Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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.

 

As is the case with all the proponents who find the IDF to be so close to the PGF, this too is a totally valid perception. Let's discuss something that is used as evidence for both pieces of footage. You have on numerous occasions cited shin rise as having siginificant evidentiary value where potential Bigfoot footage is concerned...

 

 

Yes, I am convinced that the 72 degree shin rise is a characteristic of a BF casual walk. This is why I have felt that the PGF is of a real BF; if they just happened to get the shin rise right serendipitously, where no-one else could, that would be a huge coincidence! However if not in context of this 'suit' then this is off-topic which is why I started the shin-rise thread in the Tar Pit. 

 

 

bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-82#entry622914

 

 

I like the Saltfork Tricopter video. I never heard of that one getting debunked.

 

Plus, any video where the shin rise can be seen to be something different from a human. 

 

 

 

 

That shin rise is pretty hard for a human to do smoothly (in the recreation video you can see that the shin rise is absent, but let's assume for the time being that that is on purpose). So here's the challenge. If you think this one is a human, go ahead, prove it, and the proof would be a video that shows the same shin rise and fluid movement.

 

 

 

Plus there is the issue of shin rise. Humans don't have the same shin rise, not and also move in a fluid fashion.

 

 

 

John Napier missed something though, which is the shin rise. That is not the gait of a human unless the human is running.

 

 

The shin rise is a concept first analyzed and presented by ThinkerThunker in his "21 Degrees Between Bigfoot and You" video. ThinkerThunker consistently demonstrates this same fluid feature in the IDF in the following video between the 1 and 4 minute mark...

 

 

 

So that begs the question that if the shin rise is a convincing factor for you, yet that very same feature is present in footage you dismiss as fake, how then do you thereafter consider the shin rise to be as a form of supporting evidence for Bigfoot?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
 

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....

 

No, it's not unreasonable to want Heironimus to replicate the walk while in costume. Yet the fact remains that an average human (Bronston Delone) did exactly that at the Stanford University Motion and Gait Analysis Laboratory to the complete satisfaction of the locomotion experts there. If I were such an expert, I would likely prefer an average human of comparable proportions to Heironimus in 1967 versus trying to test someone many decades later with a significant difference in body weight and distribution, as well as having had multiple hip surgeries. My opinion that Heironimus walks like Patty is subjective, but I give far more weight to the hard data recorded at Stanford.

 

Do you think that the Stanford analysis should be dismissed? 

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....

edit bob heironimus....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See-Te-Cah NC

 

 

 

No, it's not unreasonable to want Heironimus to replicate the walk while in costume. Yet the fact remains that an average human (Bronston Delone) did exactly that at the Stanford University Motion and Gait Analysis Laboratory to the complete satisfaction of the locomotion experts there. If I were such an expert, I would likely prefer an average human of comparable proportions to Heironimus in 1967 versus trying to test someone many decades later with a significant difference in body weight and distribution, as well as having had multiple hip surgeries. My opinion that Heironimus walks like Patty is subjective, but I give far more weight to the hard data recorded at Stanford.

 

Do you think that the Stanford analysis should be dismissed? 

 

 

Kit, Bob doesn't walk like Patty. No matter how bad you want him to, it just isn't the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I won't bother to reassert my contrary opinion, simply because we can both understand that our views on the subject are subjectively polar opposite.

 

This is really unimportant to me because the base hypothesis has been objectively and empirically tested in a controlled environment. The very best people available to test whether Patty's walk is replicable by an average human both in and out of a suit concluded that indeed that gait is not only replicable, but caused as much by the constraints of the suit as by the actor.

 

The Stanford University Motion and Gait Analysis Laboratory does not have an anti-Bigfoot agenda. They were as curious about it as any of us are. You can view in the video I provided exactly what they measured and found, and exactly how they did so. Does Bob Heironimus in old age not walk like Patty to the satisfaction of a PGF proponent? This is a moot question. An average human, Bronston Delone, does exactly that, not to the satisfaction of Internet Bigfoot enthusiasts, but to the complete satisfaction of the authorities on human gait analysis.

 

Anything after the fact that a PGF proponent could say in opposition of that fact without similar empirical methodology is not science but rather culture.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

 

 

 

No, it's not unreasonable to want Heironimus to replicate the walk while in costume. Yet the fact remains that an average human (Bronston Delone) did exactly that at the Stanford University Motion and Gait Analysis Laboratory to the complete satisfaction of the locomotion experts there. If I were such an expert, I would likely prefer an average human of comparable proportions to Heironimus in 1967 versus trying to test someone many decades later with a significant difference in body weight and distribution, as well as having had multiple hip surgeries. My opinion that Heironimus walks like Patty is subjective, but I give far more weight to the hard data recorded at Stanford.

 

Do you think that the Stanford analysis should be dismissed? 

 

Dismissed?  of course not......But the fact remains that a human being had to be coached/trained in the weird mechanics displayed in the PPG film...Additionally there was the episode of one of those "MonsterQuest" shows where a white athlete was not able to replicate the movement in the PGF film to the satisfaction of expert..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RjLzqOu3qc.....

Edited by clubbedfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

In the video above, ThinkerThinker encourages you to put on a pair of bigfeet and see how it effects the way you walk. Has anyone done this yet? Seems to me, it would definitely affect how you raise your knee, and the angle of your trailing shin. And my assumption is that it would work against ThinkerThinker. But I'm a newbie, so I'm probably wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

Kit, Bob doesn't walk like Patty. No matter how bad you want him to, it just isn't the same.

