saying is a bullet impact point, can be seen from the beginning and throughout the film.

P.S.
Yes changes occur from frame to frame. Those bulges, of whatever padding is underneath the fur, are moving around all over the place .

[tsig]

I guess our saving grace, is that this is the paranormal forum...

I wonder where Bobbie received her ballistics/forensic ballistics training...

World of Warcraft.

[tsig]

I must be blind... I can`t see anything that`s being described...

That's because you don't have your BF glasses on. If you had a pair you could see beyond the limit of resolution and all the details would be revealed. Bf glasses also allow you to understand the motivations and judge the truth of people you have never met.

[tsig]

I'm gonna have to chime in here & agree with LT. Having put more than my fair share of 30-06 rounds into game, the damage would be really noticeable & I cannot see the creature shrugging off those impacts. Heck, Have you ever seen the blow through & meat damage cause by hitting a deer at 150 yards? I won't normally take a shot at under 225 yards because it ruins too much meat for my liking. To take multiple 30-06 hits AND keep moving, let alone walking...something smells funny...

Esp. after two or three days.

[bobbieshort]

World of Warcraft.

....that's not even nice...

I posted back aways that I have no great knowledge of
firearms - where did you get that idea? Because I said it was steel jacketed? .... I said I was checking that information. If it's wrong, I'll post it here. I'll say it again, I'm no weapons expert, never pretended to be expert at anything.

[Skeptical Greg]

Bobbie,
You have a great web site .. There is a wealth of information there. We have been using it as a primary resource for some time.

That said - this stuff about the subject in the film being shot, with a 30.06 rifle, as we watch, is utter nonsense.

Morbid as it is, there are resources where you can actually see what such a rifle does to animal flesh.. It looks nothing like what we see in the film.

This is a no-brainer that anyone can easily research ..

[Ravenwood]

you are aware that at 200 yards, a standard 30-06 round hits with around 2500 foot pounds? (not an exact number, I'll check my ballistics data when I go home) The fact that she was not knocked to the ground & left lying in a pool of blood just boggles the mind. A hit to the thigh should have spun her around & knocked her on that diaper butt of hers instead of making her falter...

edited to add: I was wrong, at the muzzle, 150gr winchester FMJ (full metal jacket) 30-06 produces 2600 some odd foot pounds of energy, at 200 yards it is only 2160 foot pounds with a velocity of 3100 feet per second. This is enough to drop an elk, let alone a humanoid...

[makaya325]

A Desert eagle .50 vs Patty Patterson= You got knocked the hell out, patty!:D

I seriously leans towards the possibility that Patterson used a hollywood big guy to try on the suit.

[GT/CS]

I must be blind... I can`t see anything that`s being described...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I didn't want to be the first one to admit to that!!! For the record I can't see it either.

[JcR]

It all depends on shot placement.
I have seen Bear "walk off" a bad placed shot to the thigh with a 180 grain.
We weren't even sure it had been hit. I've seen the same with Deer if the shot is just bad placement. But in most cases a hit to the thigh, especially in smaller animals is quite noticeable. Though a leg shot "to me" would be a bad placement.
And a heavy thigh shot would generally knock down a Deer, depends on the type of round being used to. I have seen light and fast bullets do little damage to internal organs and disintegrate on the hide of the animal if a tougher bullet is not used. Again I have seen animals run off after bad placed shots, or shots that had gone straight through non-vital areas including the thighs.
Nothing like tracking a wounded animal.
Now that being said, this scenario has Patty being shot numerous Times
and I don't see anything in this in this film to support this.
Other than fuzzy pixels.

[Ravenwood]

A Desert eagle .50 vs Patty Patterson= You got knocked the hell out, patty!:D

I seriously leans towards the possibility that Patterson used a hollywood big guy to try on the suit.

Not even close to Gimlin's 30-06...with a factory load of .50AE (325gr) & a 6" barrel you are looking at only 1400 fps & 1,415 foot pounds at the muzzle...

[LTC8K6]

What you all perceive as "overexposed frames"

Actually only one of us thought that, and he isn't a regular on the bigfoot threads. The rest of us knew they had been brightened.

