Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Implications Of Herniation

Recommended Posts

Guest nycBig

where did he get these 'enhanced frames' from anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

I have had that thought too Black Dog. I think it might be. All the more reason why it's vvvvveeeeeeerty strange that Bob H felt the need to explain a possible film artifact by saying it was his wallet/car keys or whatnot. :blink:

It does seem like an artifact as there are dark colored blips all in that area preceding that frame. But I think why people think it is real is because maybe it appears on more than one frame in the sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It could be a film artifact or a disturbance from the hand motion but to suggest a gunshot wound is way too far out there. Clearly the images are messed with and besides there is plenty of continuing strolling footage where the gate is quite unimpeded. And assuming that this is the real deal there is no reason to think that either Roger or Bob would have done such a thing based on their testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

True, the "hair tuft" and hand do line up well. That seems the simplest explanation... BUT if that is the simplest explanation, then where did this somewhat less simplistic idea of herniation originate from? Anyone know who first identified this as a "herniation?" I am pretty sure that I heard of it before Meldrum's book (I could be wrong), but it is the only source that comes to mind (yes, I am being lazy and not wading through other analyses....)

Questions then:

1. Are the sources of the so-called herniation feature Meldrum, Hajicek, and Dr. Andrew Nelson (Dr. Meldrum cites him as a physician cunsulted on the matter)??

2. Why would an anatomist and a consulting physician bypass such a simple explanation in favor of a herniation? This makes me think that perhaps the hair tuft explanation, though possible, is not the correct explanation.

And yes, I am sure some of the simple answers to my second question might be "to confirm the PGF as legit" or simply "to sell the bloody book," but I am assuming at least SOME legitimate science and motivation on the part of Dr. Meldrum. After all, backing sasquatch or legitimizing a much (scientifically) maligned film is not the smartest move for a scientist ...BUT I digress from making this about people and their personal motivations.

So Question 3: Could these specialists have been viewing the anomalous movement on the film through the bias of their professional lenses, causing them to identify it as a herniation?

Oh, and Kraig: nice to meet you and your herniation!:-) And good point: Patty's life is/was surely rough, and the physical strains of surviving in the wilderness and could very well cause *similar* types of muscular injury....

notgiganto,

I doesn't look like the hand comes into contact with the leg, in my opinion. It was Doug Hajicek who first noticed it if I recall.

Just got email from Jeff yesterday, he hasn't had time to respond yet to some of my observations an questions on P/G subjects leg. School is in, so I'm expectin' it'll take a bit, always seems ta take a bit with Jeff. I think it's cause he looks into it/thin's before comentin'. Might have more ta add in the future.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

There is no hernia or wound on Patty's thigh. What is actually being seen is a disturbed tuft of fur set in motion by the back swing of the right arm which brushes the thigh slightly.

Crowlogic,

Wouldn't you agree in most frames the subject seems to have its elbows out an away from its torso. It doesn't look like its hand touches its thigh to me. Just my opinion is all.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

M.K. Davis's take on the thigh wound:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/thigh-shot.htm

Thanks Splash. I linked to that at the beginning fo the thread (maybe not as noticable), but very useful farther down the page, too... that is the very "article" that got me started on revisiting the herniation issue.

And the idea of a film artifact could very well be in play too. But less likely the more frames it is in....could it be an "artifactation" - look, I just made up a word! - of something else?....I don't have an idea of WHAT that might be, but I am thinking multiple causalities (small hair tuft, etc. made to look bigger due to distortion ....am I being clear with my train of thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Apologies for the rambling unclearness and invention of words in my last post :-) Work and Grad classes are tiring...but I hope that folks see where I am coming from.

All just food for thought on a (literally) unclear but important piece of footage. Some documentary (I think it was Nat. Geographic) put it very concisely by saying it was EITHER a great hoax or the greatest natural history/biology film of our time. Great input and discussion, and I hope to see more input from folks that are truly knowledgable about herniations (how often would we see something like this in humans and what the odds are that we might see it on Patty, etc.), and film enhancement and analysis. To me, this herniation issue could be a smoking gun on top of the corroborating track casts from the site when it comes to legitimizing the film. This added medical aspect of the PGF is NOT something that the average joe that has heard of the film would know about. It could change minds and cause more interest from the general public, which in turn could lead to serious inquiry by the masses. This in turn could lead to finally finding something conclusive, one way or another. I am a dreamer, I know....

And if MK really is onto something, and not just "enhancing" the film and seeing things that just are not there, then there may literally have been a smoking gun.

Once again, I'm not taking a side or arguing for or against Davis' views. I am just examining, as a lay person, the information presented. Not for the first time, that is for sure, nor the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I find the gunshot theory bothersome, because if it is true that Patty was shot in the thigh, where is the reaction from her? I know that some animals don't seem to show a reaction from a high speed, metal jacketed bullet. However, it is my contention that is due to a lower brain function. No human, that is shot, would not react.

