IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 5th April 2010, 02:40 PM   #761
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
...The distortion of scale of the data, imho, escalates his selective presentation and unscientific bias into the realm of deception. Meldrum arguably does a Patterson.

I don't see this as trivial. Am I wrong?
Not to most of the skeptical Bigfoot posters here, but to Bigfooting in general, yes. Questioning Meldrum's motives, methods and madness isn't looked upon as being 'productive' amongst the true Bigfoot believers. And to some it's actually a sin. So what if he's off by a mile, he's the doctor gawd ****** and who are you to question him?!

I've become convinced he knows exactly what the real answer is (there is no Bigfoot), but has so much more to lose now if he admitted such. The possibilities of Bigfoot being scientifically (or otherwise) debunked are very low, even approaching zero, so him simply running with his ****** up little story, which absolutely may include 'deception', makes plenty of sense for him personally, if not so much intellectually/scientifically.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 03:23 PM   #762
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Meldrum is held to a higher standard than free lance "researchers." He published this article as a member of the faculty of Idaho State.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 05:12 PM   #763
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Meldrum is held to a higher standard than free lance "researchers." He published this article as a member of the faculty of Idaho State.
Not sure I was as clear as I should have been. WE (here) know that! And we take it seriously. But we're 'just us here'. Others who don't frequent this place also know it (or don't), but inevitably fail to acknowledge it properly.

Personally I think he's just a mediocre 'scientist' who also happened to be intrigued by Bigfoot. He's mistakenly thought that his education credentials would somehow trump the 'real world' situation of having no actual evidence. And maybe in some perverse way it does - the trouble is, as you point out, his standard is higher and even to us non-scientific sorts here he's not met it in any real kind of way.

I've said it before, he needs to pull a Bigfoot out of his ass and soon if he wants any chance at that fame and fortune he desperately craves.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 05:33 PM   #764
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Hmmm....Bob Heironimus couldn't remember the entire "script" on his own...

1) Walk

2) Swing Arms


Well, I'd say he must have been danged stupid....at least on that day!
Bob thought he had this Bigfoot thing down pretty good. A bit of unscripted Bigfooty ad-lib stuff.
Though ...I am sure Director Gimlin was just fuming in those bushes.
JcR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 06:14 PM   #765
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Bob Gimlin to Greg Long September 18th, 2001 on Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty:

"Well, yeah, I can comment on that. I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And probably he's tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying they've been in a suit down in Northern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk to me about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him, and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing that he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make much sense to me"

Long asks Gimlin if he's saying Heironimus is lying.

"I used to trust Bob a lot. But then lately the whole family and him kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this kind of thing is out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."

Long again asks if Gimlin is saying Heironimus is lying.

"As far as I'm concerned he is."

Long then asks Gimlin why Heironimus was risking his retirement to accuse Gimlin of being part of the hoax. Gimlin suggests Heironimus is envious of his material possessions.

Long:

"Does he have a grudge against you?"

Gimlin:

"Well, I don't know if Bob has a grudge against me. Bob just screws around working for ranches and stuff and didn't save much money, and he still don't. He spends money pretty rapidly as far as I can tell."

As far as you can tell? Nervous twitch much? Gimlin, you are full of $#!%. Screwing around working for ranches? Bob Heironimus was managing ranching companies and handling thousands and thousands of dollars of other peoples money. He has never been unemployed in his adult life. His hobby is restoring classic cars. He has a loving wife and family, no financial problems and the respect of his friends, coworkers and the community. What of yours do you think he wants to lay hands on?

So Gimlin admits that he was working with Heironimus but says that he is lying for money. Guys are coming out of the woodwork claiming to be Patty? Mr. Gimlin, name one. Name just one other man that has ever claimed to be Patty.

So Bob Heironimus will lie and defraud for money? Let's get a character reference...

Gary Hansen of the Hansen Fruit and Cattle company of which Bob Heironimus was operations manager for ten years:

"Bob is honest as the day is long. He really was a tremendous employee who I totally trusted. Ran the whole thing. A good guy. He had total authority. He handled up to $150,000."

Bob Heironimus to Greg Long on October 13th, 2001 about fear of potential repercussions for him and his family by exposing himself as the man in the suit:

"Yes, I do. Well, I'm not a very good talker to people. I'm not very good with the media. I'll probably faint or have a heart attack. I hate..." (becomes emotional) "You know, if somebody... If you call me a liar, I'd probably smack you. I, I'm an honest person. I know people are going to call me a liar. People are going to attack me for telling the truth. That's stupid. For telling the truth, I'm sure there are going to be repercussions."

