The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

BTW, as an aside, I was just watching a mini-doc about the making of Hellboy II. (Bear with me for a moment, this is actually relevant!) I was watching all the costumed monsters run around with their latex muscles, and thinking that Patty's musculature is extremely crude in comparison, when I saw something that really caught my eye.

It was Hellboy/Ron Perlman's pants leg. In a segment in the making-of section called "H is for Hotel", there is a profile shot of Perlman perched up the giant "H", hanging on wires as he goes about his actorly business. His black, shiny vinyl pants, which are fairly loose fitting, fell into a series of white-on-black folds that closely or even identically resemble the pattern in the pic I've numbered 21, above.

One fold angles down from the knee to taper off mid-ankle; the other mirrors the first, angling back out from the mid-ankle to the spot where the ankle meets the foot.

Anyone who owns this disc can cue up the doc in question and examine it for themselves. It seems awfully coincidental that a piece of "foreground foliage" (which magically moves with a locomoting figure!) would be placed precisely where material folds are demonstrably, verifiably, inarguably located.

Flipping through some of my art books, I see the same effect can be seen on p. 56 of B. Hogarth's Dynamic Folds and Drapery, 1995.

[neltana]

Why can't Sweaty and I be more like this?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Sorry, kitty....but I'm just not interested in proving the VR skeleton's validity....to the "skeptics"....(scoftics, actually)...of Jref. From the overlays of the skeleton over Patty....in LMS....it looks to me to be a very good fit.

Others are free to have their own opinion of it.

Great, I knew you would turtle on that (complete with the "scoftics" whine). I find it awesomely fitting() that you would go to utterly ridiculous, mind-numbingly ludicrous lengths to remain in denial of the skeletal overlays showing that a real, average human skelton fits BH and Patty just fine, and yet when it comes to doing the simplest thing in proving that your gobbledy-gook Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff is valid, you back out and flee.

And it's a very good fit, he says!



That funky chicken walking thing with the insane legs is a very good fit. Oh, Sweaty, you wear your bias like a sombrero. Here's your funky chicken (2:30)...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

And Comparisons are the killer of the myth of Tube's, Bob H's....and others...arm length "equality" with Patty....

1) Re: BH - you ignored posts 2184 and 2185. *plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

2) Re: Tube - you ignored post 2197. *plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

3) Re: The general question of Patty's "inhuman" proportions - you ignored all the posts in which I showed the numbers of my own proportions and compared them to Patty's, and came out more squatchy by your own preferred method (distance from arms to ground) while standing fully erect...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2200

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2209

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2215

*plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

Sweaty can not handle those posts.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by neltana

Why can't Sweaty and I be more like this?

Because Óðinn is intelligent, actually open-minded, intellectually honest, unafraid of concepts that challenge his opinions, and will deal directly with arguments as they are presented to him and fully engage them without dodging or obfuscating. As are you, as is Vort, as is Astro, and as am I.

Sweaty is none of those things and thus debates with him are more a matter of playing cat and mouse with a conniving person always trying to get away from what's right in front of them.

We all wish it could be more like this. It unfortunately is the way it is because dealing with fanatics is never about logic, never about true debate. That's why Óðinn is a welcome breeze of intelligence.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Not sure what you're pointing at in 6. Left arm? Bottom of the scapula?

12 looks like the highlighted bicep femoris (somewhat distorted).

19 & 21 are the same foreground foliage. They are not even part of the leg.

Mostly, I see a pretty snug fit, suit or skin. Except maybe the butt could use some work.

Baby got back. Except that back is like half-full beanbag chair.

I also see the suit looking very ill-fitting on the upper and lower arms. Don't get me started on the tummy rocks.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Here are some crude overdrawings, indicating in white the location of each major fold.

ETA: Compare with the "original" (Davis-enhanced) pics, in an above post on this page.

What about the left leg in #19. Isn't there a substantial fold a few inches below the knee and another near the ankle?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

To measure the arm, one measures from the shoulder joint.

Following this method will produce arms of nearly identical length in both Tube and Patty.

