Bigfoot _ A Closer ( Another ? ) Look At The PGF

[Diogenes]

I have had a chance to look at the PGF footage that is included on the DVD " Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science "

The LMS PGF footage runs about 60 seconds.. They also include some seperate short loops of some of the interesting ( to some ) aspects, of the supposed musculature and other details.

Consider that the DVD is 30 FPS while the PGF is estimated to be about 18 FPS..
I can step through the DVD one DVD frame at a time, so this is about .033 seconds,
while an actual PGF frame should be about .055 seconds..

The first thing I can see in LMS is the ‘ Pole shot ‘.. It lasts about 8 DVD frames; .264 seconds.. I completely missed it till I started stepping through it frame by frame. ( DVD frame .. The rest of this is why I think a lot of PGF frames are just not in the LMS copy )

Here is the pole frame..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/POLE2.gif


Here is the first frame that follows the ' Pole '.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/pgf1.gif


I have outlined what must be Patty. I don’t think anyone can reasonably suggest from this image, that Patty is standing still and preparing to walk. ( a claim that I have heard in other discussions ) However, this image changes from the pic above to the next pic after 3 DVD frames. .099 sec. Slightly more than 1 PGF frame.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/pgf2.gif

It is obvious that the camera was stopped or the film edited between these two frames ( or edited by the makers of LMS ). The focus and / or the lighting conditions appear to have changed. While Patty’s location doesn’t appear to have changed much it is hard to tell about any change in posture. The next still is only 1 DVD frame later !

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/pgf3.gif

Again, I do not see how we can get from 2 to 3 without editing. Patty is clearer. It looks like the right arm is straight along the side, and the legs straight and together. However I still don’t think you can assume she is standing still, based on the incongruity between Pic 2 and 3….

Here is one DVD frame later.


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/pgf4.gif


Tell me; could this camera be stopped and started in the interval of 1 frame? ( or less ) Obviously the film or the DVD has been edited.
Note: When I say edited, I mean that the footage we see in the first 6 seconds of this clip, could not conceivably be from a continuously running piece of film. The focus and lighting are changing in intervals that do not account for more than 1 frame of film.

This could also mean that the film was not digitized frame by frame ( the high quality alluded to )
but merely recorded digitally while being played from another source.. That would be the less sinister, and IMO most likely explanation for what seems to be a lot of missing frames.

Of course there is still the possibility that the film that the DVD producers used was heavily edited. We know that a lot of film is missing. Why should we trust what anyone says about the completeness or continuity of what we have been allowed to see?


The last pic I showed is about 6 seconds into the LMS clip. The next few seconds are shakey and blurry and we do not get a clear ( compared to the blurry stuff ) image of Patty till about the 10- 11
second mark.. as seen here..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/PGF6.gif


And when I say ' clear ', it's only clear when you step 1 frame at a time.. This can be said for the whole clip IMO.

My only point at this time, is to question the genesis of the first 10 seconds of the PGF footage provided on the LMS DVD.

After that, Patty pretty much disappears ( we are treated to more shaking, ground shots & etc ) until about the 20 second mark where the head turning clip that is so familiar, shows up. Patty is in view for about 15 seconds, then more re-positioning of the camera, or whatever, goes on . Patty show up again at about the 47 second mark, then pops in and out, but staying pretty visible ( mostly from the back ) for the last 10 seconds or so.

I’ll have more to say later about the last few seconds of the clip. In the last part of the clip, Patty is taking much shorter steps, the arm swinging, so apparent in the head turning sequence, is gone. It’s like ‘ the show is over ‘ ..

I’ll try to put together a short clip that won’t violate the ‘ fair use ‘ provisions of copyright law..


I will restate for the record, that the cinematography skills of Patterson have nothing to do with whether or not Patty is a person in a suit.

I'm just raising some points that question whether this film is the Holy Grail of Bigfootology that some would have us believe.

[tube]

Diogenes, if you frame-by-frame long enough you will come to a blank white frame. It occurs when Patterson is running toward the subject and while the camera is pointed at the gound. I did not discover this myself but read about it on Cliff Crook's website. Crook claims it means the film has been edited. I do not agree. I believe the blank frame represents an overexposure of the film due to the reflective nature of the sand on the sandbar.

Interesting anomaly about the line in the first few frames. But why would someone edit in just one frame?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by tube
Diogenes, if you frame-by-frame long enough you will come to a blank white frame. It occurs when Patterson is running toward the subject and while the camera is pointed at the gound. I did not discover this myself but read about it on Cliff Crook's website. Crook claims it means the film has been edited. I do not agree. I believe the blank frame represents an overexposure of the film due to the reflective nature of the sand on the sandbar.

Interesting anomaly about the line in the first few frames. But why would someone edit in just one frame? I don't find anything suspicious about the line. It shows up throughout the film. I have heard the original ( developed ) film was damaged by a projector, and it seems like a reasonable non sinister explanation.


The four stills after the pole shot represent less than 1 second of video and it seems strange that it goes from blur to somewhat clear in that short a period.
However, someone who knows more about how this particular camera worked, may have reason to believe it is normal..

Now that I have thought more about it, it may just be a matter of the camera being still, after jumping around.

[LTC8K6]

Maybe bigfoot researchers should make a lot of noise and run towards bigfoot. That seems to tranquilize them a bit and make them easier to catch on film. :D

Good work Diogenes. Thanks for the effort.

I am still wondering about the beginning of the P/G film on the Nat'l Geo special. I may have to get the DVD and capture a few frames myself.

I wonder what happened to all of the work NASI did for the frames of the P/G film? I have heard the work hasn't been cared for as if it were important. I can see the dismissal of the NASI report due to the errors, but NASI also did a lot work to digitize the P/G film.

[William Parcher]

Thank you for doing this, Diogenes.

The tree-pole frames are very interesting. The black line is apparently a scratch in the film. We need to focus on that thing in the lower left corner. It looks like a metal frame-like object. It shouldn't be something found in the Bluff Creek wilderness. What is that thing that was briefly caught on camera?

Also, I am hoping that you will post still images from the LMS DVD that coincide with three images that we have seen:

1) http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/040.jpg

2) http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/017.jpg

3) is "Paddlefoot". Do you recall the still from the "Patty Kinetiscope" that showed the bottom of the foot looking like a flat, rounded platform? I can hunt down the image if you do not recall it.

[LTC8K6]

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

The enlarged images of paddlefoot.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=164572

[Diogenes]

I'll see what I can do.. I have heard about the last picture you showed, but haven't seen it.. If you zoom in, there is a hint of the double ball.. I don't think the foot shows up that well anywhere else..


It should not be a problem to find it on LMS..

[Diogenes]

Here are the two feet side by side..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/feet.gif


Looks like Patty changed shoes..

I believe the ' paddle foot ' seguence and some of the other stills over at BFF are coming from other sources, and that some enhancing is being done.. I don't know how much it affects the validity of what we see, but obviously some liberty has been taken with sharpening features that simply cannot be seen on the LMS copy..

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here are the two feet side by side..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/feet.gif


Looks like Patty changed shoes..

I believe the ' paddle foot ' seguence and some of the other stills over at BFF are coming from other sources, and that some enhancing is being done.. I don't know how much it affects the validity of what we see, but obviously some libery has been taken with sharpening features that simply cannot be seen on the LMS copy..

Can you say that those "liberties" are of sharpening the original images, or of reconstructing the images?

I will tell you where I am going with this. I want to try to determine if modern (digital) technology is allowing people to modify the PGF so that it appears that the PGF actually showed more than it did. Remember me stating that I think the modern world of Bigfoot is one of hoaxes stacked on top of hoaxes? You take an original hoax, then continue hoaxing so that it appears that there was never a hoax in the first place.

[LTC8K6]

I asked about this earlier. That's why I wanted to know exactly what we are looking at today when we are shown the P/G film. Are we looking at the P/G film, or someone's enhanced version of it? If we could see the original film, would we see any of this detail?

We know that NASI enhanced the frames for their work, it's in their report.

[William Parcher]

Diogenes, please post frame images from the LMS DVD that show the images showing the feet in these two images...

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/feet.gif


... plus please post a frame from LMS DVD showing the foot in this image:

http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/040.jpg

These Internet-posted stills must be derivable from the LMS DVD, yes?

[William Parcher]

Diogenes, a further request: Please post the entire frame from the LMS DVD that shows the feet in these 3 positions, not just a cropping showing only the foot.

