Jump to content


Photo

Patterson Film Hoax, 2 Contradictions


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 stryq

stryq

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 20 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:01 PM

I would love to believe this footage is real but with all the glaring contradictions it is impossible.
Everyone knows patterson was a shady dood so how can you believe it?

Here are 2 issues (of many) that I have


Has anyone ever analyzed what Gimlin said about how his horse tracks were not as deep as the Patty prints?

He said his horse weighed 1,200–1,300 pounds (plus a 165lb Gimlin). If one simply takes the square inch area of a horse print and compare it to a wide and long Patty foot
it does not work. It is simple physics

“I rode the big horse” “The horse that I was riding was around 1,200–1,300 pounds. I rode him along side the [Bigfoot] tracks with this new film in the camera [and] Roger took pictures of how deep the horse’s prints were in the soil compared to the creature’s tracks. Then I got up on a stump, which was approximately three to four feet, you know? We didn’t measure it, probably should have. Anyway, I jumped off with a high heel boot as close to the track as we could. Then we took pictures of that to illustrate the depth that my footprint went into the same dirt with a high heel cowboy boot, and at that time I weighed 165 pounds. These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene.”

Gimlin, “The horse tracks were not as deep as the Sasquatch tracks of course. I just walked the horse through. I walked him as slow as I could but you figure he is distributing his weight on four feet. The tracks were better than half as deep but they weren’t as deep as the tracks of the creature.”

Comparatively Patty would have to weigh 2300 Lbs PLUS to make the deep impressions the casts represent.




Also they all claim patty was 6'6 to 7' tall

If you take the patty still photo and stack the 14.5inch (alleged) foot size you get appox 6' tall.

Has anyone ever explained these things?



PHOTOSHOP
Stacking 5 feet give you slightly over 6 feet tall.
Suggesting a millimeter taller than 6' is ridiculous.


Posted Image

Edited by stryq, 14 October 2012 - 11:08 PM.

  • 0

#2 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:20 PM

Gimlin could not have made an estimate of weight according to print depth comparisons anymore than anyone else could have. The event took place in an area where every print was a different depth, because the substrate was so variable. Sand, gravel, rocks, debris, all mixed in. Even if you look at the pictures of Patty's prints themselves, each one is a different depth, and consistency. I think Gimlin made an assumption, on an observation, that simply was not accurate.
Bill Munn's is continuing to work on an analyses of the film that will most likely lead to an accurate depiction of the height of the creature, but again, I think Gimlin's assumption of height was partially based on bulk. To see something so bulky walking away, he may have had the impression that something so "big" must be tall. It may very well be taller than some think, its pretty hard to get an accurate guess, from taking the foot image, and trying to scale it like that. There has been lots of discussion on here regarding all that, you should read some of the threads, it pretty interesting.
You might want to start with the Munn's Report.

Edited by JohnC, 14 October 2012 - 11:21 PM.

  • 4

"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws,laws of physics,or laws of nature,what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really,that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem." Dr.J.Richard Greenwell

 

Show me the monkey suit!-me


#3 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,726 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:52 AM

stryq wrote:

Also they all claim patty was 6'6 to 7' tall

If you take the patty still photo and stack the 14.5inch (alleged) foot size you get appox 6' tall.



The 'Frame 72 foot ruler' measurement....as shown in the graphic you posted....contains 3 or 4 'error factors'....which need correcting for, in order to get the proper 'body height' for Patty.


I'm not going to explain them all in this thread, though.....because I already have, in other threads. :)

One of the 'error factors' is that Patty's right leg is angled....it is not completely straightened-out.

Edited by SweatyYeti, 15 October 2012 - 02:53 AM.

  • 3

#4 summitwalker

summitwalker

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 344 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 11:22 AM

Not to mention it has been 45 years since and no new decent footage has surfaced. I can't speak to PG's character because I have never met either men, but because I no longer believe BF is a real animal, I would have to lean towards some level of shady. Not that I think faking a BF sighting is all that serious a deal anyway. The fact that the mystery behind the footage has endured this long is almost as impressive as if Patty were real, which of course she is not...in my opinion!

Edited by summitwalker, 15 October 2012 - 11:24 AM.

  • 0

#5 stryq

stryq

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 20 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:01 PM

stryq wrote:



The 'Frame 72 foot ruler' measurement....as shown in the graphic you posted....contains 3 or 4 'error factors'....which need correcting for, in order to get the proper 'body height' for Patty.


I'm not going to explain them all in this thread, though.....because I already have, in other threads. :)

One of the 'error factors' is that Patty's right leg is angled....it is not completely straightened-out.



I'm not sure if you looked at the photo I posted but the stack of feet MORE THAN makes up for the bent leg and head down

If you get any more than 6' out of that then the only word that comes to my mind is denial.



Patty footage is impressive but it is totally amazing how in this day and age when everyone has a camera Patty is STILL the holy grail.. .

I'm pretty sure even if Gimlin confessed on his deathbed a hoax, Patty lovers would "reason" with that by suggesting he was drugged up or he went crazy before he died.
  • 0

#6 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,726 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:10 PM

I'm not sure if you looked at the photo I posted but the stack of feet MORE THAN makes up for the bent leg and head down

If you get any more than 6' out of that then the only word that comes to my mind is denial.



