Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Actually there have been 3 different shows that touched on this very issue Drew. 1. LMS 2. MonsterQuest episode "Bigfoot" The other show escapes my head right now - Dr. Meldrum was on it - and the final conclusion was the movement was comparable to that of a human, but they did notice something about the knee movement of "Patty" --- I think they call it the "rolling knee" (?) is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtabber PE Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Question, there have been 2 independent labs that have looked at the film now and tried to use humans to replicate the exact movements of "Patty".. Both labs have agreed, there is something unusual about the knee movement.. Have you listened to these opinions, and if so, what is your take on them? I have listened to a variety of "reports" on that over the years ( so unless you can specify what lab and what report- hard to comment on "unusual' unless one knows what"unusual" they are referring to) I have seen people say its abnormal and others say it isnt- it all boils down to the actual physical size of the film subject and the speed the film was shot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I think it was on a show called "Best Evidence" or something like that. Actually there have been 3 different shows that touched on this very issue Drew. 1. LMS 2. MonsterQuest episode "Bigfoot" The other show escapes my head right now - Dr. Meldrum was on it - and the final conclusion was the movement was comparable to that of a human, but they did notice something about the knee movement of "Patty" --- I think they call it the "rolling knee" (?) is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I think your right Kathy... Thank you :evillaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Yeah, I saw those shows. I thought you had the actual results of the tests they did. You know first hand how TV can cut up what actually happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remember November Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Hey Bill, thanks for all the great answers. Below is Patty in one of the last frames. You said that she dose not look 34" wide at the shoulders. To me she dose in this frame. I know this is not a clear image, and quite possibly could be distorted. As I view the end of the film when she's walking away she looks massive to me. Also when you compare her to John Greens film subject, you get an idea of how wide she is. I got the measurement from Grover Krantz book BIGFOOT PRINTS. However its been almost ten years since I have read it so I don't remember his method of measuring the subject. You have given me a lot to rethink, I must say that. Edited February 8, 2008 by Remember November Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Remember November: I haven't seen all the film frames, and the one you referenced, with a nearly full back view, dows have potential to clarify shoulder width. I will certainly look into this more once I have access to good quality frames from that sequence of the film. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest soarwing Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 The McClarin comp. is probably as innacurate as they come. I think McClarin stood about 6' 5", and in the comp., Patty looks to be taller. She's not. Concerning the back view: Although the result might be close, the back-view of Patty shown above is the result of superimposing a left-side onto a right side - when the actual frame from the film contains no such "full" view of the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 So, Patty's back isn't symmetrical? You don't need a "full" view of the back to determine the back width. Try fitting 1/2 your back in there. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtabber PE Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Longtabber is the Lawyer for the defense and I'm the laywer for the plaintiff. You're the jury. Sooner or later, we have to give it to you and you decide. :evillaugh: Bill While i'm waiting on a few more answers from Dupont and on industrial equivalents available at the time- I'm going to play my role as counsel for the defense and ask you (or anyone else) if you know anything on this question as it directly bears to the question. One of the touted arguments against the suit theory has been the lack of reproduction of a similar suit as well as materials and skills. So the question before the counsel for the plaintiff ( I'm exercising my discovery LOL) is this All, "fake films/documentaries" aside - has there ever been a legitimate,contracted attempt to replicate the suit with the end goal specifically and only to fully replicate the film and its subject? If so, who did this, who contracted it, what were the results and what were the matching points to determine degree of replication? If it has never been tried ( dedicated project to actually replicate the film subject in exacting detail- not a cheap imitation) then it cannot be said that "not being able to be reproduced" means anything because in fact no one has tried yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Counsel for the plaintiff replies: We have no documentable knowledge or evidence that any person or company investigating the PG film has undertaken a legitimate attempt to replicate the figure apparent in the PG Film, by the technology of a human wearing a suit of furcloth and padding, with authenticity as the primary design constraint. Replications apparently do exist and have been shown on various documentary programs, but these replicas are not, in the opinion of counsel, sufficiently "Authentic" to be relevent to the defense's discovery request. So counsel for the plaintiff will stipulate to the defense statement as follows: "If it has never been tried ( dedicated project to actually replicate the film subject in exacting detail- not a cheap imitation) then it cannot be said that "not being able to be reproduced" means anything because in fact no one has tried yet." Judge Melissa will now rule on whether us two old men pretending to be lawyers are making any sense. :evillaugh: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Remember November Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 soarwing: I was not aware that the behind shot is a mirror image. That's what I get for pulling random pictures from bigfoot forums. I will try to provide a true image from the film. Why is John Greens film not accurate? I have not heard this point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OklahomaSquatch Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 OBJECTION your honor! This is pure speculation and hearsay. The defense is asking for information that could not possibly be obtained if so said project was done in private. To say that a project has not been done based on the available information found in the public sector is based on nothing substantial. We ask the court to strike this from the documentation from the records based on the grounds of inconclusiveness. The defense argues that this would mean that it is not impossible for the film to be replicated, but the plaintiff could argue the opposite based on the same conclusion that no project of this type has been attempted, therefore it could just as easily been proven that it was in fact impossible to duplicate. Matt "Lock" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Seems we have a "friend of the court" brief being filed here. :evillaugh: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StoneyRocks Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Holy Atticus Finch Batman! :evillaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts