hiflier Posted October 29, 2017 Author Posted October 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Trogluddite said: Congratulations Hiflier. That's a novel approach and I don't see much that can be argued against it. (Checks calendar, puts the over/under on 2.5 days before someone tries to debunk the idea.) Edited to add: My wife measured my shoulders. I'm 71.5 +/- 1/4" inches tall, with a 20" shoulder width. That is, my height is 3.575 times greater than my shoulder width. Makes me quite the piker compared to Patty. Yeah, feeling like a bit of a pip-squeak my self these days. 59 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: For a theory to be accepted by others, the support for it needs to be sufficiently noncontroversial. You might have a theory that’s correct, and properly supported, but that won’t neccesarily lead to others having the understanding of it as you. If this were not the case, many phenomena such as this one would not be a mystery. So true O.S.so I have asked other to help verify the approach with some good numbers. Mid you this doesn't need an actual known height to work sine any proportions can be weighed against a ratio. Nailing down a fairly precise ratio of width to height would be the goal. Then no matter the height used, which should be between 6 and 7 feet, within a foot or so. The firmed up ratio will then determine the shoulder span for any given height. In other words the ratio, even as it stands now, shows and will show that Patty's total shoulder span is far outside that of Humans. The next phase would be could a Human duplicate Patty's arm motions as seen in say a stabilized version of the PGF? Unless a 6 foot Human has a shoulder span of 28-30 inches then the answer to that question is NO a Human cannot. And Bob Hieronimus, who claimed to be the one wearing the Patty 'suit', is definitely out of the running. As am I and, apparently, as is Trogluddite
Cotter Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 On 10/29/2017 at 7:05 AM, Patterson-Gimlin said: You are well informed and you get it. No declaration by anyone is meaningful. Just an opinion. Even physical evidence that may or may not be manipulated simply will not do. I have read ,researched and spent countless hours outdoors. Spoken to eyewitnesses that includes friends and others. As we both know the only evidence that can't be picked apart is a specimen that can be examined, tested and retested. . Then and only then can the creature become reality and documented. Of course the chances of that occurring at this point is highly unlikely. "most serious investigators would contend that the science starts once you have a question, followed by observation, and the accumulation of data. Each of these detractions begs the question of evidentiary substance that motivates investigation, and instead either off-handedly dismisses all evidence, or demands conclusive proof up front, a priori. That is hardly the method or process of explorative science." -Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum- 1
hiflier Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 57 minutes ago, Cotter said: ......and instead either off-handedly dismisses all evidence..... Key word in Dr. Meldrum's statement is "ALL" evidence. As far as I can see, at least lately is that ALL evidence has not been logically investigated. In other words, IMHO, ALL the evidence is in the PGF. It has everything one needs in order to draw a conclusion. But ALL the aspects of the creature in the film had not been prominently investigated if the current dialogue regarding Patty's existence as a real creature has not been settled. Only past experts had brought up shoulder span but for some odd reason the significance of that aspect of the creature has not been realized as being to one thing that cannot be ignored. It's the one thing that settles the issue. More needs to be done, but only in the area of determining the best way of showing the truth of the matter. No one can deny that there is a lot riding on this. Is it important enough to concentrate any efforts into it? Oh yes it is because it goes far beyond mechanisms such as arm extensions, sticks inside of suits with fake hands at the ends of them, padding of any kind, and other types of prosthetics that would of had to have been thought of before anyone ever picked up the film camera. Besides, none of those solutions would have resulted in anything looking natural like what is demonstrated in the PGF. This is worth an all out investigation into the matter because even my somewhat primitive investigation has already shown what should be obvious as far as not being able to fake Patty. It's even more obvious in the stabilized version of the film. Patty's motion compared with Patty's shoulder width truly says it all. And that's what a new, current, logic and focus should be aimed at. This thread will be a week old tomorrow. So far, no detractors. That says something. 2
Cotter Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, hiflier said: This thread will be a week old tomorrow. So far, no detractors. That says something. I noticed that.
