For Dfoot Options

[RayG]

Has anyone debunked last year's tracks in snow in California and Colorado?

Has anyone proven they belong to squatch?

RayG

[Maheekat]

There is no indication that they did ( have to resuscitate anyone ), but your observations about it being hot and causing the wearer to sweat would be right on target.

There is no reason to believe anyone was in the full suit ( if it was a suit ) for more than fifteen minutes.. It could have been a lot less, based on how much film we can see..

To be more accurate....the time someone would spend in that suit even if say 5-10 minutes pulling it on adjustments getting ready for the "Course " would definitely get that person hot. What about the weight also? DFOOT showed a mask earlier in the thread...I had one of the same ones. You wanted out not long after you put it on. That would be a miserable walk....

[soarwing]

You know what I'd like to see?

A suitnik making a reasonable attempt at simulating the PGF. Let's see just a PARTIAL horsehide (or other leather) suit in motion. Just the legs or the arms would be fine - - you know - - Something that shows flexing limbs, apparent musculature, etc.

Or would that be unreasonable?

[Huntster]

You know what I'd like to see?

A suitnik making a reasonable attempt at simulating the PGF. Let's see just a PARTIAL horsehide (or other leather) suit in motion. Just the legs or the arms would be fine - - you know - - Something that shows flexing limbs, apparent musculature, etc....

Don't hold your breath. Dfoot has worked on building a suit, but he hasn't made it move for us yet. I don't want to pressure him, because I wouldn't have time for such a stunt, either.

I don't think Patterson did, either.

...Or would that be unreasonable?...

I don't know why it would be. We're told repeatedly that a rodeo rider did it, and nearly 40 years ago. One would think that all these critics would just whip one up and put the debate to rest.

The BBC gave it a whirl. Looked pretty comical to me. It sure whipped all the IM index debunking to hell. That figure clearly [b]had human length arms. It was also skinnier than I am. The fur was long and flowing, likely to hide imperfections. They even made it red.

The should have been embarrassed to call that a PG reenactment.

Attached image(s)

 

[rockinkt]

The should have been embarrassed to call that a PG reenactment.

The only thing that embarrasses media types is losing money.
If they sold enough commercials for the show and the show had enough people watch it - they were "sucessfull" in what they truly wanted to do. Make money.

[McClure12]

I've been looking at this area DFOOT is referning to and it looksto be nothing more then mated hair or fur and its possible that PATTERSON came up on this creature while taking a dump if this is the case then it explanes the mated hair or fur.DFOOT is just grabing empty air and he is getting so borading he is started to sound more like ########. :new_tiredsmiley:

This post has been edited by JayleeD: Feb 6 2006, 09:28 AM

[JayleeD]

McClure, I'd suggest that you read this thread before comparing people here to that person.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11173

[soarwing]

Let's do a PGF simulation!

Wonder Twin Powers Activate!

With our combined resources, we here on this forum can get the funding to build a suit as good as Roger Patterson..... or at least as good as the BBC. Can't we? If the PGF is just a suit, it should be a breeze to do what Patterson did with all of the brains lurking on this forum!

C'mon it'll be fun and we might even get a little press.

See the "Can we build it - - Yes we can!" thread.

[Gigantofootecus]

That's exactly what I did, using a ruler on a printout of the picture provided. I just repeated my measurements on the image YOU provided as well. Here are my results:



The additional red lines (across the butts) is the measured midpoints of each subject. Since the two subjects on the left measured 7.6mm in height, the midpoint of each was 3.8mm. The measurements for the two images on the right reflect the difference in height between the two subjects. Tube is still 7.6mm tall, so his midpoint is still 3.8mm, but Patty is now 8.4mm tall, so her midpoint is 4.2mm. Again, in all four cases, the midpoint seems to be remarkably close.

Just wondering why you're measuring in millimeters? You must be working with some pretty small images. Try changing your screen resolution to 800x600 if you're measuring the images right off the screen.