[Thurkon]

I'm not convinced there has been any editing on this film. Not that there hasn't, but I don't see the evidence for it in the 60 seconds we have.

Before I became a producer, I edited video for a good many years. The discrepencies between frames could be accounted for by overexposure or extreme movement between captured frames.

Editing or no, however, dollars to donuts it's a bloke in a suit....

[Diogenes]

These Internet-posted stills must be derivable from the LMS DVD, yes? Not necessarily.. There are other copies.. Any full frames from LMS will have the copyright notice.. Diogenes, a further request: Please post the entire frame from the LMS DVD that shows the feet in these 3 positions, not just a cropping showing only the foot. Here's the frame of one of your pics..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT2.GIF

There must be a much better copy of this film somewhere, if your image was not played with .. errr, enhanced severely..


I went crazy looking for that.. .. This frame is missing from the 60 second full run; but they have a short clip where they are looking at the back muscles, and this is where the frame is found..

Either the 60 second clip was not digitized frame by frame, or my DVD player is skipping over it for some reason.

I'll try to find some time for the others later..

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Not necessarily.. There are other copies.. Any full frames from LMS will have the copyright notice.. Here's the frame of one of your pics..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT2.GIF

There must be a much better copy of this film somewhere, if your image was not played with .. errr, enhanced severely..


I went crazy looking for that.. .. This frame is missing from the 60 second full run; but they have a short clip where they are looking at the back muscles, and this is where the frame is found..

Either the 60 second clip was not digitized frame by frame, or my DVD player is skipping over it for some reason.

I'll try to find some time for the others later..

You are saying that this still cannot be found by a frame-by-frame analysis of the 60-second LMS DVD reproduction of the PGF. It is only available as a stand-alone still frame seperate from the film clip. Could this still image have had digital modification to make it appear as if the foot is similar to the "found" tracks?

Hoaxing stacked on top of an original hoax?

[Diogenes]

Here's another..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT1.GIF

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by William Parcher
You are saying that this still cannot be found by a frame-by-frame analysis of the 60-second LMS DVD reproduction of the PGF.

I guess I wasn't clear.. I was able to isolate this frame from a 2 - 3 second clip ( 30 - 90 DVD frames ) , that LMS was using to feature Patty's back muscles..


The sequence was part of the full 60 version, I just could not isolate the foot in the exact position you see in this frame..


If this is not an anomally with my DVD player (PC Software ), then it just shows that the makers of LMS did not do a very good job of copying the film.. I don't think it's anything deliberate on their part; just sloppy.


I'm going to decode some of it into a video editor later, and see if the frame is actually missing.

[LTC8K6]

You always have problems when converting from film to video.

You have the frame rate differences and then you have interlacing with the video.

[LTC8K6]

How about this nice shot of frame 72 with blockfoot? :D

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

[Diogenes]

Could this still image have had digital modification to make it appear as if the foot is similar to the "found" tracks? I see that possibility with your image..


http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/017.jpg

I see that that is another Meldrum goody...

Not that I think Meldrum enhanced the picture himself.

He is just accepting someone else' work because it agrees with his findings...


There is no way that the PGF resolved toes at the distance Patty is in that frame..

[Diogenes]

Look at this Bluff Creek print.. ( from the Meldrum collection )

http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/034.jpg


Notice how the toes are almost straight accross, while the Patty foot ( The PGF still ) has the toes rounded..

The touch up artist didn't do their homework..

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
How about this nice shot of frame 72 with blockfoot? :D

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

Compare to the still.. ( the blue tinged one )

Patty had two very different feet..

[LTC8K6]

In frame 72 the detail on the tree is pretty good, but the detail on the foot is nil.

In the frame with the toes visible the detail on the tree is much worse. The tree even looks blurry to me, yet we can see foot details.

[Diogenes]

Here's frame 72 from LMS..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/fr72.gif

Looks like your still has been contrast adjusted..

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Look at this Bluff Creek print.. ( from the Meldrum collection )

http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/034.jpg


Notice how the toes are almost straight accross, while the Patty foot ( The PGF still ) has the toes rounded..

The touch up artist didn't do their homework..

It's much worse than that. Remember Gimlin speaking of strong rains and going to cover the prints with tree bark. Here we see what might be rain dapples in the sand just outside of the print, but the print itself seems crisp. One could suggest that this print was made in the sand after a light rain.

Where is the mid-tarsal break?

Can I possibly buy Bob Heironimus a beer? He deserves one after all of this scamming and the ongoing behavior of Bob Gimlin.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
If this is not an anomally with my DVD player (PC Software ), then it just shows that the makers of LMS did not do a very good job of copying the film.. I don't think it's anything deliberate on their part; just sloppy.

But the LMS DVD was produced by Bigfoot believers. Remember what I said about law enforcement getting their evidence from the voluntary providings of the "suspect" themselves?

What happens when the Mafia volutarily provides the primary evidence that would be used to convict them? Think hoaxing to improve a previous hoax.

[LTC8K6]

This cibachrome print of frame 352 appears quite detailed even on a t-shirt.

http://www.bfro.net/merch/im_outta_here_large.jpg

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I see that possibility with your image..


http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/017.jpg

I see that that is another Meldrum goody...

Not that I think Meldrum enhanced the picture himself.

He is just accepting someone else' work because it agrees with his findings...


There is no way that the PGF resolved toes at the distance Patty is in that frame..

Here is an intentional superimposition animated gif of the Patty still frame with the track cast photo replacing it.

http://www.zenors.com/Bigfoot/Pictures/MeasuredFoot.gif

I wonder if someone digitally placed an image of the footprint casting over the actual foot that the supposed original film showed as a still frame.

From a BFF thread on Patty's height. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=6569&view=findpost&p=131254) Was she really around 6 foot tall?

[LTC8K6]

I don't think the curve of the toes matches. But then, why would it? It's not like these huge blowups of the P/G film allow us any accuracy in placing or measuring anything.

Frame 352 to give folks an idea of how small Patty and her foot and hands are in the image before the magnification begins.

http://www.texasbigfoot.net/patty3.jpg

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Frame 352 to give folks an idea of how small Patty and her foot and hands are in the image before the magnification begins.

http://www.texasbigfoot.net/patty3.jpg

Actually, it doesn't. Because that frame you posted has already been magnified many times from the original 16mm film size.

[LTC8K6]

How did Patterson get so much closer to Patty while she stayed at nearly the same spot?

Or am I seeing things?

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT1.GIF

http://www.texasbigfoot.net/patty3.jpg

[LTC8K6]

Actually, it doesn't. Because that frame you posted has already been magnified many times from the original 16mm film size.

Oh yeah, we've been through all that already! :D

It does give you perspective though when people say they can see whatever.....

[LTC8K6]

Hmmm...I've got my post about Patterson getting closer backwards.

Patterson is actually getting further away from Patty, not closer.

Patty is farther along on her walk in frame 352, but she is much smaller in the frame.

Did Patterson back up, zoom out, or what?

I am getting dizzy (ier?) looking at these frames..... :D

[William Parcher]

For the sake of simplicity and comparison I will knickname the still frames showing the feet that are of interest.

Here is "Perfectfoot":
http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/017.jpg

Here is "Blockfoot A":
http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/040.jpg

Here is "Blockfoot B":
http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpg

Here is "Paddlefoot" contained in an animated gif. Can anyone isolate and extract full still frame from this gif that shows Patty with "Paddlefoot"?:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1083873179.gif


Now....

We seem to have something of a match of "Blockfoot A" with a still from the LMS DVD:

http://www.isu.edu/%7Emeldd/jpg/040.jpghttp://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT1.GIF


We also have something of a match between "Blockfoot B" with a still from the LMS DVD:

http://www.bfro.net/AVEVID/PHOTOS/FOOTAGE_STILLS/frame72.jpghttp://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/fr72.gif


Is there nothing of a match between "Perfectfoot" and "Paddlefoot" found in a still image extracted from the LMS DVD PGF 60-second "film clip"?


Diogenes, you are stating that "Perfectfoot" only exists as a free-standing still image on the LMS DVD (but not extractable from their film clip)? Can "Paddlefoot" be found anywhere on the LMS DVD?


Is "Paddlefoot" just a version of "Blockfoot A"? IOW, is "Paddlefoot" really the same frame as "Blockfoot A"?

