Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

PBeaton

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...

 

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 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.

kitakaze,

 

With regard to Napier's opinion on height an stride, Jeff had this to say, from his book, pg. 165

 

"For example, Napier expressed disapproval of what he saw as incongruence between the film subject's height and the length of its feet. He determined on the basis of a simple formula (stature=foot length x 6.6)that a foot of between 14 and 15 inches in length indicates a stature of between 7'8" and 8'3", a range considerably higher than most estimates. This simplified formula does not account for expected variation present within a human population and it further assumes that a similar relationship holds true for a different and markedly larger species." 

 

Your example of Gordon Ramsay is a good example of the variation present within the human population.

 

If as you suggest shin rise is a result of what happens when wearin' big feet, why does Pruitt forget to do it in his very next step with his left foot(I don't yet know how to do things with video, so just used one of my cameras that snaps 8 pics in just over a second or so?) ? Why doesn't Harry do it here at the 2:34 mark ? Why not Blevins at 2:26 ?

 

As you said, not strokes of luck, but simply an effort to replicate in most cases in my opinion. 

 

Pat...

post-279-0-87061000-1406244803_thumb.png

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would simply like to bring to everyone's attention one overlooked fact, and that is the sheer volume of data we are working with is rather overwhelming, and so some crossed wires isn't in any way suspicious. A lot has changed about our perception of the PGF in the last 6 years, and some confusion is inevitable as we refocus our analysis in ways nobody before ever anticipated.

 

I feel good science does have to be very open to changes of conclusion based on new analysis, and a good researcher should not be afraid to change his conclusion when new data supports a different result, but sometimes there is confusion from those revisions of conclusion. It's the dogmatic minds who lock into an idea and never let go I worry about. Unfortunately, when conclusions evolve, we do see people who may sincerely but erroniously reference back to a prior conclusion.

 

But I will bring this up to Jeff when he visits me in August for some work we are doing together.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

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

 

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...

Nailed! If Ramsay has 14.5 inch feet, why doesn't he walk with a 90 deg shin rise? Ans: because the "flipper" effect is BUNK! Otherwise, why would Bob H do it? Ans: he wouldn't. EOS.

Edited by salubrious
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

What I think does need some investigating....especially in light of Bill Munns' upcoming book...(supposedly proving Patty was a real creature, on multiple points, according to Bill).....is kitakaze's claim of "having seen the Patty suit".

 

Does not Bill's finding mean, definitively, that kitakaze's claim is false?

 

In fact, I would even request that the Administrators of the Forum investigate kit's claim....to determine if this is a case of fraud.

 

 

I'm requesting that the Administrators make it their "witch hunt"....based on 'probable cause'....found within Bill's breakthrough book... :)

 

This is highly interesting to me. Fraud is criminal deception done in order to secure unlawful financial or personal gain. The suit first seen by BrentD in 2008 was believed by him to be a replica vs the actual PGF suit. It has been suggested countless times that that same suit I saw was "a" suit rather than "the" suit. Also suggested was that I was myself duped into thinking the suit first seen by BrentD was the PGF costume. The personal information you're constantly trying to get me to post on the BFF was given to Bill over a year and a half ago for him to investigate to whatever extent he was able.

 

What you're suggesting is criminal activity on my part. Assuming Bill's book makes various arguments purported to be proof of the PGF's authenticity, and let's say that it even actually rises to the level of broad and unanimous acceptance as being proof; how then would that equate evidence of fraud on my part?

 

Also, what responsibility do you think BFF administration has in the matter?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

If as you suggest shin rise is a result of what happens when wearin' big feet, why does Pruitt forget to do it in his very next step with his left foot(I don't yet know how to do things with video, so just used one of my cameras that snaps 8 pics in just over a second or so?) ? Why doesn't Harry do it here at the 2:34 mark ? Why not Blevins at 2:26 ?

 

As you said, not strokes of luck, but simply an effort to replicate in most cases in my opinion. 

 

Pat, that part from the Harry and the Henderson tv series shows Harry taking small, slow steps while looking up holding a watch. 2:26 on Blevins' footage shows his very first step when his son says, "Go!" The smaller the step, the less the shine rise, as is the case with Jeff and every other costume wearer, as is the case with Patty...

Bigpattylockknee.jpg

 

mU0ZNp.gif

 

504094_orig.gif

 

ThinkerThunker argues for the reality of both the PGF and IDF based on similar shin rise. If you think the examples I have shown are of people simply copying that movement...

