Jump to content

What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?


Squatchy McSquatch
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, norseman said:

While yer counting pixels on a 50 YEAR OLD film?

 

That only applies to WHICH pixels one is counting. If someone is counting any pixels they had better be the pixels that really matter. Until the distance from the camera to Patty is nailed down then pixel count for say height is arbitrary. As far as pixel counting goes it truly only works when comparing Patty's pixels to Patty's pixels in the same film frame. And as confusing to some as that may sound? It is the ONLY way forward in this or any other PGF discussion/debate. Do that and the smoke will clear........or.......continue doing what you are doing for.......how long now?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That only applies to WHICH pixels one is counting. If someone is counting any pixels they had better be the pixels that really matter. Until the distance from the camera to Patty is nailed down then pixel count for say height is arbitrary. As far as pixel counting goes it truly only works when comparing Patty's pixels to Patty's pixels in the same film frame. And as confusing to some as that may sound? It is the ONLY way forward in this or any other PGF discussion/debate. Do that and the smoke will clear........or.......continue doing what you are doing for.......how long now?   

 

That's not true, hiflier. 

 

Relative measurements can, and have been, made on Patty....that have a high degree of accuracy, and reliability. The proportion of the arm is one area in which 'relative' measurements are very meaningful/significant....despite the uncertainty in Patty's 'body height'. 

 

For example. the location of Patty's elbow-joint is very well defined, in this 2-frame animation...

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Bob-AG2.gif

 

 

No 'distance to the camera'.....no 'camera lens'....no 'body height' information needed. Also not needed...and not used....'hand extensions'.  :) 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

It is no more ridiculous for a Bigfoot scoftic to argue with a proponent, xspider....than it is for a Bigfoot proponent to argue with a scoftic.  They are equally ridiculous....(since it takes two to argue.)

 

 

I'm not arguing with McSquatch, Sweaty.  I don't know where you keep getting that idea, but I just have to say that your crusade towards trying to determine who should engage who is getting very tiresome.  You have made some good effort towards indicating the truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film :thumbsup:, but you are not getting anywhere in your attempts to ignore the scofftics.  In fact, you seem to highlight their condescension more than others (and your repeated references to what kitakaze said and did years ago are annoying.)  Let's just move on and just let everyone be themselves, ok.

 

On another note:  I really don't get the comments here from some folks who keep telling us over and over that the PGf doesn't really mean much.  The PGf is the best single piece of evidence that we have to date of Bigfoot and some of us are very interested in it.  And, this is the Patterson-Gimlin Film subforum of the BFF for Pete's sake!  :huh:

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said what many are thinking. Very commendable and done in a respectful manner. 

You are correct also that the awesome film is the best evidence and that  is problematic. 

Even the best evidence does not constitute proof. Well written papers such as the one provided in the link he posted doesn't either.  It is nothing more than an editorial of a theoretical opinion. 

Having said that even with all the opinions, beliefs and  anecdotal evidence. There is enough that  the subject is interesting and certainly worthy of further study. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xspider1 said:

 

 

I'm not arguing with McSquatch, Sweaty.  I don't know where you keep getting that idea, but I just have to say that your crusade towards trying to determine who should engage who is getting very tiresome.  You have made some good effort towards indicating the truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film :thumbsup:, but you are not getting anywhere in your attempts to ignore the scofftics.  In fact, you seem to highlight their condescension more than others (and your repeated references to what kitakaze said and did years ago are annoying.)  Let's just move on and just let everyone be themselves, ok.

 

On another note:  I really don't get the comments here from some folks who keep telling us over and over that the PGf doesn't really mean much.  The PGf is the best single piece of evidence that we have to date of Bigfoot and some of us are very interested in it.  And, this is the Patterson-Gimlin Film subforum of the BFF for Pete's sake!  :huh:

 

 

I have no problem with you talking about the PGF. OF COURSE!

 

I have a problem with SY raking a FIELD RESEARCHER over the coals about his opinion of the PGF when the OP ASKED FOR IT........

 

For pete sake! If Squatchy as a scofftic has the right to say that the PGF is a ridiculous HOAX!!!??? Then by golly Nathan has the right to say that for him the film has lost some of its luster!!!!?? Are you kidding me??? That kid has earned his spurs........