 

Has anyone seen Bob walk while wearing shoes that are the same size as Patty's footprints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog

So much for being uninterested in the subject of Bigfoot and moving on.   <_<

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Dismissed?  of course not......But the fact remains that a human being had to be coached/trained in the weird mechanics displayed in the PPG film...Additionally there was the episode of one of those "MonsterQuest" shows where a white athlete was not able to replicate the movement in the PGF film to the satisfaction of expert..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RjLzqOu3qc.....

 

 

Thanks for posting the link to that video, clubbed. :)

 

The guy definitely did not replicate Patty...(not by a long shot)......he missed, on the location of the elbow-joint...

 

Man-TVScreen-PattyF363-ElbowComp2_zps247

 

 

His elbow doesn't reach as low as the 'bend point' for his upper-leg....in fact, his wrist-joint is much closer to it than his elbow is.

 

Patty's elbow reaches distinctly lower, along the body...than a human's...

 

PattyArmBendingAG10_zps92351495.gif

 

 

And, to contribute to the 'off-topic' theme...a new animation showing some mouth/jaw movement...note the change in the reflection off the back corner of the jaw...

 

F367-F368AG2_zps76a9c010.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

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

 
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?

 

 

 

Thanks for the correction, kit. I must have mis-read your original post. I'll delete that graphic of mine, that uses the 'perfectly valid observation' comment. 

 

 

Nonetheless....your assessments of details on Patty still conflict with each other. :)

 

You hold the record for the smallest detail to have ever been "found" on Patty...

 

kitzo-Eyeballz2_zps0f998597.jpg

 

 

...while you declare Biometrics relating to Patty, to be "fabricated non-reality". :lol:

 

 

More on what kitakaze "sees"... 

 

kitzo-Eyeballz4_zpsd9013f08.jpg

 

 

kit also said, regarding the legitimacy of the "iris and pupil" detail...

 

 

 

Importantly, the philtrum and the nostrils are all smaller features than the eye and thus it is to be expected that larger features can be discerned, such as the eye and the location of its coloured area. 

 

 

Along with the even larger elbow detail......(a.k.a...."Biometrics")........correct? :)

 

 

Links...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2777-roger-filmed-pgf-from-horseback/page-30

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2777-roger-filmed-pgf-from-horseback/page-29

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

As is the case with all the proponents who find the IDF to be so close to the PGF, this too is a totally valid perception. Let's discuss something that is used as evidence for both pieces of footage. You have on numerous occasions cited shin rise as having siginificant evidentiary value where potential Bigfoot footage is concerned...

 

bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-82#entry622914

 

The shin rise is a concept first analyzed and presented by ThinkerThunker in his "21 Degrees Between Bigfoot and You" video. ThinkerThunker consistently demonstrates this same fluid feature in the IDF in the following video between the 1 and 4 minute mark...

So that begs the question that if the shin rise is a convincing factor for you, yet that very same feature is present in footage you dismiss as fake, how then do you thereafter consider the shin rise to be as a form of supporting evidence for Bigfoot?

 

 

Yes, I see shin rise as being required and its easy to spot many hoaxes due to that fact.

 

I have also  pointed out that shin rise is the leading edge of hoaxing, IOW, to make a good hoax, you have to be careful of shin rise.

 

The IDF does not have enough footage IMO to qualify for shin rise. It only shows up at one section- a rock in the way might be why we see it. The PDF is different in two ways- you see a lot more of the shin rise though the film and back then it was not part of the sighting record as I have pointed out before. So two logical conclusions are 1) its a hoax and the shin rise is the result of the suit or 2) its not a hoax and the shin rise is natural.

 

It seems to me that you go with conclusion number 1. I go with number 2, on account of having seen one close up and I had enough time to see that Patty's appearance is substantially similar. I was able to see that the shin and thigh of the ones I saw were of different proportion, IOW the shin was not the same length as the thigh. I did not know it at the time, but that accounts for the shin rise about which I learned later.

 

In the image that you presented in responding to my post, the shin looks too long- its unclear of course (one of my complaints with the clip) but it is really easy to imagine that the shin and thigh are of the same length. That's a problem for me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is a little more perspective on the 'iris and pupil' that kitakaze "discovered"....it's size relative to a nearly-full Frame...

 

kitzo-Eyeballz6_zpsf3bdadcc.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

An average human, Bronston Delone, does exactly that, not to the satisfaction of Internet Bigfoot enthusiasts, but to the complete satisfaction of the authorities on human gait analysis.

 

Anything after the fact that a PGF proponent could say in opposition of that fact without similar empirical methodology is not science but rather culture.

 

- Authorities on human gait analysis are satisfied the gait is replicable by a human.

 

- Authorities on primatology are satisfied that Bigfoot is a real creature.

 

Q: Which one holds more water? Answer: The one that supports your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Authorities on gait analysis are satisfied that:

 

1) The gait presented in not typical walking human gait

2)  This same gait that is not typical of human can be replicated by a man in a costume.  But the 'rest of the story': This replication is taking place in a lab on a flat floor at Stanford university for the distance measured across the room. 

 

There has not been a study or an effort to test this in the outdoors on variable ground.  Patty walks outdoor on variable ground. 

 

It is like Bruce Lee said in the marital arts: "Boards don't hit back"

 

I will agree the expert is in the 'Eye of the Beholder' like so many things in life.

 

On final point, this is testing one aspect of the film.   If we take a suit and ask someone to put it on and hop in one leg for 30ft they may indeed put on a suit and hope of one leg for 30 feet.  If you took a suit and ask someone to walk in it and just film them what are the odds the gait looks like Patty?  Looks like a normal walker such as Jim McClarin?    If you took 20 suits and had these people walk would the walk resulting end up looking Patty-like?  Or would most of those 20 people walk like a man who happens to be wearing a suit?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...