Jump to content
norseman

The Munns Report

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

I am comparing the 'Perfectfoot' image that you posted

post-85-041494100%201294116827_thumb.jpg

and putting it next to 'Blockfoot'

4381cc67.jpg

Perfectfoot, actually, has no toes, and looks like Blockfoot.

It looks like a branch or some debris is causing some paradolia, combined with some enhancements in the Cibachrome.

Here is another Blockfoot, the right foot, and I think it is from a Cibachrome, no toes visible

d2e081a5.jpg

If one is to believe that the PGF subject has no toes then the rational for creating a toeless foot should be explained. Could/would any hoaxer conspire to make a toeless costume foot and then undertake filming it? Since there are no observations of toeless tracks at Bluff Creek by those who visited the site in 1967 it stands to reason that there are indeed toes on the PGF subject or at least feet with toes leaving tracks at the site. We have casts and photos of the toed tracks at the site which is considerably more valid than speculating or ascribing to the idea that the PGF figure was toeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Interesting, i once commented on this, that patty had no toes, and was pointed to a photo (like above) where she did blatantly and clearly have toes, now i look at what i think is the same photo, and there are no toes.

There are a few bigfoot laymen out there like myself, so just to clarify, is this proof the picture has been altered after the fact? And if so, does this not point more in favour to an overall hoax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Naw, the toes are there. Here's a comparison between frames 61 & 72. I scaled frame 61 as though those weren't toes. The lines in both frames are of equal length so their bodies should be the same size. But it clearly isn't. If you short-change 1 measurement by as little as 2 inches (length of the toes), the % difference in body size is quite apparent. Patty is obviously overscaled in frame 61 unless we account for the toes. If we do, then it's a perfectfoot/blockfoot match. The toes could have been "enhanced" on the Cibachromes, but they ain't pareidolia.

61NT_72.png

We can see toes on perfectfoot because the tilt of the foot kept part of the metatarsals in shadow which helped define them. It was also fortunate that there was minimal motion blur of the foot at that point in the stride. On the other hand, frame 72 shows the foot over-exposed in full sun. You need shadows to expose any foot detail, which frame 61 has.

So if we accept the foot had toes, then it should be straightforward to compare Patty's feet to a Morris gorilla suit circa 1967. If they don't match, then where did Roger get the feet..with toes?

Good observations. you are describing the outward swing of the huge foot in order to clear the ground, and that is another whole subject. It can be seen in the Vision Realm video, and Meldrum even commented on it in that videoed Stanford gait study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6boWouLfe8

To me this is good evidence that we are not dealing with the natural walk of an evolved organism. It is an incredibly awkward way to walk, and I can't imagine how it could be used to travel any distance, especially in rough country or through vegetation, and couldn't be used to chase down any terrestrial prey.

It is notable that blockfoot is even closer than perfect foot to the point where angular motion about the knee is zero. So vertical movement should be minimal, and so motion blur in the length plane should not be a problem in estimating the edges.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good points, parnassus, but as for chasing prey, it's not about speed so much as endurance. Where humans still hunt by pursuit they do so over hours, keeping the animal moving at just the right speed so that they drop from exhaustion. A human foot with its arched base is, accoriding to some physiologists, a very good device for storing energy and adding to the spring of the next especially in concert with the re-curve of the human spine which is part of both our upright stance and our bipedality, and fits very well with the hypothosis that early humans hunted over a wide area cooperatively by pursuit out on the open plain/savannah. If BF is a pre-social form of an ancestral human, as some evidence suggests, and is more adapted to ambush, the absence of the arched foot, along with what has been called 'the compliant foot' could actually be very good for manoeuvering over a chaotic jumble of woody debris and talus/scree in a broken landscape instead of staying on trails as modern humans are most likely to.

As to how well one can imagine a BF being able to effectively use such a foot/gait/posture; you might be right but a human arched foot might not be very good either. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good observations. you are describing the outward swing of the huge foot in order to clear the ground, and that is another whole subject. It can be seen in the Vision Realm video, and Meldrum even commented on it in that videoed Stanford gait study.

Actually I was describing how the sun angle cast a shadow on the right foot but not the left foot. It's a huge leap to attribute this to an outward swing of the foot.

To me this is good evidence that we are not dealing with the natural walk of an evolved organism. It is an incredibly awkward way to walk, and I can't imagine how it could be used to travel any distance, especially in rough country or through vegetation, and couldn't be used to chase down any terrestrial prey.

