International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   General Skepticism and The Paranormal (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766)

HarryHenderson 13th July 2015 09:37 PM

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg (Post 10763680)
Oh yeah, just like this one...

At one time I probably could have been convinced to bet serious money those two pictures are of the same ******* suit. ;)

Mod InfoThis is a continuation thread from Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimmlin Film - Part 4
Posted By:kmortis

Resume 14th July 2015 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch (Post 10763665)
It could be the single best piece of evidence.

If your best piece of evidence is a guy in a suit, it's screw city for bigfootery.
Quote:

It's either that or the various patterns that can be seen across thousands of reports.
Yes, yes. What sort of evil genius could read a BFRO report and type something similar. It's almost impossible.

Slowvehicle 14th July 2015 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch (Post 10761780)
That's a projection of your own personal suspicions about Patterson's character on the sentence I wrote. You wouldn't see it that way if you had the opposite opinion about Patterson.

"If you already believed as I do, you would see why you ought to believe as I do..."

Slowvehicle 14th July 2015 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch (Post 10763631)
The copy of frame 352 that I posted was obtained by MK Davis from Patricia Patterson's copy of the film. He paid to get high quality scans of several different frames of the film at a photo lab. Frame 352 was one of them.

Frame 61 is from Bill Munn's inventory of Cibachrome scans. There's a few more from that copy that I can post if you want.

QED

Donn 14th July 2015 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch (Post 10763475)
They've been the foundation of my research ...

That's search, not research.

ComfySlippers 14th July 2015 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donn (Post 10764429)
That's search, not research.


I think CT Logic dictates that when you search something for the second time you have re-searched the subject.

HghrSymmetry 14th July 2015 09:40 AM

OS,

Well, when you have spent a lifetime looking for the subject and have completely and totally come up empty (with the subsequent feelings of frustration and dejection)...

...come back here and we'll let you know the reason for the failure.

Gilbert Syndrome 14th July 2015 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HghrSymmetry (Post 10764717)
OS,

Well, when you have spent a lifetime looking for the subject and have completely and totally come up empty (with the subsequent feelings of frustration and dejection)...

...come back here and we'll let you know the reason for the failure.

He feels that a discovery can happen within the next 3 years, but isn't willing to bet on it. Ironically, OS doesn't seem to have much more confidence in it being him or his "team" who make said discovery...despite having supposedly encountered Bigfoot on a couple of occasions.

OntarioSquatch 14th July 2015 10:05 AM

You're mistaking me for someone else. I've never had any encounters and I'm not on any kind of research team.

Gilbert Syndrome 14th July 2015 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch (Post 10764782)
You're mistaking me for someone else. I've never had any encounters and I'm not on any kind of research team.

I'm pretty sure you've rambled on before about going out into the woods with people, and that's all I essentially meant, as there are no valid "research" teams out there who're thick enough to go looking for a figment of Roger Patterson's imagination. Didn't you have a thermal sighting, or is that Northern Lights? I remember the first time I smoked some Northern Lights, didn't see a single Squatch.

Loss Leader 14th July 2015 02:26 PM

<posting so this thread ranks above Part 4>

snoop_doxie 14th July 2015 05:22 PM

OntarioSquatch,

How many female Bigfeet have been spotted by anyone who sees them?
All of the research I have done (meaning reading some of the same stuff you do)
barely mentions any Bigfeet with the mid torso breasts. :covereyes

Have you done any research here at International Skeptics or when it was JREF?

Bill Munns came here and it ended in tears. (Bill Munns refused to share any of his
work.)

It was quite educational for me. It showed me quite clearly what someone will do or
say to keep the illusion going. :eye-poppi

PS Did you answer my question about your experience with guns?

HghrSymmetry 14th July 2015 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome (Post 10764770)
He feels that a discovery can happen within the next 3 years, but isn't willing to bet on it. Ironically, OS doesn't seem to have much more confidence in it being him or his "team" who make said discovery...despite having supposedly encountered Bigfoot on a couple of occasions.

Interesting.

barehl 15th July 2015 03:27 PM

The Golden Age of the Bigfoot Fetish is over. It's downhill from here and everyone knows it. When everyone in the woods has a cellphone with camera the excuses for no pictures or video devolve from special pleading to kicking and screaming. Sure, you can walk around the woods with a thermal camera and pretend to be hunting as they do on Finding Bigfoot but eventually even the stupidest Footies will notice that they never find anything.

dmaker 15th July 2015 03:29 PM

It used to be that cell phone cameras were crap. That was the reigning excuse. Practically every cell phone sold today does high res pictures and 720p video.

Donn 17th July 2015 05:23 AM

Bigfilter has conspired with bigcamera to digitally exclude bigfoot from all exposure. Look for the tell-tale shrubbery or suggestive logs that cover him.

John Nowak 17th July 2015 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donn (Post 10770977)
Bigfilter has conspired with bigcamera to digitally exclude bigfoot from all exposure. Look for the tell-tale shrubbery or suggestive logs that cover him.

Brilliant! Google is surely involved.

Monza 17th July 2015 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch
I believe his claim of having photos and videos because of the details of his encounters and the investigation that occurred, not because he claims to have photos and videos.

Isn't this the same logical fallacy you criticized earlier? You are making a decision regarding the veracity of a video/film based on outside factors rather than on the video evidence itself. At least those who don't believe the PGF have at least seen it.

William Parcher 24th July 2015 11:34 AM

Here the sole appears to be square at the heel. It is generally regarded as an illusion.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/062b8a5a.jpg


Here the sole appears to be ovoid. It is generally regarded as an illusion
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/f0cf8956.gif


Here the toes appear to be flexing upwards. It is generally regarded as not being an illusion. I think it needs to be further examined as being another illusion.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...psbfc6880a.jpg

Macgyver1968 24th July 2015 11:48 AM

Ever noticed Patty doesn't have a buttcrack? :)

Resume 24th July 2015 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 (Post 10784243)
Ever noticed Patty doesn't have a buttcrack? :)

Though it does have a backseam.

"Hey Patty, I like the way the little line goes up the back of the monkeysuit.
I've always liked those kind of wader hips too.
No, no, no, don't take it off; leave it on, leave it on.
Everybody wants some . . . I want some too!!"

BayWatcher 24th July 2015 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 (Post 10784243)
Ever noticed Patty doesn't have a buttcrack? :)


It got filled in with woodape putty.

William Parcher 24th July 2015 02:25 PM

These two images are of the same frame from the PGF. There is a vertical stick or twig in front of the left calf. Note how the length and thickness of that stick is different in the two images. I did not scale the two images so that they would be the same size, but I believe that a point can be made here anyway.

I think I understand the phenomenon on film known as "bloom" whereby light-colored and/or overexposed objects become larger and/or change shape. You can see that happening with the stick. But I think that that can't really be the end of the story. It would seem that darker objects (such as Patty herself) would become smaller and/or change shape because of the "invasion" of the blooming of lighter objects in the background or foreground.

This suggests to me that there may be challenges to determining true size and/or shape of almost anything in the PGF stills. I cannot say if this phenomenon is entirely eliminated when examining the higher-quality still frames. Additionally, the bloom phenomenon is not going to be limited to the outline/silhouette of Patty. There are lighter and darker areas all over her body, head and face which would be subject to bloom and therefore changing size and/or shape.

This would seem to matter in any analysis in which there is discussion of size and shape of any feature.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/062b8a5a.jpg http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/f0cf8956.gif

Mudcat 25th July 2015 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmaker (Post 10767634)
It used to be that cell phone cameras were crap. That was the reigning excuse. Practically every cell phone sold today does high res pictures and 720p video.

I would accept that excuse even now. I can barely take acceptable pictures of my own cat using my cell phone, which is a pity because she is a beautiful Siamese with white boots and mittens.

John Nowak 25th July 2015 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudcat (Post 10785782)
I would accept that excuse even now. I can barely take acceptable pictures of my own cat using my cell phone, which is a pity because she is a beautiful Siamese with white boots and mittens.

Certainly. This is the whole problem.

Bad pictures happen. Some people don't have the knack of taking pictures.

However, if 2 million tourists strolled through your place every year, some of them with thousands of dollars of camera kit, others with the proclaimed intention of taking pictures of your cat, then you can bet your sweet bippy that some amazing pictures of your cat would be out there.

If I can go on a whale watch and take this, why aren't there any pictures of Bigfoot this good?


https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By...20142548-L.jpg

The Shrike 25th July 2015 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Nowak (Post 10785904)
If I can go on a whale watch and take this, why aren't there any pictures of Bigfoot this good?

Easy - you're not lying about seeing the orca.

Slowvehicle 25th July 2015 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Nowak (Post 10785904)
Certainly. This is the whole problem.

Bad pictures happen. Some people don't have the knack of taking pictures.

However, if 2 million tourists strolled through your place every year, some of them with thousands of dollars of camera kit, others with the proclaimed intention of taking pictures of your cat, then you can bet your sweet bippy that some amazing pictures of your cat would be out there.

If I can go on a whale watch and take this, why aren't there any pictures of Bigfoot this good?


https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By...20142548-L.jpg

Ummm...that's not 'Squatch...

John Nowak 26th July 2015 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Shrike (Post 10785920)
Easy - you're not lying about seeing the orca.

Or, more generously, I actually did see the orca.

John Nowak 26th July 2015 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle (Post 10786317)
Ummm...that's not 'Squatch...

Of course not - orcas are real.

Wolrab 26th July 2015 08:31 AM

The woods on the hills are out of focus. There are probably hundreds of bigfoot smiling right at us! Prove me wrong.

Slowvehicle 26th July 2015 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 10787017)
The woods on the hills are out of focus. There are probably hundreds of bigfoot smiling right at us! Prove me wrong.

Ummm...you're in denial, you're ugly, and your mama dresses you funny?

ETA: oh, wait, I mean "some patching".

Wolrab 26th July 2015 10:39 AM

Two out of three ain't bad.

John Nowak 26th July 2015 12:23 PM

I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 10787017)
The woods on the hills are out of focus. There are probably hundreds of bigfoot smiling right at us! Prove me wrong.

Darn. You've run rings around me, logically.

Wolrab 29th July 2015 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Nowak (Post 10787348)
I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.



Darn. You've run rings around me, logically.

They are everywhere! If there's a blur, it's a Bigfoot. If there's cover, Bigfoot is behind it. That is why they have spread from coast to coast without being seen on roads, bridges, or crossing rivers.

Drewbot 30th July 2015 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Nowak (Post 10787348)
I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.

Of course Orca doesn't run an hide from humans, humans haven't been killing them for hundreds of years... oh, wait.

John Nowak 30th July 2015 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewbot (Post 10795288)
Of course Orca doesn't run an hide from humans, humans haven't been killing them for hundreds of years... oh, wait.

And where would an orca hide anyway? It's not like they can just dive underwater or something.

I'm pretty sure one of the footers on this very forum said that there were no good photographs of Bigfoot because they are only visible for "a second or so." Crimeny. That's more air time than a sea lion will give you.

https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By...20103030-L.jpg

Drewbot 4th August 2015 12:15 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw54YeCkS3M

ROLL ONE, COMPLETE: Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film and Preliminary Scenery of Bluff Creek

Drewbot 4th August 2015 12:16 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-amhCCTTlbU

Rene Dahinden's Blue Creek Mountain Bigfoot Trackway Footage.

zooterkin 6th August 2015 10:12 PM

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com...ts-stabilized/
What PGF looks like stabilised.

AlaskaBushPilot 6th August 2015 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewbot (Post 10803012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-amhCCTTlbU

Rene Dahinden's Blue Creek Mountain Bigfoot Trackway Footage.

Very serious investigators. A dog, a gun, and look what expert trackers. Don't those tracks look amateurish?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.