"I know I wore the suit. All these people around here know it was me. You know it was me. And have someone say, 'Well, you're a liar.' Like Gimlin. He was right there. We've been friends. We see each other off and on about four or five times a year. And for him to tell you I'm a liar, it hurts my feelings, you know. I told him I was going to tell the truth. He said, 'Well, don't mention my name.' Well, how could I not?"

Al DeAtley to Greg Long in September 2001 on being approached by Bob Heironimus asking to be paid for his work six months to a year after the PGF was first shown in the Saddle Tree club and restaurant:

"It sounds like something I might have done. I've been there (at the Saddle Tree) and I knew Bob through Roger."

This is massive. Al knew Bob through Roger. By Al's account, he didn't become involved with Roger and his Bigfoot business until after the film was shot. How does he know Bob Heironimus through Roger?

Long checks to make sure DeAtely has the right Bob. DeAtley answers...

"He had one bad eye."

Long asks why Bob would have approached him.

"I would have assumed that that meant he and Roger had a deal, and he and Roger had to work it through. I would have told him, '*F-bomb* you. Go see Roger.'"

Long tells DeAtley that Bob says he wore the suit and that after the film was shot, the film was put in a box, and Roger and Bob told him to mail it to DeAtley, which he did. DeAtely replies...

"I don't doubt that at all."

Bob Heironimus to Greg Long on January 21st, 2001 on his approaching DeAtley at the Saddle Tree:

"I may have asked Bob, 'Am I ever going to be paid?' But then I saw DeAtley at the Saddle tree about six months or maybe a year later (1968), and I asked him, 'Hey, you guys owe me a a thousand dollars. Am I ever going to get paid?' He said, 'That's between you and Roger.'"

Glenda Heironimus remembered Bob approaching DeAtley at the Saddle Tree. She said that Bob had revealed he was the man in the suit in late 1969 or early 1970 when the footage was shown on TV while they were watching and that she did not care because the film meant nothing to her. Bob and Glenda were engaged in 1970 and married September of that year. She said that the situation was nothing to her and nothing became of it. She said she had never known Bob to tell tales. Bob said he approached DeAtley because he was the one he mailed the film to, he knew DeAtley was wealthy and that he was financing Roger.

Greg Long speaking on the phone with Patricia Patterson seeking an interview for the final part of his book:

Greg:

"The book seems incomplete without one (an interview)."

Pat (angry):

"No, I won't do an interview, and I've heard many times what you're up to."

Long:

"Oh. I'm not sure what I'm up to other than writing a book."

Silence from Pat.

Greg then tells about Bob's confession to being in the suit. She is silent for nearly a minute then hangs up the phone.

Long immediately calls back:

"Mrs. Patterson, do you have a comment on Bob Heironimus' story? He says he wore the Bigfoot suit in your husband's film."

Pat (angrily):

"It's pretty easy for him to say or anybody to say things about someone who isn't here to defend himself."

Long:

"I want to make certain I got everyone's point of view on his claim."

Pat laughs at Long cynically:

"Look into his background."

Long:

"I've beeen doing that. I've been talking to his friends."

Pat:

"You haven't been very thorough then."

Long:

"Can you suggest someone I should talk to?"

Pat:

"No. I'm not going to suggest nothin' to you. Good-bye." Hangs up.

Back to Long speaking to Gimlin on September 18th, 2001:

Long:

"Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin arrested for accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

Gimlin:

"No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

Long:

"So you've never been arrested for stealing stolen property."

Gimlin:

"I've never been arrested for anything, you know. In fact, I'm a good Christian man and I live a Christian life."

Long then rechecks his 1962 Gimlin arrest case file and notes that a William E. Gimlin and Dola Gimlin as sureties posted a bond for $3000 on behalf of Robert E. Gimlin. All three of their signatures were on the bail bond. Long calls a Lillie Gimlin in Yakima who turns out to be Bob's sister-in-law. He asks Lillie if she knows who William and Dola Gimlin are...

"They are Bob Gimlin's parents. They are no longer alive."

Greg Long then went home and dug up a copy of Daniel Perez' Bigfoot Times newsletter commemorating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the PGF that had Bob Gimlin's signature and compared it to the signature on the bail bond. They matched.