RayG, while I respect your skepticism, your midpoint comparison is classic skeptical subterfuge. You not only sneaked in a false premise, but also used and abused it to make your fallacious point. How exactly does the midpoint of an image help you compare the leg to torso ratios? The midpoint of an image can vary more than the differences you're trying to measure. Using the midpoint of the image height for comparisons is your false premise. Note that the image midpoints for both the catcher and the batter point to 2 very different parts of the body. The image midpoint is variable and cannot be used as a point of reference for comparison, even for a walking body.



After you've folded your piece of paper in half, and note where the crease lines up on the body, then you're back to eyeballing the outside of the costumes to compare where you think the top of the legs are. But what does this accomplish? Nada. By using the image midpoint instead of deriving the body's biometric midpoint, you've put the cart before the horse. The "midpoint" in this exercise is just a euphemism for the interface between the legs and torso. It just so happens that the midpoint of a human's standing height is at the top of the legs. It also just so happens that the length a human's femur bone is typically within an inch of the tibia. So, with this info we can deduce that foot to ankle + ankle to knee + knee to hip = midpoint of the standing height. At least we can say this about Bob H.



IMO, the whole point of this exercise is to estimate the top of the legs and measure the leg/torso ratio. The problem is that we can't determine where the top of the legs are in a costume. The ONLY way to estimate the top of the femur is to derive this value using a biometric yardstick with clearly defined endpoints. In this case, it's the tibia. We can then make the assumption that the human tibia is approx. the same length as the femur. This doesn't have to be precise, but it happens to be the case for Bob H. And aren't we supposedly looking at 2 pics of Bob H in 2 different suits anyway? You would think he would match up with himself a little better. Mind you, I've been having trouble matching up any costumed image next to Patty's. At the very least, we need a suit that reduces and hides the actor's leg length to height ratio.

Yes, scaling is irrelevant, because I'm not comparing the two images to each other, only finding the midpoint of each. (and it doesn't matter what images I'm using, as I've pointed out above) No. Scaling doesn't matter, distance doesn't matter, bodies in motion don't matter, and skeletal joints don't matter, All that matters is the midpoint of the image, any image of Patty. When you find the midpoint of the Patty image, you also find it's remarkably close to the midpoint of a human body. Three simple measurements -- top, bottom, middle. That's it.
Then get out yer ruler and measure Tube and Patty in the image above and find the midpoint for each.
I'm guessing if we had Patty's tibia to measure, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :wink:

I see that none of these things matters to you, but I assure you, they matter. They are essential to accurately define the body's midpoint. You've oversimplified this exercise to play the devil's advocate.

But they are NOT identical in length, and unless they ARE identical, the exercise you proposed is not valid.

We're comparing Patty to Bob H in the Morris suit aren't we? Then for this exercise we assume it was Bob H in the Patty suit and attempt to match them up. I can claim with confidence that Bob H's femur is nearly equal with his tibia. His photo standing beside his car demonstrates this nicely. Besides, as you have emphasized yourself, this exercise doesn't require precise joint placement anyway. These are all relative measurements. I could have approximated their femurs to any length I want, as long as I'm consistent with the criteria I set for assigning the body's midpoint. It's all relative. We only want to MEASURE the ratios. The image midpoint is strictly for eyeballing.

I have no idea, and I don't see how that has any bearing on the midpoint of the Patterson subject. As I said, if we had Patty's tibia to measure, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :wink:
You keep implying that I didn't use a ruler, when in fact I did.
And we both know the IM index cannot be arrived at accurately without the actual bones.

We do?

Since I don't have the actual bones for comparison purposes, it's a safe bet I cannot prove you wrong. However, based on photos, I just don't see (either by eyeballing or ruler) this claim of inhuman leg lengths being true.

Try recalculating the human midpoint based on the standing height and have another look.

Now HERE is a pic that appears to show inhuman leg length, yet we know it's a human in a costume. I have indicated the midpoint on this subject, and it appears much higher on the body (waist level) because our eye is being fooled by the costume.



RayG

Let's see the costume hide the knee in full articulated motion. Otherwise, the midpoint looks spot on to me (after a slight adjustment). :wink:

This post has been edited by Gigantofootecus: Feb 6 2006, 04:55 PM

[Huntster]

The only thing that embarrasses media types is losing money....

There's much worse for them, my friend........

Losing face.......

Media types quoting “officials” have excuses. They can lie. They can take advantage of the excitement of the moment.

I think it’s beyond selling commercials now. Look here. You and I don’t want commercials, yet we’re talking the good stuff.

This forum is the mass media’s nightmare. We don’t need them anymore. We can go where we want, when we want, and there are no limitations.

Times have changed.

You and I are of the Old World.

The World that will continue long beyond the world that the media portrays...................

[RayG]

Just wondering why you're measuring in millimeters? You must be working with some pretty small images. Try changing your screen resolution to 800x600 if you're measuring the images right off the screen.

After I print out the images, I'm using a plain wooden ruler, graded in inches and centimeters. A millimeter ends up being a little more accurate than using a 16th of an inch.

RayG, while I respect your skepticism, your midpoint comparison is classic skeptical subterfuge. You not only sneaked in a false premise, but also used and abused it to make your fallacious point.

Can you show the premises I used to reach my conclusion, so I can see exactly where I 'sneaked in' a false premise?

How exactly does the midpoint of an image help you compare the leg to torso ratios?

It doesn't, but then I never claimed to be comparing the leg to torso ratios. All I'm trying to demonstrate/determine is whether the midpoint on Patty is the same (or very nearly the same) as the midpoint on Tube (or any other human).

The midpoint of an image can vary more than the differences you're trying to measure. Using the midpoint of the image height for comparisons is your false premise. Note that the image midpoints for both the catcher and the batter point to 2 very different parts of the body. The image midpoint is variable and cannot be used as a point of reference for comparison, even for a walking body.

I agree that the midpoint of two images cannot be compared if the images are not even close to being similar (one standing, the other kneeling, for example). The image provided of tube and Patty however, was an excellent one because both subjects were in nearly identical poses.

I found it interesting that if the Patty image is compared to a human in a similar pose, claims that Patty has inhumanly short legs seem quite unfounded. (regardless of whether it's a man in a costume or a real animal).

You've oversimplified this exercise to play the devil's advocate.

You're probably right, though I think you're trying to overcomplicate things.

We're comparing Patty to Bob H in the Morris suit aren't we?

We were, until the much better image of tube/Patty was posted.

And we both know the IM index cannot be arrived at accurately without the actual bones.

We do?

Yes. In this instance, by 'accurately' I meant precise. I'm not aware of a bigfoot anatomy expert. (even then an IM index is made using bones, and accurate measurements, not guesstimates)

RayG

[RogerKni]

And we both know the IM index cannot be arrived at accurately without the actual bones.]

We do?

Yes. In this instance, by 'accurately' I meant precise. I'm not aware of a bigfoot anatomy expert. (Even then an IM index is made using bones, and accurate measurements, not guesstimates.)

But precision isn’t needed except in extraordinary circumstances. (“You don't need a weathervane to know which way the wind blows.”) It’s possible to measure a ship from an aerial picture of it if it’s alongside another ship of known length (or alongside a known-length pier or crane or whatever). Measurements of this sort were taken from aerial photos in WW2. They weren’t as precise as the measurement that would be obtained by measuring the ship in person, which would be akin to “having a bone.” When you wrote, “an IMI index is made using bones,” that’s because it’s the best way of making a measurement, just as a tape measure is the best way of measuring a ship. It’s the preferred method. But that doesn't mean the next-best method is garbage.

Aerial-photo measurements were estimates because they were indirect. But they were “accurate,” in that they were “off” by only a small percentage—say 1 or 2 percent. With the PGF, our degree of confidence can be increased by taking the average result of analyzing multiple fames, which is the procedure Meldrum has followed. Your implication that anything less than a bone measurement—i.e., any indirect measurement—amounts to guesswork (i.e., something that might be off by 10% or 20%) is ridiculous—but is a common scoftical tactic. (Anyway, this assertion can be tested by having photos of customized mannequins with unknown arm and leg lengths posed in Patty-like positions and seeing if trained volunteers can reliably estimate their IMI.)

Consider the reducto ad absurdum that such rejection of indirect measurement yields: the precisionist would be forced to say he couldn’t tell by comparing photos that an orangutan had a higher IMI than a human, because he couldn’t measure their bones.

Two problems arise with the IMI ratio is in trying to measure all limb segments directly: the location of the hip joint is kinda fuzzy (a bit of a guesstimate), and all four limb segments aren’t all dead-on to the camera plane in any one frame, so there’s room for error in trying to compare them directly to one another. What GF and others have been doing to get around this objection is to measure the whole arm (ignoring the elbow) when it’s hanging straight (and ideally to measure it to the fingertips, not to the harder-to-locate wristbone), and then compare it to the height, not to the leg length; and to measure only the lower leg or tibia (again in relation to height), infer from that the total leg length, and then compare that length to the height. (Finally these two ratios can be compared to each other to work out the IMI.)

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 04:54 AM

[RogerKni]

One quick look at my avatar will prove that the sole of a man's foot while walking can go vertical, and way beyond if it is off the ground. In frame 310 the subject's toes are obscured by debris so we can't know if they are touching the ground or not.

Here’s a link to a post by bf2004 on the Heironimus as Patty thread on Dec 26 (post #173) that shows the toes-on-the-ground sequence. (Unfortunately, the link to the post doesn't work properly--it only links me to the first post in the page that contains that post. Maybe this is another glitch in the new software. You'll have to hit page-down until you get to post 173.) It doesn’t appear to me that the lower leg has started to rise before or in the frame in which the sole is vertical. And yet the frame after the one containing vertical sole does show pronounced upward movement—which suggests that the toes in the crucial frame were on the ground.

Request to bf2004 (or anyone who can accomplish this): Please cut the speed of the 4-frame blink animation in half and re-post it in this thread.

Why make this issue complex when it is just this simple? The claim that the film subject is demonstrating an "inhuman" vertical sole while still touching the ground is invalid, because we can't see if the foot is touching the ground.

Beyond being able to sorta “see,” from the real-slow-motion replay I'm hoping will be posted (and that appears to me fairly clear even in the slow-motion sequence I've linked to), that the foot appears to be on the ground, someone knowledgeable in photo-analysis can maybe obtain indirect evidence that the foot is on the ground by comparing backgrounds, as I wrote in an earlier post:

Impressions could even be backed up with a bit of shade-tree analysis, by observing the background just above the top of the lower leg, to see at which frame details in the background above the edge of the calf begin to get covered up (indicating a rising leg).

And further:

Another way to analyze this would be to take into consideration what Krantz said, that "the subject is seen to move ... very regularly [at] 22.5 frames per stride" (p. 94) and work out, by looking at other stride cycles and marking their frame numbers relative to their foot positions, at what relative-frame in THIS stride cycle toe-lift should commence. Even if no other frame captures precisely the last moment when toes are on the ground, interpolation can supply a good estimate, if several cycles are analyzed, the same way the point of level-lower-leg-lift can (I presume) be inferred from interpolation.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 05:22 AM

[RogerKni]

The lengths of the tibia and femur are nearly identical in humans (and Patty if she's Bob H).

But they are NOT identical in length, and unless they ARE identical, the exercise you proposed is not valid.

Not true. All that’s needed is a reliable ratio to enable us to compute the length of the whole leg from the length of the lower leg. If either tibia or femur were reliably longer than the other by—say—10% in the typical human, the exercise he proposes would still be valid.

But the issue is moot, because apparently they are virtually equal, at least according to a diagram prepared by Roebuck et al. on page 176 of their Engineering Anthropometry Methods. (Based on data from Drilis & Contini.) The average tibia is 24.6% of height, and the average upper leg is 24.5% of height. (I’ve posted the diagram below.) It would be rare (once in a hundred cases, say) for one to exceed the other by more than an inch. And even such an oddball case wouldn't nearly wash out the great difference in leg length relative to height between Patty and a human.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 06:01 AM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[RogerKni]

The additional red lines (across the butts) is the measured midpoints of each subject. ... Again, in all four cases, the midpoint seems to be remarkably close.

The distance between the waistline and the “gluteal fold” on a six-footer is over ten inches. Just because a midpoint line crosses that area in roughly the same location leaves too much room for interpretation, or seeing what we want to see. I.e., that “seems” is a problem.