I believe that Patty would have a higher brain function than a deer, bear or some other large animal. She might not have stopped walking, but I believe we would have seen her flinch or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

The whole massacre theory is ridiculous in my opinion.

It is most likely a film artifact but the hand brushing against the fur isn't out the question either i don't think and as i am undecided on whether the film is of a real animal the possiblity of it being an issue with a costume isn't beyond all consideration either (although if it is a bloke in a suit, something in my gut says it ain't Bob H) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here are the 3 frames (350, 351 & 352) showing the hernia (351). Note how completely it disappears within 1/16 of a sec. What makes it a "hernia" is the dark shadow at the bottom of the light patch on the thigh. The shadow is a 1 frame feature and note how many film artifacts pop up over these 3 frames. Keep in mind how a film artifact can blend in with the image (the "hand" on the cibachrome photo of frame 352, for example).

Hernia3frames.gif

At any rate, if this was caused by a bullet, then where is the exit wound in frame 352? Did it close up in a 1/16th of a second? The Bluff Creek massacre hypothesis is so ludicrous its beyond the pale. MK Davis and cohorts won't even acknowledge that it has been proven that Davis mistakenly identified the chopper pilot as Titmus. And that Davis' "enhancements" created all the alleged buckets of blood. The only explanation I can think of is the massacre nonsense was concocted strictly for a $book$ deal. Bigfootery seems to bring out the blinders for some, the deep end for others. IMHO.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here are the 3 frames (350, 351 & 352) showing the hernia (351). Note how completely it disappears within 1/16 of a sec. What makes it a "hernia" is the dark shadow at the bottom of the light patch on the thigh. The shadow is a 1 frame feature and note how many film artifacts pop up over these 3 frames. Keep in mind how a film artifact can blend in with the image (the "hand" on the cibachrome photo of frame 352, for example).

At any rate, if this was caused by a bullet, then where is the exit wound in frame 352? Did it close up in a 1/16th of a second? The Bluff Creek massacre hypothesis is so ludicrous its beyond the pale. MK Davis and cohorts won't even acknowledge that it has been proven that Davis mistakenly identified the chopper pilot as Titmus. And that Davis' "enhancements" created all the alleged buckets of blood. The only explanation I can think of is the massacre nonsense was concocted strictly for a $book$ deal. Bigfootery seems to bring out the blinders for some, the deep end for others. IMHO.

So far the artifact argument seems to hold sway here, but few folks have chimed in on the medical side/take on whether this looks like a herniation, and how common this type of injury may be. Does the location of the herniation make it consistent with a similar injury on a human, or is it inconsistent with where this kind of herniation would happen? If it is inconsistent with our anatomy (as the only other bipedal primates), then that makes the artifact argument even stronger. I agree that the massacre theory is rather ludicrous (esp. the part about Patty's family having been slain, and the pools of blood, etc.) but that is beside the point. There was a gun on scene. Who knows, there may have been someone else with Patterson and Gimlin that day? What if the creature was taken, only to realize,"holy crap, it is human!" That would be murder, and those involved may have wanted to cover that aspect up while still getting something of value for the film footage. All conjecture, all kinds of "conspiracy theory." But what if there is more to the story? What we see on the footage could be an artifact, an old injury, or a brand new injury. Important nevertheless to investigate. We could lump it, and say that we'll never know, but perhaps with the right input we MAY decide what it LIKELY is. As to Davis' idea being for a book deal, we'll know when the book gets published. I don't know how lucrative that kind of deal is, but since it is pretty far over the top into the "obscure conspiracy theory" category, I can't imagine sales would be all that profitable, esp. if his evidence is weak. That may not matter to him if he believes his own story, no matter how off the wall it may be. In the end, I am open to all the evidence in play. 'Footecus, you are right: blinders for some, deep end for others. Fact is somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh, another question: Gigantofootecus, what generation of images are you working from? Is what you posted close to the source or an enhancement of an enhancement, or what? I don't know your background, so just an honest question. From my understanding, it makes a difference when we are talking about examining the film and film artifacts. Also from my understanding Davis, Munns, and a few others have worked with early gens. of the film. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

NG, I think it's rather ironic that the images I used were..are you ready..digital scans of Rick Nolls microscoped copy of John Green's 3rd generation 2x magnified copy of the PGF. I believe Rick Nolls gave Owen Caddy a digital copy of these scans (which were originally in colour) and he forwarded them to MK Davis (for reasons unknown). MK Davis then corrected them for chromatic aberration and converted them to greyscale. These are the images I used to create the animated GIF of the hernia. But if it was caused by a bullet, then where was the exit wound?

I'm not convinced this is a film artifact, but it likely is. There are many artifacts on this copy of the film, one of which could be the hernia. However, it could be a feature of the suit or a physical anomaly, who knows?

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

In the gif Gigantofootecus made, the right hand, is it flexing at the very top of the swing or is that a film artifact?...and, Are there any clear pics of the left hand? it seems to be stunted or curled up...Did bob h say anything about the right hand being different than the left hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...