That may be true......BUT.....following that method does not account for the significant difference in the distance from the 'fingertips to the feet'...between Patty and most everyone she's compared with.



Vort wrote:

Quote:

.....measuring 'arm length' from the eyesocket is an absurd and delusional method of measurement.

This is a mis-characterization, based solely on semantics.......specifically...what the body length/proportions I've been refering to in my comparisons are called.

What I've been comparing is not just simple 'arm length'.....it's a length that's related to the subject's 'arm length', but also includes other body limb lengths, and proportions.



The fact of the matter is....'Arm length' is not the ONLY potential difference in body limb proportions between 2 different species of animals. So, naturally, any potential differences between Patty, and humans, would need to be looked at, and compared.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

That may be true......BUT.....following that method does not account for the significant difference in the distance from the 'fingertips to the feet'...between Patty and most everyone she's compared with.

Oops for you...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2209

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2215

I assure you that my arms are not exceptionally long.

[Vortigern99]

"Fingertips to feet" is not a valid unit or method measurement. What precisely is being measured here? The arm is measured shoulder joint to fingertips; the leg from trochanter (the femur bone joint) to sole. There is no limb or segment of the body that can be accurately measured "from fingertips to feet". It makes as much sense as measuring the arm from the eyesocket!

The length "from fingertips to feet" varies depending on whether the subject is stooping over and hunching the shoulders, and the degree to which the legs are bent. Patty is stooping, hunching, and "its" legs are bent at the knee. All of these actions/postures affect the apparent length "from fingertips to feet".

Try it! Stand up, then stoop your head and hunch your shoulders down. The reach of your arms will extend toward the floor. Now bend your knees! Your fingertips will reach even farther toward the floor.

Why this should be any kind of revelation is yet another query for the ages.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Sweaty is none of those things and thus debates with him are more a matter of playing cat and mouse with a conniving person always trying to get away from what's right in front of them.

Enjoy......


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


Take you to the cinema, and leave you....in a Wimpy Bar...
You tell me that we've gone too far...
come running up to me...



BTW....as far as this 'dare' to me....to debate with you...

Quote:

Another dare - I dare you to actually step into a real debate with me. One where you can't be chicken on the run. One question or point from you and I must address before any other post. Then it's my turn. You could not handle that. You would go white as a sheet. You could not function in an honest debate where you are not allowed to be conniving and dishonest.

No thanks, kitzo. There is no reason to debate anything with you....because 99% of what you have posted on this board is meaningless babble....including...(but not limited to )...twisting of the truth....misrepresentations....and false accusations. In a word, sewage.


Coming soon.....a collection of kitakaze's 'subtle twistings' of the truth.

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Quote:

The length "from fingertips to feet" varies... depending on whether the subject is stooping over and hunching the shoulders, and the degree to which the legs are bent

That length can also vary... depending on the body proportions of DIFFERENT SPECIES. Is that NOT true???

[Vortigern99]

Show me a bipedal primate and we'll talk "truth".

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Show me a bipedal primate and we'll talk "truth".

The existence of Bigfoot, and arguements for and against it, are irrelevant to the analysis of the Patterson film. The lack of remains, and the lack of a suit, dampen both hopes of finding the truth

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!

But we don't.

We have an casting of an "alleged" footprint, but no proof that this was actually made by "Patty".

If we accept that the casts ARE true casts of the footprint made by the figure in the PGF, we still can't do that much with it.

Scenario 1. "Patty" is a man in a suit. Therefore the "footprint" is most likely to be a boot print. We have no way to determine how much larger than the person wearing the suit the bootprint might be. So using human proportions to determine height from an unknowable boot size is inaccurate.

Scenario 2. "Patty" is an unknown primate. Since it is unknown, we have no species on which to compare body proportions and therefore no knowable equations to use to calculate height.

[Vortigern99]

There is also that footprints tend to be larger than the feet that made them, especially in soft mud as the moist soil spreads outward from the pressure of the impacting foot.

There is also that the film is fuzzy, the subject very tiny inside the film frame, obliging an investigator to blow up the size thus distorting the image, and the fact that motion blur distorts the apparent size of the subject's various body parts, including the feet.

This, added to EHocking's points about boot size within the suit, and the probability that the prints might not even have been made by the subject of the film, and you have a thick brick wall against using the footprint casts as a measuring tool for the subject's height.

[Last post for awhile. Busy day today.]

[makaya325]

Quote:

Scenario 1. "Patty" is a man in a suit. Therefore the "footprint" is most likely to be a boot print. We have no way to determine how much larger than the person wearing the suit the bootprint might be. So using human proportions to determine height from an unknowable boot size is inaccurate.

Scenario 2. "Patty" is an unknown primate. Since it is unknown, we have no species on which to compare body proportions and therefore no knowable equations to use to calculate height

So what you are saying is that, until better evidence for bigfoot surfaces, the suit explanation is the most likely?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Vortigern wrote:



That length can also vary... depending on the body proportions of DIFFERENT SPECIES. Is that NOT true???

Your arms to ground gobbledy-gook is absurd, meaningless, and just plain stupid. In both comparisons to me Patty can not beat my 35.81% of total body height from arms to ground, arms straight at my sides not hunched at all. My arms are normal human arms, my proportions, normal human proportions. There is nothing exceptional about them. Once again, by your very own preferred method, I am more squatchy than Patty McLumpy is. Anyone is free to repeat my measurements. Your arms-to-ground nonsense as a manuever to try and hold onto the concept that Patty has inhumanly long arms is destroyed.

*bzzt* FAIL. Next.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

No thanks, kitzo. There is no reason to debate anything with you....because 99% of what you have posted on this board is meaningless babble....including...(but not limited to )...twisting of the truth....misrepresentations....and false accusations. In a word, sewage.


Coming soon.....a collection of kitakaze's 'subtle twistings' of the truth.

99% meaningless babble? I understand your fear, Sweaty. Post # 2243 contains links to some of the posts that directly destroys your ridiculous, desperate fanatic arguments. Those are posts that you could not hope to try and directly deal with. Living in a UFO, Martian civilization, Bigfoot filled world, I don't think you have a firm enough grasp on reality to deal with the basic logic in those posts.

You go right ahead and post my "subtle twistings of the truth." Have a little sweaty fit. You will do anything other than deal with the straight, logical arguments I present that destroy your fanatical flailings.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by makaya325

So what you are saying is that, until better evidence for bigfoot surfaces, the suit explanation is the most likely?

Non sequitur. Nothing in your or my posts implied that conclusion.

Try reading for comprehension.

The context of the post would have been sufficient.
That post was in response to this statement by you,
"It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known! "

Hell, I even left that quote in my response so you HAD context.
Since it was a response to one of your posts, how difficult for you is it to maintain a line of thought beyond two posts?

No wonder you get called for trolling.

[LTC8K6]

Sweaty replies to meaningless babble at a high rate then...

[Drewbot]

The rabbit would like to present a Pattycake to...

Sweaty, for consistently serving up a steaming pile of epic PFAIL!!11 with regards to the PGF film.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Here are some crude overdrawings, indicating in white the location of each major fold.

ETA: Compare with the "original" (Davis-enhanced) pics, in an above post on this page.

I am not seeing any fabric, unless you consider skin to be a "fabric".

[makaya325]

Here is an email i received from Henner Fahrenbach, asking about Vort's claim of seeing Fabric:

Quote:

I don't know what you are driving at with these probably fifth generation pictures. I happen to have photographic copies (Cibachrome) in large format of some of these images and there is nothing at all with this type of contrast visible in them. What I see are shades of brown depending on how the hair is illuminated. If you are a conspiracy theorist and suspect "fabric wrinkles" or some such over the top interpretation, you are just flogging a dead horse and doing that with bad input. Garbage in - garbage out - you can't do any sort of interpretation, not to mention contribution, by using anything other than original material. Cease bothering me once and for all with your stuff, dredged up by the hair - if you'll pardon the pun. There are better uses for your time!

W.H.F.

[LTC8K6]

We have, of course, seen the cibachromes and discussed them. They really look like fake fur. Much more so, imo.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Here is an email i received from Henner Fahrenbach, asking about Vort's claim of seeing Fabric:

W.H.F.

So he's saying that there is just not enough detail in the Cibachromes to say what the material might be (GIGO), therefore it must be hair.

How illogical.

[Astrophotographer]

If these high quality cibachromes exist, why not have them scanned in high quality and present them on the internet. That way, all interested parties can have access to the same valuable information.

[LTC8K6]

IIRC, they have been shown here many times. I think I have some stored online somewhere.

[Vortigern99]

I don't know what you are driving at with these probably fifth generation pictures. I happen to have photographic copies (Cibachrome) in large format of some of these images and there is nothing at all with this type of contrast visible in them. What I see are shades of brown depending on how the hair is illuminated. If you are a conspiracy theorist and suspect "fabric wrinkles" or some such over the top interpretation, you are just flogging a dead horse and doing that with bad input. Garbage in - garbage out - you can't do any sort of interpretation, not to mention contribution, by using anything other than original material. Cease bothering me once and for all with your stuff, dredged up by the hair - if you'll pardon the pun. There are better uses for your time!

First, I would think it's pretty clear what I'm "driving at", as I've made abundantly clear that there are streaks and slashes visible in the frames under review (among others) that are consistent with the known and studied action of folds in fabric material, and inconsistent with the action of primate skin. Where I was not clear before, I certainly hope this clarifies.

Second, I am indeed working with "probably fifth generation pictures", to my utter chagrin. I would be thrilled to examine the Cibachrome prints for myself, in order to render an unbiased opinion as to whether the streaks and slashes (whatever they are) are visible there as well. In the multi-generation pics under review, the contrast has been cranked up to artificially high levels, so that some details are enhanced and others blown out entirely. Via the Internet, however, I have examined copies closer to the original than the MK Davis sequence I'm currently using, and the streaks were visible there as well, only less pronounced and in the same "shades of brown" that Dr. Fahrenbach describes.

Third, the term "conspiracy theorist" is disingenuous, since hoaxing is a known and documented human behavior, particularly with regard to the phenomenon known as bigfoot. As such it is a far more probable that the film was hoaxed rather than that an undiscovered, non-human, bipedal primate is (or was) roaming the woodlands of North America, obtaining 8000+ calories a day while remaining hidden from all efforts to discover it, and leaving no bones or other verifiable signs of its existence apart from the imminently hoaxable footprint. The so-called "conspiracy theory" claim includes three persons, Gimlin, Patterson and a third, costumed party -- a conspiracy of three -- whereas a contention that bigfoot(s) are ingeniously elusive involves thousands of such animals escaping capture and cataloguing by scientific methods for many decades. Thus the term "conspiracy theorist", meant to be belittling and dismissive, is actually the more logical and fact-based conclusion here.

Fourth, as EHocking noted above, if there is not enough detail in the Cibachromes to say what the material might be, concluding that it must be "hair", as Dr. Fahrenbach has done, is at least as illogical as calling it "fabric". The distinction is that we have discovered evidence that the material is fabric, whereas there is no evidence that it is hair.

Fifth, as Astrophotgrapher noted above, "If these high quality Cibachromes exist, why not have them scanned in high quality and present them on the Internet? That way, all interested parties can have access to the same valuable information." And that way, too, we'll have found "better uses for [our] time", exactly as Dr. Fahrenbach has suggested.

[Vortigern99]

BTW, if anyone has a link to, or copies of, scans of the Cibachrome prints from the "pre-log" sequence (the rear-angle shots of Patty walking toward the fallen tree), I'd love to inspect them. Thanks.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The so-called "conspiracy theory" claim includes three persons, Gimlin, Patterson and a third, costumed party -- a conspiracy of three -- whereas a contention that bigfoot(s) are ingeniously elusive involves thousands of such animals escaping capture and cataloguing by scientific methods for many decades.

I don't really like the "for many decades" thing. Some people even start their counting from 1967 (PGF), or 1958 (birthyear of "Bigfoot" in mass media). I think it should be centuries, or even thousands of years. I tend to go with "over 400 years" which is when Europeans came to North America and began poking around. But Bigfoot bodies or parts could have been aquired long before that by Indians. A Bigfoot skull that was kept by a tribe for 1400 years would certainly serve as a legitimate piece of evidence at any time thereafter.

I agree that it has only been decades since there has been popular media coverage and therefore general awareness of Bigfoot. But the ability and desire to aquire and retain biological evidence of Bigfoot is not limited to decades.

I think it's more realistic to say that we haven't gotten a piece of Bigfoot in over 400 years than it is to say decades.

[Vortigern99]

It is certainly debatable. I've given the more generous figure, decades, based on the fact that scientific inquiry into the American bifgoot has been at work since the 1950s at the earliest, but probably closer to the 1970s when Krantz began conducting his research. It's a point I'm willing to concede either way, since it's ancillary to the main thrust of my contentions.

[LTC8K6]

Man would have been in competition with sasquatch all along. There should be souvenirs and stories of battles. When you killed a bear, you wore your souvenirs proudly. Man attacked and killed animals much larger and more powerful than a sasquatch. Sasquatch would have been in the stewpot and bones with disassembly marks would be found.

[davefoc]

Those are spectacular bigfoot/human skeleton images kitakaze. Did you make them? Do you control the copyright to them?

Have you considered adding them to the Bigfoot category of Wikimedia?

The contract image would also be of general interest and a valuable addition to the Wikimedia Bigfoot category.

Anyway congratulations on really excellent work if you created the images and congratulations on good copying if you didn't.

I also think it would be nice to incorporate some of the imagery that is in your post into the Wikipedia Bigfoot article.

--Dave

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Those are spectacular bigfoot/human skeleton images kitakaze. Did you make them? Do you control the copyright to them?

Have you considered adding them to the Bigfoot category of Wikimedia?

The contract image would also be of general interest and a valuable addition to the Wikimedia Bigfoot category.

Anyway congratulations on really excellent work if you created the images and congratulations on good copying if you didn't.

I also think it would be nice to incorporate some of the imagery that is in your post into the Wikipedia Bigfoot article.

--Dave

Those skeletons have a major flaw in them, Dave. They don't account for the fact that Bob H's shoulder joint (if he was Patty) would have been located 2-3 inches inboard of where Patty's shoulder is...(due to the big difference in their upper-body widths)...





This means that Bob's upper arm actually needs to be longer than Patty's upper arm.

But Bob's upper arm.....(like Tube's upper arm, in the comparison above)....is actually shorter than Patty's.



The skelly's have a mighty deep hole to climb out of, before they can truly be considered legit.


One of kitakaze's little 'distortions', btw, is to post very small skeletal overlay images....so the differences in the limb lengths, between Fric and Frac, is shrunken down so much that it's barely noticeable.

[davefoc]

Thank you SeatyYeti for your thoughtful response.

Before I respond let me start with a bit of a disclaimer. I think the chances that creature in the PG film is an unknown primate that lives or lived in North America approaches zero. You reasonably might believe that my response is driven by my confirmation biases as a result.

As to your image:
I took it, reversed the image of the person on the right and mirrored it so that it was facing the same direction as the alleged bigfoot (AB). I then explanded the image on the right by 8% and did comparisons. There is a very good correlation between the images for the upper body when this is done. The width of the back seems much closer between the two images, the shoulders are very close in position, the arms are almost exactly the same length and the butt areas line up reasonably well, (although the undefined butt area in the AB photo makes it difficult to make much out of this comparison).

However when this is done, the length of the legs of the human appear to descend substantially below the AB legs. However this might not be as significant as it seems at first. It is difficult to determine from the AB image how deeply buried the foot of the AB is. It is also difficult to determine how deeply bent the AB legs are.

Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human. But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea. Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably. Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

However, given the obvious non-resemblance of the AB images to an actual animal and the non-resemblance of the movement of the AB to anything other than a human I would say it is highly unlikely that the PG film is anything other than a film of a man in a monkey suit. Put into the context of the rest of the evidence relevant to the AB, the possibility that a non-human creature is portrayed in the PG film is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it is certain that it is a man in a monkey suit.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I'm talking about pointing to a feature and saying "that can't be a primate, look at the scapula/teres group, it's all wrong." Form follows function. Chimps (and other apes) have nearly identical musculature to human beings, and in this case a bipedal primate would have identical or nearly identical musculature as a human being. There is no muscle on any primate that cuts across the spine.

Except for a sasquatch. Funny they're the only apes with eyeshine too.

Actually, I agree. But the point is that these aren't known facts, they're speculation. Even really good speculation can't prove anything. It might tip the scales for some people's opinions, I suppose.

Quote:

The ilio-tibial band is what you're referring to. It's not a muscle proper, but a band of tissue connecting the joints of the leg, and it runs along the side/profile of the leg, not the posterior/rear of the leg. Also, you're neglecting my point that the semimem. and semitend. muscles run parallel to the leg; they don't cut across it at an oblique angle. Material folds do that; muscle groups do not.

If you watch the frames before and after (many of which are severely distorted) this area is just a highlighted part of the back and side of the leg which is being defined by Patty's arm shadow.

Quote:

You haven't shown that "foreground object" is any such thing, so please don't get ahead of yourself. The same shapes run continuously on the same area of a moving figure; they don't remain in place while the figure moves behind them.

I take it back. Both those lit areas you identify as folds aren't foliage. After having looked at a looping GIF focused on this sequence, I conclude that the artifact by the foot IS foliage, but the artifact on the leg is caused by the shadow of Patty's arm as she swings it backward. Watch this GIF and note how the shadow on the back of Patty's leg mirrors the right arm. What else could be casting that shadow if the sun was over Patty's right shoulder? Has to be the arm & hand.

Quote:

I have no agenda apart from the truth. As to "wishful thinking", I can assert that I want there to be a bigfoot out there somewhere. I wish there were a BF; I really, really do. I would love it if Patty were proven to be a real non-human North American primate. So by your logic, if "wishful thinking" were at play, I should be attempting to discredit the idea that these streaks are fabric folds, not supporting it.

Regardless of your motives, you wish your analysis to be correct.

Quote:

It's important to note here that you're ignoring key points, forcing me to repeat myself, which indicates a degree of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Are we having a legitimate debate in which we address each other's observations, or are you intentionally dodging points for which you have no response?

Give me a break. What were your key points that I didn't address? The quality of these film images is not good enough to discern any folds in the fabric. Loose hair could potentially mimic any apparent fabric fold. Especially a shaky object at these distances from the camera. Many frames are so distorted they are only good for a "camera shake" analysis.

Bottom line is I don't think anyone can point out any definite fabric folds in the current images available. Doesn't mean they weren't there, doesn't mean they were either. JMHO

[Vortigern99]

If you watch the frames before and after (many of which are severely distorted) this area is just a highlighted part of the back and side of the leg which is being defined by Patty's arm shadow.

Excellent work, Odinn. I will concede that the mid-ankle streak evident in the frame I've called #21 is a product of the black shadow of the right arm being cast onto the highlighted bulge of the calf/shin region. In your animated GIF we can clearly see this shadow swinging over the calf area. Its angle, shape and evident movement visibly conform to that of the right arm. Well done.

However (and you had to see this coming!), that explanation does not serve for the other streaks and slashes of light evident elsewhere on the figure. There is no large mass, equivalent to the right arm, creating shadows, for example, on the final frame of the GIF you've posted above (at the point the reverse animation begins), which corresponds to my frame #27 (attached below).

The arm is fully forward in that frame, yet we can see the diagonal streak of the upper thigh (which you earlier mistook for the thigh muscles), stretching from the inner upper thigh to the outer lower thigh. This streak is visible on frames #6 (qv), 7, 8, 9, 13, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 of the same "pre-log" sequence. (Some of these are attached below.)

Since the shadow of the arm can be excluded as a possible cause, owing to the arm's forward placement, the next reasonable observation we might make is that it is a feature inextricable from the surface of the figure itself, and not an effect of light and shade. Tentatively, we might conclude that this is a fabric fold, because there is no other explanation that comes to mind. If you have one, please offer it.

The quality of these film images is not good enough to discern any folds in the fabric. Loose hair could potentially mimic any apparent fabric fold.

I disagree. I discern numerous folds in various regions of the figure which to my eye are not effects of light and shade. And contrary to your assertion, loose hair does not mimic the action of fabric folds, for the simple reason that hair does not share the same anchor points (the joints of the limbs and body) as does a whole swatch of fabric, draped over the body and pulled taut or loose depending on the bend of the limbs. If you disagree, whereas you are making the original assertion, please provide evidence of it in any primate or other animal species you can find.

Give me a break. What were your key points that I didn't address?

I don't want to get into a sidebar about this, because it's largely irrelevant to the discussion. In short you neglected to answer several of my points, which I then repeated a second time before you finally addressed them.

Otherwise, this is a fine debate and I hope we can continue in this vein.

ETA: The frames attached below are numbered 7, 8, 13, 27, and 31, respectively. On the previous page I've also shown #6 in this sequence, which also shows the diagonal slash of the right rear thigh, which cannot be the parallel muscles of the thigh and cannot be the product of the shadow of the right arm.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Thank you SeatyYeti for your thoughtful response.

Before I respond let me start with a bit of a disclaimer. I think the chances that creature in the PG film is an unknown primate that lives or lived in North America approaches zero. You reasonably might believe that my response is driven by my confirmation biases as a result.

As to your image:
I took it, reversed the image of the person on the right and mirrored it so that it was facing the same direction as the alleged bigfoot (AB). I then explanded the image on the right by 8% and did comparisons. There is a very good correlation between the images for the upper body when this is done. The width of the back seems much closer between the two images, the shoulders are very close in position, the arms are almost exactly the same length and the butt areas line up reasonably well, (although the undefined butt area in the AB photo makes it difficult to make much out of this comparison).

However when this is done, the length of the legs of the human appear to descend substantially below the AB legs. However this might not be as significant as it seems at first. It is difficult to determine from the AB image how deeply buried the foot of the AB is. It is also difficult to determine how deeply bent the AB legs are.

Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human. But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea. Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably. Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

However, given the obvious non-resemblance of the AB images to an actual animal and the non-resemblance of the movement of the AB to anything other than a human I would say it is highly unlikely that the PG film is anything other than a film of a man in a monkey suit. Put into the context of the rest of the evidence relevant to the AB, the possibility that a non-human creature is portrayed in the PG film is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it is certain that it is a man in a monkey suit.

Thank you, for your thoughtful response, Dave.

I'll respond to it sometime tomorrow...but it'll probably be on the late side.

[tube]

Oh Internet, thou great repository of past gustatory indiscretions...

While my skeleton remains dimensionally intact, I no longer eat like the O-mah.

No Atkins, no lipo, no stapled stomach, simply a Triumph of the Will.

Yet I am forever condemned to live with the Scarlet Lines that inexorably connect me to "Patty". At least my own body modification is a more aesthetic outcome than Johnny Depp changing his tattoo from "Winona" to "Wino"...

[makaya325]

Quote:

Third, the term "conspiracy theorist" is disingenuous, since hoaxing is a known and documented human behavior, particularly with regard to the phenomenon known as bigfoot. As such it is a far more probable that the film was hoaxed rather than that an undiscovered, non-human, bipedal primate is (or was) roaming the woodlands of North America, obtaining 8000+ calories a day while remaining hidden from all efforts to discover it, and leaving no bones or other verifiable signs of its existence apart from the imminently hoaxable footprint. The so-called "conspiracy theory" claim includes three persons, Gimlin, Patterson and a third, costumed party -- a conspiracy of three -- whereas a contention that bigfoot(s) are ingeniously elusive involves thousands of such animals escaping capture and cataloguing by scientific methods for many decades. Thus the term "conspiracy theorist", meant to be belittling and dismissive, is actually the more logical and fact-based conclusion here.

Hoaxing does exist, but it would be quite unusual for it to continue to modern day, being done all around North America, in every state, going unseen, undetected, and undocumented