What’s needed to block such bias is an image of tube showing his nearby body-landmarks, i.e., his waist and gluteal fold. Then those landmarks can be marked on both photos. Then whether the midpoint of the photo is located at the same relative distance between them can be measured. I urge him to post a photo of himself wearing a Speedo. (Do it for the sake of science!)

But even with such a photo, a bit of guesswork would be involved in determining the location of Patty’s gluteal fold, so this is a “fuzzier” measurement than one involving leg lengths. Also, tube is walking more directly away from the camera than Patty, so its hard to compare the degree to which their knees are bent. A phot with a more oblique angle would help.

(What’s needed to really nail this down are better figures from anthropometry experts on the range of deviation between tibia and femur lengths in individuals.)

I found it interesting that if the Patty image is compared to a human in a similar pose, claims that Patty has inhumanly short legs seem quite unfounded.

There’s that word again! It's one you object to when others rely on impressions--why should yours count more than theirs?

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 07:39 AM

[McClure12]

SOONER OR LATER HE WILL RUN OUT OF BODY PARTS
:icon_bang:

[Dfoot]

Seriously think about the contrived arguments that take place in an attempt to go along with this scam.

A stain on a door is just a stain. It's not the Virgin Mary. A scratch on film is not an eyebrow moving quickly up and down. A creature suit that was easily produced in 1967 that is filmed demonstrating problems that only occur in creature suits (and this is demonstrated over and over) is simply a suit.

The mystery is not what was filmed. The mystery is in our inability to accept the truth over some illogical jargon attempting to make a suit of rubber and hair into a real animal.

The person whose name cannot be mentioned sees all sorts of things that are not in the film. Others see a gorilla-like man or manlike gorilla. Both of these things are shown over and over through research and investigation to be false notions - yet the mysterious power of the scam artist continues to sway those willing to put their critical thinking aside in favor of make believe.

Somewhere there is a scam artist getting a big laugh out of all this.

- Dfoot

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[wolftrax]

The person whose name cannot be mentioned sees all sorts of things that are not in the film. Others see a gorilla-like man or manlike gorilla. Both of these things are shown over and over through research and investigation to be false notions - yet the mysterious power of the scam artist continues to sway those willing to put their critical thinking aside in favor of make believe.

In this case showing through research and investigation would only be complete by a comparison of your suit in motion with that of the film subject.

[RogerKni]

ROGER -- Did you just say "head-in-the-sand"? Uh oh. Whatever you do don't ask the pot in your kitchen cabinet what it thinks about the kettle. (*Just kidding) :laugh:

“Head in the sand” is a phrase that is normally used to describe a refusal to face facts that already exist, rather than a refusal to look for new facts. However, Green used it in the latter sense in Apes Among Us, which I’d just read, and it was evident that I did also from the context, which follows:

Once a cop or an officer has decided that "something funny's going on," an investigation is (or should be) launched. They don't wait until the matter is proved beyond a reasonable doubt before gathering data.

But that head-in-the-sand [non-investigatory] behavior is what scoftics say is appropriate in this sort of case--otherwise society would be diverting precious scarce resources from the fight against cancer on a snipe hunt. The central error of scofticism lies in its mantra (disowned by its originator as a result) that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." By shifting the grounds of the debate from whether an investigation is warranted, to whether sufficient geometric proof has been supplied by the claimant, scofticism is guaranteed a Win.

Therefore your jibe misfires in its accusation of hypocrisy. I’ve never taken an anti-investigatory stand, as it implies, not even implicitly. E.g., I wasn’t among those who objected to Long’s uncovering unsavory facts about RP, claiming this was attacking a dead man or any sort of outrage. Let the heavens fall where they may.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 02:46 PM

[LAL]

Let's do a PGF simulation!

Wonder Twin Powers Activate!

With our combined resources, we here on this forum can get the funding to build a suit as good as Roger Patterson..... or at least as good as the BBC. Can't we? If the PGF is just a suit, it should be a breeze to do what Patterson did with all of the brains lurking on this forum!

C'mon it'll be fun and we might even get a little press.

See the "Can we build it - - Yes we can!" thread.

I gave at the office.

In this case showing through research and investigation would only be complete by a comparison of your suit in motion with that of the film subject.

Then maybe we'll be able to see the seams, separations and hip waders for ourselves.