So Bob Heironimus is a liar and this guy is the salt of the Earth?



(joke image)

Bob Gimlin flat out lied to Greg Long about being arrested. He smooth-talked a bunch of horse$#!%. This is what Gimlin does. He goes to footer conventions and smiles and lies and talks smooth $#!% and butters the ladyfooters with compliments.

The PGF was a hoax. Patterson was an obsessed footer, a huckster and a liar. Gimlin was his partner and a liar as well. People who gloss over the truth and represent Patterson and Gimlin as heroes are creduloid idiots who deserve nothing but derision and scorn.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

Last edited by kitakaze; 5th April 2010 at 07:18 PM.
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 06:53 PM   #766
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
Bob Gimlin on Don Harron’s Morningside May 12, 1978.

kitakaze: Is that picture a Mangler creation?

I see it over on Cryptomundo
Very funny.
JcR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 07:05 PM   #767
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by JcR View Post
kitakaze: Is that picture a Mangler creation?
Yes, it is. A month or so ago when I went looking for it again I had trouble finding it because I thought it was one of yours. LOL
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 07:05 PM   #768
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
Excellent Kitakaze! Although your final paragraph...
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
...The PGF was a hoax. Patterson was an obsessed footer, a huckster and a liar. Gimlin was his partner and a liar as well. People who gloss over the truth and represent Patterson and Gimlin as heroes are creduloid idiots who deserve nothing but derision and scorn.
I thought I was the only hater here.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th April 2010, 07:45 PM   #769
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Yes, it is. A month or so ago when I went looking for it again I had trouble finding it because I thought it was one of yours. LOL
I see I am a "wag" over there in Cryptomundo land.
JcR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 05:54 AM   #770
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
[b][size="3"]Bob Gimlin to Greg Long:
"he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all."
That's a pretty waffley answer . . .


Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
[b][size="3"]
"it kind of just don't make much sense to me"[/i]"

"lately the whole family and him kind of prevaricates."
"Prevaricates?" What's with the SAT vocabulary in the midst of "it . . . don't"s and other grammar issues?

This Gimlin guy seems a bit odd . . .
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 09:17 AM   #771
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
This is the stabilized version of the first lookback, where the subject stops briefly. It occurs at about 23 seconds in, just before the subject passes the big lone white tree in the background. (The second, more famous lookback, occurs about three seconds later, after the big white tree is passed.)

This sequence is, imho, actually the first to be filmed.

All that precedes it (the first 19 or so seconds of the PGF) is actually the terminal sequence, where the now-tiny image of the subject reaches the north end of the sandbar. Assuming it was Bob H, that is where he jumped into the hole. If he had kept going he would have gone into the woods. I will post a link to the stabilized version.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 09:38 AM   #772
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
I don't know much about the paleontology literature, but I suspect this wouldn't pass the smell test. Any other academics out there agree with me?

It hasn't passed any test. The world at large is wholly unconvinced that there is a giant wild bipedal primate living in North America. They don't even think it's likely.

Quote:
The distortion of scale of the data, imho, escalates his selective presentation and unscientific bias into the realm of deception. Meldrum arguably does a Patterson.

I don't see this as trivial. Am I wrong?

It is trivial because nobody that is anybody is buying it. Patterson's hoax was a failure. Why? Because he was unable to trick the world into thinking that Bigfoot exists. He blew it. It's the same for Meldrum. As far as I can tell, his "scientific paper" has done nothing to convince the world (let alone "science") that Bigfoot is out there. It's just one of a number of crackpot ideas from crackpot scientists.

There is no subtlety going on here. Bigfootery is as ridiculous as it appears to be.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 09:45 AM   #773
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
This MK Davis gif shows both the first and second lookbacks. Again, notice that the subject is walking north along the sandbar, sort of parallel to the edge of the woods.

Inevitably, the subject will reach the north end of the sandbar, and be forced to either a)go straight into the woods, b)stop and jump into a hole, or c)turn right and escape across the road as Roger runs out of film and Gimlin takes off in heroic pursuit.

All of you who think c) is the right answer, please re-read kitakaze's statement about Patterson and Gimlin. All of you others, don't touch that remote....

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason: credit MK Davis
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 09:56 AM   #774
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
My concern is that Meldrum has published this stuff in a scientific journal, albeit a non-peer reviewed one, and is, by this publication, attempting to obtain an "official" scientific designation for bigfoot tracks. It cheapens real science in the eyes of the public when cheaters and fakes are accepted by the scientific community.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:01 AM   #775
desertyeti
Muse
 
desertyeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 835
Quote:
My concern is that Meldrum has published this stuff in a scientific journal, albeit a non-peer reviewed one,
Mutually exclusive.
It was not a journal either. It was a museum bulletin. They're about the same as a blog. Scientists see them as "grey literature" and not very solid.
__________________
"He is a sick, demented yeti."

They only poo in other dimensions!

Last edited by desertyeti; 6th April 2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason: lousy spelling
desertyeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:05 AM   #776
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Bob also said that Roger was sitting on his horse when he started filming....but, unfortunately, that simply wasn't the case.....as we can see that, in actual fact, Roger was on significantly lower ground than Patty was...

The other Bob said that Patterson fell to his elbows while filming in the first part of the PGF. I don't see it. Can you find that part?

Are there two interesting bits (RP on horseback & also falling to elbows) that are now missing from the PGF footage?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:19 AM   #777
learner
Graduate Poster
 
learner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
My concern is that Meldrum has published this stuff in a scientific journal, albeit a non-peer reviewed one, and is, by this publication, attempting to obtain an "official" scientific designation for bigfoot tracks. It cheapens real science in the eyes of the public when cheaters and fakes are accepted by the scientific community.
I may be wrong but I think you will find that the vast, vast majority of "the public" wouldnt know peer review or non-peer review from a Haddock. That he his published in a scientific journal is irrelevant outside of the sparsely populated bigfoot world.
__________________
"I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous" - My Mate Dave
" How do you expect me to use my initiative if you wont tell me what to do?" - Dave again
learner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:25 AM   #778
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
This is an MK Davis stabilized version of the first 20 seconds or so of the PGF. IMHO, it was actually the LAST part of the actual walk. In this sequence, Bluff Creek can be seen meandering along at the left, at the feet of the cameraman. You are looking NORTH, to the right of the lookbacks, along the sandbar, and seeing the smaller and smaller image of the back of the "fleeing" subject reaching the north end of the sandbar. Tube/Gigantofooticus estimated the distance at over 170 feet from the camera, whereas the 'lookback" is around 100 feet.

At the very end, we can no longer see its legs. I don't think this is "the hole," the way BH described it. I think those very last frames were deleted.

Roger didn't give Bob any instructions about what to do here. Obviously, he should have gone out of sight of the camera. He sort of did, by jumping in a hole, but that would have been apparent if the film had not been edited. So Roger/Al DeAtley is left with a film that shows RP and BG could theoretically have walked over and gotten Bigfoot's autograph.

Obviously, they had to edit it. So they did.

Roger DID NOT run out of film. Are you kidding me? That was all a story to cover what they knew (from Al DeAtley) they had in the can.

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 11:50 AM. Reason: credit MK Davis; add lookback distance
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:40 AM   #779
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The other Bob said that Patterson fell to his elbows while filming in the first part of the PGF. I don't see it. Can you find that part?

Are there two interesting bits (RP on horseback & also falling to elbows) that are now missing from the PGF footage?

See Kitakaze's assessment of Bob G.'s veracity. I don't think you can believe a single thing he says about the filming. If you read him carefully, I think he tries to avoid an out and out lie. If he says Roger fell to his elbows, maybe Roger did fall down to his elbows sometime that day, while he was taking a crap or something. But the whole camera shake thing is open to examination, imho.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:47 AM   #780
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
as to the question of whether Roger was on his horse or not, I would prefer to have Gigantofootecus tackle the geometry/trig of that question.

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 11:07 AM. Reason: mistaken identity of person
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:51 AM   #781
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Parnassus, these are various MK Davis stabilizations which you are posting, yes?

PS: Tube is not Gigantofootecus.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 10:53 AM   #782
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by desertyeti View Post
Mutually exclusive.
It was not a journal either. It was a museum bulleting. They're about the same as a blog. Scientists see them as "grey literature" and not very solid.
So you don't think there will be official recognition of Bigfootprints? It just galls me to think of Meldrum at some point making that claim, based as it is on several levels of fakery, including his own.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 11:05 AM   #783
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Parnassus, these are various MK Davis stabilizations which you are posting, yes?

