FREE TAPATALK APP

shecky · 2nd January 2006, 09:08 PM

Check out this and this.

"Stabilized" video. WARNING: both files are large, several Mb each, and the first link (Zapruder footage) is remarkably clear and graphically violent (to the two people out there who haven't seen it before).

Time to warm up the tinfoil hats!

William Parcher · 2nd January 2006, 10:33 PM

Nobody has yet been able to prove that Bigfoot did not shoot JFK.

Euromutt · 2nd January 2006, 10:42 PM

Hey, thanks for the link, shecky. It's nice to be able to watch this footage clearly under my own terms at last, rather than the way Oliver Stone et al. wanted me to see it.

You can see the third bullet strike very clearly indeed, including how JFK's blood etc. is blown forwards out of his head. Exactly as it would if the bullet entered from behind and exited at the front. It's hard to tell from still photos, because that way, it's easy to overlook that the limo is moving forward while the cloud of blood remains suspended in comparison.

schplurg · 4th January 2006, 01:51 AM

The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait.

bobbieshort · 8th September 2007, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by schplurg

The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait.

That’s understandable if you are capable of easily taking a 52-inch step as a normal course of walking behavior...but I know of no person who can do that.....

The Pig · 8th September 2007, 01:37 PM

How do we know the steps were 52 inches from the film alone?
Why would a step have to be taken easily?
How do we know this is the thing's normal walking behaviour?

Locknar · 8th September 2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by shecky

Check out this and this.

"Stabilized" video. WARNING: both files are large, several Mb each, and the first link (Zapruder footage) is remarkably clear and graphically violent (to the two people out there who haven't seen it before).

Time to warm up the tinfoil hats!

I had posted the PG "stabilized" version in another thread a while back (and perhaps others have as well).

I tend to agree with folks like schplurg; it seems real obvious to me its just a guy in a suit. What I find interesting...the guy that did this, found it as "proof" it was NOT a guy in a suit but actually a "Bigfoot".

Go figure.

Apology · 8th September 2007, 06:54 PM

The Zapruder link is broken

Maybe you're out of bandwidth?

mangler · 8th September 2007, 10:30 PM

Bobbie,

First off how do you get 52"? Typically when tracking a plantigrade, specifically tactical tracking of a human, the unit of measurement would be from the toe of the current track that you have identified to the heel of the next track, that would be the stride length and/or stride interval. Are you/they measuring true track? Was the linear method or diagonal used, did anyone take into account the substrate variation when the measurements were taken? Is the 52" half/quarter from the average over a couple paces or what? Since there is no reliable evidence that shows the subject did in fact make the tracks that were cast, why do you assume the 52" to be fact? What are the numbers for the trail width/straddle? How tall do you think the subject is? How tall do you think a human would have to be to have a 52" stride?

Finding then correctly interpreting the missing spoor would allow one to continue the follow-up, this is absolutely essential, there is a little bit more to it than just measuring the perceived distance. If a person can't properly interpret tracks/track-ways (then accurately communicate that interpretation/information to others), IMO, plain and simple, they are worthless as a tracker, their data seriously lacks integrity. The great thing about tracking is the information is immediate and therefore can be acted upon immediately. IMO, there was not one person that visited the P/G site who had any idea how to properly interpret this information, to say the least.

There is absolutely no way anyone can determine that the track-way/tracks we see were laid at the same time the subject was filmed. Hell I'm beginning to think the sun's altitude was about 10+ degrees higher at the time of the film than the 37 or so degrees that was recorded for that day. The azimuth is right but the altitude sure seems fishy. Then there is the 50+ meters that the subject walked parallel to the tree line, an easy pushdown route but for some reason it decided to pop through the berm and walk toward Patterson, but apparently Roger couldn't get the camera fired back up till the subject was walking away from him. Why would Patterson assume that the subject would not go pushdown, when crossing the creek they would have lost sight of it, how did they know where to go?

Every big game animal I have ever jumped and continued to follow has gone pushdown or charged, the only times they didn't was when I stopped all threatening behavior, then and only then did they aimlessly saunter off, and by following the subjects course of travel that is exactly what it did while being pursued by two men and a horse. If the subject was never threatened it never would have moved in the first place, if it was threatened, it never would have allowed P and G to get close to it again.

I would love for this film to be of an honest to god bigfoot, but too many signals scream BS. If only they would have recorded the necessary information in the proper manor this whole thing would have been a done deal 40 years ago. It's only the lack of information that keeps it alive, which in itself speaks volumes. As psychologists know, observers' expectations frequently color their interpretations.

m

BTW, would this be an example of a 52" stride?

davidsmith73 · 9th September 2007, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by schplurg

The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait.

Why would you think a "bigfoot" gait would look non-human?

LTC8K6 · 9th September 2007, 02:29 AM

There's no evidence of stride length at all, actually. The footprints found have never been linked to the film.

Correa Neto · 9th September 2007, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Why would you think a "bigfoot" gait would look non-human?

Because those who defend the position that bigfeet are real are always speaking about compliant gaits and in-human walks.

2nd January 2006, 09:08 PM	#1
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Fans of Zapruder and Patterson-Gimlin footage... Check out this and this. "Stabilized" video. WARNING: both files are large, several Mb each, and the first link (Zapruder footage) is remarkably clear and graphically violent (to the two people out there who haven't seen it before). Time to warm up the tinfoil hats!

2nd January 2006, 10:33 PM	#2
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,535	Nobody has yet been able to prove that Bigfoot did not shoot JFK.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

2nd January 2006, 10:42 PM	#3
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Auburn, WA, USA Posts: 1,094	Hey, thanks for the link, shecky. It's nice to be able to watch this footage clearly under my own terms at last, rather than the way Oliver Stone et al. wanted me to see it. You can see the third bullet strike very clearly indeed, including how JFK's blood etc. is blown forwards out of his head. Exactly as it would if the bullet entered from behind and exited at the front. It's hard to tell from still photos, because that way, it's easy to overlook that the limo is moving forward while the cloud of blood remains suspended in comparison.
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice

4th January 2006, 01:51 AM	#4
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 933	The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait.
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 933

8th September 2007, 01:20 PM	#5
bobbieshort Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 109	Originally Posted by schplurg The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait. That’s understandable if you are capable of easily taking a 52-inch step as a normal course of walking behavior...but I know of no person who can do that.....
bobbieshort Scholar Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 109

8th September 2007, 01:37 PM	#6
The Pig Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 171	How do we know the steps were 52 inches from the film alone? Why would a step have to be taken easily? How do we know this is the thing's normal walking behaviour?
The Pig Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 171

8th September 2007, 04:52 PM	#7
Locknar Sum of all evils ^tm Deputy Admin Join Date: May 2007 Location: 25.50 N, 77.54 W Posts: 14,499	Originally Posted by shecky Check out this and this. "Stabilized" video. WARNING: both files are large, several Mb each, and the first link (Zapruder footage) is remarkably clear and graphically violent (to the two people out there who haven't seen it before). Time to warm up the tinfoil hats! I had posted the PG "stabilized" version in another thread a while back (and perhaps others have as well). I tend to agree with folks like schplurg; it seems real obvious to me its just a guy in a suit. What I find interesting...the guy that did this, found it as "proof" it was NOT a guy in a suit but actually a "Bigfoot". Go figure.

8th September 2007, 06:54 PM	#8
Apology Reader's of the Boden Codex Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,668	The Zapruder link is broken Maybe you're out of bandwidth?

8th September 2007, 10:30 PM	#9
mangler Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Puget Sound Area Posts: 410	Bobbie, First off how do you get 52"? Typically when tracking a plantigrade, specifically tactical tracking of a human, the unit of measurement would be from the toe of the current track that you have identified to the heel of the next track, that would be the stride length and/or stride interval. Are you/they measuring true track? Was the linear method or diagonal used, did anyone take into account the substrate variation when the measurements were taken? Is the 52" half/quarter from the average over a couple paces or what? Since there is no reliable evidence that shows the subject did in fact make the tracks that were cast, why do you assume the 52" to be fact? What are the numbers for the trail width/straddle? How tall do you think the subject is? How tall do you think a human would have to be to have a 52" stride? Finding then correctly interpreting the missing spoor would allow one to continue the follow-up, this is absolutely essential, there is a little bit more to it than just measuring the perceived distance. If a person can't properly interpret tracks/track-ways (then accurately communicate that interpretation/information to others), IMO, plain and simple, they are worthless as a tracker, their data seriously lacks integrity. The great thing about tracking is the information is immediate and therefore can be acted upon immediately. IMO, there was not one person that visited the P/G site who had any idea how to properly interpret this information, to say the least. There is absolutely no way anyone can determine that the track-way/tracks we see were laid at the same time the subject was filmed. Hell I'm beginning to think the sun's altitude was about 10+ degrees higher at the time of the film than the 37 or so degrees that was recorded for that day. The azimuth is right but the altitude sure seems fishy. Then there is the 50+ meters that the subject walked parallel to the tree line, an easy pushdown route but for some reason it decided to pop through the berm and walk toward Patterson, but apparently Roger couldn't get the camera fired back up till the subject was walking away from him. Why would Patterson assume that the subject would not go pushdown, when crossing the creek they would have lost sight of it, how did they know where to go? Every big game animal I have ever jumped and continued to follow has gone pushdown or charged, the only times they didn't was when I stopped all threatening behavior, then and only then did they aimlessly saunter off, and by following the subjects course of travel that is exactly what it did while being pursued by two men and a horse. If the subject was never threatened it never would have moved in the first place, if it was threatened, it never would have allowed P and G to get close to it again. I would love for this film to be of an honest to god bigfoot, but too many signals scream BS. If only they would have recorded the necessary information in the proper manor this whole thing would have been a done deal 40 years ago. It's only the lack of information that keeps it alive, which in itself speaks volumes. As psychologists know, observers' expectations frequently color their interpretations. m BTW, would this be an example of a 52" stride?
	__________________ “I consider my life very uncomplicated, the job is...a job. I don't have to think about it, I just shovel and......and I can think about other things. I live very cheaply, I don't bother about other people...I have my own problems, and um...I'm not involved in anything else besides my job and my search for the sasquatch, absolutely nothing.” Rene Dahinden

9th September 2007, 01:03 AM	#10
davidsmith73 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by schplurg The stabilized bigfoot vid just shows to me even more that it's a bloke in a monkey suit taking extra-long steps. I do not see anything definitely non-human about its gait. Why would you think a "bigfoot" gait would look non-human?

9th September 2007, 02:29 AM	#11
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,756	There's no evidence of stride length at all, actually. The footprints found have never been linked to the film.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

9th September 2007, 11:30 AM	#12
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,235	Originally Posted by davidsmith73 Why would you think a "bigfoot" gait would look non-human? Because those who defend the position that bigfeet are real are always speaking about compliant gaits and in-human walks.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…