[tube]

Testing trumps theory doesn't it? When walking with a compliant gait I'm able to get my foot to this angle with my foot still touching the ground.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[tube]

Again walking with a compliant gait, you can see I'm able to get my sole beyond vertical while my foot is only about 3 inches off the ground.

We cannot see the toes of the film subject in the 4 or 5 frame animation you are alluding to. Therefore we cannot know if the toes are still touching the ground.

Roger, I must admit I was intrigued by the "level lower leg lift" business. We now know that is a function of a compliant gait, not some sort of "inhuman" feature. This "vertical sole" business, though, has got to be one of the poorest, weakest arguments for the "inhumanity" of the film subject I've ever seen.

There is nothing at all "inhuman" about the "vertical sole" feature.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Huntster]

While I read that Groucho used a compliant gait, I'm wondering if that was part of his act?

I'm trying to think of people I've seen using a compliant-type gait in normal life, and I'm coming up with nothing.

Anybody out there see people using a compliant gait for any reason other than trying to look funny (Marx) or testing a theory (tube)?

[Skeptical Greg]

The more I look at this, the less I understand why we are still having these discussions..

This trumps everything Long ever dreamed about coming up with...




While there are many matching points, and some could be pointed out as not being close enough
( for the purists among us ); the snarl in the corner of the mouth, with the little hint of teeth,
seems particularly damning to me ..

It is a feature that has been discussed at great length by some, as being such a realistic, unhoaxable
part of the subject..


I may have found my avatar..

[Dfoot]

ROGER-- Of course, I'm only kidding around, but you've hit it right on the head. That is what "head in the sand" usually means; the refusal to accept certain facts that should be obvious.

LAL -- The circular butt pads sewn on Patty are similar to the photo up top. The seams are seen in the PG film and cannot be found on apes. These lines are not the ones we've discussed before. These butt pad lines are seams and are not natural.

Think about all I've tried to demonstrate through photos and explanations so far...

1- The fact that a helmet with a hinged jaw is what is normally used in the type of ape suit construction used to build Patty.

2- A demonstration of how foam muscles are used under skin to create muscles that move with the person wearing them.

3- How latex is coated over the foam and Lycra "skin" to create a realistic skin for the suit prior to hair being added.

4 - How the leg stays bent and why the thigh pad juts out.

Just as Heironimus always said, the suit placed on him by Patterson and Gimlin was in three distinct sections:

THE HEAD - A helmet-type thing with a mask and mouthpiece.

THE CORSET BODY - Look at the red line I drew on the image at the top. That is where the suit separates - just like the werewolf suit I showed you and just like the ape suits worn by Gemora and others. You cannot see the line most of the time on these suits either, but that's how they work.

THE LEGS - These are worn like pants or overalls. This is similar to the "TICK" costume I showed you. The wearer slides into them as if they were hip waders. The BODY section then slides over the top of these.

Had Bob H. been shorter the thigh pads would slide under the BODY SECTION at the hip. Instead when Gimlin and Patterson tightened the suit at the crotch area (usually done with Velcro or a snap, but not always) it caused the thigh pad to be seen during the film.

I can build a suit that would not show this. That's what I did with the dummy. But when I build a "Patty" for someone to wear I'll build in this thigh problem so you can see it.

The funny thing is that someone made a clay statuette of Patty and actually included this jutting thigh and the opening seen at the front of the neck. He was just copying what he saw without realizing what it really represents to a creature fx artist.

WOLFTRAX: Honestly, in motion or standing still won't make much difference to some people. Even Patty Patterson's own brother coming forward and talking about how Roger faked tracks and put Heironimus in the suit won't influence those who are investing so much belief in Roger's little hoax flick.

- Dfoot

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[wolftrax]

WOLFTRAX: Honestly, in motion or standing still won't make much difference to some people. Even Patty Patterson's own brother coming forward and talking about how Roger faked tracks and put Heironimus in the suit won't influence those who are investing so much belief in Roger's little hoax flick.

So you haven't completed your research or investigation, and in the end it doesn't matter anyways?

[Huntster]

The more I look at this, the less I understand why we are still having these discussions.....