Patty footage is impressive but it is totally amazing how in this day and age when everyone has a camera Patty is STILL the holy grail.. .

I'm pretty sure even if Gimlin confessed on his deathbed a hoax, Patty lovers would "reason" with that by suggesting he was drugged up or he went crazy before he died.




The 'Frame 72 foot ruler' measurement....as shown in the graphic you posted....contains 3 or 4 'error factors'.

I'm not in denial, stryq.....you are in De-error... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti, 15 October 2012 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0

#7 stryq

stryq

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 20 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:29 PM

Gimlin could not have made an estimate of weight according to print depth comparisons anymore than anyone else could have. The event took place in an area where every print was a different depth, because the substrate was so variable. Sand, gravel, rocks, debris, all mixed in. Even if you look at the pictures of Patty's prints themselves, each one is a different depth, and consistency. I think Gimlin made an assumption, on an observation, that simply was not accurate.
Bill Munn's is continuing to work on an analyses of the film that will most likely lead to an accurate depiction of the height of the creature, but again, I think Gimlin's assumption of height was partially based on bulk. To see something so bulky walking away, he may have had the impression that something so "big" must be tall. It may very well be taller than some think, its pretty hard to get an accurate guess, from taking the foot image, and trying to scale it like that. There has been lots of discussion on here regarding all that, you should read some of the threads, it pretty interesting.
You might want to start with the Munn's Report.



He said he walked the horse next to the tracks, so you are saying there was that much of a difference in the makeup of ground?

He plainly said the horse tracks were not as deep. this is a slam dunk. You are saying he didnt really see that there was a difference in the depth.
(He miss observed)

The point is a 700lb Patty is not heavy enough to have deeper tracks than a horse.

And the photo posted shows 6' tall or less.. how tall was Heironimus?


I know all about Bill Munn. He uses complex mathematics in order to show Patty is 7'2 to 7'6.... REALLY? That would mean the feet were 17-18 inches long. FAIL!

Bill Munn used a long legged character animation to overlay on Patty and not someone like say ...I dont know Heironmius whos body shape fits perfectly over Patty


I am an expert on muscle anatomy, there are so many glaring problems here
  • 0

#8 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,726 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

stryq wrote:

I know all about Bill Munn.


Except that his name is actually 'Bill Munns'.

He uses complex mathematics in order to show Patty is 7'2 to 7'6.... REALLY?



No...he has since retracted that height calculation.

You are definitely in a state of De-error, stryq. ;)
  • 0

#9 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 01:47 PM

And the photo posted shows 6' tall or less.. how tall was Heironimus?


6'2".
  • 0
"Maybe I've lived too long, I don't yet have a grave to roll over in." - John Green

“Truth is not determined by majority vote.” - Doug Gwyn


"Since there is no such animal, any photographs showing such an animal must be faked, and reputable scientists won't have anything to do with them. It's a very effective argument, completely circular without a weak spot in it anywhere." - John Green

#10 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,958 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:48 PM

I would love to believe this footage is real but with all the glaring contradictions it is impossible.
Everyone knows patterson was a shady dood so how can you believe it?

Here are 2 issues (of many) that I have

Has anyone ever analyzed what Gimlin said about how his horse tracks were not as deep as the Patty prints?

He said his horse weighed 1,200–1,300 pounds (plus a 165lb Gimlin). If one simply takes the square inch area of a horse print and compare it to a wide and long Patty foot
it does not work. It is simple physics


This has been studied extensively. The bottom line is we haven't seen these "horse tracks" to confirm this assertion and the ground at Bluff Creek was highly variable. It was a mix of sand and hardpan. Use the search feature if you want to see prev discussions.

Also they all claim patty was 6'6 to 7' tall

If you take the patty still photo and stack the 14.5inch (alleged) foot size you get appox 6' tall.

Has anyone ever explained these things?

<snip>

PHOTOSHOP
Stacking 5 feet give you slightly over 6 feet tall.
Suggesting a millimeter taller than 6' is ridiculous.


Did you know that your height varies by 9% as you walk? More so if you are walking compliantly with long strides. Patty's height ranged ~17% as she walked. Here is a graphic to better compare Patty's height.

Posted Image

This fellow was approx 100 feet from the camera and his height was 6' 2". He put a 14.5" board on his foot and attempted to assume the posture of Patty in frame 72. He got pretty close. According to the foot ruler, his measured height is 17% less than his actual height. Patty has been scaled so that her foot length matches the 14.5" board. They look almost identical in height. So that suggests that Patty's walking height in frame 72 was ~17% less than her standing height.

Patty's height was then (~4.5 foot lengths X 14.5") + 17% = 6' 2"

However, it depends whether the foot was actually 14.5" and whether the foot in frame 72 was not overexposed. I think frame 61 is a better foot ruler personally, which puts Patty's standing height at approx. 6' 3". Give or take a couple of inches.
  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#11 Northern Lights

Northern Lights

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:38 PM

Comparatively Patty would have to weigh 2300 Lbs


If you have ever read the NASI Bigfoot report, they calculated Patty weighing in the range 2000 lbs.

http://www.bigfooten...iology/nasi.htm

I have always had trouble with that weight just because it seems really high, but that is what they come up with.

