Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Diogenes]

I believe the Bigfoot - serious, not follies (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58346) is getting a little unwieldy so I thought I would submit this spinoff..


The discussion has had me looking at a lot of info, and one of the most intriguing things in Satsquatch lore, IMO is the

The Patterson-Gimlin Film (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_pgfilm.html)


The drama surrounding the physical film itself, is as controversial as the contents of the video ..

Here is an interesting discussion about the film over at BigFoot Forums..

The Patterson Subject; a Professional Observation (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446)

It was started by Chris Walas, a Hollywood special effects wizard with an impressive set of credentials.
I believe that some of the more astute contributers over at Bigfoot Forums are making some impressive counterpoints to his analysis of the film..


Within the thread you will find some stills and clips of the PGF ( Patterson-Gimlin Film ) , which may not count for much if you don't have access to the complete film, but still I find them interesting..

It seems the only easily obtained copy is on the DVD

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (DVD) (https://secure19.activehost.com/legendmeetsscience/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=2)

Over at BFRO (http://www.bfro.net/)


I have always felt the film itself shows what seems to be a very real looking, Bigfoot type creature, and I am certainly not qualified to debunk it ( yet :D ) , though some that probably are, are satisfied they have. There is even someone who claims to be the " man in the furry suit "; but it is another story that appears to not be proveable..

The thread I pointed to, has some pretty good debunking of the debunking..

I am in the process of getting my own copy of the footage, and will comment more when I have had a chance to look at it..


The biggest problem I have with accepting this film as proof that Bigfoot exists, is that virtually nothing substantial emerged from the area in which the film was made.

I can't believe that such a convincing looking creature, vanished from the face of the earth, without a trace, unless it was a suit that was destroyed or very effectively hidden away.

[hodgy]

It looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by hodgy
It looks like a bloke in a suit to me. My instinctive response is:

" It ' must ' be a man in a suit " ..

I think it ' looks ' like a furry critter, though..

You might take the time to look at some of the links I provided.

The stronger arguments against a hoax include some compelling arguments about sophistication of the suit ( if it is one ), proportions and movement of the animal..


When the special effects wizard pointed out ' obvious ' seams on the ' suit ', proponents quickly pointed out the same ' seams ' on live gorilas..

Another problem I have, concerns the way it walks..

Proponents claim the walk is apelike, and there is supposed to be some detailed analysies that support this. However, the walking looks very human like ( though a bit contrived ) , to me.

[hodgy]

Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by hodgy
Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit. Sorry if I sounded berating..:)

Your opinion is welcome.. I was trying to get you to expound a bit more....

I should have made it a poll..


I'm sure " Bloke in a suit . " would garner a lot of votes around here...

[Thurkon]

I used to really love this footage when I was a kid. Back then, it looked so authentic. However, now that I work in a related media field, I don’t know…it kinda looks like a guy in a suit. I’ve been keeping track of that other thread, as well, and Chris’ input really started convincing me.

After doing a bit more research, here is my opinion why it is fake:

1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot…with a rented camera…at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.
2) Despite the claims of Footers, many independent experts have claimed that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.
3) The breasts, probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn’t 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur…an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length throughout the “creature”, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!
4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast. Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject…film is full wide the whole time.
5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.

[Diogenes]

Thurkon,


All of your points are excellent, and all together make a very good case for a hoax..


Number 5, is my favorite..


I find some of the counter arguments interesting as well..

The anti-hoaxers suggest a very strong argument, is that no one has produced as good a ' hoax ' since..

I also like, ( an addendum to your # 3 ) that even though the Bigfootologists have presented detailed information about how Bigfoot ' must ' look, and based it on a sort of human - ape hybrid, they have to go with hairy breasts ( non existent in the primate community ) because of th PGF..

[LTC8K6]

I was awestruck by the P/G film when I first saw it and believed that it showed a real sasquatch.

Today I would say I can't tell what it shows.

How did they get such a good film of such an elusive creature, though? Why these two guys, one of whom already had a book out?

How did they manage to sneak up on "her" that way?

They could have run after her and caught up, it appears, but they didn't.

Bigfoot is supposed to be extremely difficult to get near and yet these 2 guys on horses just walk right into one.

She just sashays away as if she couldn't care less....and yet no one can find bigfoot.

Why didn't they shoot it? They were quite close and could have shot it in a leg easily.

On the other hand, if it's a guy in a suit, it's a heck of a good job.

The walk doesn't look right at all to me. It looks like a man trying to walk funny.

Overall, I would have to remain stuck at "I don't know".

[Thurkon]

Yeah, there are even more reasons I think this is bogus. Patterson and Gimlin were on horses. Horses. Clattering down a canyon on horseback isn’t the stealthiest approach. Why would they think this was the way to find a shy and elusive species? They’re lucky they found the one Bigfoot who doesn’t seem to care about humans. She looks like she’s out for a leisurely stroll.

And why is Ms. Foot just standing still when the film begins? After a few frames, she starts her saunter towards the forest. Why? Well, according to Bob Hieronimous (a.k.a the guy in the monkey suit), he was waiting for Patterson to say “action!” Too funny.

Also, Patterson wrote a book before this happened, and was out with Gimlin to capture Bigfoot with a rented camera. He must be the luckiest guy in the world!

You know, the reason this makes me so angry isn’t that people believe…it’s that Patterson probably perpetrated a hoax to make a few bucks, seemingly. OK. Yet, there are people who seriously believe this so strongly they will sit out in the woods for years and years…the non-hoaxers…dedicating a significant portion of their life pursuing a ghost, a goof. I hope disillusion is something those people can handle.

[LTC8K6]

In my suspicious mind, the agreement ahead of time not to shoot if they saw a bigfoot is indicative that somebody knew it was a guy in a suit. :D

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me. Me too.. No toes?


I'm sure there is a Bigfootologist explanation. Be interesting to hear what it is...

[Diogenes]

Here is a post from the Bigfoot Forums discussion..

Sorry I can't link to the exact post, but here is the page..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=260


The post is about 2/4 down the page..

OK, on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

So I was a bit off, he was said to have made prints a few days before for documentary footage.

Krantz also says in his book that Patterson took two castings immediately after filming Patty (the clearest right and left prints he could find). Then they went around and covered the prints they could see with bark to protect them. Nine days later Robert Titmus located the site and made 10 castings. Something interesting about his visit is that Titmus said that 4 of the tracks showed distinct evidence of being cast (I'm assuming plaster residue trimmings), but Patterson said he only did 2. No one knows what's up with that. Did someone else visit the site in those 9 days? Titmus also did a map sketch of the site based on Gimlin's and Patterson's and Patty's footprints so another person's prints would have probably been detected.

This last bit is just my 2 cents, There are only 952 frames in the PG film. It has been documented that he only had 2 minutes of film left and shot until he ran out on that fateful day, Oct 20th 1967. He can't film himself doing the casts because he is out of film.

Titmus also finds by following the prints that the Sasquatch walked up a hill and most likely sat and watched Patterson and Gimlin through a break in some dense folliage as they went about their work.

Cool! My obsevations on these comments have no bearing on whether the creature is real or not, but I don't understand how someone can relate a story like this, in support of their position, and not see the problem with someone supposedly making a documentary and being caught with only 2 minutes of film in their camera !

[Diogenes]

P.S. to my last post..



Actually the " 2 minutes of film in the camera " story, supports the notion that the encounter wasn't scripted.. ( at least not very well )

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
P.S. to my last post..



Actually the " 2 minutes of film in the camera " story, supports the notion that the encounter wasn't scripted.. ( at least not very well )

But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Thurkon
But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene?
Good question.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Thurkon
But can it be proven that he, indeed, only had two minutes of film left?

Or is this an excuse as to why he didn't keep the camera rolling the whole time, following Patty and/or checking out the scene right afterwards...which would have made for an infinitely more exciting documentary scene? Very good point. It sounds like too convenient an excuse to not continue filming..

Again, very poor planning for someone who supposedly was making a documentary, and set out to specifically film the creature in an area it was known to visit..


I would be surprised if there is an unturned stone about this, over at the Bigfoot Forums.. I'll have to sift through some of it.

It is interesting...


What you see a lot of, is something to the effect of.....



A well planned hoax would not have such glaring defects..

The counter to this is..

A well planned hoax would include mistakes to shed doubt on a hoax..

[Hitch]

Something I don't know -- which may well have a good explanation, I'm just not aware of it...

How much film total was on the reel? What was the total running time, and what was film prior that only left 2 minutes of film once the creature was sighted? If I was going out with the specific intent of trying to get film of a Bigfoot, I'd like to think I wouldn't waste much film at all on non-Bigfoot scenes. I might want some establishing shots to show where the sighting took place, but those could easily be filmed after the encounter. (So you don't waste film on areas where you don't eventually spot a Bigfoot.