[LTC8K6]

Looking at patty3.mov, Patty has taken about 2 steps in between the two frames where her distance from the camera seems to change a lot.

William Parcher, if you will look at the very first frame of patty3.mov, you will see a "better looking"* left foot. You can only see Patty's lower legs in the frame, though.

*in lieu of a better term. :D

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Looking at patty3.mov, Patty has taken about 2 steps in between the two frames where her distance from the camera seems to change a lot.

William Parcher, if you will look at the very first frame of patty3.mov, you will see a "better looking"* left foot. You can only see Patty's lower legs in the frame, though.

*in lieu of a better term. :D

LTC, could you post a hyperlink to the patty3.mov, so that everyone can follow along? You say this shows a "better looking" left foot. Is this showing a better "Perfectfoot" or "Blockfoot B", or what?

Was patty3.mov orginally derived from the LMS DVD, or what?

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by tube
[B But why would someone edit in just one frame? [/B]

Don't think zebras; think horses. Don't think editing-in a single frame; think editing-out frames and only leaving one.

When Patterson filmed his hoax of a guy in a Bigfoot suit, he already knew he would be able to edit the film so that the end product was only just what he wanted the world to see. Then he foisted this on the world as if it came straight from his camera.

This possibly-edited "original" footage could have been edited further by people other than Patterson. It has always been in the hands of and presented/produced by true Bigfoot believers. Let your mind wander (or not) as you look at what we have to see today of the PGF and the related still images.

[William Parcher]

Evolution of the "Patty" face from the PGF:

http://www.dc2net.com/images/bigfoot.jpg
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1084070824.jpg
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-35-1116765622.jpg
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1116090402.jpg

I think the last image is being used on the cover of a new book.

I wonder if someone who was exploring the Bigfoot "evidence" (who didn't know some of these are "artistic renditions") might think that this is what Bigfoot's face really looks like according to the PGF.

[RayG]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Actually, it doesn't. Because that frame you posted has already been magnified many times from the original 16mm film size.

Yeah, I believe my attached image is pretty close to the actual size of the film frame. 10mm x 7.5mm, with the subject standing only 1.66mm high.

Don't be going all squinty-eyed. :D

RayG

[Diogenes]

William Parcher ,

I will answer your questions later.. It may be a day or so..

Paddlefoot is actually blockfoot A.. The Animated gif has blockfoot way out of sequence with the other images.. It seems an attempt ( humorous ? ) to show a funky dance move.. In the ' turn and look ' sequence, the feet are not visible..

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootforums.com/media/patty3.mov

Looks closer to perfect foot to me.

[LTC8K6]

Here is another version of Patty's head from the BFRO. A little less obvious editing...

http://www.bfro.net/sasketch/images/patty_original.jpg

[LTC8K6]

Sorry to bug you with yet another question, Diogenes. Is this distance difference apparent in the LMS movie? It can't be because Patty is walking away, because everything appears farther away, not just Patty.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT1.GIF

http://www.texasbigfoot.net/patty3.jpg

[LTC8K6]

RayG, I see Patty's family in the woods in that frame. :D

[LTC8K6]

Someone mentioned bend lines on a foot with a midtarsal break. Well, here is a good shot of a chimpanzee's foot.

http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/t/teuber/11c.jpg

[Diogenes]

Sorry for this teaser, but I have come up with another anomaly with the PGF..

It may be a few days before I can put together a coherent presentation so bear with me.

What I have found seems obvious to me ( in hindsight anyway ), and I am surprised, with the scrutiny this piece has received, that no one has pointed this out before..

Rest assured, it has nothing to do with showing that the figure is a person in a suit. It deals with the logistics of the film being made in the manner as presented..

It seems, that if Patty is real, she was very cooperative in the making of this film, so I find it hard to believe they could not arrange for follow up sessions at a later time..

Let me leave you with another little tidbit..

I have another Bigfoot documentary called " Mysterious Monsters: Bigfoot "

It has most of the PGF footage as presented in LMS.. The quality is not as good, overall, but I would say it is no less revealing.

It is evidently made from a different master than the LMS version, because it is missing the vertical lines that we have seen and talked about.. This is interesting, because the story I heard about the lines, is that the film was damaged by a projector shortly after the film was made. If that is true, the film seen in Mysterious Monsters (hereafter referred to as MM ), must be an early copy ( or the original ? ). .. But I digress..

When LMS presents the PGF it claims: ' Full Frame and Normal Speed " .. This is the ~ 60 second, supposedly un-edited footage.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/normal.gif

However, as I will show you in the next two stills, the LMS footage has been ' zoomed ' in .. ( they do even more zooming later on, but they state this as part of their analyzation. )

From LMS:


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lms1.gif


Now, the same frame from MM

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mm1.gif


Now the LMS footage looks to be a copy of an actual piece of film, so the zooming was done when the copy was made, presumably before the producers aquired it.
With that in mind, I'm not suggesting that the producers of LMS are trying to present anything other than the material they were provided with by the principles.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Hmmm...I've got my post about Patterson getting closer backwards.

Patterson is actually getting further away from Patty, not closer.

Patty is farther along on her walk in frame 352, but she is much smaller in the frame.

Did Patterson back up, zoom out, or what?

I am getting dizzy (ier?) looking at these frames..... :D

As I have stated before, I work in film/video. I was a camera operator for years, then an editor, now a producer.

Patterson either is scamming us, or he doesn't know how to operate a camera. Wasn't he on someone's payroll as a photographer or somesuch? If so, I would assume he knew the fundamentals of a professional camera...

...such as zoom. You don't have to decrease the distance between object and lens in order to make the object bigger in frame. You don't have to run towards an object in order to enlarge said object within frame. Only an idiot would do that. Whether manual or remote, every professional camera has some kind of zoom function...yes, even in 1967. Why did Patterson not attempt to zoom in? This is the shot of his lifetime.

[LTC8K6]

Very interesting. That accounts for the discrepancy I mentioned as well. I wonder why they zoomed in when they made the copy?

I remember reading somewhere that the original film was badly exposed, but I can't find the source at the moment. I can't remember whether it was over or under, but my mind is leaning towards under.

[LTC8K6]

Why did they zoom in so far as to chop Patty off at the knees?

Maybe it was because of the later frames where they wanted Patty larger and centered?

They had to zoom in that way to get the later frames to look the way they wanted.....?

[LTC8K6]

So, those folks doing analysis off of the zoomed copy may need to rethink.

The folks who did the excellent stabilized frames work off of the zoomed footage are probably actually missing a few full pics of Patty. Patty3.mov starts off with Patty chopped off at the knees, for example.

We skeptics were entirely correct to press for details about the film and about what exactly was on LMS.

I am forced to ask again.

What would we see if we could look at the actual film?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Very interesting. That accounts for the discrepancy I mentioned as well. I wonder why they zoomed in when they made the copy?

I remember reading somewhere that the original film was badly exposed, but I can't find the source at the moment. I can't remember whether it was over or under, but my mind is leaning towards under. I would go with ' over '.. A lot of it is washed out..

But someone who knows more about filmography and exposure could correct me.

From MM, they have a clip of Patterson or Gimlin riding in what looks like the Bluff Creek bed. But I can't see where it is in relation to the actual Patty footage or if it was the same day.

You can see the colors are very saturated..



http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mmhs.gif


With the still from ' MM ' above, it is obvious there is some color correction going on among the various versions. The reds are much brighter in some, while the greens end up very blue.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6


I am forced to ask again.

What would we see if we could look at the actual film? Particulary the part that is missing..

I hope to shed some light on that soon.. Standby.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Thurkon
As I have stated before, I work in film/video. I was a camera operator for years, then an editor, now a producer.

Patterson either is scamming us, or he doesn't know how to operate a camera. Wasn't he on someone's payroll as a photographer or somesuch? If so, I would assume he knew the fundamentals of a professional camera...

...such as zoom. You don't have to decrease the distance between object and lens in order to make the object bigger in frame. You don't have to run towards an object in order to enlarge said object within frame. Only an idiot would do that. Whether manual or remote, every professional camera has some kind of zoom function...yes, even in 1967. Why did Patterson not attempt to zoom in? This is the shot of his lifetime.

Here is the camera.. There were different lens options, so I don't know if his was exactly like this.. It is my understanding it did not have a variable zoom, just the three different lenses.. I also understand there was no ' through the lens focusing. You had to calculate the distance..

While we may speculate that all the jumping and fuzzyness is just too convenient, we may have to give them the ' too excited, caught by surprise ' argument.

