Bigfoot Evidence?

[painted wolf]

agreed



i am at work and getting sidetracked.

bfro says theres 3 independant test done that get the same height. im still looking for the source

By all means get your work done first. :yes:
I can wait until tomorrow. :beach:

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

The Patterson-Gimlin Film: An Analysis - Phantoms and Monsters Wiki

this has one method claiming 7' 3"

The NASI report written by J. Glickman scientifically and unequivocally establishes the height of the figure at 7′3″

im still looking for why bfro says theres 3 x 7' 6" conformations. If its in the film legend meets science I wontbe able to post it, I dont even have a copy myself.

 

[outhouse]

heres a better disription of the side by side comparison, with motion lol

Sasquatch Research - Jim McClarin

and another with gait stuff you might like

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/kinematics.html

 

[painted wolf]

heres a better disription of the side by side comparison, with motion lol

Sasquatch Research - Jim McClarin

This is interesting... but they only compare the beginning... what about the rest of the footage? B+ for effort!

and another with gait stuff you might like

Sasquatch Research - Kinematics

This one I'm not impressed by... you can't compare to Lucy's knee alone. Her species has an arched foot like us.
Also you need to factor in the hip and lower back.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

The Patterson-Gimlin Film: An Analysis - Phantoms and Monsters Wiki

this has one method claiming 7' 3"

The NASI report written by J. Glickman scientifically and unequivocally establishes the height of the figure at 7′3″

im still looking for why bfro says theres 3 x 7' 6" conformations. If its in the film legend meets science I wontbe able to post it, I dont even have a copy myself.

I definitely have problems with this one... The reliance on prior work with no discussion of possible issues.. Pixels as the measure is horrible, are both the same resolution? Have the images ever been rescaled?

Where is the figure referenced?
Where are any references? It's frustrating to have to figure out what work he's talking about.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Where is the figure referenced?

i noticed it was copied to, i found the same article 3 times

 

[outhouse]

heres where i got the 7' 6" from

Was the Patterson-Gimlin film ever proven to be a hoax?

That's not a bad thing. The three different examinations all mutually corroborate each other in various ways. The mathematical data of the latest examination gives a more precise measurement of the Patterson creature's height:

Seven (7) foot, six and a half (6 1/2) inches tall

The math is there to be re-examined, anytime.

I can wait until tomorrow. :beach:

heres the best i can find #5 goes to height. its all worth the watch though to tie it all together.

im a little disappointed they didnt get into more detail but there is more then most know by guessing

[youtube]6mKNj5UPyXg[/youtube]
YouTube - American Paranormal - Big Foot Part 1
[youtube]9GkAteqsbTo[/youtube]
YouTube - American Paranormal - Big Foot Part 2
[youtube]E1gY5yRvcps[/youtube]
YouTube - American Paranormal - Big Foot Part 3
[youtube]SvwaSlXDMs4[/youtube]
YouTube - American Paranormal - Big Foot Part 4
[youtube]FdEGrnsYJWY[/youtube]
YouTube - American Paranormal - Big Foot Part 5

 

[Nepenthe]

The difficulty with the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film height estimates is that they vary by several feet and the height estimates assume Gimlin's account of the camera being 100 feet away when filming. We have no idea if Gimlin's estimate was accurate or not. The distance as well as the difficulty confirming the speed in which the film was shot, the lens used, etc. make the guessing game of labeling Bigfoot's height at 6 feet or 7 feet or 9 feet anyone's guess. Grover Krantz derived his estimate of Bigfoot's height from the film's speed and estimated it at anywhere from 5 feet 9 inches (I'm taller than that!) and 8 feet 6 inches. But using the film's speed as comparison for height is odd and obviously lends itself to such disparate measurements. And Patterson himself initially said the female Bigfoot was 7 feet 4 inches but revised it to "about 9-feet high" 25 years later in a 1992 interview. None of the height estimates strike me as being scientifically rigorous and the numbers generated are too variable to be particularly convincing.

I meant to bring up the following several posts ago as well: another interesting similarity to the Patt'-Gim' film is the Ivan Sanderson piece titled "A New Look at America's Mystery Giant" that ran in the 1960 issue of True magazine. The article was accompanied by an artist's rendition of Sanderson's tale:

The artist's rendition included details that were not in the article- details like breasts, swinging arms and a gait familiar to those who've seen the Patt'-Gim' Bluff Creek footage.

Of course there's no way to determine if Patterson or Gimlin read the mag' but I offer it as evidence that the idea of hoaxing a female was not as unprecedented as Bigfoot proponents claim. Patterson was a well known Bigfoot enthusiast and he had made a few documentaries on Bigfoot already- faking a Bigfoot encounter seems a logical assumption given the alternative of an undiscovered primate of that size leaving zero physical evidence behind.

I look at the stabilized Bluff Creek film and it just confirms my belief it's an obvious hoax.

 

[Nepenthe]

As for MonsterQuest, well, I know we have to take our information where it's available and there aren't a ton of scientific journals that have studied Bigfoot, but I'd look at paranormal pseudo-documentaries like MonsterQuest with a jaded eye. Producers want to capture an audience's attention and they aren't above disregarding any pretense of scientific objectivity to spice up a story and concoct tests complete with cool looking graphics but ultimately meaningless analysis. I give them props though for this one exception: they aired an episode on werewolves which took a look at the mysterious Gable film and delivered a thorough debunking of it.

No, the Gable film is not a Bigfoot video but it made the cryptozoological rounds online about two years ago and has some interesting aspects that are similar to the Patt'-Gim' film. The Gable film is more mysterious since it kind of popped up out of nowhere with no explanation and shows some ambiguous unidentified cryptid that many insisted moved in a way unlike any bear or wolf or human in a costume. Like the Patt'-Gim' film the Gable footage was met with the usual reactions that insisted the animal couldn't be a man in a costume, that the critter's movements were unlike any known creature, that you could see muscles moving under the fur and details of the teeth and mouth that couldn't be faked once it attacked the cameraman, etc., etc. There's even a digitally "enhanced" version on YouTube. I personally find it far more creepy than the Patt'-Gim' film but that's just me. If you have the patience and if you haven't already seen it I suggest watching the video before you read the rest of my post. That way you can see just how weird the animal's locomotion is and just how unsettling unusual footage with an unknown origin can be. The action starts at 3:05:
[youtube]llRuX3o3Zpk[/youtube]
It's a hoax of course. It's obviously a guy in some kind of outfit, but two years ago many insisted it was a genuine unknown animal. But Mike Agrusa, aka QuinlanOUR12 on YouTube, fabricated the whole thing back in 2008. True, he used some camera trickery and some very basic makeup effects compared to Patterson and Gimlin's film but it goes to show how easily, inexpensively and convincingly (even in the post-internet world) a new cryptid video can catch on and convince some people. All it took was a vintage truck, a Ghillie suit (such a simple costume yet so many insisted no human could move like the thing on the film) and some faked vintage 70s footage to create a convincing and mysterious creature. Now I know the argument will be that it doesn't look real, that it's obviously a guy in a costume, but the point is that when it comes to passionately held assumptions people see what they want to see even if the hoax seems obvious to others.
(for more info' please see: St. Pete Skeptics Society » Bigfoot)

"Enhanced" version... :
[youtube]FBkTQDEcBpI[/youtube]

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

With no conclusive proof either way, the team returns to the photographic evidence, the Patterson Gimlin film; this time by way of Hollywood.

Hollywood! What! are they kidding, aren't they producers of King Kong?

 

[Magic Man]

But in this case, if someone can show that it's possible to create a similar hoax, that's all that they are proving. That is, if the Bigfoot is real and they manage to create something similar, then they are just showing that something similar can be done..... which can be said for so many things.

Right. The idea of that is just to show that it's very possible for it to be a man in a costume. Then the onus is on the people who think it's bigfoot to show why we should believe it's not a man in a costume.

The analogy to Leonardo and Mona Lisa doesn't apply here because we know that both the author and the subjects actually exist. So we have a baseline to use to identify other works.

Right, but I wasn't using it as an analogy for determining whether DaVinci existed, but for how he painted the Mona Lisa. The point was that my painting may not be exactly to the detail like his, but it can be very close.

 

[Magic Man]

yet no one has come close, every attempt has been lame. After 40 years it still has many guessing

What is this "every attempt"? Here's one that was easy to find.

I'm guessing the only people who have really tried to debunk this are the people who don't want to debunk it, and so they've tried to make things up to say that it can't be debunked.

 

[painted wolf]

heres where i got the 7' 6" from

Was the Patterson-Gimlin film ever proven to be a hoax?

That's not a bad thing. The three different examinations all mutually corroborate each other in various ways. The mathematical data of the latest examination gives a more precise measurement of the Patterson creature's height:

Seven (7) foot, six and a half (6 1/2) inches tall

The math is there to be re-examined, anytime.

I'm not seeing any scientific data here at all... just a lot of ad hominim attacks and bald assertions.

I'd have to grade this as a D.

heres the best i can find #5 goes to height. its all worth the watch though to tie it all together.

im a little disappointed they didnt get into more detail but there is more then most know by guessing

This is also very problematic... They are assuming the distance given is accurate... there were more than one estimates as to how far away Petterson was when he filmed (Peterson and Gimlin both gave different accounts). There are also questions as to what type of lens he was using, so focal length is not 100% known either. Why wasn't other footage of people at the site used to cross reference the results and test for accuracy? There had been several people there doing measurements in the months and years just after the incident.

This is extremely poor methodology open to a lot of bias. Grade B-/C+.
Pretty computer animation is no replacement for data.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

I'm not seeing any scientific data here at all... just a lot of ad hominim attacks and bald assertions.

I'd have to grade this as a D.

This is also very problematic... They are assuming the distance given is accurate... there were more than one estimates as to how far away Petterson was when he filmed (Peterson and Gimlin both gave different accounts). There are also questions as to what type of lens he was using, so focal length is not 100% known either. Why wasn't other footage of people at the site used to cross reference the results and test for accuracy? There had been several people there doing measurements in the months and years just after the incident.

This is extremely poor methodology open to a lot of bias. Grade B-/C+.
Pretty computer animation is no replacement for data.

wa:do

No I agree thats why i was disapointed, I thought they had all that equipment and were going to have exact measurements ect and it was a let down at the end. I possibly think the techy stuff doesnt sell TV so they left it out.

ive also heard from another account he used the 15 lense. using the same camera it shouldnt be to hard to pinpoint the exact location.

the film will never be proof for existance nor would I expect it to.

there needs to be physical proof.

 

[outhouse]

What is this "every attempt"? Here's one that was easy to find.

I'm guessing the only people who have really tried to debunk this are the people who don't want to debunk it, and so they've tried to make things up to say that it can't be debunked.

that would be a joke at best if someone tried to pull that off. It would be a epic fail right off the bat

 

[angellous_evangellous]

there needs to be physical proof.

Me and my dad can hunt this creature down for half a million dollars.

We will need $250k down and another $250k when we reach the Cayman Islands.

And I garuntee than we will bring it back alive, along with any of his family that we find.

 

[outhouse]

Ivan Sanderson piece

cool piece of history there, imagine that, 7 years later a film comes up with almost the exact creature. Puts allot of weight on the hoax side

And Patterson himself initially said the female Bigfoot was 7 feet 4 inches but revised it to "about 9-feet high" 25 years later in a 1992 interview.

well this is blatently false since he died in 1972

I look at the stabilized Bluff Creek film and it just confirms my belief it's an obvious hoax.

You know you can think whater you like about it. The film has still stood on its own without being debunked

 

[painted wolf]

No I agree thats why i was disapointed, I thought they had all that equipment and were going to have exact measurements ect and it was a let down at the end. I possibly think the techy stuff doesnt sell TV so they left it out.

ive also heard from another account he used the 15 lense. using the same camera it shouldnt be to hard to pinpoint the exact location.

the film will never be proof for existance nor would I expect it to.

there needs to be physical proof.

That is what I've been saying from the beginning.... you need DNA and preferably a corpse to go with it. That is the standard in Biology, you need a type specimen.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

And Patterson himself initially said the female Bigfoot was 7 feet 4 inches but revised it to "about 9-feet high" 25 years later in a 1992 interview.

well this is blatently false since he died in 1972

My bad. Patterson did die of cancer in '72. I meant Patterson and Gimlin initially claimed the Bigfoot was 7 feet 4 inches while Gimlin later changed it.

You know you can think whater you like about it. The film has still stood on its own without being debunked

The Patterson-Gimlin film is a lot like the Shroud of Turin: they both have devotees who insist it must be authentic. If it's not valid it threatens their faith or belief and the foundation of that belief will be jeopardized. The main problem I have with claims that the Bigfoot in the film can't be replicated is that there are much better looking costumes that existed then and certainly exist now. The problem is that just like Turin Shroud defenders, Bigfoot defenders will never accept any recreations of either.

Nothing will ever match the Bigfoot's hair in the Patt'-Gim' film in the exact same hue and shadow and texture despite many much better costumes that have been provided in the past. Nothing will precisely match the gait or arm length or leg angle to the satisfaction of Bigfoot enthusiasts- even Bob Hieronymus' walk which mimics the Bigfoot's in the film will never be as exact as the film's defenders require. No amount of evidence will convince them; they will just move the goalposts and insist that subtle hints of shadow and light are not adequately mirrored as in the Patt'-Gim' film, so any and all recreations will be inadequate.

In the same vein variations of the Shroud of Turin have been made by several investigators and artists but none are sufficient to convince the sindonologists. They claim that even though the faked versions (recently faked that is) have the same 3-D effect when scanned the pigment doesn't penetrate the fibres in the same way the image does on the original Shroud. Even though the faked copies of the Shroud may match every detail of the original there will always be some nuance that the Shroud's defenders will point to as confirmation of the artifact's validity. In this the Shroud of Turin and the Bluff Creek Bigfoot film are similar.

It's like someone insisting you haven't made a bullseye because the dart you've thrown didn't enter the hole the previous dart had made on the dartboard- even though it was clearly in the bullseye region. No attempt or faked version of the Shroud or a Bigfoot film will ever be adequate for those so deeply invested in belief.

 

[Magic Man]

that would be a joke at best if someone tried to pull that off. It would be a epic fail right off the bat

Um...if you say so. It looks as real as the one in your video.