PS: Tube is not Gigantofootecus.
Yes, I think I mentioned that but I should have re-noted it. They can be found with Davis' far out theories at ArtistFirst/Bigfoot Central. I told Davis that his work showed that the segments were reversed, but he wouldn't accept the idea. I showed him that the backgrounds don't match. He said I was right that the backgrounds didn't match, but that meant the segments were shot at different times (?!)

and

my mistake. I read somewhere they were the same person. It was Giganto's analysis of Munn's report which I cited.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 11:12 AM   #784
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
my mistake. I read somewhere they were the same person.
You were informed on how to figure out who here is Gigantofootecus. I guess it went over your head...


Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Does this Gigantofootecus, who reviewed Bill Munn's paper, post here? or does anyone know how to contact him/her?
Originally Posted by kitakaze
Yes, he does, parnassus. Look for the Gandalf looking guy on this page.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 11:20 AM   #785
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post

Roger DID NOT run out of film. Are you kidding me? That was all a story to cover what they knew (from Al DeAtley) they had in the can.
Let me re-emphasize this. If you believe Patterson ran out of film, imho you are in essence willing to buy the idea that he ran into a creature by chance.

On the other hand, if you believe that there is a substantial chance he and BG got BH (or someone else) down to Bluff Creek to shoot a minutes worth of film, it is absurd to approach the analysis of the movie with the preconception that he ran out of film.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 11:42 AM   #786
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I guess it went over your head...
It did. But I am learning.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 12:02 PM   #787
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Maybe he did run out of film on that roll. Maybe it's why we don't see Heironimus jump into a big hole.

Parnassus, Chris Murphy has identified some trees which can be seen in F352 and in a photo of the sandbar scene taken in 1971. I don't know if this is accurate but it sorta shows you where Patty (and Roger who is the white dot) was at the moment of 352 in the bigger picture. Does this change anything about your "reversed location scenes hypothesis"?


__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 12:15 PM   #788
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
The Davis-stabilized versions make it plain that in the Patterson Gimlin movie, at about 20 seconds into the movie, the subject SUDDENLY appears to go from 170 feet away at the edge of the sandbar, and being seen from the rear, moving directly away toward the forest, in a northerly direction,

to

suddenly being only a hundred feet away and and being seen from the side/rear, in the middle of the sandbar, walking parallel to the edge of the forest.

This would not be possible in an unedited film.

If anyone ever noticed something of this problem in the unstabilized movie, it was ascribed to Roger running along through the sand in his cowboy boots and repositioning the camera. The stabilized versions make it clear that even if he were Superman and moved at superhuman speed, camera relocation can't explain the change in position of the subject.

imho.

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 12:18 PM. Reason: clarification
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 12:35 PM   #789
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Maybe he did run out of film on that roll. Maybe it's why we don't see Heironimus jump into a big hole.


Parnassus, Chris Murphy has identified some trees which can be seen in F352 and in a photo of the sandbar scene taken in 1971. I don't know if this is accurate but it sorta shows you where Patty (and Roger who is the white dot) was at the moment of 352 in the bigger picture. Does this change anything about your "reversed location scenes hypothesis"?
well, I can't say it any stronger than I already have. Patterson would not have arranged this whole thing and then run out of film after 57 seconds. If it was Bob H in the suit, the end of the "walk" hit the cutting room floor when DeAtley saw him jump in the hole. You just can't end your movie with Bigfoot sitting in a hole 180 feet away.

Interesting photo. I can't say that it changes what I see in the movie.
I would say that perhaps Gigantofootecus could do the honors....swing a radius of 180-200 feet from wherever the camera was, and where that arc intercepts the north edge of the sandbar is about where the hole was. I frankly would not accept any 'footer's idea of where the camera was.

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 12:48 PM. Reason: clarification
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 12:36 PM   #790
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
You understand that Munns is arguing that there are no splices (edits) in the PGF and that the ending has the appearance of a natural film roll runout?

Other have noticed the sudden reposition of Patty and Patterson. It has been explained as

1. Roger intentionally shutting off the camera
2. The camera accidentally being shut off
3. Editing

I don't know if Mangler is revising his opinion and now thinks the filming is continuous and complete with none of the above three possibilities, or what. He hasn't yet responded to my questions.

