Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

 

 

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...

 

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

 

Three years late is better than never. Thank you.

 

Sweaty, for all I know, MK Davis' colour enhancement is fabricated non-reality. The details I see in the image, the eye, the nostrils, the philtrum; these could be as much a creation of MK's as they could be the result of actual detail on Patty. What you keep ignoring as much as you did whenever I pointed out the quote-mining is that in every instance I make perfectly clear that MK's enhancement is questionable and not reliable evidence. Countless times I point this out and countless times make clear that it is only in that heavily modified image that I think any such detail is viewable.

The following is a gif you use to try and demonstrate Patty's mouth moving...

 

F362F364FaceLargeAG2.gif

 

The same area of the eye that looks like where I think the coloured part is in the MK enhancement also looks, ridiculously, to be moving. Real or not, I do not think that is actually occuring and is more a result of all manner of blur soup that happens because of resolution images.

 

Just as ThinkerThunker argues for the IDF, you argue Patty is pant-hooting in the PGF. This is one of the images you use to support that claim...

 

F357-F359-Deblurred3-Snowflake1_zpsa6a76

 

You also argue the film resolution to be under 2 inches...

 

 

I agree, Bob....I think the resolution of the Film is finer than 2-inches.

In this high-quality image, you can see thin clumps of hair protruding from Patty's abdomen...and the clumps of hair, and the spacing between the hairs, both appear to be less than 2"...

 

 

Looking at the methods MK Davis uses to extract fine detail from the PGF, I do not see how one can produce details as fine as the philtrum or coloured area of the eye, and that is why I think the single image in which they do appear visible is something highly questionable and can not be used as reliable evidence of anything...

 

 

Yes, I think the coloured area of the eye is visible in the following image...

 

Bigpattyeye1.jpg

 

What you will leave out in future quote-mining is that I think it is as likely to be created by the image editor (MK Davis) as it is showing something actually there, and thus is worthless for making any conclusions about the nature of Patty's right eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.

 

It's not an assumption, but an actual fact based in real world testing as shown when Bronston Delone donned the suit for the Stanford gait analysis experts. What is most telling is that ThinkerThunker makes the effort to try and do a shin rise and then opine how unnatural it looks, invites viewers to try it with large feet on, but yet never bothers doing this himself.

- 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.

 

 

If science had the same manner of evidence available for Bigfoot that the Stanford gait analysts had to conclude Patty's walk is replicable by a human, we would not be having this discussion and Bigfoot would be a catalogued species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Thinker Thunker points out that a human can replicate the gait in his shin rise video. He also points out that a human can't make it look natural, which the Stanford analysts didn't seem to care about, but something that Patty does effortlessly.

 

IOW the Stanford thing appears to be red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

If science had the same manner of evidence available for Bigfoot that the Stanford gait analysts had to conclude Patty's walk is replicable by a human, we would not be having this discussion and Bigfoot would be a catalogued species.

 

One group has footage of a guy walking across a room. Other group has footage of a Bigfoot walking across a sandbar. Both have been meticulously studied in the same manner.

 

Belief by authorities of science is still just belief- and that goes for both gait analysts and primatologists. That alone is not going to catalog any species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Ah, the old "skepticism is a belief" canard. What the Stanford scientists had was a subject - a gait - to see if it could be matched through empirical measurement. What we lack with the PGF is an actual Bigfoot to see if those match. All we have for the reason that is the case is excuses.


Thinker Thunker points out that a human can replicate the gait in his shin rise video. He also points out that a human can't make it look natural, which the Stanford analysts didn't seem to care about, but something that Patty does effortlessly.

 

IOW the Stanford thing appears to be red herring.

 

Yet even Meldrum could acknowledge that Delone replicated Patty's walk. ThinkerThunker only makes an effort to do the walk without wearing large feet, and instead asks us to do the homework for him.

ThinkerThunker points a lot of highly technical reasons why their is no way really that the IDF footage is a man in a suit. How do you think he got it so wrong? And does he not know shin rise the way you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The IDF does not look real to me.  People are real and people in suits are real things.  So I guess it is 'real' in that sense. I contend the IDF is not anything other than a person in a suit.  That is my initial impression.

