Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest Cervelo]

Wow I just took a peek into this thread and I must say, this place is heavily troll infested. Imo why are all these skeptics posting in a BF forum? No need for that imo! There are plenty of nature/animal forums without BF out there.

Yes it would be highly recommended to spend some time educating oneself on the wildlife in your area.

[WSA]

Don't know about Blevins' attempt at recreation. I'd like to see it on film/video for sure. I would give ANYONE credit who takes an honest stab at recreating it. That is some good science in practice, I would say.

Right now, I think Bill Munns is the cat doing the good science on the subject. Having access to the original, and doing an image stabilized version is supremely useful. One thing just can't be argued around...unless there is an argument out there I don't know about. This is, the body geometry of the subject in the film. Any human in the suit has to have the hip/knee joint geometry that Patty exhibits. If you line up the hip on a typical human, the knees don't line up. If you line the knee break up...same result. You pair this objective (o.k., a degree of subjectiveness as to where you spot the hip/knee joints) determination with the angle of lift on the lower leg (What hoaxer would do that...is that a reasonable prediction?) and you at another to the pile for authenticity.

Edited January 20, 2013 by WSA

[MarkGlasgow]

Wow I just took a peek into this thread and I must say, this place is heavily troll infested. Imo why are all these skeptics posting in a BF forum? No need for that imo! There are plenty of nature/animal forums without BF out there.

The skeptic has a vital role to play on this thread and within this forum as a whole. I guess if we all came from the same angle BFF would become very dull, very quickly. No need for trolling of course but it's easy to see why some debates can become heated when opposing views are aired.

[Guest]

Right now, I think Bill Munns is the cat doing the good science on the subject.

Like the highly subjective and biased analysis he conducted on the original BFF where he deduced the probability of the film being faked was 0.00005. What he did in this instance wasn't science or statistical analysis, it was creative writing. Only in the field of Squatchology, can an artist be granted the title of scientist, statistician, biologist, forensics analyst and whatever footers want to pile on, without having to step foot into a classroom.

[norseman]

Like the highly subjective and biased analysis he conducted on the original BFF where he deduced the probability of the film being faked was 0.00005. What he did in this instance wasn't science or statistical analysis, it was creative writing. Only in the field of Squatchology, can an artist be granted the title of scientist, statistician, biologist, forensics analyst and whatever footers want to pile on, without having to step foot into a classroom.

What about industry expertise? Does that not count for something?

[WSA]

Oh man, that is like, umm, a guy walking across the grass. In a dark costume. With very, very, skinny legs. I'm thinking "flasher raincoat guy." Thanks Kerchak for the link. Next!

[Guest]

Glad I could provide you so much amusement. Now if you would be so kind as to define the quantitative differences in "movement fluidity" between Blevins and Patty, I'd be much obliged. In both films, I see a guy walking past the camera in a furry suit. Both guys seem to have legs and arms that move with working joints at the elbows, hips, and knees.

Edited January 21, 2013 by AaronD
to remove quote of deleted post

[WSA]

From just my point of view Saskeptic, the camera focus is somewhat fuzzy and shot at a greater distance than the P/G film it seems. This might have been meant to replicate the soft focus seen in many of the multi-generational copies of the P/G film most folks see. We know better now that Bill Munns has showed us how it is supposed to look. Take a look at the lower extremities of the figure in Blevins' film too. Note the shallow angle of lift to the lower leg on each step. Now, compare that to the angle on the P/G film. That is a feature EVERY attempt to recreate this gets wrong. Ask someone to do that consciously and watch how it comes across. It is almost impossible to mimic and not appear ridiculous. How/why would a hoaxer make it a feature?

But like I stated earler as well: Let someone put ALL the elements together in one take, and let us judge it then. By that I mean the limb proportions, height, width, bulk, stride characteristics, anatomic details (especially eyes and face), fluidity of motion...all of it.

Edited January 21, 2013 by WSA

[Sunflower]

That was hilarious. I love the sound effects of an 8mm projector.

[Guest]

Now if you would be so kind as to define the quantitative differences in "movement fluidity" between Blevins and Patty, I'd be much obliged.

You mean where the actor is staggering around trying to stay upright throughout the entire flim? Without arm swing? While lifting his legs bending at the same place as any human? Where he can't walk in a straight line without weaving? Where he can't turn around and walk at the same time, but has to stop and get his bearings? On itsy bitsy stick legs that look half the size of Patty's? Those are the differences that I see.

Edited January 21, 2013 by madison5716

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

Wow. It sure is amazing what two different people see in one video clip.

[Guest Kerchak]

Glad I could provide you so much amusement. Now if you would be so kind as to define the quantitative differences in "movement fluidity" between Blevins and Patty, I'd be much obliged. In both films, I see a guy walking past the camera in a furry suit. Both guys seem to have legs and arms that move with working joints at the elbows, hips, and knees.

Blevins walks like he's trying to not fall over and does not seem comfortable or at ease at all. It's not a smooth natural looking locomotion in the slightest. The famous thing about Patty is her fluid and smooth locomotion. She more or less glides across that uneven sandbar. Blevins struggles on a flat turf.

But I suspect you are really aware of this.

[Guest]

^I am. I would love, however, for someone to define what they really mean by Patty's "fluid movement" that's so impossible to duplicate. I see plenty of fluid movement in Belvins' clip. I think what people really mean is that there is something unusual about Patty's walk. I certainly agree with everyone here that Blevins does not do the same walk as Patty. Is that what "fluid movement" means, the walk?

I find comments about Patty's walk to be overblown. For one, we're very used to seeing the PGF in slow motion. Even the guys in Superbad look smooth in slo-mo. Watch it in real speed and it's just a guy strolling across a sandbar. Also, the so-called compliant gait is not evident throughout the film. It's such a meme, however, that Patty has this weird gait that people like Blevins think it's something they need to include intentionally in their recreation. That's why Blevins looks like some sort of weird Monty Python character in his walk (but he's still fluid!). I suspect that whatever weirdness we might think we see in Patty's gait is just the way it looks when you put a guy in that suit and have him walk that path at Bluff Creek in 1967.

Of course, PGF minutiae would be a big derail for this thread, and as I've mentioned, I find it unfruitful given my lack of specific expertise to prove anything from the film one way or another.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Saskeptic

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Thinking back on some old discussions from years ago about the film and how lethargic she looked, I still wonder why anyone would think Patty is fluid anything, for a film that is supposed to be about the lean and mean agile creature Bigfoot, she sure is pretty fat looking and hardly something that could blast through a forest with blinding speed, it looks like her walk is about the best she could do besides maybe a short sprint at best, not the bullet dodging creature we hear about these days.

Tim

[Guest]

Yes, it is up to the believers to prove it.

I'm not only a believer, I am a knower, as well. Even though I know the skeptics here are wrong, the burden of proof falls upon me to prove them wrong.

Though there is plenty of evidence to suggest the existence of sasquatch, there is little proof.

There isn't A story out there, no matter how sincerely told, no matter how saintly the person telling it is, that counts as evidence.

As a knower, I stand behind Ray, and support his view point. Skepticism doesn't damage the search for squatch, it strengthens it.

I don't think I could respect anyone who has faith in bigfoots existence.

I, for one, will not be whinging about the skeptics. No. I will be cheering them every time they point out patriotism, or when they rain on parades by remarking how much that squatch call sounds like a barred owl.

Skepticism is honesty. If you want to be lied to, and patted on the back because you think everything is Bigfoot, maybe there is another place for you.

Edited January 22, 2013 by PsyShroom