However, those excuses will not matter or help, with what I hope to reveal..

http://www.mediaspec.com/layout/example/k1002-2.jpeg

[William Parcher]

Diogenes,

This DVD is called "Legend Meets Science". I have not seen it. What are your feelings about how "the Bigfoot legend has been met by science"? Does the DVD show a good application of scientific methodology used to evaluate evidence? Does the DVD seem to arrive at any real (or tentative) conclusions after scientific inquiry?

Many true believers strongly recommend watching this DVD. I presume this is because it suggests that Bigfoot has "met science" and it looks like Bigfoot won a place under the sun.

Does it look like the evidence for Bigfoot is actually supported by science, or is this another bit of Bigfoot propaganda?

[LTC8K6]

It looks like Patty is close to the far bank of Bluff Creek.

I wonder how that works with the tracks, the rain, and the rising creek?

It also looks like Patty forgot to take her big strides here. Looks like a very short stride to me. Almost looks like she is taking a sobriety test by heel and toeing a line....

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lms1.gif

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Diogenes,

This DVD is called "Legend Meets Science". I have not seen it. What are your feelings about how "the Bigfoot legend has been met by science"? Does the DVD show a good application of scientific methodology used to evaluate evidence? Does the DVD seem to arrive at any real (or tentative) conclusions after scientific inquiry?

Many true believers strongly recommend watching this DVD. I presume this is because it suggests that Bigfoot has "met science" and it looks like Bigfoot won a place under the sun.

Does it look like the evidence for Bigfoot is actually supported by science, or is this another bit of Bigfoot propaganda? The short version ..


They went to a lot of trouble to show how science might be applied to the claims of Bigfootologists, while providing no scientific evidence to support those claims..

A prime example is the drawing of tracks I just posted in the Matt Crowley thread..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60983


I can see how the Footers ( those who have no concept of genuine scientific methods ) would be all goo goo over it; but it does nothing to answer the many questions and objections we have presented here...


I could spend a lot of time disecting it, but I don't feel like taking it point for point right now.. It would be a daunting task.. I'll try to throw out an item now and then if these disections, errr, discussions continue..

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The short version ..


They went to a lot of trouble to show how science might be applied to the claims of Bigfootologists, while providing no scientific evidence to support those claims..

A prime example is the drawing of tracks I just posted in the Matt Crowley thread..

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60983


I can see how the Footers ( those who have no concept of genuine scientific methods ) would be all goo goo over it; but it does nothing to answer the many questions and objections we have presented here...


I could spend a lot of time disecting it, but I don't feel like taking it point for point right now.. It would be a daunting task.. I'll try to throw out an item now and then if these disections, errr, discussions continue..

What do you mean by "went to a lot of trouble"? Did the producers present this evidence to a random wide audience of scientists such as anthropologists, cultural anthropologists, primatologists, etc? Did the producers include any and all responses, so that it looked like genuine scientific peer review? Did it seem that those who were included in the DVD were favorable to the existence of Bigfoot? Did anyone on the DVD state that Bigfoot is apparently a complete myth?

Diogenes, does this DVD look like Bigfoot affirmation propaganda to you? Further (with all respects to you), do you feel that you might not be the best reviewer of this material to answer questions about whether it was really scientifically sound or complete?

[Diogenes]

I'll try to get back with you with a couple of examples later.

I'm not a bona fide scientist, but I know bad science when I see it.. Not from the scientists, but from the Footers reaching conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

What it pretty much boils down to, is the Bigfootologists getting the scientists to admit in so many words , that they can't rule anything out.. Just like they can't ' prove ' that Unicorns are pink... There is a bit of healthy skepticism, but it is not the focus of the production..

I would say the presentation is pretty slick..

You just might have to spring for a copy..

It has a wealth of ammo for skeptics. I hope to be able to point some of the bad stuff out in days to come..

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'll try to get back with you with a couple of examples later.

Cool.

I'm not a bona fide scientist, but I know bad science when I see it.. Not from the scientists, but from the Footers reaching conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

Uh oh. You mean you wouldn't know it if a scientist said something on that DVD that wasn't supportable by science? You say you recognize "bad science". That is good. But do you readily recognize when science ought to be tapped for opinions about things that might generally pass as acceptable?

What it pretty much boils down to, is the Bigfootologists getting the scientists to admit in so many words , that they can't rule anything out.. Just like they can't ' prove ' that Unicorns are pink... There is a bit of healthy skepticism, but it is not the focus of the production..

Can't rule what out? Can't rule out Bigfoot, or can't rule out being hoaxed about Bigfoot? Can't prove that unicorns are pink? Has any scientist proven that the small breeding population of unicorns in the Adirondacks are not brown with gray muzzles?

"...healthy bit of skepticism..." Do you mean that some scientists actually stated on the DVD that Bigfoot might be pure myth and that all of the evidence is hokey garbage?

[Diogenes]

William Parcher,

Your going to have to read Kranze...

Just kidding..

Im not prepared to give a blow by blow critigue of LMS..
I'ts got too much wrong with it for me to begin. In that regard it is mildly entertaining..

They have scientists doing scientific things, like analysing DNA.. The problem is, they don't have any Squatch DNA to analyse. So just as soon as they get some, they can prove it came from Bigfoot.

I'm paraphrasing, but you should get my drift..

In my opion there is no such thing as bad scienc. Just bad scientitsts.. LMS has both.. Yes, Legend does meet science, but it is a mixed reception...

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Your going to have to read Kranze...

Just kidding..

Im not prepared to give a blow by blow critigue of LMS..
I'ts got too much wrong with it for me to begin. In that regard it is mildly entertaining..

Are you basically suggesting that I "watch the LMS DVD", just as LAL has suggested to "read Krantz"?

I'm paraphrasing, but you should get my drift..

The true believers will demand that you define "your drift." Are you drifting away from the "fact" that Bigfoot is a real animal? If so, you will be labeled a scoftic and one who is blind to the truth. Real bipedal primates leave real footprints. If people are finding 15" footprints in forests then we must have a huge primate walking in these forests, yes?

Does the LMS DVD contain any testimony of scientists suggesting that 100% of these massive footprints may all be hoaxes? Do any featured scientists show a grand skepticism that Bigfoot is a mythological creature... or do they only show skepticism of any single piece of evidence?

Does it seem that the skepticism on the DVD is "token skepticism" that only addresses each bit of evidence, but never really looking at the BIG PICTURE?

True Bigfoot believers want everyone to argue over details of any presented evidence. They want everyone to steer clear of the BIG QUESTION. Evaluating if a footprint contains dermal ridges doesn't ask the question of whether Bigfoot is a myth... it only asks about the dermal ridges of a given footprint. Bigfoot wackos want that kind of dialogue, instead of the dialogue about the whole freaking shebang.

Strangle skeptics with the minutiae arguments about the condiments... and they will never move on to arguing about the basic entree itself.

[LTC8K6]

I kind of like the idea of disassembling the bigfoot idea one small part at a time, and I don't care whether the believers want that kind of battle or not.

If you have a house of cards, removing a few of the important bottom braces can be devastating.

The really funny thing about the dermal ridges is that Chilcutt is basically only saying he can't id them. His argument boils down to the same old "undetermined" that the believers use to keep the hopes up.

"I can't tell what they are, so they are from bigfoot."

That's not really much of an argument at all, and it is not really useful in any effort to support bigfoot. It's the same as the hair argument, and where has that gotten believers? Nowhere.

Does the LMS DVD contain any testimony of scientists suggesting that 100% of these massive footprints may all be hoaxes?

Well, I haven't seen LMS, and I don't think he's a scientist, but Peter Byrne is on record at 95% of the evidence being bogus.

True Bigfoot believers want everyone to argue over details of any presented evidence. They want everyone to steer clear of the BIG QUESTION.

I gotta agree with you there. If you ask that big question at BFF, the reception is mighty chilly. I can see where Lu got her patented "read Krantz" reply. :D

[LTC8K6]

Personally, I now plan to look at DVDs other than LMS to avoid supporting the folks who put it out. :p

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I kind of like the idea of disassembling the bigfoot idea one small part at a time, and I don't care whether the believers want that kind of battle or not.

If you have a house of cards, removing a few of the important bottom braces can be devastating.

The really funny thing about the dermal ridges is that Chilcutt is basically only saying he can't id them. His argument boils down to the same old "undetermined" that the believers use to keep the hopes up.