You seem to have an idea that I've never heard before. The first 20 seconds of film was actually the last 20 seconds of filming. Is that right? So the scene of the logjam in the creek actually comes about halfway in the actual filming?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 12:56 PM   #791
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvEER...eature=related
Using this video, please describe where you think the footage really starts.
__________________
"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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 01:59 PM   #792
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
Who's edit are we going to believe anyways?
National Geographic's edit has duplicate frames and Patty does a loop back in time.
Then we have the flipped frame version that doesn't show this frame at the beginning of each walk sequence ...
Ground shot edit, Ground shot edit. The crap goes on.


ETA: Hang on I think I see blood?

Last edited by JcR; 6th April 2010 at 02:25 PM.
JcR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 02:25 PM   #793
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You understand that Munns is arguing that there are no splices (edits) in the PGF and that the ending has the appearance of a natural film roll runout?

Other have noticed the sudden reposition of Patty and Patterson. It has been explained as

1. Roger intentionally shutting off the camera
2. The camera accidentally being shut off
3. Editing

I don't know if Mangler is revising his opinion and now thinks the filming is continuous and complete with none of the above three possibilities, or what. He hasn't yet responded to my questions.

You seem to have an idea that I've never heard before. The first 20 seconds of film was actually the last 20 seconds of filming. Is that right? So the scene of the logjam in the creek actually comes about halfway in the actual filming?
Note: I think in this discussion, "film" is ambiguous. What was initially shot was footage, and it was made into a movie.

I could be wrong but I don't believe Munns knows anything about sequences in the Kodachrome II camera original footage, nor does he know how many generations of copies have been made from it, nor by whom, nor under what circumstances, aside from what he has been told by people who, shall we say, have a stake in preserving the legend? I could say that Munns has a lot of difficulty sorting out his beliefs from the evidence, but then I would have to spend a lot of time citing different parts of his "Report." So I won't. I will just say that Munns underestimates the determination and skill of other craftsmen, both professional and amateur. You can take that as ad hominem if you wish. I prefer to think of it as rejection of appeal to authority.
--
add this to your list:
MK Davis attributed the discrepancy to the presence of two Bigfoots. Both of whom were killed by Roger, Bob, Bob Titmus and John Green, the latter two being there but never admitting it because the Bigfoots were actually human, and it thus was murder.

It can't be just turning off the camera. It is editing. In the first segment of Roger's masterpiece movie, Patty is 175 feet away walking into the woods. That is just a fact. Forgive me, but just how did Roger get her to come back and show off her boobs? Did he turn off his camera and honk his horn at her? Did he offer her a movie contract? a beer? What is this, Bigfeet Gone Wild/Spring Break? I'm being facetious.

Did he ever describe anything like this? did Bob G.? Bob H.? No. No one that I know of has ever suggested that Patty did anything other than walk away. And its not just that...the sun/shadow angles confirm she is at the north end of the sandbar going north in that initial 20 seconds of the MOVIE. If you believe this footage is properly placed in the movie, you have to believe she is going WEST, and at the WEST edge of the sandbar. That, imho, is not possible.

Yes, you have it exactly. The first 20 or so seconds of the MOVIE were the LAST 20 seconds of so of the FOOTAGE. This segment was chopped off the end and spliced into the beginning to make a MOVIE. But this footage doesn't fit at the beginning, and it does fit at the end. It fits the angles, it fits the distances, and it fits the story.

The fact that Bill Munns can't tell that from x-generation copies doesn't surprise me in the least.
if, by the logjam, you are referring to the end of Rogers MOVIE, where Patty supposedly disappears after looking back, yes, that was in the middle of the original footage. imho.

Patty, like Shane, had to ride off into the sunset, not jump in a hole.

Last edited by DennyT; 6th April 2010 at 02:46 PM. Reason: clarity
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 02:36 PM   #794
Óðinn
Muse
 
Óðinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
well, I can't say it any stronger than I already have. Patterson would not have arranged this whole thing and then run out of film after 57 seconds. If it was Bob H in the suit, the end of the "walk" hit the cutting room floor when DeAtley saw him jump in the hole. You just can't end your movie with Bigfoot sitting in a hole 180 feet away.

Interesting photo. I can't say that it changes what I see in the movie.
I would say that perhaps Óðinn could do the honors....swing a radius of 180-200 feet from wherever the camera was, and where that arc intercepts the north edge of the sandbar is about where the hole was. I frankly would not accept any 'footer's idea of where the camera was.
Keep in mind that the last few frames filmed before the run out had Patty's image smaller than the 1st 20 seconds. Patty's farthest distance from the camera in the opening sequence is around 150'. Patty is well over 200' from the camera in the last few frames. The beginning sequence would have to be cut out of the middle of the 2nd half of the film and spliced onto the front. Bill Munns found no evidence of splicing on the full frame copy of the PGF that he scanned. This would suggest that any discontinuities are the result of stopping & resuming and not splicing. It's not impossible to hide the splicing, but if somebody did, they did a damn fine job.

That said, I think Bill Munns found the point of discontinuity and he also identified the S shaped branch you see in the 1st 20 secs. Then it appears again, suddenly close up with the famous "big log" also in frame. If this is the S branch identified in the beginning sequence (which I think it is), then that would imply that the entire PGF is sequentially intact.

I don't like to cross-link to the BFF so I'll repost Bill's graphic with the option to yoink it, if he objects.



IMO, the discontinuity is likely when Roger flipped up the exposure lever stopping the filming (for whatever reason), ran to the S branch, then resumed filming. For example, in frames 162 and 202 the time difference is approx 2 secs (at 18 fps). It would be physically impossible to cross the creek and pass this tree branch in that time. Roger must have turned off the camera and resumed it at approx frame 200.

The K-100 has a lever that needs to be flipped on & off manually. It is not a gun-style lever that stops filming when you release the trigger. Roger falling to his elbows would not necessarily have turned the camera off. And I doubt you could run while looking thru the camera's viewfinder. So Roger must have been just aiming the camera at points and trying to look for spots to stop and get some stable footage thru the viewfinder.
Óðinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 02:49 PM   #795
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
if, by the logjam, you are referring to the end of Rogers MOVIE, where Patty supposedly disappears after looking back, yes, that was in the middle of the original footage. imho.
No, this is the logjam I am talking about. It straddles the flowing creek. P&G said it was the structure that actually concealed Patty from their view as they approached on horseback on the logging road.


__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 03:23 PM   #796
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvEER...eature=related
Using this video, please describe where you think the footage really starts.
at about 30 seconds, it is very shaky but notice the color of the background trees changes from dark green to more like orange. This is the splice point... the green footage is the footage from the north end of the sandbar, that was taken at the end of the actual walk, but chopped off and put at the beginning of Rogers movie. The orange footage is the actual beginning of the walk, where the subject stops, looks back, goes on, looks back, and then awww gee Roger said he ran out of film.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 03:26 PM   #797
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Originally Posted by Óðinn View Post
That said, I think Bill Munns found the point of discontinuity and he also identified the S shaped branch you see in the 1st 20secs...
IMO, the discontinuity is likely when Roger flipped up the exposure lever stopping the filming (for whatever reason), ran to the S branch, then resumed filming.

Do you have a direct link to the place in the Munns Report where he discusses the "discontinuity" (missing footage) and any explanations he gives? Do I recall him talking about a typical brief overexposure of a frame or two when the lever is flipped up after a stop?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 03:39 PM   #798
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
No, this is the logjam I am talking about. It straddles the flowing creek. P&G said it was the structure that actually concealed Patty from their view as they approached on horseback on the logging road.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/a1c9aeed.jpg
Among many other things they said. They also said they saw Patty when they came around a bend.
But yes, that is also what MK Davis thought. He believed that part of P and G's story. He tried to make it match a later frame. But they don't match, as he admitted. Yes, P and G said there was a logjam there. I would submit that they said that either after they saw the movie or after Al DeAtley told them over the phone what was gonna be at the start of the movie.

Bob H. said he was forty yards away from them. He didn't say he was bending over by the creek, behind a logjam, etc. Hmm who to believe. I choose to believe the angles, distances, and agreed upon straight walk along the sandbar.

And I don't believe a single thing that P and G said.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 03:47 PM   #799
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
(trying to bring the thread back on topic) Bob Heironimus has certainly watched the PGF. Why doesn't he mention that the ending part of the walk was tacked onto the beginning?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th April 2010, 04:12 PM   #800
Óðinn
Muse
 
Óðinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Do you have a direct link to the place in the Munns Report where he discusses the "discontinuity" (missing footage) and any explanations he gives? Do I recall him talking about a typical brief overexposure of a frame or two when the lever is flipped up after a stop?
The discontinuity issue didn't come from the Munns Report. I just noted it after Bill identified the S-branch in the PGF. The graphic was from one of Bill's many closed threads at the BFF. Search for s-branch, after you join up.

Óðinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.