[Skeptical Greg]

And it ain't ' you all ' neither ... It's " Y'all "..:D

[LTC8K6]

I do not see any evidence of Patty being shot, but I want to thank bobbie for the stabilized sections of the latter part of the PGF. They are quite interesting. I particularly like how they show the movement or lack thereof, of the cameraman.

The section where it appears the cameraman moves leftward, strangely interests me. Particularly since Roger appears to wait for Patty to emerge from behind the trees. Not quite sure why it interests me, though.

[JcR]

A Desert eagle .50 vs Patty Patterson= You got knocked the hell out, patty!:D

I seriously leans towards the possibility that Patterson used a hollywood big guy to try on the suit.

You suggesting Patty Patterson (who is a real person by the way).
Should be shot?

[makaya325]

You suggesting Patty Patterson (who is a real person by the way).
Should be shot?

No, i call the subject in the film patty patterson, who shot the ambigious footage

[Óðinn]

Actually only one of us thought that, and he isn't a regular on the bigfoot threads. The rest of us knew they had been brightened.
Just ignore the s**t disturber behind the curtain. :D (referring to myself of course)

[mangler]

So now patty is not only being pursued but she’s been shot multiple times, yet still, she continues to amble along like she’s walking in the park. Then at the end she’s hit in the lower right lung/kidney region and doesn’t go down. Take a look at what happens when animals are hit once in vital organ regions, they go down real fast.


Some of these clips are a bit scrambled. All are in 30 cal. range. Notice how the two other elk don’t flinch in the second to the last clip, pretty good indication that was a hell of a long shot.

http://manglertestsite.vndv.com/06.html

This current claim is beyond belief and could only be supported by people who have no understanding of ballistics, either in the lab or the real world.

There are hundreds of videos on line that show what a 30.06 round will do to a living subject. Start with something mild like how different velocities will effect how much meat you come home with, what happens to the projectile (or subject) when it hits bones, differences between entrance and exit wounds (again having to do with velocity).

BTW, video and images of standard sniper rifle (7.62, 7.65 etc.) results can be found quite easily, I simply don’t see the need.

UN-FRICKIN believable, this is bigfoot science at its all time best.


I'm done with this one, I have my own conspiracy theory I'm workin on.


m

[jhunter1163]

Do we know for sure that Patty was at 200 yards or thereabouts? Looks closer to me, but I'm a rank amateur and this sort of thing.

However, I do have enough firearms knowledge to know that nothing, but nothing, is going to take multiple 30-.06 hits from 200 yards and just walk away.

[mangler]

IMO the subject at the end of the film is 200-220 feet away.


m

[Ravenwood]

I have no idea what the exact range claimed is, but I was using 200 yards as a reference point for the ballistic data (I zero my rifle at 225 yards)

[makaya325]

Patty is either: A suited man, or a bigfoot. I dont accept BH's claims. I think that if it was a hoax, the man in the costume was the size of andre the giant

[bobbieshort]

Bobbie,
You have a great web site .. There is a wealth of information there. We have been using it as a primary resource for some time.

That said - this stuff about the subject in the film being shot, with a 30.06 rifle, as we watch, is utter nonsense.

Morbid as it is, there are resources where you can actually see what such a rifle does to animal flesh.. It looks nothing like what we see in the film.

This is a no-brainer that anyone can easily research ..
-------------------------------
I appreciate your differing points of view, but I can upload frames, even stills that show the bulge is NOT present throughout the film...

For example, this page http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/patty_thorax.htm was upload some years ago in an effort to demonstrate where she (Patty) is devoid of hair mid-thorax due to friction between Patty's arm and the mid-section of her body where the two wear against one another causing the area to be devoid of hair. This demonstration takes place at Patty's first "look-back-over-the-shoulder" at Patterson & Gimlin in the frame 352 area of your film strip if you care to follow along on your own.

Notice there is no bulge here. In fact 352 occurs at the precise moment the thigh anomaly occurs, which "might" be a reason she looked back at them. So the bulge does not occur throughout the film as one might think; of course I understand that in the process of being right, you're going to be wrong a few times... the rights and the wrongs are necessary to sort out the facts.....

Repeating the link I provided in post # 155: I uploaded a 4th image for you. (Notice: -it's 4th image down, watch the right hand image) In this demonstration the right hand image DOES show a black area on the right side of Patty's back but it isn't in the same region of her anatomy as the above images. It's higher. Compare if you like, to image on the left. There is no delineated circular anomaly seen in the right image, Diogenes... http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/JREFimage.htm

Anyway..fwiw, I'm pretty much done with this...it was prompted by my curious need to know if GL ever saw Heironimus without his shirt on. I mistakenly thought one of you was Greg Long. Make of it what you like
but study it for as long as others have before you make your conclusion and read Perez's summation of facts.

[kitakaze]

Patty is either: A suited man, or a bigfoot. I dont accept BH's claims. I think that if it was a hoax, the man in the costume was the size of andre the giant

No. Here is an effective way to show that if Patty made Patty's casts then Patty is about 6ft tall (same as BH):

Bigfoot Sasquatch Patty Patterson is about 6'2" short (The Too Big Foot Bigfoot Theory for Idiots) (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oKqBaPwhUPU)

[JcR]

Placement and Bullet construction is what counts.
A bad placed shot at any distance will cause hamburger meat.
You also have to consider some Deer can run 50 yards or more
even after a shot to the lungs with a 30.06 downloaded with a 170 grain.
Yes and "sometimes" with that good placed shot you get the drop on the spot.
Even if you use a Bigger load it does not mean an instant kill.
But This Bigfoot(Patty)doesn't appear to be affected in anyway.
I can buy a thigh shot that doesn't bring her down. Again it depends on the bullet
and how much damage it does.Penetration, expansion, or did it fly right through.
and miss bone and major muscles. Looks like it should of at least caused a buck or limp.
I've seen bullets explode when they hit the shoulder, and not penetrate vitals areas.
Just ask any good hunter who has had to track a animal after hitting the lung area.
You don't always get "that clean drop."
Some big animals have taken multiple shots to down, especially if they are just plain bad placed shots.

I would like to see where "Poor Patty" finally drops in the film.

[Crowlogic]

Gimlin fired and hit Patty right. I'll say to Bobbi Short the same thing I said about MK Davis. What a crock ape ******

[GT/CS]

Here's a good video of the right slipper falling apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDkxXk3wlag&feature=related

[JcR]

Here's a good video of the right slipper falling apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDkxXk3wlag&feature=related

They should have opted for some Converse Tie Dye shoes.

[bobbieshort]

Gimlin fired and hit Patty right. I'll say to Bobbi Short the same thing I said about MK Davis. What a crock ape ******

It MAY NOT have been Bob Gimlin, you assume; more and more I think there may have been a third person there. Someone they felt they had to cover for.....

[Crowlogic]

It MAY NOT have been Bob Gimlin, you assume; more and more I think there may have been a third person there. Someone they felt they had to cover for.....

Gunfire occuring during the PGF filming and aimed at the PFG figure by anyone already accounted for and or unaccounted for is preposterous and IMO boarders on the delusional.

Did it occur to anyone that Patterson's sudden unaccountable jerk of the camera was the result of something as innocuous as a sneeze?

[bobbieshort]

Gunfire occuring during the PGF filming and aimed at the PFG figure by anyone already accounted for and or unaccounted for is preposterous and IMO boarders on the delusional.

Did it occur to anyone that Patterson's sudden unaccountable jerk of the camera was the result of something as innocuous as a sneeze?
------------

Preposterous and delusional by what criteria?

[LONGTABBER PE]

------------

Preposterous and delusional by what criteria?

Well, let me join in welcoming you and say that your site contains a wealth of information.

It boils down to ballistics and physiological responses. Assuming RP and BG's accounts are even partially true ( theres no proof they were armed and many of their other claims contradict) the caliber mentioned versus the mass and kinetic energy- there will be a physical reaction.

Its going to hurt, its going to cause massive damage and patty isnt going to be around much longer.

Heres more factual evidence refuting a bullet.

