Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze
Since 2012, particularly gaining popularity in 2014, is a recent Bigfootery meme in which the angle of Patty's shins relative to the ground has been used as an authenticating feature verifying the subject to be an actual Bigfoot not possible to be a man in a suit. Here are some examples of that... 
 

Was it Bob nailing the shin rise of Patty???  Or any other person who's tried?

 

 

 

No shin rise.....

Easily debunked...

 

 

Noted as a recent development in Patty belief...

 

Could somebody explain to me exactly what difference such information could potentially make? Or to put it another way, what might be learned or inferred by such information? I have always found the shin rise angle to be a good indicator of whether a video depicts an actual sasquatch, which I will explain below.

 

It is not so much the fact that the angle of the leg in the PGF is so much different from a human, but rather the fact that there are other purported sasquatch videos out there that depict an almost identical shin rise. I don't know how long the idea of the angle created by the leg has been around, but as far as I can tell it has not been something that was widespread among the sasquatch community until fairly recently in the community's history. Of course there were likely some people who knew about such a difference, because I don't think such a thing could be overlooked for decades. I would imagine one of the older sasquatch books had published such information, although I cannot be certain. Regardless, it seems to me that many people were just hearing about the idea fairly recently, and thus if that is the case, it is less likely that unconnected hoaxers would have included such information in their separate hoaxes.

 

 

Formally entering the lexicon in Daniel Perez's Bigfoot Times...

 

From the Bigfoot Times, March 2014. (bigfootttimes.blogspot.com)

 

 

 

   In other news, a YouTube video uploaded on February 23, 2012 should be  a real eye opener for skeptics and doubter of the P-G film. It is called “21 Degrees Between Bigfoot and You.†In this less than three minute video the poster explains the P-G filmed subject has a trailing shin rise on the leg of 73° on a repeated basis as it walks versus modern man, which has a shin rise of about 52°, a stark 21° difference.  This is something very hard to fake, and, mind you, to look convincing and natural while walking. 

  As the late René Dahinden said, “the key to this film is its walk. It doesn’t walk like a man.†

 

Image courtesy of Daniel Perez, 2014.

 

 

Here is the original video by ThinkerThunker which originated the concept...

 

 

The following is a scientific demonstration at the Stanford University Motion and Gait Analysis Laboratory of the "shin rise" being nothing more than an aspect of a person walking in a suit featuring large feet. The shine rise is demonstrated repeatedly by actor Bronston Delone both in and out of a suit and measured extensively through out the gait, and the gait analysis experts conclude Delone's performance to have "nailed it", "a slam dunk."...

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

Here is a more recent ThinkerThunker analysis of the Independence Day footage depicting what is alleged to be a parent Bigfoot carrying a child...

 

 

These are some examples of comparisons Bigfoot proponents have made between the Independence Day Footage and the PGF...

 

"According to experts, the suit presented in this video is only 1 percent away from the Patterson-Gimlin creature. Looks real enough to pass the ole smello-meter in our opinion. Check out the part where it's walking around with a baby."

 

"Pretty impressive. The gait and behavior is better than other obvious hoax videos. I wonder how BF\FB would analyse this. The suit is a really close approximation to Patty. the closest I've ever seen actually."

"This is the best job they've done since the Patterson film."

 

"This looks EXACTLY like the Patterson/Gimli Film! The way the camera shakes, the way the creature looks over his/her shoulder... and the movement"

 

"Amazing video. the best after the Patterson's. where was this again.? good jobs !"

"This is the best evidence since the Patterson footage"

"I agree. I don't for a second believe this is a hoaxed video. If you compare the way they walk to the Patterson film, it's just TOO strikingly similar. And that's not to mention the split, conical head. I would LOVE to know who actually took this footage."

 

"Good point. I have watched it frame-by-frame dozens of times and the split cone head with the deep brow and flat face says it all for me. The female's head is conical as well, but has obviously more hair. Besides the Patterson tape, this is the best footage ever taken."

"People who thinks this is fake: #1. Have done ZERO research.#2. Watching videos of BF on YT is NOT "Research"! #3. This video has MORE visually corroborative evidence than ANY other to date since Patterson. #4. Same Species as Patterson's BF. #5. Split, conical head w/less hair than female, flat face, extended, heavy brow, classic hunched gate, whole-body turn to view camera, AND, the money & training & talent to 'fake' this for "Free" is BEYOND idiotic to even consider! I mean, TRULY Ignorant!~"

 

ThinkerThunker's detailed enhancements and analysis focus on the following features to supports its validity...

 

Shine rise

 

Knee thrust

 

Eye blinking

 

Eyebrow movement

 

Pant-hooting

 

Cheek puffing

 

Similarly for Patty, in addition to the shine rise analysis, we have the following...

 

Patty's mouth moves, thus she is real...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/

 

Patty's brow moves, thus she is real...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/?view=findpost&p=582575

 

Patty pant-hooting, thus she is real...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46365-ok-read-this-and-go-make-your-patty-suits/page-12#entry826554

 

And yet, in dismissal of any such attempt at comparative analysis between the PGF and IDF...

 

 

 

If anyone thinks that 'FuzzBob-SquareButt' is comparable to Patty...

 

BiggieBaby4G_zpsc5edaece.jpg

 

 

 

...then, shur....their opinion is invalid.  :)

 

 

ThinkerThunker's analysis of the IDF produces the same type of findings that are used to support the PGF. Are those IDF findings illegitimate? If so, then why is that, and then conversely why are they legitimate in the case of the PGF?

 

What makes ThinkerThunker's IDF analysis showing facial movements impossible for a suit invalid, yet facial movements in the PGF to be valid?

 

The IDF is a hoax and the opinion of anyone thinking it is comparable to the PGF is invalid? A closer look says otherwise, and for the exact same sort of reasons used to support Patty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Here is a link to a credible, professional analysis of the PGF and the subject in it.

 

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/

 

 Its always important to consider the source of the material your reviewing, the credentials involved, and of course the motives and past practices of the people presenting the argument.

 

 What is the motive of the discussion?

 Does the person presenting the discussion have any credibility?

 Have they exhibited genuine interest in discussion in the past?

 Can you trust what they are presenting to you? ( For example, could they intentionally present erroneous information?...Do they have a history of this?)

  

 The link I have provided is to real work, real science, real research. Documented, backed up, and with supporting professionally presented supporting discussions. It is not internet hack stuff, and is worthy of proper consideration. Engaging in discussions with internet skeptics should be for entertainment purposes only, as it adds no scientific value to the subject at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 What is the motive of the discussion?

 

A comparison of the same arguments used to support both the PGF and the IDF. If one is discarded as invalid by proponents without any technical/analytical objectivity, how is the adoption of the other based on those same set of arguments an objective position?

 

 

Does the person presenting the discussion have any credibility?

 Have they exhibited genuine interest in discussion in the past?

 Can you trust what they are presenting to you? ( For example, could they intentionally present erroneous information?...Do they have a history of this?)

 

 

The presenter of the analysis of both the PGF and IDF is ThinkerThunker. Can you trust my presenting his analyses? They are there in context, untouched by me. The viewer is given those arguments for both the PGF and the IDF to examine at their own discretion.

 

Shin rise, knee thrust, eye blinking, eyebrow movement, mouth movement, pant-hooting, cheek puffing; all these are presented for both the PGF and the IDF. If ThinkerThunker's findings in the IDF are invalid, yet valid in the PGF, why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I'm thinking of starting another irrelevant thread...(since we now have three of them)....maybe one about 'Underpaid Airplane Workers...and the PGF'. 

 

 

So, kit....got 'POOF'?? :)

 

Can you provide records of the "phone call you received" from inside DeAtley's home...and supply to Bill the information on who that person was?

 

Also, what was your relationship with him before this alleged phone call?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Pearls to swine, Kit. Pearls to swine :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I'm thinking of starting another irrelevant thread...(since we now have three of them)....maybe one about 'Underpaid Airplane Workers...and the PGF'. 

 

From the 4:10 time mark of ThinkerThunker's IDF analysis to the 7:15 mark the exact same facial movement features you ascribe to Patty are demonstrated in the exact same manner which you use with the PGF. Your assessment is that anyone's opinion making such a comparison is invalid.

 

Why are your demonstrations alleging facial movement in Patty valid but those of ThinkerThunker's alleging facial movement in the IDF invalid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The thing looks horrible from the waist down.  But the rest is not half bad.  There seems a bit too much effort going into the mime to act like Patty.  If this is the same guy doing the blinking eye stuff then forget it.  It does not leave me with the gut twinge that Patty does.  99.3% it's fake.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The presenter of the analysis of both the PGF and IDF is ThinkerThunker. Can you trust my presenting his analyses? They are there in context, untouched by me. The viewer is given those arguments for both the PGF and the IDF to examine at their own discretion.

 

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I never found the IDF convincing. For one thing the video quality is terrible.

 

OTOH I find the PGF to be quite convincing. I don't hold the two in the same esteem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

From the 4:10 time mark of ThinkerThunker's IDF analysis to the 7:15 mark the exact same facial movement features you ascribe to Patty are demonstrated in the exact same manner which you use with the PGF. Your assessment is that anyone's opinion making such a comparison is invalid.