So, can anyone tell me what was on the rest of the reel other than the two minutes of Patty?

(Edited to correct typo -- we definitely do not want to get into "Bogfoot.")

[Nex]

Now, if this has been addressed I apologize, I'm just a lurker in the ongoing bigfoot extravaganza here, but:

Where did the rest of the film go? He said he only had two minutes left, but where's the previous footage he had already shot? He implies he had used up all but 2 minutes, so...

Sorry if the answer's 'round here somewhere, the BF threads are so long all the posts and conversations have begun to run together for me.


**ETA**

Aw, Hitch beat me to it! :D

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Nex
Now, if this has been addressed I apologize, I'm just a lurker in the ongoing bigfoot extravaganza here, but:

Where did the rest of the film go? He said he only had two minutes left, but where's the previous footage he had already shot? He implies he had used up all but 2 minutes, so...

Sorry if the answer's 'round here somewhere, the BF threads are so long all the posts and conversations have begun to run together for me.


**ETA**

Aw, Hitch beat me to it! :D The film hasn't been mentioned but in passing, in the threads here at JREF..


You can explore it ad nauseum here..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35



I'm sure the question has been asked, but I suspect film without ' PATTY ' in it, is beside the point as far as the Bigfootologists are concerned..

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Hitch
Something I don't know -- which may well have a good explanation, I'm just not aware of it...

How much film total was on the reel? What was the total running time, and what was film prior that only left 2 minutes of film once the creature was sighted?

That's a good question. Belly up, Footers...don't make me go register on a Footer Forum. I'll get banned in a week.

What the heck else could he have shot, besides a few brief establishing shots and a few shots of the beginning expedition?

Originally posted by Hitch
If I was going out with the specific intent of trying to get film of a Bogfoot, I'd like to think...

Now don't go bringing Bogfoot into this debate! That's a beastie for a whole different thread...

[Ducky]

Originally posted by hodgy
Sorry for sounding flippant - I have read loads about bf over the years but even when I was a kid I thought it looked like a bloke in a suit.


Again, I will admit it:

I was walking naked through the woods and was angry at being videotaped without my semi-annual waxing being done. I knowcked over some trees and ran away.

Sorry for the confusion, folks.;)


I don't give much credence to the bf lore anymore than I do nessie.

[Libertarian]

From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate!

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Libertarian
From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate! That's good.. I missed it..

[Libertarian]

At first I thought it might be the old "two meters equals exactly X" conversion problem that Randi has talked about. But it's not. Wonder who came up with it?

[bruto]

With regard to the film time, it should be pointed out that if the camera was 16 mm., shot at 24 frames per second, that's 36 feet a minute, so there would be less than three minutes on a 100 foot roll of film; the short duration of the film might not be indicative of much except that they didn't bring enough film. If it was a rented camera, they might not have had much experience, which would also explain the poor quality of the shooting, and it's pretty common to underestimate the need for film.

I still agree it looks like a bloke in a suit, and of course if one were filming a bloke in a suit, one would make sure that the film quality was sufficiently poor to keep telling details out.

But even if it isn't fraud, amateurism, sloppiness and lack of preparation seem characteristic of bigfoot operations.

[RayG]

Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

RayG

[bruto]

Originally posted by RayG
Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

RayG

But who measured the stride and how was it documented? I'm not saying it is fraud, but if it were, wouldn't it be expected that they'd fake that too?

[hodgy]

Originally posted by Libertarian
From the page linked:


"The creature, estimated to be 7 feet 3½ inches in height ..."


Wow, that is some kind of estimate!

:)

I work in the IT industry and often have to estimate things. I would normally add some contingency (say 33%) to my estimates. Based on that methodology bigfoot is probably about 5' 6".

[hodgy]

I think those 'realistic muscle movement' type of arguments are a bit like the face on Mars - if you look hard enough at grainy pictures you can find 'evidence' for all sorts of things.

[Nex]

Originally posted by RayG
Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
Didn't Chris Walas cover that in his commentary (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446)? Or did I misunderstand him (which is very possible considering I know nothing about costuming).

Originally posted by RayG
The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?
Well that I can't help you with. :p

[RayG]

Originally posted by bruto
But who measured the stride and how was it documented? I'm not saying it is fraud, but if it were, wouldn't it be expected that they'd fake that too?

In that case, they seemed to have thought of everything. Not only did they destroy the one-of-a-kind monkey suit that nobody's been able to duplicate or produce, but after the guy in the original suit makes his film contribution, they quickly set about faking tracks, ensuring they were far enough apart to make the stride appear difficult to replicate. I guess anything is possible.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by hodgy
I think those 'realistic muscle movement' type of arguments are a bit like the face on Mars - if you look hard enough at grainy pictures you can find 'evidence' for all sorts of things.

I was referring to the film, not still images, but I must admit, making out ANY details in a figure so small either requires very keen eyesight, or a vivid imagination.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by Nex

Originally posted by RayG
How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?


Well that I can't help you with. :p

Neither can Groucho. :D

RayG

[case sensitive]

"They concentrated their search in the area near Bluff Creek"

Is that a clue?

[LTC8K6]

The bottom of the foot shot is really bothering me.

The foot still looks ridiculously fake to me.

It seems very odd that the leg would swing up that high so that the foot is pretty much perpendicular to the ground.

It's as if we are being shown the bottom of the foot on purpose.

When I walk, my feet barely come off the ground at all compared to Patty. You probably cannot see the bottom of my feet at all unless you put the camera on the ground.

Maybe I am thinking too much, but I am having trouble imagining any bipedal creature lifting it's legs that high while walking.

Except for a man in a suit showing me his big foot......





http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

[LTC8K6]

Compare the left foot of Patty visible in the film to the cast of the left foot of Patty.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/footprint.jpg

[RayG]

Here's a link to an interview with Daegling concerning bigfoot in which he too mentions Groucho Marx. Trouble is, when you walk with a compliant gait, it's hard to leave footyprints that sink 1 1/4" into the ground.

http://www.archaeology.org/0407/etc/conversations.html

To achieve the supposed stride length, I'm thinking the thing/person in the film was inspired by a combination of Groucho Marx and the Monty Python silly walk.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Some random thoughts on the above still:

(1) The animal seems to have black or dark gray fur. Bigfeet are supposed to have brownish hues, usually reddish-brown;

(2) The animal´s head seems to have a gorilla-like ridge, but most bigfeet artistic renders I saw so far do not show such a prominent ridge (that BTW, if I´m not mistaken, was developed to attach the powerfull jaw muscles needed to chew the plants gorillas eat - and that probably would be unecessary in bigfeet if their diet, as inferred by its researchers, is correct);

(3) The animas has a hairy butt. Again, if my memory is not failing, most primates (specially the bigger ones) don´t seem to have such feature. BTW, would such hairy butt fit with the supposed "butt print"?

(4) Arms/legs proportion seems a lot like human. I think a human walking with his/hers shoulders down and bent knees would look quite like that.

(5) LTC8K6 wrote that its weird that the "leg would swing up that high so that the foot is pretty much perpendicular to the ground." That is true, unless you are walking at a place with vegetation up to your knees (specially with fallen logs, etc.) and/or is muddy. In these cases it would resemble Monty Python´s silly walk. Someone in a gorilla suit, even if walking over a more open environment, with less obstacles would do the same (I think the person would not have an easy time to see low obstacles close or underneath).

(6) Yep, the footprint cast seems quite cheesy.

[aargh57]

Originally posted by RayG
In that case, they seemed to have thought of everything. Not only did they destroy the one-of-a-kind monkey suit that nobody's been able to duplicate or produce,
They've never been able to reproduce a monkey suit? Forgive me, but that seems unlikely to me considering everything Hollywood has been able to do.

but after the guy in the original suit makes his film contribution, they quickly set about faking tracks, ensuring they were far enough apart to make the stride appear difficult to replicate.

If you assume it's a hoax, why would you think that they wouldn't take the time to set out false tracks. Especially considering the time it took to mak an extremely convincing suit:rolleyes:. Also, why would they have to do this "quickly"?


I guess anything is possible.

RayG

Especially concerning bigfoot.

[William Parcher]

Meet Paddlefoot. I found this animation last night. You can also see the costume material bunching up on the upper right thigh.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1083873179.gif


Enlarged still images of this animation: Paddlefoot (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=164572)

[aargh57]

Originally posted by RayG
Here's a link to an interview with Daegling concerning bigfoot in which he too mentions Groucho Marx. Trouble is, when you walk with a compliant gait, it's hard to leave footyprints that sink 1 1/4" into the ground.
RayG

Unless of course you made the prints in the ground later trying to resemle an exaggerated stride. Also, if the ground is moist, 1 1/4" inch is not that deep (especially if you're using a great big bigfooty type stamp).