 

Now matter what subforum we are in? The next big piece of evidence is gonna come from someone just like Nathan. Who is out humping the brush!!! The next break through is still out there in the dark timber and jagged peaks. I think the forum too often forgets this.

 

SY acts like this is his sub forum, and only his opinion counts and thats why I have him on ignore. And thats why Im defending Nathan, and why I would defend ANY hard working field researcher SY pounces on. 

 

They ARE the future, not the PGF, no matter how compelling it is.....

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

I'm not arguing with McSquatch, Sweaty.  I don't know where you keep getting that idea, but I just have to say that your crusade towards trying to determine who should engage who is getting very tiresome.  You have made some good effort towards indicating the truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film :thumbsup:, but you are not getting anywhere in your attempts to ignore the scofftics. 

 

 

Well, then call it 'responding' to the scoftics, xspider.....if that's more accurate. 

 

 

Quote

 I just have to say that your crusade towards trying to determine who should engage who is getting very tiresome. 

 

More tiresome than the "contributions" of the scoftics, trolls, and BS artists......that you keep responding to??  ;) 

 

 

Quote

In fact, you seem to highlight their condescension more than others (and your repeated references to what kitakaze said and did years ago are annoying.)  Let's just move on and just let everyone be themselves, ok.

 

Including the scoftics, and trolls?? :)   Keep in mind, xspider....that it is the responses which keep them here, and posting.

 

It makes for a forum filled with meaningless, worthless, garbage posts....along with all of the responses, to the garbage. All it accomplishes is to bury the worthwhile analysis.

 

That is apparently what some proponents think this forum is all about....wait for a scoffer to post some garbage...and then respond to it.

 

How about setting the 'bar' a little higher, xspider.....and ignoring the scoffers, and their garbage.....and instead......start conversations with your fellow proponents...and occasionally re-post some of the valuable/true analysis.

 

Lately, I have been posting on a Bigfoot discussion forum which has no skeptics, scoftics and trolls on it.....and the conversations there are quite nice/friendly......and are productive. We have no need of a scoffer, or a BS artist. 

 

It's kinda like swimming in a nice, clean pool....rather than swimming in a sewer.  :)  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

That's not true, hiflier. 

 

Relative measurements can, and have been, made on Patty....that have a high degree of accuracy, and reliability. The proportion of the arm is one area in which 'relative' measurements are very meaningful/significant....despite the uncertainty in Patty's 'body height'.

 

And evidently THAT'S not true or else science WOULD have sat up and taken notice- a long time ago. A 'high degree of accuracy' MUST be applied yes, but evidently limb proportions have not been considered critical enough to warrant scientific mainstream activity at the level one thinks it should be at. This isn't to say that your or anyone else's efforts are not commendable because they are. All I am saying is that after all of that effort something apparently is falling short of gaining traction with science.

 

Even scientists who have invested a lot of their time into the Sasquatch subject have not been accepted by their mainstream peers. So with all due respect, in spite of all the time and work there obviously needs to be some other approach because to date conviction by science on the reality of what is on the PGF is all but non-existent. That should be telling everyone in a loud voice that some other avenue must be pursued. Bill Munns is on the right track with trying to get closer to the cibachromes but even that will fall short unless the right kind of investigation is used.

 

I am not belittling anyone. All I am saying is apply what we know differently. Personally I am not good enough to do that. Others are.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 11:51 AM, NathanFooter said:

 

 I don't invest much time advocating for the PGF, it is a waste of time as it will not never hold enough water to tip the scales.

 

 I prefer advocating for operating under scientific principles such as the following. 

 

 1: Study all available information of a topic ( this should take a while ).

 2: Take a stance/make a claim.

 3: Present evidence supporting your claim.

 4: Absorb counter evidence.

 5: Present against the counter evidence ( test the metal ) OR head back to the drawing board.

 

  I see a claim up there and it also clear your are open to discussion, perhaps a different thread would be a better place for you to present your evidence.

 

  Back to the real topic at hand.    I watched the Sasquatch Legend Meets Science doc when I was a kid and thought the PG film was interesting but nothing about it grabbed me at the time.   

 

  The film gained more of my attention after my sighting in 2009 and in more recent years my interest in the film has dropped off.