"I can't tell what they are, so they are from bigfoot."

That's not really much of an argument at all, and it is not really useful in any effort to support bigfoot. It's the same as the hair argument, and where has that gotten believers? Nowhere.

Well, I haven't seen LMS, and I don't think he's a scientist, but Peter Byrne is on record at 95% of the evidence being bogus.

I gotta agree with you there. If you ask that big question at BFF, the reception is mighty chilly. I can see where Lu got her patented "read Krantz" reply. :D

LTC, the Bigfoot Wacko Mafia is not residing in any "house of cards". The deconstruction of any bit of evidence does not cause any domino effect. Even if you could prove that the PGF and all footprints were hoaxes, you would still have to deal with thousands of eyewitness accounts of people seeing Bigfoot in the flesh. The Bigfoot game is already bigger than any amount or range of skepticism could topple.

When you chip away at each bit of Bigfoot evidence, you do nothing. You do nothing other than convince people who are already skeptical of Bigfoot, that Bigfoot isn't really real. We already suspected or knew that.

It's not really funny when you think about it. The belief in Bigfoot is sad and tragic. Sad that people put so much intellectual attachment and belief into the thinkings of other people and tragic because it would otherwise be cool to have something like Bigfoot as a real American creature.

Right here in the 21st Century, adults are screwing with the minds of other adults. Bigfoot is a myth.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
...snip...Well, I haven't seen LMS, and I don't think he's a scientist, but Peter Byrne is on record at 95% of the evidence being bogus.
...snip...

Well, here´s where they -and similar believers- dug their trenches.

"What about the remaining 5%?"

The very same sort of argument used by UFO believers.

Not being able to explain the remaining 5% do not automatically mean, as LG would say, "by logical default" that these footprints were made by bigfoot.

The whole beloved Skookum casts are an example of that. I think everybody here has at least once sat in the sand or went to a beach. Now, try figuring out how it would be possible to have your testicles (assuming you are male, of course) leaving an impression there.

And yet, they managed to interpret the marks as being the product of "small testicles"...

[LTC8K6]

LTC, the Bigfoot Wacko Mafia is not residing in any "house of cards".

I am thinking of fence-sitters, rather than believers or skeptics. The fence-sitters belief is likely a house of cards.

When you chip away at each bit of Bigfoot evidence, you do nothing. You do nothing other than convince people who are already skeptical of Bigfoot, that Bigfoot isn't really real. We already suspected or knew that.

I disagree. See above.

[LTC8K6]

Correa, that 5% also means that there are a lot of hoaxes and mistaken id's out there.

One of the things that believers say is that nobody would go to the trouble to hoax bigfoot.

Well, if 95% of the evidence is hoaxes or mistakes, then clearly somebody is bothering to go to the trouble to create bigfoot "evidence".

I would simply say that the 5% is just from the better hoaxers. :D

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
...snip...I would simply say that the 5% is just from the better hoaxers. :D

Oh, no, no, no. Since today I am feeling exceptionally generous and tolerant, I will give the benefit of the doubt. I think that among the 5% left are not located just the best hoaxers, but also the most "creative" (mis) interpretations (Skookum, cripplefoot, et al..

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Sorry to bug you with yet another question, Diogenes. Is this distance difference apparent in the LMS movie? It can't be because Patty is walking away, because everything appears farther away, not just Patty.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/FOOT1.GIF

http://www.texasbigfoot.net/patty3.jpg I noticed I didn't reply to this, though I think I may have answered your question when I said the LMS footage is zoomed from the get-go..

[LTC8K6]

Thanks again for the effort, Diogenes. I wonder why Lu hasn't chimed in and why she had trouble telling us anything about LMS, even down to how long the clip was?

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

If there was a hoax, Patterson was either hoaxer or was hoaxed. If he was the hoaxer, what would his Bigfoot have looked like? I would suggest that Patterson's own drawings of Bigfoots for his book may be early designs for the subject of the film that he would take the next year. If Patterson was to have a suit fabricated, he would have rendered a drawing of what he wanted and given it to someone who could fabricate the suit. That drawing would have been an example of what Patterson thought a Bigfoot looked like.

Patterson was strongly influenced by the earlier 1955 William Roe case in eastern British Columbia involving a female Bigfoot.

Roe's description of the creature that he saw is very similar to the subject of the Patterson film, as are numerous aspects of the encounter. Consider the following from Roe: "...as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female...Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip...its arms were much thicker than a man's arms and longer reaching almost to its knees..[T]he nose was broad and flat..the hair that covered it (the face), leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth nose and ears...its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man's I have ever seen...It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face... [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come...again turning its head to look in my direction."

In his book, Patterson illustrates a scene from the Roe case that might as well be the design for what would later be the Patterson film. The resemblance is striking: the position and stance of the creature in the frame, the much-discussed hairy breasts, the general form of the creature, etc. suggest that this illustration was the storyboard for what would later become known as the Patterson film.

Indeed, when we peruse Patterson's book we find one illustration in particular that could explain one aspect of the Patterson Bigfoot: its large hirsute breasts. How many of us would have designed a Bigfoot with breasts like the one in the Patterson film? Some have suggested that the female nature of the Bigfoot in the Patterson film mitigates in favor of its reality in that it is unlikely that a hoaxer would have created such a Bigfoot. Patterson has drawings of two female Bigfoots in his book.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
I am thinking of fence-sitters, rather than believers or skeptics. The fence-sitters belief is likely a house of cards.


Not sure I understand what you mean by a 'fence-sitter'. I refuse to believe in bigfoot without adequate evidence -- a body or at the very least a bodypart would do nicely. I consider myself skeptical, yet not skeptical enough to proclaim bigfoot impossible.

How should I classify myself?

RayG

[LTC8K6]

A fence sitter is one who can't decide on an issue. The ones I mean are the ones who have a shallow belief in bigfoot, where a push in the direction of "hoax" might do some good.

Why would you ask me how to classify yourself?

However you wish.

Are you neutral?

Do you think bigfoot is real?

Do you think Bigfoot is not real?

Do you believe some percentage one way or the other?

[Diogenes]

I’m going to be asking some questions, perhaps rhetorical, as I proceed with this.

In the beginning of PGF ( I know it should be ‘ The ‘ PGF , but I’m lazy ) Patty is supposed to be X feet away.. I’ve seen different figures from Patterson and Gimlin, including 60 to 120 feet.. I find it hard to believe she is less than 50 yards away in the 1st still below, if she is at least six feet tall as claimed..

Here is about the earliest you can distuinguish Patty in the Mysterious Monsters clip. The still is from the first second of Patty footage in MMB.
LMS Has about three seconds more of footage, but since it is zoomed, it is misleading as to the distance.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mm1st.gif


What I find interesting, is that if Patterson was able to reposition himself from the still above, to the famous head turning shot 15 seconds later.....

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mmlook.gif

...... Patterson was able to move down this littered creek bed, fast enough to move from behind Patty, who is walking away from him, to a point where he has almost ( if not in fact ) pulled along side her.

It also looks like he also got closer to her over all.

I’m not saying that it had to have been particularly difficult for him to run, and catch up with Patty, who is walking, but he must have been making a lot of noise, ( Ever run in gravel, jumping over driftwood ? ) and Patty shows no reaction at all to this activity..
For anyone who wants to suggest that the head turning sequence is her reaction, it is too little too late, and doesn’t gel with the previous few seconds of what must have been frantic noisy activity by Patterson.
The film running time between the two shots above is about 15 seconds.
( A reminder that we don't know if the camera was stopped or the film otherwise edited, between these two stills . The running time between stills is the same on MMb and LMS, and they are apparently two different copies of the film. )

I think there is a graphic in LMS ( no, I haven't actually sat and watched it from beginning to end yet ) of the supposed path that Patty took during the film. If it gives distances, I will try to determine the distance travelled between the two shots above..


P.S.

I don't plan to be distracted, at this time, by arguments about points that cannot be known with absolute certainty, i.e. exact distances , exact size, how long the camera may have been stopped.
I'm just presenting what I see as incongruity, and looking for other opinions.
I don't expect Footers, who are convinced that Patty is real, to be bothered with quibbles over time line or why Patty didn't react in a logical way to the activity around her ( Footers can speculate all day long about Pattys behavior and thought processes, but Scoftics aren't allowed to . )

Their rationalization is that " Since Patty is real, there must be a logical explanation for the problems you point out, even if we can't explain them away . "..