[casebro]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Meet Paddlefoot. I found this animation last night. You can also see the costume material bunching up on the upper right thigh.




Enlarged still images of this animation: Paddlefoot (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=164572)


This also seems to show an Eyehole in the face area, with a blackened face visible inside it....or do it's proponents claim that as a photographic anomaly of some kind?

[Hitch]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Meet Paddlefoot. I found this animation last night. You can also see the costume material bunching up on the upper right thigh.

That bunching up of the fur on the right leg has been discussed at length. Patty had a torn muscle in her leg which made it look like that. Most Bigfoot enthusiasts will explain how it's typical of that sort of injury and further proof that it can't be a costume. The injury also explains why Patty just ambled off into the woods rather than running so fast there wasn't even less footage. It also explains the extraordinarily long stride (since she's unusually short for a Bigfoot at only about 6' 5"). Wait...

[William Parcher]

Here's another frame from the film showing the thigh bulge.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1101090525.jpg

Another stabilized animation showing the bulge. You can actually see a whole section of the thigh lift upwards as a unit...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-10-1100826978.gif

Cool graphics in some of the threads at the Bigfoot Forum.

[bruto]

Looking at that foot clogged with snow makes me wonder how the prints that were cast could have shown such nice detail of the toes. It looks from the little we see here of the raised foot as if it is totally iced up.

[Z]

Originally posted by bruto
Looking at that foot clogged with snow makes me wonder how the prints that were cast could have shown such nice detail of the toes. It looks from the little we see here of the raised foot as if it is totally iced up.

Forget the thigh for a minute - look at the butt in the first of the four frames of the stills linked above. Does that or does that not look like a fur diaper or skirt?

weird.

[William Parcher]

I found a comparison of the guy who says he was Bigfoot in the film (Bob Heironimus shown from new footage of him walking like Bigfoot) and the film itself.

Pretty close walk conformity.

http://www.rense.com/1phts/BobH1.gif

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6

It seems very odd that the leg would swing up that high so that the foot is pretty much perpendicular to the ground.


The only reason the foot would swing up that high is if the subject was purposefully stretching his stride to an unnatural distance in relation to the length of subject’s legs.

Try it sometime.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Ray G
In that case, they seemed to have thought of everything. Not only did they destroy the one-of-a-kind monkey suit that nobody's been able to duplicate or produce,

This is a common mantra parroted by Footers that has absolutely no basis in reality.

As Chris Walas, a notable costume man in Hollywood himself, stated in a Bigfoot thread...there were even better monkey suits at the time, much less now.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by William Parcher
I found a comparison of the guy who says he was Bigfoot in the film (Bob Heironimus shown from new footage of him walking like Bigfoot) and the film itself.

Pretty close walk conformity.
In my opinion the PGF subject looks like a man walking, with maybe the stride exagerated a bit. Certainly no limp, from a ruptured thigh muscle.

Some people see muscles rippling.. I see a fur suit bouncing.

What seems most unnatural to me is the butt. It should be bouncing, and it doesn't.

There should be a point in any walk when the glutes relax and bounce. In the PGF, they don't..

[Diogenes]

From BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11909

A poll about whether or not the PGF should be debunked if it is a hoax..

When I read this, it floored me..


For me, one of my biggest concerns is that if the film is exposed as a hoax beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would dash many strongly-held beliefs, and sweep away the foundation upon which some of the old-timers of BF research have built their research.

Sanity seemed to have prevailed though, and most responding agreed it should be debunked, if it is a hoax..

[Dr. DRE]

After looking at the sabilized animation posted by Willam Parcher two things are obvioius

1. The creature doesn't have a bilateral buttocks and therefore no standard waste disposal port

2. The ass and legs move independently of each other. Or more accurately, the ass doesn't move at all and legs move. The buttocks should clench and release in time with the legs moving. They don't

This is a guy in a suit.

[I'll_buy_that]

Originally posted by RayG
Two things that have always struck me as curious about the Patterson film:

The flex -- If it's a guy in a suit, how was he able to flex his calf muscle as he walked
The stride -- from measurements at the film site, the typical stride was around 81" or 6 feet 9 inches. The subject walks in a manner whereby the sole of the foot points directly to the rear with each step. How does one leisurely walk along as indicated, leaving that type of stride measurement, without looking like Groucho Marx?

RayG

The stride at 6' 9"? is this correct? Is this a common belief or documented? holy crap! I am 6' 3" and my stride is about 3'. A stride more than twice that would require the beast to have legs that are about 1.5 to 2 feet longer than mine, never mind the extra length in the torso for proportion. (not scientific and probably grossly underestimated) is she supposed to be 9' tall?

[Hitch]

Height estimates place her at about 6' 5" with a 6' 9" stride on a badly injured leg. (Carrying a baby baboon, but that's the subject of some debate.)

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
(4) Arms/legs proportion seems a lot like human. I think a human walking with his/hers shoulders down and bent knees would look quite like that.
Keith Olbermann did a story on Bob Heironimous, and the man's normal gait looks exactly like the bizarre Bigfoot one. He doesn't even have to do anything special. He just walks and that's how it looks.

[lenina4sammy]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that
The stride at 6' 9"? is this correct? Is this a common belief or documented? holy crap! I am 6' 3" and my stride is about 3'.

Stride length means right foot to right foot (with the left step in between) or vice versa. I'm 5'9" and my stride length is just under 6'. 6'9" would not be difficult to attain.

Also, as far as the costume goes, don't think about how costumes are built today. In the '60s they were built one at a time, and not on an assembly line. They were also built out of much heavier material and with far more layers. Costumes of that era have an attitude of their own and do not move in an easily predictable way... hence, the legs moving independantly of the butt, the material being bunched up, etc.

They were BIG, HEAVY, AWKWARD costumes. Sadly, this doesn't really help either argument much, just something to think about when analyzing the footage. I believe it's a hoax, but only because of the costume itself, which sadly is the only part of this I really have any expertise on.

[RayG]

Originally posted by Thurkon
This is a common mantra parroted by Footers that has absolutely no basis in reality.

As Chris Walas, a notable costume man in Hollywood himself, stated in a Bigfoot thread...there were even better monkey suits at the time, much less now.

Full body suits? Really? Got some links or pics? Did Chris Walas provide the name of the creator, or a location for the suit?

If the suit made back then can be so easily produced, where's the reproduction? I've yet to see anyone come forward with the original suit, or a duplicate, or a replicated version. Granted, some pretty impressive suits have been made in more recent years, (Harry and the Hendersons for example) but I've not seen a full-body suit made at the time of the Patterson film that would equate to the suit used in his film.

RayG

[RayG]

Originally posted by Hitch
Height estimates place her at about 6' 5" with a 6' 9" stride on a badly injured leg. (Carrying a baby baboon, but that's the subject of some debate.)

Keep in mind Patterson (7' 4") and Gimlin (6' 1" or 6' 2") differed by over 12" on the guesstimate for the height. Krantz thought the film subject to be 6' in height.

The stride is measured from the heel of one foot to the heel of the same foot. Not impossible to duplicate. I'm 6' in height and have laid out the reported stride length of 81.5" on the floor and tried to duplicate it. Matching the stride length isn't too much of a problem for lanky people, but duplicating it with the bottom of each foot perpendicular to the rear with each step makes it more difficult. If you watch the film, the subject doesn't appear to be stretching or exaggerating its walk, which makes the stride length (if true) puzzling if no Monty Python gymnastics are involved.

RayG

[Hitch]

Originally posted by RayG
Keep in mind Patterson (7' 4") and Gimlin (6' 1" or 6' 2") differed by over 12" on the guesstimate for the height. Krantz thought the film subject to be 6' in height.

The stride is measured from the heel of one foot to the heel of the same foot. Not impossible to duplicate. I'm 6' in height and have laid out the reported stride length of 81.5" on the floor and tried to duplicate it. Matching the stride length isn't too much of a problem for lanky people, but duplicating it with the bottom of each foot perpendicular to the rear with each step makes it more difficult. If you watch the film, the subject doesn't appear to be stretching or exaggerating its walk, which makes the stride length (if true) puzzling if no Monty Python gymnastics are involved.

RayG

Okay, but Bigfoot enthusiasts tend to point to the extraordinarily long stride length as proof that the tracks must have been made by a non-human creature. But now you're saying that they're well within the norm for a fairly tall human. You need to pick a story and stick to it.