 

My interest lies in the PGF. I've made that abundantly clear.

 

I'm not home-schooled, I don't believe your sighting to be accurate, and I choose a different viewpoint on BF. We cannot have any have any sort of dialogue because I would have to mollify your beliefs -- as whole -- with the general overall absence in the very Creature you Stand for. 

 

And you'll tell me to look at muh Evidence and we can go ;round and 'round again.

 

Here's how the BF community treated the 'G' in the 'PGF' on its 50th anniversary. Disgraceful...

 

 

Nathan you can't separate the PGF from Bigfoot, and there's no Bigfoot to be found.

 

I appreciate what Roger Patterson did. I don't bleeve it and I don't have to. It still happened and it was an awesome occurrence. It was a work. It was kayfabe. Carny talk. Rog was a Carny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2018 at 7:01 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

My interest lies in the PGF. I've made that abundantly clear.

 

I'm not home-schooled, I don't believe your sighting to be accurate, and I choose a different viewpoint on BF. We cannot have any have any sort of dialogue because I would have to mollify your beliefs -- as whole -- with the general overall absence in the very Creature you Stand for. 

 

And you'll tell me to look at muh Evidence and we can go ;round and 'round again.

 

Here's how the BF community treated the 'G' in the 'PGF' on its 50th anniversary. Disgraceful...

 

 

Nathan you can't separate the PGF from Bigfoot, and there's no Bigfoot to be found.

 

I appreciate what Roger Patterson did. I don't bleeve it and I don't have to. It still happened and it was an awesome occurrence. It was a work. It was kayfabe. Carny talk. Rog was a Carny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   I don't care if people believe my story because it is just that, a long and detailed story. 

 

   I have no proof that it happened so I am not going to preach that Bigfoot is / isn't  real because I think so.   This seems to be more of your territory, don't you think ?

 

   We have talked about assumptions in another thread Squatchy, you need to be able to remove the person from the conversation and address with logical points.

 

   Rolling around a post stating " I don't believe you because I don't believe in Bigfoot " does not follow any standard and simply puts you at risk of sounding ridiculous.  

 

   If you spend time on a forum about Bigfoot and make a claim, be prepared to defend it with a legitimate answer.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

And evidently THAT'S not true or else science WOULD have sat up and taken notice- a long time ago. A 'high degree of accuracy' MUST be applied yes, but evidently limb proportions have not been considered critical enough to warrant scientific mainstream activity at the level one thinks it should be at. This isn't to say that your or anyone else's efforts are not commendable because they are. All I am saying is that after all of that effort something apparently is falling short of gaining traction with science.

 

 

The shortcoming lies with the recipients of the analysis, hiflier....not with the analytical findings, themselves.   The pro-Bigfoot details seen on Patty are more than sufficient to come to a definitive conclusion, that she was a real, live creature. 

 

As has been seen in the past, with major new discoveries.....'Paradigm shifts' do not come about easily. 

Here is an excerpt from an article, about the issue...

 

"1. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community."

 

 https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

 

 

 

Quote

So with all due respect, in spite of all the time and work there obviously needs to be some other approach because to date conviction by science on the reality of what is on the PGF is all but non-existent. That should be telling everyone in a loud voice that some other avenue must be pursued.

 

Again, hiflier...there's nothing wrong with the approach that has been taken.  :) 

 

Patty's right calf contracts/bulges....her right thigh muscles contract/bulge....her toes lift upwards....her fingers curl.....her upper-arm is exceptionally long...her forearm exceptionally short.....she ain't got no extensions on her hands.....her eyebrows lift.....her jaw and lips move....the sides of her buttocks move independently....(do you need more?).....and, she ain't got no folds/wrinkles...........to go along with all the tight/realistic 'body contour'.  

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol!  That is not an "image of Bigfoot", McSquatch.  Your posts are getting sillier by the minute.  This topic has devolved into anything but "What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?" and I'm just about done with it.  I can't say that I'm surprised where this has gone considering the OP, but it is very disappointing.  There is just no intelligent discussion to be had with some I guess.  :mellow: 

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

....(do you need more?).....