I don't know about we, but I'm here to learn; not reinforce my opinion.

I'm looking forward to the finished product, and if in movement it can match Patty, I'll then try to determine if Patterson could have pulled it off in 1967, then wonder why he continued to invest money in sasquatch hunts after 1967.

...This trumps everything Long ever dreamed about coming up with...

So, does that mean that you agree that Long dreamed up his story?

.....the snarl in the corner of the mouth, with the little hint of teeth,
seems particularly damning to me. It is a feature that has been discussed at great length by some, as being such a realistic, unhoaxable part of the subject.........

Yes. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

[LAL]

LAL -- The circular butt pads sewn on Patty are similar to the photo up top. The seams are seen in the PG film and cannot be found on apes. These lines are not the ones we've discussed before. These butt pad lines are seams and are not natural.

- Dfoot

What's pareidolia for the goose is pareidolia for the gander.

Lu

The more I look at this, the less I understand why we are still having these discussions..

Ans what, precisely, links it to Roger Patterson?

[soarwing]

The more I look at this, the less I understand why we are still having these discussions..

This trumps everything Long ever dreamed about coming up with...


While there are many matching points, and some could be pointed out as not being close enough
( for the purists among us ); the snarl in the corner of the mouth, with the little hint of teeth,
seems particularly damning to me ..

It is a feature that has been discussed at great length by some, as being such a realistic, unhoaxable
part of the subject..
I may have found my avatar..

Where exactly could one have obtained a mask like is shown on the right? Who made this mask and when? Dfoot has been posting this image over and over, but I can't remember where he said the mask on the right came from or who manufactured it or whatever. Is this part of Dfoot's dummy?

Also, why does there seem to be color only around the lip area? Is this flesh colored makeup/paint?

This post has been edited by soarwing: Feb 7 2006, 08:01 PM

[soarwing]

I'm not sure if I'm following the arguments very well - - here on this thread anyway.

Is it being argued by Dfoot and SG that because someone can construct a head and face that is very similar to the PGF subject's head and face, the PGF subject's head and face is artificial? Is this what is being argued?

I'm reminded of the people that "rebuild" a deceased person's face and appearance by placing the clay wads at certain parts of the skull and at certain thicknesses. In the end, they often get dramatically close to how the real person looked when they were alive.

Are we to conclude that because the face can be simulated quite accurately, using wads of clay and a skull (no photos or film) that the person's face must have been artificial or some sort of mask?

Also, the teeth/eye detail that people claim to be seeing in the PGF is below the credible resolution of the film. The "chin dimple" detail on the PGF subject that Dfoot is so fond of pointing out, is marginal.

Where are the jutting thigh pads here?

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[soarwing]

How does BH's claim of no padding being used dovetail in with this comp?.

Even if there were a few feet of difference in camera/subject positioning, would this account for the PGF subject's upper thigh being as thick, if not thicker than McClarin's torso?

The image backgrounds aren't PERFECTLY matched, but they appear to be very close.

Also, if BH's head were inside of a helmet/mask, the PGF creature's head is TOO SMALL as compared to the body. If BH's shoulders were widened with shoulder pads, then just as Roger Knights has pointed out, the arms would be "inboard" of the apparent shoulder dimensions (width) Therefore, giving the arm swing a VERY unatural look. This doesn't seem to be the case in the PGF subject at any available viewing angle.

This post has been edited by soarwing: Feb 7 2006, 09:54 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Where exactly could one have obtained a mask like is shown on the right? Who made this mask and when? Dfoot has been posting this image over and over, but I can't remember where he said the mask on the right came from or who manufactured it or whatever. Is this part of Dfoot's dummy?

Also, why does there seem to be color only around the lip area? Is this flesh colored makeup/paint?

My elation was a bit premature..

I jumped to the conclusion that I was looking at a ready made mask from the 60's,
based on some of the colages Dfoot put up in earlier threads..

I need Dfoot to verify if this is a mask he put together..... I just had a flashback about the chimp chin that he added to a mask...

Man, I saw what I wanted to see and couldn't wait to pass out crow..
Guess I'll get busy eating it myself, with tobasco if it's allright?





Can we discuss the donut shapes on the arms some more ?