 

...it's not very reliable evidence for determining Bigfoot, is it?

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Perhaps fraud is a strong word, how about deliberate misinformation? I will go out on a limb here and say it as I see it, I mean after all that is what we do with hoaxers and other wild claims on the proponent side, right?  So I would think when we encounter the MikeP's of the skeptical side we are within our rights to do the same.....yes? I think its time to call a spade a spade here,and label the whole suit thing for exactly what it is, a hoax. Its nothing more than some "technique" to sway based on the internet skeptic standard of make a claim, then later revisited as if it where fact. I think skeptical sided wild claims, and obvious dishonesty should be met with the same level of contempt and discredit as it is on the proponent side. 

 

 

So let me get this straight: Meldrum is saying 7'3"+ 4 years after the  retraction by the person whom Meldrum has partnered with and published, yet he is not aware of the revision and I'm the one whose mistaken?

 

Okay. Sure thing.

 Yes that is correct McSquatch, this is not a court of law where you bring up a technicality, a glitch, and think its going to stick with some sort of relevance. There may be other forums where that kind of behavior is encouraged, or even admired, but here it really on reveals the character of those who attempt it.

Edited by JohnC
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Nailed! If Ramsay has 14.5 inch feet, why doesn't he walk with a 90 deg shin rise? Ans: because the "flipper" effect is BUNK! Otherwise, why would Bob H do it? Ans: he wouldn't. EOS.

 

I'm surprised it did not occur to you the fact that Ans: because all 15 inches of Gordon Ramsay's feet are his actual feet. Being 6 ft and having size 15 feet will not make you walk with a shin rise. Walking in long strides in large feet which project beyond your own feet will do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised it did not occur to you the fact that Ans: because all 15 inches of Gordon Ramsay's feet are his actual feet. Being 6 ft and having size 15 feet will not make you walk with a shin rise. Walking in long strides in large feet which project beyond your own feet will do that.

 It will do more than that, and try it without locking your knee's, but then you already know this is not an accurate statement. As a matter of fact Kit, lets see you do some actual research for a change. Put on some over sized feet and for  a walk in the sand. Film it. Demonstrate for us, show us some science. I would like to see you prove your point.

Edited by JohnC
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 Perhaps fraud is a strong word, how about deliberate misinformation? I will go out on a limb here and say it as I see it, I mean after all that is what we do with hoaxers and other wild claims on the proponent side, right?  So I would think when we encounter the MikeP's of the skeptical side we are within our rights to do the same.....yes? I think its time to call a spade a spade here,and label the whole suit thing for exactly what it is, a hoax. Its nothing more than some "technique" to sway based on the internet skeptic standard of make a claim, then later revisited as if it where fact. I think skeptical sided wild claims, and obvious dishonesty should be met with the same level of contempt and discredit as it is on the proponent side. 

 

There is no skeptic posting here that accepts my claim of having seen a suit as fact. Deliberate misinformation, dishonesty, however you'd like to define it, I'm quite fine with those things being alleged, and why would I expect any different? The same accusations were made of BrentD when he posted about seeing the suit, and yet he only was believing what he saw to be a replica and where could he get one. The immediate suspicion was that he was trying to "stir the pot." Bill at the time at least had the sense to suspect the person might have actually been telling the truth and offered to investigate if the suit was in California, which it was not.

 

This is the same fashion in which I first came into contact with Bob Heironimus, by following the lead of a young, barely literate person who claimed to be in touch with Bob. All others dismissed his claim and he just happened to be telling the truth.

 

I expect you to think seeing a suit is a fabricated claim. I'm not offended by any such allegation. I would simply ask when and how it was fabricated. Did I make it up? Did Brent make it up? Did we do this independently? If I was making the whole thing up, why would I give Bill everything one would need to expose me if in fact I had made everything up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I expect you to think seeing a suit is a fabricated claim. I'm not offended by any such allegation. I would simply ask when and how it was fabricated. Did I make it up? Did Brent make it up? Did we do this independently? If I was making the whole thing up, why would I give Bill everything one would need to expose me if in fact I had made everything up?

 Well since you asked......I think Brent may have seen something, maybe even a suit of some sort, who knows? I think you capitalized on his claim, maybe even pursued it a little, and then just went ahead and assumed, embellished, exaggerated with out a care in the word, because you never intended to produce it. You just wanted the story out there. Some people argue this topic like politics, looking to "sway" opinion, like a numbers game, thinking that percentages of public opinion mean something in the Bigfoot world. I do not know if Bill has enough to expose you, after all, he has seen no suit, so what exactly could he expose, that would prove you a hoaxer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

John, my claim is hardly known beyond Bigfoot enthusiast circles and therein dismissed by most. That  would not be a very successful deception. Bill knows exactly who I was in contact with, how I came in contact, and under what circumstances. All one would have to do were I making everything up would be to make contact themselves and confirm or deny my own connection. Seeing the suit would not even be necessary had I invented such a suit existing, but simply going to the source.

 

Unless you think I've nefariously colluded with others to make the world think a suit exists. My only interest is in reliable evidence and investigating claims of such. To this extent I've not produced such for a PGF suit. I went as far with it as I was able, and when able to get no farther, gave it to someone else to try and do so. By all means, believe that to be a hoax, but the fact that both I and then Bill have had to deal with is that the person who owns the suit is not inclined to expose the hoax and their involvement in it. 

 

I did far more than pursue a little BrentD's claim. If you thought that may have been the actual PGF suit, would you not have pursued it as best you could?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 You make it sound as if it would be a complicated deception, when really it would not. It would be easy to contact Brent, and he says, hey I saw a suit. Maybe even showed you the infamous cell phone picture, and you express interest in pursuing this. However Brent does not, for what ever reasons he has, most probably because he realizes how unlikely it really is its "the" suit, or he is more likely aware for certain it is not. So contact is out of the question, because he would be exposing his own lie. That works wonderfully for you, if you are providing disinformation, for what ever reasons you may have. Any discussion you may have had with Brent could be claimed as supporting the claim, etc.

 

 This is not a far fetched assumption of some sort of mass collusion Kit, and I am not going to have a long drawn out discussion about it. My intention was simply to express my views on the suit story, and to address the reality that there are obviously hoaxers and story tellers on the skeptical side as well, the proponents do not hold an exclusive on that kind of behavior. 

 

 I am also hugely off topic, my apologies for that.

 

So more on topic, how about putting on those oversize feet and mimicking Patty's walk on sand for us? I want to see if your knee's lock, or if they stay bent, while doing this.

Edited by JohnC
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

This is highly interesting to me. Fraud is criminal deception done in order to secure unlawful financial or personal gain. 

 

 

Here are two of the meanings of the word 'fraud'...

 

2. A particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud;election frauds.
3. Any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and awaste of time.

 

 In my usage of the word 'fraud'....I mean a moral crime, against humanity....i.e....Patty. 

 

 

 

The suit first seen by BrentD in 2008 was believed by him to be a replica vs the actual PGF suit. It has been suggested countless times that that same suit I saw was "a" suit rather than "the" suit. Also suggested was that I was myself duped into thinking the suit first seen by BrentD was the PGF costume. The personal information you're constantly trying to get me to post on the BFF was given to Bill over a year and a half ago for him to investigate to whatever extent he was able.

 

What you're suggesting is criminal activity on my part. Assuming Bill's book makes various arguments purported to be proof of the PGF's authenticity, and let's say that it even actually rises to the level of broad and unanimous acceptance as being proof; how then would that equate evidence of fraud on my part?

 

 

Actually, I would suggest looking-up the meanings of words....on occasion. :)

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Also, what responsibility do you think BFF administration has in the matter?  

 

 

Given this claim of Bill's, regarding the analysis in his book...

 

 

 

I think you'll find numerous elements that rule out a person in a costume to a certainty. I think you will also find that every consideration for a hoax is defeated in no uncertain terms.

 

 

....we have, at the very least...'probable cause' that your claim is false...and possibly fraudulent.

 

So, what responsibility should an Administrator of a Bigfoot Forum have, when faced with 'probable cause' that one of it's members has made a fraudulent claim of "having found the Patty suit"....and of "having three confessions" relating to the Film???

 

Maybe none. Who am I to say? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Unless you think I've nefariously colluded with others to make the world think a suit exists. 

 

 

One thing I know for sure....back in 2010, when you talked about "dropping the hammer on Bigfootery"....I predicted that you never would. And I was right... :)

 

 

Btw, what was the "Bombshell" that you "received" from Bob Heironimus...the guy who is lying about being Patty? :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

SW, while we are both in agreement about the suit being a hoax (and that the fact of it was obvious as soon as it was announced) what we don't know (and likely never will) is who committed the hoax.  So its probably enough said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...