Something else that occurs to me. Did anyone ever count the steps seen in the film and compare that to the tracks that were found later? Do the numbers match? (I'm not claiming they don't, just sincerely asking if anyone ever checked that.)

[RayG]

Originally posted by Hitch
Okay, but Bigfoot enthusiasts tend to point to the extraordinarily long stride length as proof that the tracks must have been made by a non-human creature. But now you're saying that they're well within the norm for a fairly tall human. You need to pick a story and stick to it.

I've never wavered from my 'story' as you've called it. I've not claimed it's an actual bigfoot in the film footage, nor have I claimed it's a man in a suit. I've pointed out two things I find puzzling -- apparent muscle contraction, and a fairly large stride length. It's a FACT the subject in the film walks with the sole of the foot pointing straight up and down to the rear. I've suggested that recreating the stride length AND the sole to the rear walk would resemble something from a Marx Brothers or Monty Python movie. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe part of investigating something is to try and replicate the claim. Try it yourself. Lay out the stride length on the floor, or in a field, and, walking exactly like the film subject (ensure your sole is perpendicular to the rear as you walk), do the same stride length. The key is to bend slightly at the waist, don't fully extend your legs to the front, and ensure the sole points to the rear as I've specified with each step. Results will vary according to height of participant.

RayG

[Z]

Results will also vary according to the skill of the participant.

Try as I might, I could never manage to duplicate John Cleese's silly walk, or some of the moves that Jim Carrey comes up with. I can't manage Charlie Chaplin's little mini-step thing that he does, but I did manage the Moonwalk when I was a kid.

I guess that means that Cleese, Carrey, and Chaplin aren't human, either.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by RayG


..............................................

I believe part of investigating something is to try and replicate the claim. Try it yourself. Lay out the stride length on the floor, or in a field, and, walking exactly like the film subject (ensure your sole is perpendicular to the rear as you walk), do the same stride length. The key is to bend slightly at the waist, don't fully extend your legs to the front, and ensure the sole points to the rear as I've specified with each step. Results will vary according to height of participant.

RayG

You seem to be describing the ' Groucho ' walk, but I must say I don't see it in the patterson film ..


The stabilzed version of the film..

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/media/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=1

( pop-up warning if you have them enabled )

You can pause the clip and step through it a frame at a time...


I just don't see the ' funny walk ', people are referring to..

I see someone/something (?) walking fast, which will naturally lengthen the stride unless it is intentionally shortened..

I see the heel hitting the ground first and then pushing off with the ball.. The knees appear to be flexing normaly. I do not see the waist bent at all. The head does look to be bent forward slightly at times.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by RayG
Full body suits? Really? Got some links or pics? Did Chris Walas provide the name of the creator, or a location for the suit?
RayG

In the thread mentioned previously, there were plenty of pictures. Yes, full body suits. There were names of the suit creators of the time, and examples of their work. Maybe someone else has a link…I followed a posted link to get there in the first place.

Originally posted by RayG
If the suit made back then can be so easily produced, where's the reproduction? I've yet to see anyone come forward with the original suit, or a duplicate, or a replicated version. Granted, some pretty impressive suits have been made in more recent years, (Harry and the Hendersons for example) but I've not seen a full-body suit made at the time of the Patterson film that would equate to the suit used in his film.


Morris (who claimed he created the suit) and Hieronimous made a reproduction that was quite convincing. Of course it’s not an exact duplicate. Patterson supposedly modified Morris’ original, and Bob H. just wore the thing briefly…but it looks like Patty. Here’s Bob H. holding the head:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t24243.html

I don’t know why so many people claim the Patty suit is so remarkable. First of all, it’s hard to tell the quality because of the poor quality of the Patterson film to begin with. Second, the suit just doesn’t look that good to me…the rear looks like a giant fur diaper.

Finally, Chris Walas, whose resume in this field is quite impressive, has stated the suit would not have been state-of-the-art for 1967.

But I guess we should throw that out and listen instead to the knowledge of the armchair experts…

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Thurkon
In the thread mentioned previously, there were plenty of pictures. Yes, full body suits. There were names of the suit creators of the time, and examples of their work. Maybe someone else has a link…I followed a posted link to get there in the first place.



Morris (who claimed he created the suit) and Hieronimous made a reproduction that was quite convincing. Of course it’s not an exact duplicate. Patterson supposedly modified Morris’ original, and Bob H. just wore the thing briefly…but it looks like Patty. Here’s Bob H. holding the head:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t24243.html

I don’t know why so many people claim the Patty suit is so remarkable. First of all, it’s hard to tell the quality of the suit because of the poor quality of the Patterson film to begin with. Second, the suit just doesn’t look that good to me…the rear looks like a giant fur diaper.

Finally, Chris Walas, whose resume in this field is quite impressive, has stated the suit would not have been state-of-the-art for 1967.

But I guess we should throw that out and listen instead to the knowledge of the armchair experts…

[Dubium]

Amazing new acquatic creatures have been located since the advent of deep-sea submarines. New species of flora and fauna are still found in out-of-the-way places (usually small things like lichen and insects). We have infra-red, outer-space, heat-seeking, radio controlled, 'smart-bomb' technology, and yet still NO one has proved beyond all doubt the existence of the yeti/bigfoot/sasquatch by producing one. Even Bin-Laden will eventually be caught or killed - and he has a lot more technology and body-guarding henchmen at his disposal than a simian creature that some believe subsists at the fringes of a modern first-world civilisation.

[Z]

Well - that stabilized footage certainly reveals how UN-remarkable Patty's walk actually is.

Indeed, how UN-realistic that costume actually looks. And, while we're at it, how utterly normally proportioned the so-called Bigfoot really is.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well - that stabilized footage certainly reveals how UN-remarkable Patty's walk actually is.

Indeed, how UN-realistic that costume actually looks. And, while we're at it, how utterly normally proportioned the so-called Bigfoot really is.

Not only that, but seeing a stabilized version highlights the biological anomalies regarding this “ape”:

1. Hairy rear – anomaly in the primate world
2. Hairy breasts – anomaly in the primate world
3. Sagittal Crest – anomaly in females in the primate world

Patterson should have taken a course in primate biology before he created this atrocity.

BONK!

[phenomenon]

I think this clip has been proven as fake more times than I care to remember.

As for the possibility of some "undiscovered" primate, although the chances are slim, chances they still are. Cryptozoologists discover new species every year - not all are small unsignificant animals.

I do also think that there has been a fair amount of "tweaking" done with this film, only adding to the arguement and thus continuing the debate.

[case sensitive]

If you believe in Bigfoot...

What is wrong with the animals we do know exists?

Are they not beautiful enough for you?

Not mysterious enough for you?

What would you do if a big foot was found? Marry it? Keep it as a pet? Say: yes I knew I wasn't crazy, now I need a new hobby.

Save the whales, they are fantastic and very real.

If Bigfeet are for real they will be found eventually. Why waste life on a primate that probably doesn't exist. I mean how much time do you waste on those primates we know exist.

I really don't get it...

[phenomenon]

It's a mystery, that's why people "waste" so much time on it. If it wasn't for the dedication and extreme effort of certain "crypto's" many other great species would still remain undiscovered.

It's not just about looking for "mythical" creatures, it's abourt discovering other species. Why shouldn't we learn more and explore our planet?

[case sensitive]

It's a mystery, that's why people "waste" so much time on it. If it wasn't for the dedication and extreme effort of certain "crypto's" many other great species would still remain undiscovered.

What species have we found in this way before?

[Dredred]

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3368/f22wm.jpg

You'll notice distinct differences between bigfoot-feet and other primate feet, indicating the bigfoot's higher place on the evolutionary ladder.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4600/bigfoot23is.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9504/b38wr.jpg

The bigfoot's baggy ass indicates their intellect has been evolved beyond our own after having been challenged by seemingly impossible wiping conditions.

[phenomenon]

case sensitive, you seriously want me to post newly discovered species? I'll be suspended for flooding.

[lenina4sammy]

Originally posted by Dredred
You'll notice distinct differences between bigfoot-feet and other primate feet, indicating the bigfoot's higher place on the evolutionary ladder.

...

The bigfoot's baggy ass indicates their intellect has been evolved beyond our own after having been challenged by seemingly impossible wiping conditions.

Okay, that made me laugh out loud - almost woke up my wife! :D

Thank you!

[case sensitive]

Bigfoot's foot looks a bit like an elephant's foot.

Maybe that is the missing link...

A cave man in diapers and a shy elephant= Bigfeet children.