[RogerKni]

Seriously think about the contrived arguments that take place in an attempt to go along with this scam. … A creature suit that was easily produced in 1967 that is filmed demonstrating problems that only occur in creature suits (and this is demonstrated over and over) is simply a suit.

The mystery is not what was filmed. The mystery is in our inability to accept the truth over some illogical jargon attempting to make a suit of rubber and hair into a real animal. [Some here] see a gorilla-like man or manlike gorilla. Both of these things are shown over and over through research and investigation to be false notions [baloney] - yet the mysterious power of the scam artist continues to sway those willing to put their critical thinking aside in favor of make believe.

You sound like Long in his “Dear Nitpickers” post, six-to-eight weeks after he’d gone public with his book, berating us BFFers for our “inability to accept the truth” and using similar overheated name-calling like “illogical jargon.” and “put their critical thinking aside in favor of make believe,” and making exaggerated statements like “over and over.”

My numerous copy-editor’s corrections of Long may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back because, like flea bites, they were so irritating and unanswerable (I found lots). I began by pointing out typos and such only because that was the low-hanging fruit. (Begin digression) Speaking of which, here’s (another) one for you:

Heironimus seems to have helped high school pal Patterson …

But Patterson (born 1933) was eight years older than Heironimus (born 1941), so they couldn’t have been high school pals. (You repeated your “Patterson’s pal Heironimus” claim sometime in December of 2005 after I’d cited (on December 13) three quotes from BH denying they were pals. But I haven’t been able to track down that quote of yours because Invision won’t accept a three-character search term—“pal.”) (End digression.)

Long’s case-closed attitude revealed a naiveté about the natural history, as it were, of controversies like this, and indirectly revealed the utter one-sidedness of his perspective. It was akin to a lawyer or prosecutor making an opening statement and then thinking he’d settled the matter and the judge and jury could pack up and go home. He overestimated the strength of his case, and didn’t realize that people with other facts than his, and with other viewing angles, could in time pile up an impressively long list of flaws in it.

Consider the absurd implication of your little screed: That you are infallible and we should supinely have accepted ALL your claimed “problems that only occur in suits” like your “cap line.” (What a laugh the refutation of that claim was.) Well, for what it’s worth, here’s something to wobble your “only occur in suits” mantra:

In September, 1969, a man cutting lodge pole just east of Lost Trail Pass sensed that someone was walking behind him. Shutting off his power saw, he saw about twenty-five feet away a seven-foot, 300-pound “apeman” covered with black hair. The Bitterroot Journal story continues:

Thinking to defend himself, Ted started the saw. The creature didn’t move but the hair stood up on its neck. Ted turned the saw off, the hair on the animal’s neck settled back down again. Without taking his eyes off Ted, the beast turned sideways and began walking away with huge graceful steps … The incident occurred about 3 p.m. in broad daylight.

The fact that the creature turned sideways to walk away implies it was facing the witness when he saw the hair rise on the back of its neck—which implies that the rise was very pronounced—as pronounced, perhaps, as that seen in the PGF.

I’m sure you will instantly dismiss the above as “denial” and proceed serenely onward, as you have in the past. You have been no more affected by the weakening or falsification of your claims than an asylum inmate is upon being told that he is not Napoleon. The inmate thinks those who dare to contradict him are the ones with a problem.

It’s taken lots of provocative statements like the one of yours I’ve quoted above to make me respond to you on the level of dialogue you regularly operate on: impugning your opponent’s hold on reality.

BTW, I’d like to see a previously invisible collar on an ape-suit torso-piece pop up as quickly and proudly as the hair-ruff on Patty does, following only the same (minor) degree of head-turn. Can you demonstrate it for us? It should be easy, since you’ve said it’s a regular problem with suits, and you have easy access to such costumes.

That is what you should have done first, to nail down your case and silence your critics. Or to discover that you were making a leap too far. (It’s similar to what Long should have done if he were really a truth-seeker: rented a Morris ape-suit ($50 a day here in Seattle), videotaped BH doing The Walk, and dispassionately compared it to the PGF.) Since you hadn’t demonstrated your claim, you should have been more tentative about it.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Feb 7 2006, 09:36 PM