[LTC8K6]

Why didn't Patty just walk into the woods in the background of that opening shot? Why walk all that way across the area in the open and in front of the threat?

Even if Patty needs to get over there for the best cover, she can do it via the woods in the background under some cover. Why do it in the open in the prescence of a threat running towards her?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Why didn't Patty just walk into the woods in the background of that opening shot? Why walk all that way across the area in the open and in front of the threat?

Even if Patty needs to get over there for the best cover, she can do it via the woods in the background under some cover. Why do it in the open in the prescence of a threat running towards her? Well, my understanding was that she didn't feel threatened, because she was aware she was the biggest fish in the pond at the time. The creek bed was the easiest way to get to where she was going. She didn't feel inclined to run and hide.

Of course this conflicts with the fact that we haven't seen her since, but so what ?

[William Parcher]

Patterson said he had some difficulties pursuing Patty as he was filming her because his horse had smashed his foot and it was painful.

Some have said that it appears that Patty enters the forest more than once in the PGF. Your first still image seems to show Patty walking directly away from Patterson and possibly close to that treeline.

[LTC8K6]

Patterson said he had some difficulties pursuing Patty as he was filming her because his horse had smashed his foot and it was painful.

Except in versions 1a and 2b of the story. :D

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by William Parcher
Patterson said he had some difficulties pursuing Patty as he was filming her because his horse had smashed his foot and it was painful.

Not painful enough to keep him from catching up in 15 seconds, or else Patty stopped and waited for him .

Some have said that it appears that Patty enters the forest more than once in the PGF. Your first still image seems to show Patty walking directly away from Patterson and possibly close to that treeline. I believe that is an illusion that is common with a long shot with a camera focused to infinity. There is no way, just by looking to tell how far away the trees are. There are times, later on when it looks like she is walking into a tree, only to walk right past it.

I believe the entire walk is supposed to take place in the creek bed until the end when she looks to be entering the trees.

The blurry stuff between the camera and Patty early on is debris that is right in front of Patterson and obscures the creek bed that Patty is walking on.

[LTC8K6]

I can't help but think that it is the far bank of the creek that I see in this shot, just behind the log, with the log laying in the creek.

Patty is clearly beyond the far bank of the creek, and thus close to the woods.

I don't see her as in the creek bed at all. I think she's about one good stride away from the bank.

Unless I am wrong. :D

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/lms1.gif

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mm1.gif

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is the camera.. There were different lens options, so I don't know if his was exactly like this.. It is my understanding it did not have a variable zoom, just the three different lenses.. I also understand there was no ' through the lens focusing. You had to calculate the distance..

While we may speculate that all the jumping and fuzzyness is just too convenient, we may have to give them the ' too excited, caught by surprise ' argument.

However, those excuses will not matter or help, with what I hope to reveal..

http://www.mediaspec.com/layout/example/k1002-2.jpeg

I'm only 34, so I know little to nothing about 1967 cameras...but if the lens had no manual focus or zoom, what are those adjustments on the lens itself that look like manual focus and zoom?

Edit: Let me clarify...there are usually three knobs on the lens of a camera. Manual zoom, manual focus, and f-stop...or manual iris control.

This camera has three knobs on the lens...

You had to estimate the focal length? Are you serious? I might have to research this camera more. What model is it?

[Diogenes]

LTC8K6,

Re your comments about Patterson's book in the other thread..



I see a big problem with the conflicting accounts of what happened with the horses when Patty was first sighted.( not to mention the horses should have been reacting to Patty before she was sighted )

I find it hard to believe that the principles wouldn't remember precisely what happened and that their stories would match, much less that Patterson would tell two different versions.


[Footer Hat On ] But since Patty is real, what happened with the horses doesn't matter.. [/]

[Diogenes]

Thurkon:
You had to estimate the focal length? Are you serious? I might have to research this camera more. What model is it? Model K-100


I'm just repeating what I read here..

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pattcam.html


I don't know if Patterson's camera had the same lenses as the pic..

I certainly welcome your expertise.

There doesn't seem to be any realtime focusing/zooming going on during the film. The focus just jumps in and out as the camera jerks around.

[RayG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
A fence sitter is one who can't decide on an issue. The ones I mean are the ones who have a shallow belief in bigfoot, where a push in the direction of "hoax" might do some good.

Yeah, but such is the problem with bigfooting. People tend to either believe bigfoot was responsible -- because they can't conceive of someone faking a track out in the middle of nowhere, or believe it's impossible -- because bigfoot simply couldn't exist. I try to toe the middle line, I don't 'believe', because the evidence is insufficient to convince me, but I'm not ready to claim it's impossible.

Why would you ask me how to classify yourself?

It was a rhetorical question, I'd classify myself as a fence-sitter, but I'm not sure how my 'belief' is a house of cards.

You mentioned three distinct groups -- believers, skeptics, and fence-sitters. From my experience, believers tend to be dogmatic, skeptics profess not to be, and fence-sitters are those not firmly convinced in either direction.

Are you neutral?

I like to think so.

Do you think bigfoot is real?

Hard to answer. Do I think bigfoot is possible? Yes. Am I absolutely certain it exists? No. Have I seen adequate proof? No. Do I believe the Skookum cast is a bigfoot buttprint? No.

Do you think Bigfoot is not real?

Sure, whenever I read a report about bigfoot, I think the witness must be mistaken, or they merely misinterpreted what they THOUGHT they saw, or they were tired and their eyes played tricks on them. Until a body or bodypart is brought in I will remain unconvinced that a large, hairy, biped is roaming all over North America. What I think however, has little bearing on whether or not they actually exist.

Do you believe some percentage one way or the other?

I think I used to 30 years ago. I never bothered to analyize reports or be skeptical of anything back then. That came with time. I've heard some reports that are hard to explain, but I still won't 'believe' without convincing evidence. So far I haven't seen any.

RayG

[LTC8K6]

Hard to answer. Do I think bigfoot is possible? Yes.

Well, just about anything is possible, so that isn't saying much. :D

Have I seen adequate proof? No.

Proof is automatically adequate, isn't it?

What "evidence" do you think is the strongest in support of bigfoot?

I used quotes because I think we both agree that what has been put forth as evidence is shaky at best.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by RayG
Yeah, but such is the problem with bigfooting. People tend to either believe bigfoot was responsible -- because they can't conceive of someone faking a track out in the middle of nowhere....

Lu commonly makes this statement. Why, she asks, would a hoaxster go to the trouble of making tracks out in the middle of nowhere where they were not likely to be found?

I don't get their twisted logic.

Someone found them.

Why could said someone also not be the hoaxster?

[LTC8K6]

Hah! All this time and I never noticed that flaw Thurkon.

All of these bigfoot tracks made out in the middle of nowhere, where no one was likely to find them, were all found. Amazing!

Many times they were found by people with cameras and plaster of paris handy, too.

Stop making sense, Thurkon. :D

[RayG]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Proof is automatically adequate, isn't it?

That depends on who you talk to. :D Footprints, hair, and even a buttprint are adequate proof to some bigfoot proponents. I'm waiting for the body or bodypart.

What "evidence" do you think is the strongest in support of bigfoot?

Well, there ARE huge forested areas in the PNW, and there ARE food sources in those huge forests. ;)

I used quotes because I think we both agree that what has been put forth as evidence is shaky at best.

It certainly isn't convincing.

RayG

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Why could said someone also not be the hoaxster?

... or part of a conspiracy. Someone creates the hoax tracks and then his buddy "finds" them. Tracks could also be created in the vicinity of a "Bigfoot expedition". A conspirator within the expedition could find them or lead a group towards them and allow an innocent member of the group to find them. The infamous "tree knockings" and "vocalizations" could be done by a conspirator that was far beyond sight, but within earshot of Bigfoot seekers.

Additionally, photos of a trackway and footprint castings may not actually have been found in remote wild places. Hoaxers could create these things anywhere and then tell a lie that they were located far from civilization.

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Hah! All this time and I never noticed that flaw Thurkon.

All of these bigfoot tracks made out in the middle of nowhere, where no one was likely to find them, were all found. Amazing!

Many times they were found by people with cameras and plaster of paris handy, too.

Stop making sense, Thurkon. :D


Same goes for all the purported tracks which were made in pristine undisturbed snow.

No other tracks. Undisturbed.

Except for the tracks of the guy that found them, right?