[case sensitive]

case sensitive, you seriously want me to post newly discovered species? I'll be suspended for flooding.

No, only those we didn't know about but thought we knew about and that we already named before we found.

Too long list still?

Maybe an animal involved in a lot of hoaxes...

Too long list...?

[phenomenon]

Case, you seem to confuse cryptozoology and its definition. There have been several species of primate found in the past 5 years alone, not to mention other species of animal. Do a google and take a look at what you find.

[case sensitive]

Case, you seem to confuse cryptozoology and its definition. There have been several species of primate found in the past 5 years alone, not to mention other species of animal. Do a google and take a look at what you find.

I have never, ever, ever claimed that new species haven't been found... Or?

How many species have been found with cryptozoology or by cryptozoologists? Any?

So tell me how were the new species found? By studing internet movies? Defending hoaxes? Or maybe by exploring and then stumbling on to a new species?

[phenomenon]

Cryptozoologists spend half their lives exploring rain forests and the like and do discover enough to justify the means.

I'm not too sure what your points are and your use of ?'s is a little out of context.

What exactly are you trying say/suggest?

[case sensitive]

Cryptozoologists spend half their lives exploring rain forests and the like and do discover enough to justify the means.

So they all spend half their lives exploring rainforests... ok...

And they discover enough...

You sure answer my questions.

Discovered what?

What species previously unsubstantiated has cryptozoologists substantiated?

[phenomenon]

Case, I'm referring to "normal" animals, not some mythical Yeti or Bigfoot. Basic, normal, down to earth animals, ya know, like ants, spiders, primates, goats? ;)

[case sensitive]

Case, I'm referring to "normal" animals, not some mythical Yeti or Bigfoot. Basic, normal, down to earth animals, ya know, like ants, spiders, primates, goats?

And how does that justify looking for bigfoot?
We didn't find bigfoot, but we found a spider... So lets invetsigate bigfoot, not spiders.

If you never find something, but hoaxes or at least probably hoaxes. When do you give up? If a bigfoot isn't found in the next 50 years is that enough?

[phenomenon]

Right, now I know, you misunderstood me.

Read my first post case. I did say that it has pretty much been proven that the clip is fake and as such that would mean the Bigfoot myth is still just that, a myth.

As for looking for other primates, why not? We have new discoveries all the time, 2 great species found in 2002. Why not look for these creatures. I'm not saying look for Bigfoot, I'm saying look for other undiscovered species.

As for Bigfoot, in the grand scale of things and in comparison to real cryptozoology I don't think resources are an issue. You have to let them have their fun. ;)

[case sensitive]

Yes I think we agree. Look for creatures and if bigfoot is there don't ignore him. Let us know about it.

I just can't understand the whole "I must find Bigfoot" thing. I can't see a reason for looking for any specific animal at all. If it is there it will be found.

[case sensitive]

I just noticed you are new here! Welcome
phenomenon!

A word of advise, don't say things like this without backing it up with a link. Believe me a sentence like this will never go unpunished.

Cryptozoologists spend half their lives exploring rain forests and the like and do discover enough to justify the means.

This is JREF forum and we will not take your word for anything. ;)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Dredred


The bigfoot's baggy ass indicates their intellect has been evolved beyond our own after having been challenged by seemingly impossible wiping conditions.


Participating in Bigfoot expedition $1500

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science DVD $30


Dredreds insight into Bigfoot evolution... Priceless ...:D

[bruto]

Originally posted by Dredred
[IMG]
The bigfoot's baggy ass indicates their intellect has been evolved beyond our own after having been challenged by seemingly impossible wiping conditions.

Maybe they're not that well evolved. There seem to be a lot of reports that they smell very bad. Maybe they just, like, go with the flow. Primate hippies.

[bruto]

Originally posted by case sensitive
Yes I think we agree. Look for creatures and if bigfoot is there don't ignore him. Let us know about it.

I just can't understand the whole "I must find Bigfoot" thing. I can't see a reason for looking for any specific animal at all. If it is there it will be found.

If you were the one to find bigfoot in a definitive way, it would be quite a coup. You might not be rich and famous, but you'd at least be a little famous. You could talk about it for the rest of your life. Scientific references from then on would probably have at least a footnote mentioning your name as the first to bring in a body/ capture a live one/ find a nest, or whatever. The more desperately unlikely the cause, the greater the triumph if you prevail. I can dig it. Or at least I could, if I thought there really was a bigfoot out there. I don't, so I'll happily let someone else get the glory. Besides, there are no bigfeet in Vermont. If I'm going to make my mark as a cryptozoologist I'm going to have to bag me a lake monster, and for that, no bodies allowed: Champ is legally protected!

[case sensitive]

Originally posted by bruto
If you were the one to find bigfoot in a definitive way, it would be quite a coup. You might not be rich and famous, but you'd at least be a little famous. You could talk about it for the rest of your life. Scientific references from then on would probably have at least a footnote mentioning your name as the first to bring in a body/ capture a live one/ find a nest, or whatever. The more desperately unlikely the cause, the greater the triumph if you prevail. I can dig it. Or at least I could, if I thought there really was a bigfoot out there. I don't, so I'll happily let someone else get the glory. Besides, there are no bigfeet in Vermont. If I'm going to make my mark as a cryptozoologist I'm going to have to bag me a lake monster, and for that, no bodies allowed: Champ is legally protected!

Good thinking. So they are not desperatly seeking bigfoot but desperatly seeking glory. Now that makes sense.

Still a bit sad.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by bruto
If you were the one to find bigfoot in a definitive way, it would be quite a coup. You might not be rich and famous, but you'd at least be a little famous. You could talk about it for the rest of your life. Scientific references from then on would probably have at least a footnote mentioning your name as the first to bring in a body/ capture a live one/ find a nest, or whatever. The more desperately unlikely the cause, the greater the triumph if you prevail. I can dig it.

Or...if you spend your life looking for a mythological creature that in all likelihood does not exist, and you speak about said creature with bogus statistical data like estimates of population groups, eating habits, sleeping cycles, and such…like Grover Krantz…and after all that hot air you fail to produce, photograph, or provide any evidence of Bigfoot friggin’ one…your name could go down in history as one big scientific joke.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Or...if you spend your life looking for a mythological creature that in all likelihood does not exist, and you speak about said creature with bogus statistical data like estimates of population groups, eating habits, sleeping cycles, and such…like Grover Krantz…and after all that hot air you fail to produce, photograph, or provide any evidence of Bigfoot friggin’ one…your name could go down in history as one big scientific joke.

You're not thinking like a bigfootologist, though. Remember that no matter how much evidence fails to appear, it will always be impossible to prove that bigfoot does not exist, so there will probably always be a bigfoot myth. "Going down in history" is a long way off if ever. In the meantime, the possessor of all those bogus data and speculative daydreams masquerading as evidence is, at least in a small community of believers, an expert in his field.

After all, even when someone admits to having been "patty" in a suit, the believers hold on. Bigfoot doubters like to say "produce a body," and it seems the believers have the same idea. Until someone shoots the bloke in the suit and drags him in, he counts as a sasquatch sighting.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by bruto
Until someone shoots the bloke in the suit and drags him in, he counts as a sasquatch sighting.

There's something just so funny about the phrase bloke in a suit. You British kill me. It should be the name of a sitcom.

I remember some British guy came on these boards a while back...maybe it was you...and it the midst of all this raging debate about curling toeprints in tracks and the stride length of Patty he just posts something like:

"It always looked like a bloke in a suit when I was a kid, and now that I see it again...it looks like a bloke in a suit."

Just friggin' killed me. I'm no good for the rest of the day.

Ahhh...I wish I could find that quote. I'd stick it in my signature.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Thurkon
There's something just so funny about the phrase bloke in a suit. You British kill me. It should be the name of a sitcom.

I remember some British guy came on these boards a while back...maybe it was you...and it the midst of all this raging debate about curling toeprints in tracks and the stride length of Patty he just posts something like:

"It always looked like a bloke in a suit when I was a kid, and now that I see it again...it looks like a bloke in a suit."

Just friggin' killed me. I'm no good for the rest of the day.

Ahhh...I wish I could find that quote. I'd stick it in my signature. 2nd and 4th posts in this thread...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60298

[bruto]

Originally posted by Diogenes
2nd and 4th posts in this thread...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60298

Indeed, I found the phrase "bloke in a suit" so apt I stole it, even though "bloke" is not standard Vermont dialect. I'll give Hodgy the credit, but I intend to keep stealing the phrase without apology.

[Diogenes]

O.K., So what do you guys think the PGF ? :D



Just thought I'd bump this up.. Since we are adding so much PGF stuff to the ' Serious but Fallacious ' thread...



Here. I drug Lu into this thread, since she has chosen not to join it voluntarily..


Originally posted by LAL
Krantz agreed the compliant gait can be achieved by a human (a la Groucho Marx) but noted it would be difficult to maintain for any length of time. Further research has revealed some peculiarities that show the gait is decidedly not human.. That was not the response that Kranz made to Bourne's assessment of the subject in the PGF...


Where is the research you refer to documented ?

Why do I suspect it is not a peer reviewed Anthropological journal ?

[LTC8K6]

Patty kind of reminds me of my brother's posture.

My dad was forever telling him to stand up straight.

A lot of the time when he was walking, it looked like he was looking for money on the ground. :D

This subject is like an onion.

Layers upon layers of questionable evidence. The deeper you get, the more it stinks.

Peel it down and soon there's nothing left but the smell.....

[Diogenes]

I was thinking this morning about how shiny, clean and well groomed Patty looks..


She obviously went to the spa for a full ' do ' before showing up for her film debut... ( and alas, final appearence ..:( )

[Hitch]

Especially when you consider that Bigfoots are known to roll around in the mud when picking up food. ;)

[LTC8K6]

Patty obviously just took a nice bath in Bluff Creek. :D

[Correa Neto]

Its obvious she was going to have a date with Rick, the male bigfoot, and was propperly prepared by a hairdresses.

Ken, the other bigfoot lingering around was probably her former mate, awaiting to kill Rick with his paws. Cheating and passional bigfooticide are very common parts of bigfeet´s behavior. Rick´s body was then buried (remember LAL´s account of a sighting of bigfeet burying a dead bigfoot?). This coupled with PNW intense scavenging activity, lack of roads and rough terrain avoided Rick´s and other bigfeet corpses being found.

[Diogenes]

Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

It references testimony by many in the movie industry that we have a man in a suit..


We ( well, some of us ) are well aware of how scientists can be fooled by ' magic ', while ' magicians ' have no problem spotting trickery.. I suggest this may apply very well in other arenas also.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here's a nice piece From Strange Magazine 17, Summer, 1996.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html


John Vulich puts little credence in the long-held belief among Bigfooters that makeup artists have proclaimed the Patterson Bigfoot as impossible to duplicate:

One guy wrote to me and said, "You know, Disney people looked at it and they said that it couldn't be duplicated." Well, Disney was never known for doing prosthetic effects. I'll tell you as a makeup artist looking at it, it's a guy in a suit. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a guy in a suit. They get into specifics like the way the head turns, that it turns like a gorilla. It turns that way because the suit was stiff and made from polyfoam and he couldn't probably turn his neck very well. Well if it's stiff then how could it be walking? Well, not every part of it is going to be stiff, the joints are going to be loose, etc. But I think it was a guy in a suit.

This critic screws up. The head is quite mobile. It was a helmet/mask ensemble that is not attached to the rest of the costume. When the subject turns to look at Patterson, the head swivels just like a human head. The shoulders rotate in accordance with the head turn. Then the head instantly rotates back forwards and the shoulders follow.

One of the disadvantages Heironimus had, was that the mask caused tunnel vision looking through the eyeholes. Bob probably had to pay very close attention to where he was going or he might stumble. Especially considering the wacky feet he was wearing. He might have chosen a walking path that had few or no meaningful obstacles to walk over. If he did ever stumble, Patterson could have edited that bit out of the film.

[Diogenes]

I agree with your assessment of this bit of testimony..

I find problems with both sides of this story.. However, variations from multiple witnesses is to be expected..

Some people make a big deal of the turning of the torso to look, while it is evident when he turns back, the head turns independantly..


Also the great length to explain the ' funny ' walk and the absence of ' locked ' knees; when the knees are obviously locked in several steps, while remaing slightly bent in others. Completely natural when negotiating uneven terrain. The walk doesn't look funny to me at all. ( doesn't even come close to the bowlegged , bent knee wobble of chimps, orang's etc. when they walk bipedally.. )

I understand Bob H. was/is blind in left eye.. ( there is speculation about the sun catching it in the film )


Strutting through a clearing ( taking the long way ) with no apparent purpose, while not conclusive, is uncharacteristic of this supposed shy creature..



I have seen references to the possible existance of other film and photos of the PGF suit.. It would really be great to get ahold of same..


There is reference to a documentary made by David Wolper that may show the suit.. I see in his filmography that he made a film called " Up from the Ape (1974) " also known as " The Animal Within "..



( Note: There is no doubt in my mind Patty is a man in a suit. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws (IMHO ) in the suggestion that it is anything else. )

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I agree with your assessment of this bit of testimony..

I find problems with both sides of this story.. However, variations from multiple witnesses is to be expected..

That is to be expected and even from Bob Heironimus, the man who actually wore the suit. But variations is skeptical criticism are used by the Bigfoot subculture to show that critics don't know their butt from a hole in the ground and should be categorically dismissed.

If the skeptics don't all perfectly agree, then Bigfoot must be a real creature.

[Hitch]

There's a lot of talk about the way Patty walks. Bigfoot enthusiasts vary for saying it's obviously an unknown animal because the walk looks much more human than ape-like as one would expect from a man in a suit trying to look like an animal. To others who point out that the gait is obviously unnatural and impossible for a human to dupicate.

(Strangely, it's often described as looking like Groucho Marx, so one could conclude that it's impossible for a human to walk like Groucho Marx. But that's a matter for a different thread.)

There's some debate over whether the knees lock. To some people it looks like they do lock on some strides while others insist they never do. Then there's the matter of the elevation of the foot at the back of the stride. Patty seems to raise her feet much more than is natural for a human.

Just my own speculation here, and I offer this as nothing more than something to think about. If Patty is a man in a suit, the feet of the suit are much larger than human feet. How does a human in oversize feet walk? One example is someone trying to walk in swim fins. Basically there are two ways to do it. one is a flat-footed waddle, the other is an exagerated high step to clear the ground with the overlong toes. Now Patty's feet are not as long as floppy swim fins, but how would her stride compare to a man with oversize feet in a suit doing a less exagerated verion of the swim fin walk?

[LTC8K6]

Hitch, I have speculated that it could simply be to make sure the feet were on camera. Lift them up high to get a good shot of those famous big feet, as it were.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
I used to really love this footage when I was a kid. Back then, it looked so authentic. However, now that I work in a related media field, I don’t know…it kinda looks like a guy in a suit. I’ve been keeping track of that other thread, as well, and Chris’ input really started convincing me.

Did you miss the part where it was shown Gorillas have such a "line" and I admitted I do too?


After doing a bit more research, here is my opinion why it is fake:

1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot…with a rented camera…at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.



Oh, you're up to 32 minutes now? Did you see my replies to your posts on the other thread or did I waste hours trying to respond to them all?

Heironimus has produced no evidence to support his several stories. Nor has Morris. You must have missed Green's review. Here it is again:

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/reviews/long.htm

Patterson set out to make a documentary. Should he have done that without a camera?



2) Despite the claims of Footers, many independent experts have claimed that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.


Let's see the reports. How many of these "experts" gave the film more than a cursory glance?



3) The breasts, probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn’t 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur…an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length throughout the “creature”, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!


There's no diaper. The compliant gait reduces gluteus wobble. Hairy breasts are not uncommon on hominids. Sometimes it's very light. A hairy female chest is to be expected in a temperate climate.


4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast. Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject…film is full wide the whole time.


They did pursue it.

5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.

There've been other films and many attempts to get more. They're elusive and largely nocturnal. This is not an easy task.

If Patterson pulled a hoax, why didn't he just dust off the suit and make another film rather than dying broke? He spent the last of the money made from the film on a trip to Tibet to check out what turned out to be a hoax.

Here are a couple of links:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

[Hitch]

Originally posted by LAL
If Patterson pulled a hoax, why didn't he just dust off the suit and make another film rather than dying broke?

I'm not stating this as fact, just running scenarios in my mind, because Lu doesn't seem to be willing to consider the possibility of a hoax.

35 years ago the P/G film was widely considered (outside the Bigfoot enthusiast circles) to be a hoax. If, in fact, it was, Patterson would have had a much harder time getting a second film accepted as genuine. People wanted to see a better, clearer shot of the "creature" whatever it was. If Patterson had come forward with a another film as shaky and out of focus as the first, he'd be facing even less credibility than he already had. If it was a suit, a second steadier, better focused film would have been too much a risk for exposing flaws. If it was a fake, there was almost no benefit and much risk involved in trying to fake it a second time.