 

Thank you for being patient with me, SY, but it's not me who needs more. I've seen all of those things because of your and Mr. Munns' and others' work. My point though is rather to push something into the face of science that is readily obvious. To an anatomist? Sure the arm proportions are off. The 'suit shows moving muscles and external features that also move. I'm not the one who needs convincing of that.

 

Could anyone for once though, since all of Patty's other intermembral indexes have been noted, please turn their attention and expertise to this wide shoulder issue? Granted it is difficult and a good detailed photo of the full back of Patty needs to be available but in the case of this one particular subject there is no need to see muscle movement or toe or mouth detail. The back side images are somewhat fuzzy, yes, but all that is needed are the pixel counts to give a reasonable estimate of the shoulder span-to-height ratio. I have already done that but some corroboration would be helpful. I need to know if I did this correctly even though there is apparently no such thing as a stabilized version of the PGF in the entire Patty walking away sequence. In truth I do not understand why M.K. Davis stopped the work where he did, especially if he was aware of Dr. Krantz' statement regarding how wide Patty's shoulders to the point of giving a numerical figure for their size.

 

To me Grover had done the work and had I known it I would have just brought the work forward but I wasn't aware of it when this whole thing jumped into my head. SweatyYeti, in my estimation THIS is what needs to be focused on as the most blatantly obvious piece of PGF evidence, especially when one uses the Stabilized PGF to show the natural hang and swing of the arm movement coupled with the elbow bend location. Something that together with shoulder span cannot be ignored. It's been 20+ years since Dr. Krantz issued his statement regarding this particular feature. It must be addressed if for no other reason that to strengthen his credibility among his anthropological peers.

 

No one is going to believe this except someone who knows how I operate when I truly think something is significant. I wrote to Dr. Jane Goodall  explaining the issue a couple of days go. 'Nuff said. I did that because after I don't know how many months, and Dr. Krantz' 20+ years, I just think this gets shoved under the rug because I get the impression that even though people agree no one seems to be treating it as being as important as arm or leg indexing. I never saw Kitikaze bring it up once. Nor anyone else really for that matter. It may be just me but I think the shoulder span issue is MORE important than the other body indexes. It is for sure not less. And with that I will bring it up no more on any thread, even the ones I had begun just for discussing the subject.

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 11:05 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

 

Relative measurements can, and have been, made on Patty....that have a high degree of accuracy, and reliability. The proportion of the arm is one area in which 'relative' measurements are very meaningful/significant....despite the uncertainty in Patty's 'body height'. 

 

For example. the location of Patty's elbow-joint is very well defined, in this 2-frame animation...

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Bob-AG2.gif

 

 

No 'distance to the camera'.....no 'camera lens'....no 'body height' information needed. Also not needed...and not used....'hand extensions'.  :) 

 

 

 

 

 

This point never gets the attention it deserves.   It seems some elaborate fudging of images is needed to fit a person into a suit which would have Patty's pivot points.  We then hear long shot things (that still don't work) like hand extensions and sticks to extend the arm.  When that doesn't work we hear about how the blur of the image makes it too hard to work out as a problem. The crinkle up the paper and throw the math problem in the trash while declaring, "We tried".   

 

Even on these Bigfoot shows when the PGF is mentioned they don't seem to mention this much.  On one of these Munns was taking a diagram of a man and trying to fit it into a suit.  When the knees fit, the Elbows and other things did not line up. When the Elbows fit the knees and other things did not line up.

 

I would like to see more focus on this.  If the skeptics can make it work I will accept it.   It's Cinderella.  The shoe must fit and you can't just cram it in there.  A man fitted into a suit still needs to move in a functional way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to some extent but there are a lot of variations in humans of relative proportions of arms and legs especially.    Now and then you see a human with proportions well outside the norm.     Leg length in proportion to body length is the most obvious in humans.    Short people tend to have short legs.   When we do get modern video we can compare proportions of that subject with Patty.     WIth both a face to face encounter or a video with an adult bigfoot, especially a female BF,  the first thing I would do are all imaginable comparisons.   While some might be reasonably accurate,  I do not give a whole lot of trust to all the artist interpretations of witnesses that are floating around.   We see from illustrations of wanted humans,  while there may be some resemblance,  often times they are not very accurate.    Unless someone has daily interactions with BF, I suspect most artist renderings are influenced by other ones the artist has seen.  . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...