Whaaaat? Are you saying you accept that the Vision Realm video & the observations of Meldrum were accurate regarding Patty's swinging gait??? Even so, there was nothing awkward about it. Try it yourself. I found it surprisingly efficient. Are you suggesting that Bob H adopted a compliant swinging gait in response to walking on sand with big floppy costume feet? Funny I don't recall Bob H mentioning that. He said that's how he normally walked.

It is notable that blockfoot is even closer than perfect foot to the point where angular motion about the knee is zero. So vertical movement should be minimal, and so motion blur in the length plane should not be a problem in estimating the edges.

What are you trying to say here, that blockfoot actually doesn't have toes? :scratchyhead smilie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Would it be too much to ask one and all to take the "blockfoot" vs "Perfectfoot" thing to a thread where it is relevent, because there's nothing about either in my Report?

Thanks for the consideration.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Around frame 270, one image of the left foot indicating it has more definition than the film copies we are looking at show.. and with that no more from me on the subject here. Sorry Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sorry Bill. Not sure how "tampering with the cibachromes" had anything to do with your report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill, I am using the PGF images in Aperture and it allows a quick scan of them back and forth. Something that bothers me is when I scan them in reverse. It looks like a human walking backwards. Optical illusion I take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The foot thing, walk cycles and foot shape/size are certainly interesting things and maybe rightfully deserve a thread of their own?

I just haven't gotten far enough along to put any of it into my Report, except a note that I was working on the issues (as much as I recall).

The Cibachrome thing goes to integrity of copies, and I believe I've touched on that occasionally in the Report.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

I think i might need to be the one to say this, and im aware im on moderation, but the fact that clear toes appear in one version on the pic, and not in the other, shows clear evidence of tampering, in other words, someone messed with this film after it was taken. That is yet more evidence if a hoax, on top of everything else. My opinion is, its time to

Put this film to rest, it is not a bigfoot imho. Once all the evidence is put together its clear as day, at least to

My and many others eyes.

I believe in bigfoot so im gonna start focusing on non-pgf threads, as i believe this film makes a mockery of the very real possibility of an asiatic upright ape:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Actually I was describing how the sun angle cast a shadow on the right foot but not the left foot. It's a huge leap to attribute this to an outward swing of the foot.

Whaaaat? Are you saying you accept that the Vision Realm video & the observations of Meldrum were accurate regarding Patty's swinging gait??? Even so, there was nothing awkward about it. Try it yourself. I found it surprisingly efficient. Are you suggesting that Bob H adopted a compliant swinging gait in response to walking on sand with big floppy costume feet? Funny I don't recall Bob H mentioning that. He said that's how he normally walked.

What are you trying to say here, that blockfoot actually doesn't have toes? :scratchyhead smilie:

I moved over to the "Bob H/Patty" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

An open appeal to the good members of this Forum;

Recently, a camera was listed on Ebay which is identical to John Green's Keystone camera (a 16mm Keystome K-50 magazine type with a 25mm Cine raptor lens), in mint condition, and for a fixed price of $228, so no bidding war will esculate the price.

I've been hoping to get it so I can run some filming tests, which i feel are really important to the PGF-McClarin comparison. Our own Spazmo has been working with me to see if we could somehow get this camera.

My personal budget has been exhausted by such frivolities as chains for my car tires, and paying a snow guy to dig out the car from that last storm, and so I can't buy it right now myself. Spazmo was discretely asking a few people about chipping in to buy it, but we don't seem to have made progress that way.

The sale closes in two days (Saturday, at 8:30PM) and so I thought as the deadline draws near, I'd try an open appeal to all of you. If anybody can contribute to helping purchase this camera, we would really appreciate it. I'll be offline most of the next two days, so if anybody can contribute to the purchase goal, please PM Spazmo with your pledge.

If you'd like to see the camera listing, it's at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Keystone-Mayfair-K-50-Beautiful-1950s-Magazine-16mm-/290517252184?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a42d7858

Thanks to any of you who can help get this camera into the research activity. It really has potential to help clear up some issues so frequently argued in the forum.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Bill, you beat me to it...

I was planning a similar post in the morning. :D

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

My opinion of Patty's height has always been that she doesn't appear to be incredibly tall due to the fact that she is proportionate.

To me, someone built like Shaquille O'Neal doesn't give the appearance of being incredibly tall, until he stands next to a 'normal' sized person.

When compared to Patty, Shaq would look more like Jimmy Walker aka JJ Evans. DYN-O-MITE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...