Naw...he couldn't be the hoaxster. Couldn't be.

[William Parcher]

Originally posted by Thurkon
Naw...he couldn't be the hoaxster. Couldn't be.

... because he was found to be credible . That is a common term used in Bigfootery to basically say that he is a truth-teller... and therefore, that Bigfoot must exit. If Bigfoot witnesses are determined to not be liars or subject to misinterpretation, then Bigfoot must be real. Bingo! This planet has a huge stinky ape roaming around. Got a problem with that? Then you don't really have a problem with Bigfoot... you really just have a problem with people. Wanna step outside into the alley and decide if Bigfoot is real, chump? Are you questioning my credibility, chump?

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by William Parcher
... because he was found to be credible . That is a common term used in Bigfootery to basically say that he is a truth-teller... and therefore, that Bigfoot must exit. If Bigfoot witnesses are determined to not be liars or subject to misinterpretation, then Bigfoot must be real.
I would also add, if Bigfoot witnesses are found not to be credible, or out and out admit they are hoaxsters:

(a) They will be subject to character assassination by the fervent Footers who must defend their fanatical beliefs at all costs, as in the case of The Footers vs. Bob Hieronimous and The Footers vs. Ray Wallace, or...

(b)...Footers will march out the illogical claim that even if a witness faked or lied about some of the evidence, that does not taint all of the evidence from said liar. Paul Freeman, Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin...

[Diogenes]

LTC8K6

I can't help but think that it is the far bank of the creek that I see in this shot, just behind the log, with the log laying in the creek.

I am thinking in terms of the creek bed as being the whole vegetation free area, where the creek would flow when it is up.


I can't pick out anything in PGF that looks like the actual flowing creek.

[casebro]

In one of the current "Log of Applicants" on this site, the applicant requests that cameras be hand held. Seems hand helds jiggle and move, making it impossible to edit things without seeing the seams.

Soo, Patterson rented a small hend held size camera, ideal for fast action shots of wild animals. Yet he (pun left in) also rented the tripod....Was he planning on filming a set up scene, er what????? He had been around film sites, right? Talked with cameramen, film editors? Whats the sense of packing a tripod on a horse, if your hope is to capture a fleeting wild animal on film???? I'd wear the camera on a strap around my neck if I was headed for a BF hot spot...unless I knew something of Patty's plans for a stroll.

[Diogenes]

My final word on this for a while..


We have ~ 60 seconds of movie, in which Patty may be visible in half...

Supposedly there were two reels of film. What size ?

A 100 foot reel would be 4 min at 16 FPS..

Our documentary producer, Mr. Patterson, doesn't seem to be very well prepared, sot lets figure he has no more than two 100' reels..


There is at least seven minutes of film out there, we really need to see, before we can talk about the veracity of the one minute we have..

All the stuff about muscle movement that couldn't possibly be a man in a suit, is crap. I can point out that some of the trees in this film have muscles and mid tarsal breaks.. I have even spotted another bigfoot sleeping on the ground... And, no, I'm not going to point it out. You have to find it for yourself..

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
My final word on this for a while..


We have ~ 60 seconds of movie, in which Patty may be visible in half...

Supposedly there were two reels of film. What size ?

A 100 foot reel would be 4 min at 16 FPS..

Our documentary producer, Mr. Patterson, doesn't seem to be very well prepared, sot lets figure he has no more than two 100' reels..


There is at least seven minutes of film out there, we really need to see, before we can talk about the veracity of the one minute we have..

All the stuff about muscle movement that couldn't possibly be a man in a suit, is crap. I can point out that some of the trees in this film have muscles and mid tarsal breaks.. I have even spotted another bigfoot sleeping on the ground... And, no, I'm not going to point it out. You have to find it for yourself..


Yeah, this is good evidence of a hoax, for sure. He plans on filming a documentary, yet only has 8 minutes of film? What the heck kind of documentary could he film with a run time of less than 8 minutes? Considering he was broke, and he had to rent the camera, when else would he be able to film...if not then?

Something's stinky, and it ain't Ms. Foot.

As far as the tripod, hand held is better for on the fly filming of moving objects, but if Patterson was serious about doing a documentary (he wasn't), he could have needed the tripod for landscape shots and so forth.

[Correa Neto]

Disclaimer: I do think PGF shows a bloke in a suit

However, having a tripod is not that unusual. It would be handy for shooting landscapes, low-illumination scenes and if you are setting an "ambush-style shooting", waiting for a animal show up at certain place, such as, for example a waterhole.

Actually, setting yourself up at a shelter with cameras with powerfull telephoto lens at places where you know animals are or will most likely be, is a common tactis for wildlife photography.
I once asked why bigfoot "investigators" never try such approach to at last have some decent footage. LAL said it was not usefull due to, guess what? Yes, PNW´s special conditions.

And later said Noll was trying it...

Again, just to make things clear:
Disclaimer: I do think PGF shows a bloke in a suit

[LTC8K6]

Diogenes, the creek is not too wide. I believe the log disappears because it is between the banks of the creek. Here is an overhead shot near the area.

In any event, I would run directly away from a threat, not sashay across in front of it. Especially with a bunch of debris and a creek between me and the threat.

http://www.sasquatchresearch.com/images/patersonsiteabove.jpg

[LTC8K6]

The fact that there was not an immediate all out pursuit of Patty is amazing.

Unless Patty was a hoax.

[Diogenes]

Interesting pic.


I've seen a diagram somewhere of the path Patty took, but it's not on LMS, and I can't see to find it now..

I cannot spot any water flow in your pic..

The greater grey area seems to be the flood plain. I would imagine it has changed a lot since 67..

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The fact that there was not an immediate all out pursuit of Patty is amazing.

Unless Patty was a hoax. Completely unbelievable..

Patterson was obsessed with finding Bigfoot, but never bothered to return to the place where he found her and filmed her... Sounds like he had reason to believe his little piece of film was as good as it gets.

[LTC8K6]

Diogenes, do you mean you can't see the creek? It's only a few feet wide where it runs through the lower right corner.

I guess the creek can get as wide as the whole area in a big storm, given the debris that's everywhere. Runoff from up in the mountains would certainly do it.

I don't know how this pic relates to the incident as far as what way we are looking, or what the red marks mean, etc.

This pdf has a few digital representations of the area. The creek banks in the representations agree with what I see when I say Patty is just past the far bank of the creek.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

[LTC8K6]

The Patterson copyright marks the pile of debris.

http://home.att.net/~ltc8k6/lms1.gif

[Diogenes]

O.K.

I thought that was a shadow..

I can't see any water in PGF..

Thanks for the link. That is what I had seen before..

[Diogenes]

Thanks for the perspective..

I believe I see the stream now in PGF.. It wasn't apparent till you pointed it out..


Patterson never crossed the stream in his pursuit.. ( that we can see in the film ) I wonder what reason is given ..

[Diogenes]

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/BFCRKGRN.GIF
LTC8K6,

Have you seen this before?

From a clip on LMS.. John Green took a 6' 5" friend out to the Patty site in 68 ( Spring ? ) and had him walk the path..


I can't understand why there was any question about Patty's height. This film clearly shows she was less than 6' 5"..

I can show some stills later that match them up to some trees with definite height indicaters.

What is ridiculous is that LMS has a composite, tied to this clip showing Patty a few inches taller.


Maybe the footers just didn't want to give up the 7+ idea...


I wonder if this has been trotted out at BFF.. They still argue her height ad nauseum over their...

[Thurkon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/BFCRKGRN.GIF
LTC8K6,

Have you seen this before?

From a clip on LMS.. John Green took a 6' 5" friend out to the Patty site in 68 ( Spring ? ) and had him walk the path..


I can't understand why there was any question about Patty's height. This film clearly shows she was less than 6' 5"..

I can show some stills later that match them up to some trees with definite height indicaters.



I'd like to see that.

What's funny is that Green probably rented a camera and went down to Bluff Creek to do this, but he probably had some vague hope of catching a Foot on film.

Green...you tool.

You should've just paid Bob H. to do the duckwalk again.

[Diogenes]

Here ya' go...


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/bfcrkz.gif


I circled a knot on the tree for referance..


Here is the composite from LMS that is supposed to show Patty is taller..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/joke.gif


Translation:


Pretend you didn't see the clip we just showed you. Patty is ' this ' tall, because we want her to be ...

Yep, Legend meets science and is soundly thrashed..