hiflier Posted October 30, 2017 Author Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) True. But sometimes I see them here as too. Ah well...... Edited October 30, 2017 by hiflier
hiflier Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) Read up some on the Western Lowland Gorilla. Full grown male stands erect at just under 6 feet tall. He also has an arm span of 8 feet. This does not imply wide shoulders though. A 6 foot Human male has an arm span of about 6 feet. So a WLL Gorilla's arm span is two feet wider than a Human's but it's arm is also longer than a Human male's by a foot. A little math shows that even though the WLL Gorilla's arm span is wider, because it's arms are longer it still only has a total shoulder span that is about the same as a Human. I think this is important to know because people make Gorilla costumes and have made them since just after Gorillas were discovered to exist. Bob Hieronimus supposedly had one that he wore for the filming of the PGF that he said he modified. But since the width of Patty rules him out as a contender in a suit the story is meaningless. I thought it relevant anyway though to bring up the dimensions of the Western Lowland Gorilla because it means that Humans can't even make a Gorilla suit correctly if it's going to fit a Human. The arms of the suit would have to be a foot shorter and the legs longer. I've looked at a lot of Gorilla suits lately, even the one that Philip Morris is saying is a replica of Patty. None of the costumes are not even close to what Patty looked like. But most of the public doesn't know that so for them it's easy to show a costume to them and then say, "See? Hoaxing Patty was a piece of cake, anyone can do it". Edited October 31, 2017 by hiflier 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted November 2, 2017 Posted November 2, 2017 On 10/29/2017 at 4:41 PM, MIB said: That, too, is just an opinion. MIB Yep. I agree.
hiflier Posted November 12, 2017 Author Posted November 12, 2017 OK, I have not added to this thread for about a week and a half but I haven't been idle either. I wrote to an anthropologist/zoologist who specializes in vertebrates. He was a nice guy and if he was an eye roller it he didn't come across as one in his correspondence. He also said I wasn't the first one to inquire about things cryptozoological but since his expertise was in fish and amphibians he wasn't in a position to comment on anything atypical in the field of primate comparative anatomies. Also that he didn't know anyone on campus who was either. He went on to say that since that wasn't his field of study he was no in a position to adequately point me into direction of a qualified institution for comparative primate anatomy. Anyone have any ideas or know someone who would be of any help locating such an institution or person that is in that particular field? I'll keep looking but thought I'd ask
hiflier Posted November 13, 2017 Author Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) Thanks, Norseman. Perfect. OK, just now got a message off to them. Thanks again, Norseman Edited November 13, 2017 by hiflier
Guest DFinTx Posted December 12, 2017 Posted December 12, 2017 Hiflier, I like your thinking on the shoulder width. Excellent job of thinking outside of the box. I admit I haven't been interested in Patti and the existence of BF for long, but I've crammed in a whole lot of study in the short time of my obsession and haven't seen anyone else take that angle (even if some have). In my opinion, that piece of evidence alone would be more convincing to the lay person that the individual in the Patterson-Gimlin film is not a person than its mid-tarsal break, musculature, tracks, and so on. Good stuff!
hiflier Posted December 13, 2017 Author Posted December 13, 2017 Thanks for the kind words. Can't take the credit though after I ran across Dr. Grover Krantz' mention of it back in the mid 1990's a few weeks ago. That's what I get for not doing my research before I open my big mouth All of those other points that you mentioned are just as important as it's everything added together that really creates the amazing enigma that is Patty. But the kicker is why does it take 'citizen science' to work this out? Getting the brush off from mainstream science has becoming more and more intriguing to me though some would perhaps use a different word for it.
Talmadge Mooseman Posted February 9, 2018 Posted February 9, 2018 There is an animated gif on the BFRO website that is posted to show muscle movement on Patty. It is here: http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/expeds_2018.asp To me, what I notice is a "belt" of fur that goes around the waist into the inverted "V" at the lower back. It appears that this fur belt is used to disguise an upper torso part of a suit that is separate from the lower portion and legs. There does not appear to be much vertical or diagonal stretching of musculature above and below the "belt" as one would expect as she walks. Instead it appears that the torso piece is rotating, outside and separately from the buttocks/leg piece, much like a larger pipe (the torso) would swivel around a slightly smaller fitted pipe inside of it (the legs). There are a lot of things about the Patty film that are compelling in terms of authenticity, but this is one aspect would indicate hoax. 3
Recommended Posts