Contrary to "hollywood" , a bullets ENTRY site shows little to no damage whatsoever ( the pushing effect of the skin then the elastic snap back) and most times they dont bleed unless it was an angular shot or large caliber at close range.

The bulgeing doesnt happen immediately either. For what is described to be visible, the alleged "wounds" would have to be EXIT wounds ( placing the shooter in front of the film subject) ( makes me wonder if Zapruder didnt film the PGF too)

Thats without posting some pics from my training manuals when I was going thru 18D training to illustrate my point. I've seen bullets from 5.56 to .50 cal hit human and animal skin and the aftermath.

Patty wasnt shot. Theres no way possible.

[SweatyYeti]

Here's an amazing feat...accomplished by Patty's amazing "fake" feet....

Her toes can flip (straight) up a few inches...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif6Repeat.gif



Yet, when her foot is in a vertical position.....those "fake" toes stay nicely curled-up close to the ball of her "fake" foot...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PFoot2.jpg



Just one more example of Roger's amazing talent with suit construction, I reckon. ;)


I'm in the process of trying to replicate this with a fake foot, using wood dowels as toes. I'll post images and video of the result, as soon as I can.

It shouldn't be difficult to reproduce this effect..............right??! :)

[GT/CS]

Here's an amazing feat...accomplished by Patty's amazing "fake" feet....

Her toes can flip (straight) up a few inches...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattyToesGif6Repeat.gif



Yet, when her foot is in a vertical position.....those "fake" toes stay nicely curled-up close to the ball of her "fake" foot...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PFoot2.jpg



Just one more example of Roger's amazing talent with suit construction, I reckon. ;)


I'm in the process of trying to replicate this with a fake foot, using wood dowels as toes. I'll post images and video of the result, as soon as I can.

It shouldn't be difficult to reproduce this effect..............right??! :)

Don't forget to replicate the wrist band!!!

[Drewbot]

Bobbie- are you going to answer my questions? You said you would.

[Crowlogic]

------------

Preposterous and delusional by what criteria?

Just about any criteria you want to bring to the table.

[Crowlogic]

Gimlin claims to have 180 grain load in his 30.06 that day.

[Ravenwood]

A nice good heavy load...if he hit her multiple times, he would have had more than film footage & prints...

[SweatyYeti]

GT/CS wrote:
Don't forget to replicate the wrist band!!!


Don't worry about the "wrist bands", GT!
If what I highlighted cannot be replicated with a fake foot....then Patty is a real, live Sasquatch! It's as simple as that! :D

[Hitch]

GT/CS wrote:



Don't worry about the "wrist bands", GT!
If what I highlighted cannot be replicated with a fake foot....then Patty is a real, live Sasquatch! It's as simple as that! :D

What you highlighted can be replicated with a hockey stick. I don't know what that says about Patty.

[kitakaze]

GT/CS wrote:



Don't worry about the "wrist bands", GT!
If what I highlighted cannot be replicated with a fake foot....then Patty is a real, live Sasquatch! It's as simple as that! :D

This again? Why didn't you show both feet? Also, if Patty's foot really is bending like that yet the toes are as short as they are, what the heck joint in the foot bones is that and whatever would be the anatomical purpose/advantage of backwards bending feet? I know it could easily happen in a bad suit but real feet?

[rockinkt]

<snip>... whatever would be the anatomical purpose/advantage of backwards bending feet? <snip>

Much easier to trim toenails...:D

[SweatyYeti]

This again? Why didn't you show both feet?



The view of the right foot is better than the view of the left foot, as least as far as the toes, goes.



Also, if Patty's foot really is bending like that yet the toes are as short as they are, what the heck joint in the foot bones is that and whatever would be the anatomical purpose/advantage of backwards bending feet?



Maybe it's the mid-tarsel break, in action??? Or maybe it's just the toes bending.

Again...the significant thing is that if the combination of toe movement (with the foot horizontal) and toe positioning (with the foot vertical) cannot be replicated with loosely-hinged fake toes.....then it cannot be a fake foot w/fake toes.

Like it or not. :)





I know it could easily happen in a bad suit....


Sure you do, kitty.

You "know" it....you just can't show it.