 

Why are your demonstrations alleging facial movement in Patty valid but those of ThinkerThunker's alleging facial movement in the IDF invalid?

 

 

Open-up, kit.....and swallow your own medicine... :lol: ...

 

kitzokontraction-Number254_zpscf6a34fe.j

 

 

 

Can you provide records of the "phone call you received" from inside DeAtley's home...and supply to Bill the information on who that person was?

 

Also, what was your relationship with him before this alleged phone call?

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pearls to swine, Kit. Pearls to swine :)

 

 

The above analysis from kitakaze....calling details on the order of 2-4" in size "fabricated non-reality"....while he calls details at, or below the limit of the Film's resolution....(about 1/4")....."perfectly valid".....and "useful for the discussion".

 

Golden-BROWN "Pearls" from kitakaze... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

Open-up, kit.....and swallow your own medicine... :lol: ...

 

 

 

Your image presenting unrelated comments of mine out of context is the very definition of quote-mining. As you've been reminded on numerous occasions when doing that, the completely valid observation I was referring to was not my appraisal of what I thought was visible in MK Davis' unreliably enhanced image, but rather the observation and opinion of BFF member Thickfoot saying I was seeing what I wanted to see.

 

In red is both my original words and the observation to which they referred...

 

 

'kitakaze', on 20 Jul 2011 - 3:10 PM, said:snapback.png

It's unfortunate the number of people who can not resist the impulse to personalize the discussion and depart from discussing the topic in favour of surmising the honesty and motivation of a person's observations. The above comments are ones that discard addressing the argument and delve into the personal realm after refusing to accept somebody just really thinks the way they do.

Here is something that is a completely valid observation and has a useful purpose in the conversation...

 

'Thickfoot', on 20 Jul 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:snapback.png

Kit - if you think you can see the iris of a glass eye off to the left then you are seeing what you want to see not what is really there.

That is something that can be addressed in an objective and civil manner - in seeing an iris in the left of the eye, am I seeing what I want to see and something that is not actually there? 

 
That same quote-mining has been shown here...
 
 
And here...
 
 
Why do you want to try and make people think what I was calling a "completely valid observation" was my own, rather than the truth that I was referring to another person's critical observation of my own subjective opinion about something I readily admit to be a single, questionably enhanced image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The presenter of the analysis of both the PGF and IDF is ThinkerThunker. Can you trust my presenting his analyses? They are there in context, untouched by me. The viewer is given those arguments for both the PGF and the IDF to examine at their own discretion.

 

No

 

Trust is not a requirement when the analysis is given in its original format for anyone to review at their own discretion. Your opinions about Meldrum's analysis which you presented in post #2 require no trust on my nor any member's part because as I did in the OP, you ensured that the original analysis was provided for people to examine and form their opinions.

 

If you feel that even in providing ThinkerThunker's original PGF and IDF analyses, that can not somehow be trusted because I posted it, I invite you to explain how and why that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The above analysis from kitakaze....calling details on the order of 2-4" in size "fabricated non-reality"....while he calls details at, or below the limit of the Film's resolution....(about 1/4")....."perfectly valid".....and "useful for the discussion".

 

Golden-BROWN "Pearls" from kitakaze... :lol:

 

 

What I actually called completely valid and having a useful purpose in conversation, a dissenting opinion...

 

 

Here is something that is a completely valid observation and has a useful purpose in the conversation...

 

 

Kit - if you think you can see the iris of a glass eye off to the left then you are seeing what you want to see not what is really there.

 

 

 

As also discussed as being completely valid here...

 

 

Kit..

I certainly never said that someone who sees a suit is inferior. Whether or not they are wrong is a matter of opinion and not settled as far as I am concerned. I am not convinced that someone who looks at it and makes such a conclusion has come to it in an objective manner. I suspect many are already predisposed. This is next to impossible to demonstrate but I simply have my hunch that it often is true.

Many people were (in '67 era) and still are intrigued. And that does not mean being a "believer" but intrigued because being agnostic on the film as I am is a valid position and an open minded position and I think held by perhaps more than those who are convinced.

 

 

I think that was excellently and eloquently said, and there is nothing in your post I can possibly disagree with. Plussed for skill in articulating a subjective opinion that is every bit as valid as someone thinking the film looks baldly fake.

 

 

You're quote-mining my recognition of a critical opinion as being completely valid and having a useful purpose in civil discussion as being a self-appraisal of my own opinion about something I always recognize as being a questionable data source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

I don't think that wanting some proof of Bob Gimlin replicating Patty's walk while in costume (oversized feet included) is being unreasonable....but meh....whatever...it's not like anyone has ever offered him up as the most likely to have donned the Patty suit....

Edited by clubbedfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...