Edited by Northern Lights, 15 October 2012 - 03:39 PM.

  • 0

#12 OntarioSquatch

OntarioSquatch

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,962 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:39 PM

I think using her foot in that one frame is just as unreliable as it is convenient. She's also missing her toes in that one frame due to problems with the film.
  • 0

#13 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:50 PM

I have always had trouble with that weight just because it seems really high, but that is what they come up with.


Glickman stated quite clearly he used a formula that works with other great apes. He didn't know if it would work with this one.
  • 0
"Maybe I've lived too long, I don't yet have a grave to roll over in." - John Green

“Truth is not determined by majority vote.” - Doug Gwyn


"Since there is no such animal, any photographs showing such an animal must be faked, and reputable scientists won't have anything to do with them. It's a very effective argument, completely circular without a weak spot in it anywhere." - John Green

#14 stryq

stryq

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 20 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 03:51 PM

stryq wrote:


Except that his name is actually 'Bill Munns'.

Ooops that means I never looked at ANY of his research. Must be a different person.
The "s" on my keyboard is sticky


No...he has since retracted that height calculation.

Ok, this proves he was/is going on theory or faulty data?

You are definitely in a state of De-error, stryq. ;)


  • 0

#15 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,098 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:48 PM

Also, bear in mind that the whitish area on her foot likely extends beyond the foot area that would impress into a print:

Attached File  real-chimp-foot.jpeg   35.1KB   3 downloads

And, "blooming" of the whitish colors in the film could also have made her foot appear slightly larger in that image than it actually is (making her taller by the 'foot-as-a-ruler' method). In any event, I don't see a height of 6-6.5ft as being indicative of a hoax. Plenty of Bigfoot in that height range and smaller have been reported.

As to the second 'contradiction'; we cannot verify the depth of the horse tracks (as Giganto pointed out), the creek bed substrate was almost certainly highly variable and also, I don't see any reason for Gimlin to make up a details like that. Gimlin did say that the horse tracks were 'better than half as deep'.

So, if you're looking for slam-dunk proof of a hoax, stryq, you have a ways to go. Good luck though, I think that almost everyone interested in this would like to know the truth. :B
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#16 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,512 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:24 PM

stryq:

A good scientist should never be afraid to occasionally fail, and even acknowledge the fail, because it leads to a greater understanding of the problem, and that is always a "win". It's the "win at all cost" mentality that can never admit failing or learning from such (even though such people fail often, but hide or make excuses for their failures and go into denial of any real search for a truthful, factual solution.).

As a result of that first lens analysis and height estimate, which I openly acknowledged was wrong, I have learned far more about the problem, and have a much greater understanding of how a successful solution will ulimately be found. And it will be achieved.

Who will achieve that success? Most likely, me.

:)

Bill
  • 4
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#17 McGman

McGman

    Booger

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:05 PM

This has been studied extensively. The bottom line is we haven't seen these "horse tracks" to confirm this assertion and the ground at Bluff Creek was highly variable. It was a mix of sand and hardpan. Use the search feature if you want to see prev discussions.


This is what I've never understood. Supposedly the horse walked along the creek bed with the tracks as well as Patterson and Gimlin.


Yet there's no tracks to be seen anywhere else. I just dont understand why.

At least walk beside them and film it for comparison purposes.
  • 0

#18 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:08 PM

There is that much variance in the ground yes, and that is the slam dunk, go walk around on that sort of substrate yourself. Sand soil over rocks,gravel, sticks, etc. Not to mention all the variables of pockets of moisture. To hear anyone argue otherwise just tells me they are an armchair critic, with no out door experience what so ever,and are blinded by their own ignorance, or agenda.
With you, I say agenda, and I personally will not waste anymore time on another junior critical thinker, here to regurgitate the same old stuff, under a new name, again.
  • 3

"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws,laws of physics,or laws of nature,what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really,that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem." Dr.J.Richard Greenwell

 

Show me the monkey suit!-me


#19 Cotter

Cotter

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,119 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:04 AM

X 2 JohnC
  • 0

 "It was on Harry & the Hendersons. It has been scientifically proven." - The Huntster

 

"Ok, try this--I'm bored with the conversation and wish to move on  ;)" - AaronD


#20 McGman

McGman

    Booger

  • Members
  • 65 posts

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:08 PM

There is that much variance in the ground yes, and that is the slam dunk, go walk around on that sort of substrate yourself. Sand soil over rocks,gravel, sticks, etc. Not to mention all the variables of pockets of moisture. To hear anyone argue otherwise just tells me they are an armchair critic, with no out door experience what so ever,and are blinded by their own ignorance, or agenda.
With you, I say agenda, and I personally will not waste anymore time on another junior critical thinker, here to regurgitate the same old stuff, under a new name, again.


Hmm, so there should be variance in the tracks also no?
Instead they seem all nice and neat and perfect for casting.

Coincidence?
  • 0