If it was a real creature, there were obvious rewards, both potential money and vindication, to be had from getting a second, better film. How many more times did Patterson return to the area to try to spot Patty again? (Not a challenge -- a sincere request for information. Subsequent, failed trips don't get talked about much, it at all. I don't know if they happened. Patterson may not have been able to afford it, but given his one success, it seems Bigfoot enthusiasts should have financed further attempts.)

[hodgy]

Originally posted by Thurkon
There's something just so funny about the phrase bloke in a suit. You British kill me. It should be the name of a sitcom.

I remember some British guy came on these boards a while back...maybe it was you...and it the midst of all this raging debate about curling toeprints in tracks and the stride length of Patty he just posts something like:

"It always looked like a bloke in a suit when I was a kid, and now that I see it again...it looks like a bloke in a suit."

Just friggin' killed me. I'm no good for the rest of the day.

Ahhh...I wish I could find that quote. I'd stick it in my signature.

Heh heh - that was me!
But joking aside - it does look like a bloke in a suit.

[Dr. DRE]

This movie probably explains both the bigfoot and the Chilean gnome mysteries.

Cryptozoological evidence? (http://img95.exs.cx/img95/4919/2leggeddog.gif)

[RayG]

Originally posted by Hitch
(Strangely, it's often described as looking like Groucho Marx, so one could conclude that it's impossible for a human to walk like Groucho Marx. But that's a matter for a different thread.)

I've mentioned the Groucho aspect a few times when discussing the Patterson film. Not because Groucho's walk can't be duplicated, but because of the results I can imagine if someone duplicates the supposed stride length and manner of walking of the film subject (if we are to believe the stride measurements taken at the film site).

The subject has the sole of the foot showing to the rear, much the same as this:

http://www.womenwalkthemarathon.com/standingquadstretch%20copy.jpg

and the 'typical' stride length was 81.5". Try it yourself. Can the stride length be duplicated? Sure. Can the stride length be duplicated while the sole shows to the rear (as in the above photo)? Sure, but I'm guessing it will look a shade more comical.

Then there's the matter of the elevation of the foot at the back of the stride. Patty seems to raise her feet much more than is natural for a human.

Which is where the silly walk comparison comes in.

http://guardian.curtin.edu/cga/art/silly3.gif

Just my own speculation here, and I offer this as nothing more than something to think about. If Patty is a man in a suit, the feet of the suit are much larger than human feet. How does a human in oversize feet walk? One example is someone trying to walk in swim fins. Basically there are two ways to do it. one is a flat-footed waddle, the other is an exagerated high step to clear the ground with the overlong toes. Now Patty's feet are not as long as floppy swim fins, but how would her stride compare to a man with oversize feet in a suit doing a less exagerated verion of the swim fin walk?

Good point, how would the stride compare? Has anyone attempted to duplicate the stride using fake feet/flippers while ensuring the sole of the foot shows to the rear with each step?

RayG

[Diogenes]

Good point, how would the stride compare? Has anyone attempted to duplicate the stride using fake feet/flippers while ensuring the sole of the foot shows to the rear with each step? I don't see in the PGF where the feet look particularly oversized.. ( in proportion to the figure.. I realize the size of the figure is another matter of debate ... )


People keep talking about funny walks and clown shoes; it is as if they are talking about something other than the PGF..


There are a couple of shots of the sole of the foot, but it doesn't appear to me to be persistant throughout the film..

The analysis of this film by the non-hoax side, speaks of data mining.. They pick out a couple of anomalies that support their position, then act as if these anomalies are typical of the entire sequence..

[mayday]

It is a very real possibility that yeti exists. I have thought of many ways to capture this creature. It is very strong, so conventional traps will not work. Since they are apparently not only elusive but smart this trap will have to be very specially designed. The trick for me would be after I welded this thing, how would I get it in the woods and looking like an inconspicuous part of the scenery?
People say you should just be able to fix up a trap and catch one, but it is much more complicated than that.
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.)
It is a very exciting prospect that bigfoot lives in this area. One night years ago I was out in the woods doing my business about 10pm at night (at this time we had to use an outhouse and since I was opposed to using outhouses I walked out in the woods a little way to go). Anyway, I heard this very distinct knocking of wood. At first I thought it had to be a ghost, because the old white house and the surrounding area was very haunted. But I kept hearing it, and it was very strong sounding and loud, like a very strong person hitting a baseball bat against a tree. And this went on for as long as I was out there, about 10 minutes. I got a little scared at one point and when I ran back to the house I mean I really ran. I was sure it was ghosts in the woods chopping wood, as that was about the only explanation for the noise. But several years later I read that bigfoot communicates by knocking on trees! I would not doubt one bit that is what I heard in the woods that night.
So, yes, I can see why after all these years there has been no real substantial footage or captures. We are dealing with a very special creature, and it's not likely we ever will have the footage or capture.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by mayday


.........
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.)......... Uhhh, confirmed by whom ? What constitutes confirmation ?



Relevance to the PGF ?

[bruto]

Originally posted by mayday
It is a very real possibility that yeti exists. I have thought of many ways to capture this creature. It is very strong, so conventional traps will not work. Since they are apparently not only elusive but smart this trap will have to be very specially designed. The trick for me would be after I welded this thing, how would I get it in the woods and looking like an inconspicuous part of the scenery?
People say you should just be able to fix up a trap and catch one, but it is much more complicated than that.
In my area of Tennessee there have been two confirmed sightings in the same area (which happens to be the area of my other farm.)
It is a very exciting prospect that bigfoot lives in this area. One night years ago I was out in the woods doing my business about 10pm at night (at this time we had to use an outhouse and since I was opposed to using outhouses I walked out in the woods a little way to go). Anyway, I heard this very distinct knocking of wood. At first I thought it had to be a ghost, because the old white house and the surrounding area was very haunted. But I kept hearing it, and it was very strong sounding and loud, like a very strong person hitting a baseball bat against a tree. And this went on for as long as I was out there, about 10 minutes. I got a little scared at one point and when I ran back to the house I mean I really ran. I was sure it was ghosts in the woods chopping wood, as that was about the only explanation for the noise. But several years later I read that bigfoot communicates by knocking on trees! I would not doubt one bit that is what I heard in the woods that night.
So, yes, I can see why after all these years there has been no real substantial footage or captures. We are dealing with a very special creature, and it's not likely we ever will have the footage or capture.

A trap is probably more than you would need. If people can get close enough for a "confirmed sighting," why can't anyone get close enough, or place hidden equipment close enough, to get a picture? Nature photographers build blinds, set remote equipment, and manage to get still and moving pictures of hyenas and lions and tigers and bears (oh my), but not one sasquatch. One good, focused, clear still photograph would be a major advance. If you really think there are bigfeet out in your woods, you really ought to investigate the options for remotely operated or motion activated cameras, and see if you can bag one.

I wonder if different bigfeet speak different dialects. In the other current bigfoot thread here, there's mention of their vocalizing, and bigfoot hunters going out with tape recordings of their howls. Now it seems they pound on trees. Is there any discernible pattern to this noise? Is there any sign of response from another place? Any sign of tree damage at the height a bigfoot might be expected to have banged on it?

[Diogenes]

Your own copy of PGF for only a mil..

http://beckjord.com/bigfoot/patfilmforsale.html

This is a physical piece of film stock, the Patterson-Gimlin Film, 16mm, 23 ft long, good condition, and we are selling it

Link to the home page for this offer ..

http://beckjord.com/bigfoot/index.html

Does the name " Beckjord " sound familiar ?

[Hitch]

Robert De Niro has seen this film, as has Dr Jane Goodall and Dr Dian Fossey, projected by us. It has been shown to editors at National Geographic.
None were skeptical.

Robert De Niro??? That's good enough for me!

[Diogenes]

" None were skeptical.. "


Skeptical of what ?

[LTC8K6]

Well, which is closer to matching all of the varied reports of sasquatch behaviors and abilities?

A - an unknown large bipedal hominid/primate

B - a shapeshifting interdimensional entity

I submit that B is the closer match. :D

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, which is closer to matching all of the varied reports of sasquatch behaviors and abilities?

A - an unknown large bipedal hominid/primate

B - a shapeshifting interdimensional entity

I submit that B is the closer match. :D

This is why I have willed my estate to Erik Beckjord.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Diogenes
" None were skeptical.. "


Skeptical of what ?

They all agreed that it was film. That's where Di Nero's "expertise" came in, he was a movie actor, so I'm sure he's seen film.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is a post from the Bigfoot Forums discussion..

Sorry I can't link to the exact post, but here is the page..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=260


The post is about 2/4 down the page..

My obsevations on these comments have no bearing on whether the creature is real or not, but I don't understand how someone can relate a story like this, in support of their position, and not see the problem with someone supposedly making a documentary and being caught with only 2 minutes of film in their camera !