 

Backdoc


Thinker Thunker points out that a human can replicate the gait in his shin rise video. He also points out that a human can't make it look natural, which the Stanford analysts didn't seem to care about, but something that Patty does effortlessly.

 

IOW the Stanford thing appears to be red herring.

 

I agree Sal.  If you watch the video again the Orthopedic Surgeon on that team was very limited on what he felt the video indicated.  Very limited.

 

Backdoc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Ah, the old "skepticism is a belief" canard. What the Stanford scientists had was a subject - a gait - to see if it could be matched through empirical measurement. What we lack with the PGF is an actual Bigfoot to see if those match. All we have for the reason that is the case is excuses.

 

 

You're pretty well versed in excuses yourself Kit. Are excuses a sign of failure? Non-existence?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Three years late is better than never. Thank you.

 

Sweaty, for all I know, MK Davis' colour enhancement is fabricated non-reality. The details I see in the image, the eye, the nostrils, the philtrum; these could be as much a creation of MK's as they could be the result of actual detail on Patty. What you keep ignoring as much as you did whenever I pointed out the quote-mining is that in every instance I make perfectly clear that MK's enhancement is questionable and not reliable evidence. Countless times I point this out and countless times make clear that it is only in that heavily modified image that I think any such detail is viewable.

 

Looking at the methods MK Davis uses to extract fine detail from the PGF, I do not see how one can produce details as fine as the philtrum or coloured area of the eye, and that is why I think the single image in which they do appear visible is something highly questionable and can not be used as reliable evidence of anything...

 

 

Yes, I think the coloured area of the eye is visible in the following image...

 

What you will leave out in future quote-mining is that I think it is as likely to be created by the image editor (MK Davis) as it is showing something actually there, and thus is worthless for making any conclusions about the nature of Patty's right eye.

 

 

kitakaze also wrote:

 

I see just what Bob described.....it blew me away when I first saw it.

 

And:

 

 

I claim to be able to detect an eye and I also have good reason to think it may be artificial. 

 

 

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

 

 

Actually, kit.....to be more precise....you claim to be able to detect the "iris and pupil" within the eye.

 

 

Also, I agree with what you said, that larger details should be discernable....(such as the 'arm lengths and proportions')...and, are therefore not necessarily "fabricated non-reality", as you claimed in a sweeping general sense. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Yet even Meldrum could acknowledge that Delone replicated Patty's walk. ThinkerThunker only makes an effort to do the walk without wearing large feet, and instead asks us to do the homework for him.

ThinkerThunker points a lot of highly technical reasons why their is no way really that the IDF footage is a man in a suit. How do you think he got it so wrong? And does he not know shin rise the way you do?

 

BF don't have feet that are out of proportion with their size. Their tracks are large only because they are larger as well. IOW a BF suit should have feet about the same size as the one wearing it.

 

I don't know much about Meldrum. As far as ThinkerThunker, I like him but I think he got fooled by this one. I was under the impression that the IDF was made by Leroy Blevins, not sure where I got that impression, maybe the old FB/FB site. Once you know that BF is actually in fact out there, its easy to ascribe things to it- you have to be doubly on your guard and skeptical of whatever the phenomena is until all other explanations have been ruled out. Shin rise is a good way to filter out most of the junk hoaxes but it is by no means 100%.

 

IOW I think the shin rise in the IDF is a stroke of good luck for the hoaxer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Actually, kit.....to be more precise....you claim to be able to detect the "iris and pupil" within the eye.

 

Is that something I claim to be consistently viewable in multiple frames or is it something I think can be seen in a single frame which I suspect may have been doctored to show details that aren't there?

 

Would you like to force upon me a certainty that I don't have about something I think may be fabricated non-reality?

 

This is exactly what I claim to see in that unreliable image. Are the specific details I talk about (below in bold) not in the image?

 

 

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? I can not possibly engage someone in reasonable discussion where they've obviously decided that personalizing things is better and that they think I'm having them on about Patty's eye.

For those who can remain in the realm of civil and impersonal discussion who think I'm seeing what I want to see, OK, let's address that. Here is what I am seeing...

Bigpattyeye1.jpg

That is how I am seeing Patty's right eye. Now, am I seeing what I want to see? Well, I see an eye shaped area that is for the most part white, with the left portion a few shades darker, and then in the upper left a dark round portion. This looks to me like an eye. I can't tell by any reflections or anything like that if it is a glass eye or an eye like Marty Feldman's - it just looks like an eye looking to the upper right of its field of vision. This to me is consistent with the way Bob described the placement of the glass eye and looks as if Roger over-compensated for the look back by how much he turned the eye.

So to those who suggest I'm seeing what I want to see I ask you, is there not an eye shaped feature on Patty's face with the left portion a few shades darker and the upper left showing a a small, dark area? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

BF don't have feet that are out of proportion with their size. 

 

Patty's height is generally calculated in the area of just over 6 ft. With a foot size of 14.5 inches, that is most certainly disproportionate...

 

frame72.jpg

 

But it is not inhuman, unless chef Gordon Ramsay is a shaved Bigfoot...

 

article-1079222-022E5D70000005DC-561_468

 

He's just over 6 ft and has size 15 feet. Patty's gait as measured by the footprints, however, do not match the film...

 

Bigfeet.jpg

 

 

Shin rise is a good way to filter out most of the junk hoaxes but it is by no means 100%.

 

IOW I think the shin rise in the IDF is a stroke of good luck for the hoaxer. 

 

 

Shin rise is what happens when people put on big feet and pretend to be Bigfoots. I can not stress enough that the idea of shin rise as evidence of Bigfoot is pseudo-science.

 

Watch a whole lot of shin rising in Harry and the Hendersons from 1:34 - 1:48...

 

 

Jeff Pruitt doing it while working on his Patty suit...

 

DfootSuitWalkingAG3.gif

 

Blevins doing it in his suit...

 

 

Letters From the Big Man doing it...

 

Those are not strokes of luck. That is what human legs do in big feet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Patty is not "just over 6 foot". Patty is at least as tall as Jim McClain so she is at least 6'5" tall that is not just over 6". Look at the NFL draft/combine. Johnny Mariel is near or barely 6" tall. Are we to say a 6' 6" offensive lineman is "Just over " Johnny manziel?

I would put patty at 6'6" tall would be my estimate. Just like the offensive lineman, she is massive. I would not put her at just over 6' tall.

Her foot is reasonable for her size. Look at the NBA players and their foot size. This will give an idea generally for a point of reference.

As a 6'4" tall person I have size 14 feet and yet I do not walk barefoot for a living or weigh 700 lbs.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

Watch a whole lot of shin rising in Harry and the Hendersons from 1:34 - 1:48...

 

 

Jeff Pruitt doing it while working on his Patty suit...

 

 

Blevins doing it in his suit...

 

 

 

Letters From the Big Man doing it...

 

 

Those are not strokes of luck. That is what human legs do in big feet. 

 

So you're trying to state that those were all done accidentally and not attributed to replication?

 

The Henderson's scene looks like you have 'shin rise' because of walking through brush. People have a natural tendency to lift their feet higher when walking through vegetation in order to clear it. That's why you see a combination of shin rise and regular steps. If it were attributed to wearing big feet it would be consistent.

 

All the other videos appear that they're deliberately trying to walk like Patty.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

Patty looks to be a creature of nature. I have always said though if for any reason it was a hoax the walk was NOT rehearsed and just a side effect of the foot in the costume.  I base that on watching people walk in flippers for the toe area must clear the floor. The result is the heel must come up closer to the buttock:

 

 

 

 I contend the PGF is a creature of nature for many reasons.  But, I would suggest a possible reason for the 'walk' if fake.       

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Patty is at least as tall as Jim McClain so she is at least 6'5" tall that is not just over 6". 

 

 

896149ab4ae788f13.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...