And Lu thinks this DVD is the Holy Bible of Footdom...

[Diogenes]

Got another one.

This is another of the blowups that's supposed to show Patty's muscle detail..

( that can't be duplicated by a man in a suit )

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/musc1.gif


Can someone who knows something about anatomy tell me what muscle I have circled?


It looks to me like a bicep .. ( it really looks like a donut, but nothing like a tricep ) On the ' back ' of the arm ?

It this another one of those special ' Bigfoot ' physiology things ?

[LTC8K6]

No, I hadn't seen it before Diogenes.

I think the shot of Green's subject strolling past those stumps and cut logs is a pretty good indication that Patty was quite close to the woods on her left and should have gone into those woods.

It looks like Patty might be as tall as Green's subject if Patty would stand up straight. But then, stooping makes your arms look longer.

Why would your "tricep" bulge while you're just walking along anyway?

As far as I know, none of my muscles bulge much at all when I am just strolling along.

Below both Patty and Green's subject stroll past the same stumps and cut logs in the background. I think that Patty was indeed quite close to the woods on her left, but did not use them for cover, choosing instead to stroll across in front of Patterson and Gimlin for quite a ways. Initially, Patty must have been literally on the edge of those woods, I think.

Edited to correct errors about John Green being the man in the shot.


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/mm1.gif

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/BFCRKGRN.GIF

[Diogenes]

Note: It is not John in the pic.. It was a friend. I don't have the name handy.


Your point is well taken. The stroll out in the open never made sense except as a photo op...


If anyone from BFF is lurking, I challenge you to address the muscle bulge on the rear of the upper arm. If you don't want to join in at JREF, perhaps you could post at BFF and link to this thread.

As LTC8K6 noted, triceps ( not that it looks like any triceps that I have ever seen except on the ' Michelin Man ' ) don't flex when arms are hanging loose..

[LTC8K6]

Jim Mclarin was the subject of Green's comparison footage.

[LTC8K6]

Bumpage...

[Diogenes]

Bumpage...I'll feed this one later.. I'm trying to get registered over at BFF to ask a couple of questions..

I want someone to address the ' donut ' shaped bulges on Patty's arm..


The posts I made here earlier got purged... Lu dismissed the donuts as anomalies ( interesting in light of the ' track ' she just posted.. ); guess there is nothing from Green, Meldrum or Krantz on the arm muscles.. I'm surprised they haven't been called on this before...

The Bigfootologists ooh and ahhh over Patty's rippling muscles, but strangely, these bulges ( which must be muscles ) don't appear to flex at all..


http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/donuts.bmp

[LTC8K6]

It will probably just end up with you insisting they don't flex and believers insisting they do flex. I don't see any muscle flexing. All I see are artifacts from using a ~1.5mm high bigfoot image....

[Diogenes]

It will probably just end up with you insisting they don't flex and believers insisting they do flex. I don't see any muscle flexing. All I see are artifacts from using a ~1.5mm high bigfoot image....How do you think they will explain the odd shape.. Muscles shaped like that don't show up on any human or primate we know of..


Wait! I just answered my own question.. They are another of Patty's unique features.. ( never mind that such muscles just wouldn't work )

[LTC8K6]

Well, I guess there are a few folks over there who will probably have a good discussion with you and I would be interested in hearing their explanations of the doughnuts.

"They are just very compact and powerful muscles that look that way when they flex."

How was that?

I am still having trouble with all of this muscle flexing and bulging during a relaxed afternoon stroll.....

[Diogenes]

Well, I guess there are a few folks over there who will probably have a good discussion with you and I would be interested in hearing their explanations of the doughnuts.

"They are just very compact and powerful muscles that look that way when they flex."

How was that?

I am still having trouble with all of this muscle flexing and bulging during a relaxed afternoon stroll.....Check out this thread..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11205
Great footage!!!!!!!!

You can really see the hamstring to glute tie in, the spinal erectae to trap muscle tie ins, and many other muscle groups (not to mention the foot break) all working in perfect harmony!!! Our technology today counld'nt produce a suit that would do this, and it is very doubtful that CAD artists at major studios (Pixar, Dreamworks) are close to duplicating this anytime in the near future. No obsessing or overworked imagination there..

I really liked this response..You're good. Which frames show the break clearly? Can you make a version where you circle that area in red so I can see? Hello ? You're good, but could you point out what I am missing, so I can believe too? :rolleyes:


Primateer is the one who has found teeth in a grimace.

That is a fun thread

..http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7107

Primateer gets all bent out of shape when others can't see the teeth. One poster shows how teeth can be found all over the place by outlining the same shape artifacts, on other locations beside the mouth ( area ) ..

Some of the posters did a good job of questioning this..

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, I have seen bits of those threads before.

I just read both of them through and they really give you an idea of what happens when you believe in something a little too much.

[Diogenes]

I can now log in over at BFF..

I cannot post or reply, so I guess there is a waiting period or something. I'll give it a day or two.. I've waited this long..

Here is what I plan to post in the PGF Forum..

It includes some info that got blown away with the JREF rebuild..

I would appreciate any suggestions for improving my presentation.

Here ya' go ..

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

I apologize if this has been answered before, but my search attempts failed to turn up an explanation for something that seems unnatural to me in the Patterson Gimlin film.

In this still I have circled a circular bulge in the upper arm, and have indicated similarly shaped bulges near the elbow and the wrist.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/musc1.bmp



Here is another still with a side view indicating the same bulges..

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/musc3.bmp


Here is an animated clip that I linked to here at BFF; I believe it includes the last still I linked to.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-10-1101609371.gif



The shape of these bulges do not really seem to correlate to actual muscles that appear on humans and other primates. They seem to be like donut shapes that encircle the arm, rather than actual muscles that are attached lengthwise to the bones of the arm.
I have included this human anatomy drawing for reference.

http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/musc2.gif


For my last point, I would like to bring your attention once again to the animated clip.

If the bulge on the upper rear of the arm was just an oddly shaped muscle that we can’t explain, because we have yet to procure an actual sample of this creature, you would expect to see the muscle expand and contract as the arm is being flexed.
Notably, as the arm swings forward you would expect the bulge on the rear of the upper arm ( corresponding ) to the triceps, to relax.
It doesn’t.
The size and shape appear constant throughout the swing of the arm.

[Bronze Dog]

Not seeing the first two images.

[Diogenes]

Not seeing the first two images.Hmmm.. I can see them. All except the animation are at the same site. Can you see the anatomy drawings?

The first two are *.bmp format.. Would that matter ?

Anyone else?

[LTC8K6]

I think that will do, Diogenes.

No trouble with the images here.

[LTC8K6]

Hmmm...you go from 3 bulges to 4. Might want to reconcile that.

[Metullus]

I see them fine.

[LTC8K6]

Do gorillas show these muscle bulges when they are just out and about and not doing anything requiring their strength?

[Bronze Dog]

I'm currently using Opera. Could download them and look at them in MSpaint. (Guess Opera doesn't display .bmps or something) Surprised I didn't notice those donuts earlier.

[Diogenes]

Hmmm...you go from 3 bulges to 4. Might want to reconcile that. Good Idea..

I think I am pointing to the Deltoid in the 2nd shot..


Doesn't look right either, but not the point I want to make...

[Diogenes]

Do gorillas show these muscle bulges when they are just out and about and not doing anything requiring their strength? Not in any pictures I can find. Their fur and skin seems to obscure most muscle definition.

[Metullus]

I have one of those donut muscle bulges, only its around my middle...

[William Parcher]

Tube (Matt), I love the Bigfoot Think Tank thread on the pear-shaped Patty. That MK Davis (primateer) is really an insane and deluded individual. He seems to be tied in with the Bigfoot conferences. It says a lot about the Bigfoot cult that they don't just go and eat that 3-legged runt born of their own litter.

Pear-shaped Brains (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12956&view=findpost&p=266670)

[William Parcher]

I can now log in over at BFF..


More than that now... you're In Like Flint. Now the fun will start. You can bet that the bigwigs in the Bigfoot Think Tank already knew you were coming over from JREF.

They are going to show you that you are wrong about Patty's muscles and that you are wrong about a giant stinking bipedal ape lurking in our forests.

The dissing shall commence.

Donutfoot (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993&view=findpost&p=266714)

[AGENT-ADAIR]

I heard the guy admited, on his death bed, the video was a fraud.

Maybe.....I heard wrong?