He had another roll. The encounter lasted about two minutes, the film about one, almost 24'.

There are surviving shots from the second roll.

Patterson cast tracks in the general area 6 years earlier, BTW.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LAL
He had another roll. The encounter lasted about two minutes, the film about one, almost 24'.

There are surviving shots from the second roll.

Patterson cast tracks in the general area 6 years earlier, BTW. This is supposed to address the question of how one goes about making a sucessfull documentary ?

[LAL]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Yeah, there are even more reasons I think this is bogus. Patterson and Gimlin were on horses. Horses. Clattering down a canyon on horseback isn’t the stealthiest approach. Why would they think this was the way to find a shy and elusive species? They’re lucky they found the one Bigfoot who doesn’t seem to care about humans. She looks like she’s out for a leisurely stroll.


In most reports they seem unconcerned and unafraid.
Patterson and Gimlin had a truck at the base camp. Why not horses? There was a road along the creek. They were looking for tracks to film and Gimlin has stated he didn't thenk either of them expected to actually see one.


And why is Ms. Foot just standing still when the film begins? After a few frames, she starts her saunter towards the forest. Why? Well, according to Bob Hieronimous (a.k.a the guy in the monkey suit), he was waiting for Patterson to say “action!” Too funny.


Except that the film doesn't begin that way. Of course Heironimus claimed he saw the film on television years later and it suddenly dawned on him he was the guy in the suit in the film. Funny that didn't dawn on him decades earlier when Roger failed to pay him for this alleged enactment. If Heironimus was with them on an earlier trip in September, it might be possible he did an enactment in another local, which would explain why he didn't know where the film was shot. That was standard practice for documentaries back then. However, the Vine Maple leaves were red. The PGF was shot in October.


Also, Patterson wrote a book before this happened, and was out with Gimlin to capture Bigfoot with a rented camera. He must be the luckiest guy in the world!

It was a self-published book. De Atley put up the money. Roger had been involved in the research for years prior. He did his homework.


You know, the reason this makes me so angry isn’t that people believe…it’s that Patterson probably perpetrated a hoax to make a few bucks, seemingly. OK. Yet, there are people who seriously believe this so strongly they will sit out in the woods for years and years…the non-hoaxers…dedicating a significant portion of their life pursuing a ghost, a goof. I hope disillusion is something those people can handle.

The film has withstood some intense scientific scrutiny for decades. It wouldn't matter if it were shot by Pancho and Lefty. It stands on its own.

If anyone's going to be disillusioned, it's probably going to be those who think we're so special that we can't possibly have a close living bipedal relative in North America, if and when someone brings in a body.

No one's sat out in the woods for years and years to my knowlege. Do you know of someone who has done this?

Maybe you should drop the anger and your conviction the film was a hoax and take a hard look at the evidence. Even without the film, there's plenty to indicate there are living bodies out there. No ghosts, no goof.

[LTC8K6]

The film has withstood some intense scientific scrutiny for decades.

Another claim thrown out there in the hope that we'll just accept it.

I see no evidence of any intense scientific scrutiny of the film at all.

Plenty of scientists who looked at it thought it was fake.

I am really mystified by this tendency to jusy say things as if they are true. As if no one will call you on them.

Silly.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
This is supposed to address the question of how one goes about making a sucessfull documentary ?

It's addressing an error in your post that unfortunately didn't show on the quote. I should have gone back and copied it, but I'm in a rush again.

Official film time, acording to Krantz, is 52 seconds. My DVD player does have a timer. Or do you want to do it yourself when you get your LMS? (I'm really glad you ordered it and, no, I don't get a comission. I lend mine out.)

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Another claim thrown out there in the hope that we'll just accept it.

I see no evidence of any intense scientific scrutiny of the film at all.

Plenty of scientists who looked at it thought it was fake.


Looked at it. Didn't study it. Those who have came away convinced.


I am really mystified by this tendency to jusy say things as if they are true. As if no one will call you on them.

Silly.

Like you do on your hoax scenarios, for instance?

Check me out. I've given my sources. Drs. Meldrum and Nelson on LMS, Krantz, Grieve, Donskoy, Bayanov, Glickman................

I think Dahinden was the source on the early opinions at Yerkes. I may order the book. I'll let you know.

[LTC8K6]

953 frames / 18fps = 52.9 seconds

[LAL]

Originally posted by phenomenon
Case, I'm referring to "normal" animals, not some mythical Yeti or Bigfoot. Basic, normal, down to earth animals, ya know, like ants, spiders, primates, goats? ;)

And Coelocanths? I'm not sure Bryne considers himself a cryptozoologist, but he discovered a new species of elephant. Of course, the natives had already discovered it, but that doesn't count.

Yeti and Sasquatches are normal down to earth animals too. They're quite "normal" for large hairy hominids.

It seems to me there are other cases referred to in Cryptozology A to Z by Coleman and somebody, but I don't have the book on hand. Cryptozoology just deals with animals that aren't known to science yet. Some are pretty ordinary, like melanistic members of known species. There's nothing weird about the field.

[LTC8K6]

I maintain that the claim that the P/G film has withstood intense scientific scrutiny is a lie.

Certainly there have been studies of the film, but there is no consensus about what the film depicts. To say the film has withstood intense scientific scrutiny is the same as saying that science agrees that the film depicts bigfoot.

There is no agreement about the film, and few of those who studied it ruled out a hoax.

This is just another of Lu's typical claims.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LAL
It's addressing an error in your post that unfortunately didn't show on the quote. I should have gone back and copied it, but I'm in a rush again.

Official film time, acording to Krantz, is 52 seconds. My DVD player does have a timer. Or do you want to do it yourself when you get your LMS? (I'm really glad you ordered it and, no, I don't get a comission. I lend mine out.)

According to Kranz ? How about according to Lu ?

Why do you have a problem with telling us what the running time of the clip is on LMS ? Is it 52 seconds ?

It seems so sinister..

[Diogenes]

In case you miss it in the other thread..

Originally posted by Diogenes
Looks like Patty has a ' Butt ' twin ..

http://gold.mylargescale.com/cjwalas/butt%20copy.jpghttp://gold.mylargescale.com/cjwalas/suit%20copy.jpg

Didn't have the ability to make a suit like Patty in 67 ? How 'bout 49 ?

From Discussion with special effects expert Chris Walas, over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=160&#entry169765

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
According to Kranz ? How about according to Lu ?

Why do you have a problem with telling us what the running time of the clip is on LMS ? Is it 52 seconds ?

It seems so sinister..

I get 60 seconds by my watch. I can't get the timer to work with the DVD on my player (it's VRC too) and I don't know where the manual is.

I really need someone to yell "start" because I may be getting a second or two of the introductory caption. I can't watch my watch and the screen at the same time and I no longer own a stopwatch.

I suggest you time it yourself. Don't take my word for it.

[LAL]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I maintain that the claim that the P/G film has withstood intense scientific scrutiny is a lie.

Certainly there have been studies of the film, but there is no consensus about what the film depicts. To say the film has withstood intense scientific scrutiny is the same as saying that science agrees that the film depicts bigfoot.

There is no agreement about the film, and few of those who studied it ruled out a hoax.

This is just another of Lu's typical claims.

I've given you more up-to-date information than you seem to have been able to find.

It 's from people who've taken the trouble to do actual investigation (3 years, in Glickman's case). I suggest you read some of it, especially Krantz. If scrutiny by scientists isn't scientific scrutiny, what is it?

Incidently, Napier had a problem with the stride not matching the height estimate. This was due to a misunderstanding of how the stride was measured or an over-estimate on the height. It's not that big a deal and certainly doesn't prove a hoax as some on this board might claim.

Of course there's disagreement. As a noted paleoanthropologist noted, if everyone agrees with you right off the bat, you probably haven't got it right.

[LAL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In case you miss it in the other thread..



From Discussion with special effects expert Chris Walas, over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=160&#entry169765

Not bad for the butt, but the rest doesn't match, does it? You need to see the film.

Site's down or I'd post more from that thread. Did Walas ever explain how the IM index could be faked?

"It has been obvious to even the casual viewer that the film subject possesses arms that are disproportionately long for its stature.

John Green is a veteran researcher into the question of Sasquatch or Bigfoot. He was among the first to view the film captured by Patterson and Gimlin and has studied it intensely in the intervening years. His recognition of the significance of the unhumanly long arms of the film subject is a point that has not previously been articulated in such a straightforward manner. It is such a fundamental observation that it is considered a breakthrough in assessing the validity of this extraordinary film.

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

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

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

In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing."