|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th June 2013, 01:36 PM | #441 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,232
|
Nothing about that quote in any way invaidates either party's statement. Roger and Bill tracked or backtracked Patty's trail some 3-3.5 miles upstream before losing the trail in the bush. Simple. Logical. Reconciles both statements. In other words: debunk fail #googleplex +14. |
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist..." - Archbishop Dom Helder Camara, Brazil |
|
19th June 2013, 01:45 PM | #442 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Yes, 3.5 miles. They say that. Here, I'll let you source this one for yourself...
"When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean--because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks..." Mulder, Gimlin says they didn't follow or track her for 3+ miles after seeing her. What happened is that Roger told some lies and Gimlin is not willing to go along with some of them. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
19th June 2013, 02:26 PM | #443 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
Were bigfoot as captive as Messrs. Meldrum and Munns' audience, this would be a vastly different subforum. But there ain't, and it ain't.
|
19th June 2013, 02:33 PM | #444 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
I want bigfoot to exist.
Show me evidence of its existence, and I will accept it after a period of error analysis. Simple as that, Muldur. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
19th June 2013, 04:00 PM | #445 |
Alta Viro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,307
|
|
19th June 2013, 06:08 PM | #446 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
|
Read the following article with a discerning eye. Gimlin screws up the script and implies that he saw the subject take off in a run. Sanderson wonders about this and Patterson bails out his "back-up man" by noting the footprint stride found that suggests a running subject. Sanderson, not wanting to introduce too much doubt into the proceedings, lets Gimlin's gaff off the hook.
http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/fi...oot__cali.html |
19th June 2013, 06:18 PM | #447 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I've always thought that everyone here who is devoted to the subject wants Bigfoot to exist or at least did at some point. They just don't say it.
|
19th June 2013, 06:26 PM | #448 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Many of us have stated that we'd love for bigfoot to exist, and we'd all happily admit we were wrong if someone placed a monkey on a slab.
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
19th June 2013, 07:01 PM | #449 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,344
|
It would make for a (little) more interesting world if BF were a real animal. The problem is that reality is not bound by our wishes and dreams. So real evidence is needed to support the claim of a real creature. A 40+ year old low resolution film (made by a known con man) isn't evidence of anything beyond the credulity of some of our fellow human beings.
|
__________________
"The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland |
|
19th June 2013, 07:27 PM | #450 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
19th June 2013, 08:04 PM | #451 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I think it's great that you guys have an interest in Bigfoot, but aren't religiously believing the claims like myself and so many others have. It seems that other than bringing in a body, there isn't anything footers can do to convince non-footers of the existence of Bigfoot, and this makes sense to me now more than ever
|
19th June 2013, 09:04 PM | #452 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
So, we have the 1:30 or 3:30 pm encounter sequence, which includes chasing down the horses that had run off, and reloading the camera with film.
We'll just go with 1:30pm and figure a half hour to get to the point where the camera is reloaded and they are off to track Patty. Then they ride out 3-3.5 miles trying to track Patty until they lose her tracks. Then they ride back. Presumably they stay at the trackway for a little while checking out the prints when they return from tracking Patty, and planning their casting activities. Then they ride close to two miles out to the truck to retrieve plaster for casting. Then they ride back. Then they have to do the casting, the stomp test, and film the trackway. All this riding out and back in rough country is taking time. They specifically say that they did not ride on the roads to go get the plaster, but went "across the hill" because it was a little shorter than the two miles by road. When you ride in rough conditions you go slow. When you are riding in rough conditions while trying to follow tracks, you go even slower. At the point where you lose the tracks, you hang around awhile, trying to find them again. So how long is all of this taking? And they still have to get that film off to DeAtley. If Patty ran off at the end of the filming sequence, then she would be long gone by the time they caught the horses and reloaded the camera. They know they have to get this film developed, so why are they trying to track Patty? They know she ran, right? They know they want to cast her tracks, and that they don't have plaster with them, right? |
__________________
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? |
|
20th June 2013, 06:32 AM | #453 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
You know that Meldrum will say the following:
That stuff doesn't matter, it's what's in the film itself that is compelling. |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
20th June 2013, 08:45 AM | #454 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
|
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
27th June 2013, 08:47 AM | #455 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
I'm not allowed to post links yet, still don't have enough posts. I was wondering if anyone has brought up the YouTube video titled 21 degrees between Bigfoot and you?
I would be very interested in hearing the thoughts on it and if it has been discussed before, my apologies. I did try and search the forum, but wasn't able to find anything. Thanks NL |
27th June 2013, 09:37 AM | #456 |
This title intentionally left blank
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
|
Welcome to the forums, Northern Lights. Here's the link you wanted to share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLBxtZc |
27th June 2013, 09:39 AM | #457 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Why didn't they show people walking on sand wearing a Bigfoot costume with oversized Bigfoot feet?
Oh, it was a PGF-is-real video. LOL! |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
27th June 2013, 09:42 AM | #458 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
How many degrees does someone walking with Snorkeling Flippers roll at?
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
27th June 2013, 11:38 AM | #459 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Meldrum had something to say after he saw a guy do the Patty Walk in a lab...
"Frankly I was somewhat surprised that our subject was so, umm, easily capable of replicating some aspects of the walk of the sasquatch ah depicted on the Patterson film." Interestingly, for this experiment they used a guy in a Bigfoot costume with big feet. Now doesn't that make a lot more sense than just watching people walk around normally in their own normal shoes? |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
27th June 2013, 12:22 PM | #460 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
Someone with Meldrum's qualifications should have been able to see it coming. There are some slight differences between the walk seen in the PGF and the regular walk of a human, but they seem to be very similar. If the gait was non-human like a chimp or gorilla's, I think us proponents would be able to make a better case when we claim a human can't replicate the walk. This is an aspect of the film that I think is an uphill debate for Bigfooters.
|
27th June 2013, 01:04 PM | #461 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
27th June 2013, 02:22 PM | #462 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Munns has now analyzed the PGF camera shaking and wild movement and determined that these are honest jerks and not the jerks of a hoaxer person.
Con men jerk it different. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
27th June 2013, 02:33 PM | #463 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
|
|
__________________
"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro |
|
27th June 2013, 03:07 PM | #464 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
|
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
27th June 2013, 03:37 PM | #465 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
haha I know it might seem that way, but I'm still a Bigfoot proponent and a believer in the PGF. Not a proud one though. Bigfootery is a mess.
|
27th June 2013, 03:58 PM | #466 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
|
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
27th June 2013, 05:07 PM | #467 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
|
I wonder why that mess is. You probably need to read The Reluctant Bigfooter by Ontario Q. Squatch
|
__________________
"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro |
|
27th June 2013, 08:34 PM | #468 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 538
|
Bill says that a hoaxer would have steady pans etc. What a load of bull. A hoaxer like Patterson would do it just like he did. The shaking thing has always been suss, IMHO. Not for the purpose of concealing anything, but for cinema verite effect. Patterson was no dummy when it came to shooting with a camera. He was no pro, but, he knew what he was doing. He's supposedly got this opportunity of the century... He would know just how little film he had left on the reel. Yet he burns precious seconds while he's running around? This is his big moment as a "documentary" maker and he goes all shaky cam with limited time and potentially dynamite shots left uncaptured? |
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian) |
|
27th June 2013, 10:09 PM | #469 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
How could you have steady shots following an actor in that terrain with a handheld camera?
Steadicam is a ways away on the timeline. |
__________________
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? |
|
27th June 2013, 11:54 PM | #470 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 538
|
By staying put when you have the camera rolling. If you want/need to get into a better, or closer position, don't keep rolling while you're running. It's not like Patty was in a big hurry to go anywhere. If Patty does a dash, take a knee where you are and resume shooting. The camera had a pistol grip with a stop/start trigger. He knew how to use it. IIRC, isn't there at least one point in the sequence where he does just that, apparently?... if there aren't edit cuts in it? He seems to be together enough at one point to know to pause... but while flailing about like an idiot? Roll on! The shaky cam does add a certain dramatic touch to the scene. Deliberate, I suspect. Maybe he was just excited and forgot to pause, but I dunno. Like everything about this film and it's story, it's full of contradictions. ETA- sorry, LTC. I missed what you were getting at. |
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian) |
|
28th June 2013, 12:00 AM | #471 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
According to Munns, all of the discontinuities/stops in the film are because of Roger either "accidentally" hitting the trigger, or because he was so intent on recording all he could of this once in a lifetime bigfoot encounter, he did it to preserve film, or something.
Quote:
|
28th June 2013, 05:17 AM | #472 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
|
28th June 2013, 05:52 AM | #473 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
I wonder what the guy in the Stanford Gait test in the Bigfoot suit's leg angle was.
What show was that on? I'll go find it if someone remembers the show. |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
28th June 2013, 06:30 AM | #474 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Over how many frames does Patty use an exaggerated leg angle? Do we know how the camera angle might affect our estimates of the leg angle? If Patty's footprints are 14–15" long and she's only about 6' tall then yes, those are some outsized tootsies.
|
28th June 2013, 06:37 AM | #475 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
I seem to recall the guy in that test was going more towards the compliance gate than the shin rise, so it will be interesting to see the results.
|
28th June 2013, 06:37 AM | #476 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Here is the thread we had for it but I don't know if there is a working video clip.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
28th June 2013, 06:43 AM | #477 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
28th June 2013, 07:04 AM | #478 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Best Evidence- Bigfoot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MPjbn55AXM Early in this clip there is only an obscured view of the leg |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
28th June 2013, 07:37 AM | #479 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
|
28th June 2013, 07:45 AM | #480 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|