Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

In the study of the PG Film subject, an enormous amount of study and debate has been focused on apparent musculature form and motion in the film, and over the years, a frequently quoted mantra of believers has been "Suits can't do that". In my part two notes, I have discussed muscle padding shapes and the physics of them and their limitations. But as I have continued to study the film and various frames, I have noticed something which has apparently been neglected by both researchers and skeptics alike.

Flab. Fatty tissue accumulations. Love handles.

Call it what you like, the film has definite examples of soft, non-muscular tissue and the skin folds that evidence this.

We tend to think of "wild animals" (If you believe the figure in the film is real) as being always muscular and fit. But there's no reason why wild creatures can't be overweight and flabby. And the film industry has, especially in recent years, made some remarkable milestones in "fat suits" and similar prosthetic effects to suggest a person overweight and "flabby" (the most recent and spectacular example being the Eddie Murphy female character in "Norbit" which Rick Baker's fine team at Cinevation fabricated so well they could put the character in a bikini and reveal all that flab in glorious uncovered closeup).

So I thought it would be appropriate to consider the potential of Flab to help us sort out real from fake in the PG Film.

In the last frames of the film sequence, as "Patty" is going into the woods, and we see her back quite clearly, there are some curious shifts in the light/dark patterns of her back, especially going around her torso to her right abdominal wall. And there is a quite distinct roll of apparent tissue slightly above her waist that can only be described as "flab" because it certainly doesn't resemble any musculature I know of.

The attached image chart illustrates the frames studied, with a faded copy beside each and a red line following the back contours being studied. The six frames illustrate a variety of contours that tend to roll more like living tissue than furcloth.

Now I don't believe there is any pressing need to prove flab exists on real individuals. I've got more than I want personally, so I can vouch for it's existance, and enough reports and news stories about America becomming a nation of overweight people (Suffering remote control/couch potato syndrome) abound that I feel I can take the reality of flab as a fair and responsible presumption. And flab can certainly exist in real creatures as well. In days of old, zoos competing for the claim of having the biggest gorilla in captivity rediculously overfed their gorillas to get them up to 600 pounds and more (for reference, a good silverback gorilla weight is around 350-400 pounds for a healthy animal), making them quite flabby. So a persumption that Patty might be a little "plus sized" in her physique isn't unreasonable.

What needs to be evaluated is the process of faking flab, creating a suit for a hoax where flabbly body parts are convincingly depicted. And of course, it is essential to consider what was available in 1967, not just what's available now.

Film flab, today, is based on resinous compounds which I believe were pioneered by a company called BJB Industries. Back in the 80's, they started introducing some wondrous plastic compounds for molding and casting, such as "Smooth On", which could be plasticized for varying degrees of flexibility and elasticity. This capacity to vary the flexing potential by varying the amount of a plasticizer additive was a fairly new and unique new method allowing makeup effects designers a way to adjust the results of the material to their unique needs. Back in the 80's when it was first being introduced, it was a tempermental material, with demanding issues of gel control and surface inhibition which made it hard to mold and cast at first. Stan Winston produced some remarkable results with it, including a full head shoulder cast of a woman (weighted with a real heavy metal ball in the skull area) for a film called "Dead and Buried", for a scene of a mortician doing a reconstructive makeup on a dead girl. The solid Smooth-On cast head, with the massive weight in the skull, allowed the head to be turned side to side and it would stay as turned, due to the weight inside overpowering the natural inclination of the cast Smooth-On to "bounce back" to it's cast shape. I did some work on that film too, and I can say with unabashed admiration that Stan's innovative invention of a soft tissue effect was a real bold and brilliant innovation in the makeup effects field.

But this was 1980, not 1967.

In 1967, any attempt at a fat suit or fat face (with prosthetics) was accomplished by a foamed latex or flexible polyureathane foam material. And these foam materials were so lightweight, relative to their structural integrity and capacity for dimensional memory (the ability to restore to their original molded shape after being deformed by pressure or force) that they"defied" gravity. They moved somewhat when an external force was applied to push or pull them, but gravity alone had no force or influence on them. By comparison, the fat suits of today, with heavily plasticized resins cast as gel structures, have more mass and less memory, and so gravity does cause them to have splendidly natural "flabby" motion characteristics.

But in 1967, we just had various kinds of foam. And foam only does "flabby" well if it's shaped to look flabby and not moved. As soon as it's moved, foam tends to collapse (what foam does best, because it's really mostly empty air chambers surrounded by a thin framework of resin or latex connective material).

A second consideration is that the furcloth covering a suit tends to move like cloth, not flab. It folds in lines and cross-folds, as the base structure re-arranges it's form while keeping it's linear dimensions around the folded contour. Foam underneath furcloth has almost no real potential to push the furcloth into "flabby" masses, because the cloth structural material has more strength or structural integrity than the foam has capacity to deform it. If the foam tries to push for flab, the cloth pushes back to fold and drape in clothlike form, and the cloth wins every time.

Even today, with spandex-backed all-way stretch fur (which NFT introduced in the 1980's), the spandex fur, when stretched, will tend to impose it's one elastic shape dynamics on any fat suit gel mass underneath, and will not give a realistic "flab" look and contour motion to a fur-covered suit.

So with this in mind, I have been looking more carefully at the PG Film figure, and I am seeing what can best be explained in my mind as "flab" on Patty, and what I see, especially in the back and abdominal side walls, does not fold or buckle like any furcloth I know, or like any cloth dynamic I am familiar with.

For the record, let me state that I am trying to set up research plan to take this to a more finite and factually documented study, but the results won't be likely until later this year. For now, I can offer my estimation of what can occur, based on 30 years working with the materials.


So while it seems that people advocating that Patty is real, love to point to the apparent musculature as evidence of a real creature, (and I have already offered notes on how muscle padding doesn't move as realistically as the hype claims it does), it may well be an even stronger argument for reality if you consider that the fatty tissue bulges and contours seen late in the film, the "Flab" is even harder to replicate, with 1967 technology and particularly under a furcloth outer suit material.

It's hard to argue with gravity. I've tried. I lost. So would any suit technology of 1967.


Bill Munns

What a keen eye you have there Bill. Interesting observation for sure.

In humans, females have a higher bodyfat percentage than males. Does this relationship occur in other mammals? Especially primates.

Bill, thanks for the outlining of the suspect deposits and your usual fine research. It is interesting, that your pics of Patty's derriere here made me observe something worth commenting on, that is the small of the back of this creature along with cleavage of gluteus maximus is seen clearly in one pic, and it is here that it is obvious that the pilonidal indentation area of the lower sacrum/tail bone is very pronounced and depressed. I do not believe this would normally be the case if this were a suit. What do you anatomists think of this observation?

Bipedalist:

"obvious that the pilonidal indentation area of the lower sacrum is very pronounced and depressed. I do not believe this would normally be the case if this were a suit. What do you anatomists think of this observation? "

Could you say that in more basic anatomy terms. I'm trying to figure out the spot you're referring to. My copy of Grey's Anatomy" isn't handy.



Bill

the cupped area above her butt crack?

Thank you. Words I can understand. LOL!

Yes, that shadow area where I'd describe it as the center of the small of the back, curiously flows into the supposed "waist seam line" and that rounded shadow sure isn't a seam line of any kind. Completely invalidates any "waist seam" argument I can think of.

Bill

I'd still like somebody like Zenor or Meldrum or Sarmiento to comment on things like this? I'm sure it has been discussed elsewhere, my anatomical vocab. prob. would not be sufficient to search that info. out though? Any help here? Appreciate your insight Bill.

Hi Bill-

This is an intriguing angle but I have a couple thoughts/observations.

1. Sure, plenty of overfed zoo animals get fat, and there might be some habituated (and fed) monkeys with some extra LBs hanging around temples in Asia, but a legitimately fat and flabby wild ape? That stretches my imagination a little. But....

2. I'm not convinced we're looking at a fat animal (or costume). I'm not even fully convinced there are rolls or folds in the images (which are overly contrasted) as you've interpreted. Couldn't it just be changes in the hair pattern- like near folding or bulging enough to change the lighting? For example, in the middle left image the line across the shoulder blade is about as dark as your love-handle/muffin-top fold, but surely you don't think there is such a deep fold over the shoulder blade? Likewise, compare your upper R image with frame 72- same position but closer and better images with nowhere near this interpretation of a deep crease. I suspect you've exaggerated your marks for demonstration but hat makes this a bit misleading.

3. In light of the question of how much anything is really bulging or folding, can you really compare this to current Hollywood flab and judge it to be too complex for a fake? Honestly? Even if it is as creased as you imply, why couldn't a plain suit fold/crease like that? I understand what your saying about stretch and memory but is there really enough info in these frames to make a judgement on those grounds- or what if there is no foam involved?

Partly playing the devil's advocate...

Apeman

If Patty is wearing a flak-jacket all bets are off though.

Apeman:

The Devil's Advocate is always welcome.

1. I'm just wondering if in October, a creature in colder environments might not "bulk up" for the winter, given there will be a scarcity of food. And I wonder, if such creatures may potentially lurk around human campgrounds, or maybe trash areas, and have some chance to indulge in classic human junk food occasionally, pigging out on the tasty junk that really puts on the pounds. Just thoughts,

2. I also see what looks like somewhat artophied tissue in the bicep area on two backward arm swings in the look back sequence, where the bicep mass does not look to be in prime physical muscle tone. So while I'm not arguing "fat fat", I don't think it's unreasonable to see a bit of extra folding of subcutaneous fat deposits combined with the muscle masses. And yes, changes of hair dynamic and reflectance could be exhaggerating the contours.

3. I can't prove it yet (hoping to sometime in the future) but, yeah, I think the folds are beyond what a suit can do. Especially the shifting form, seems to have contours I more associate with real tissue ability to shift, than furcloth shifting form on abody in motion.



Bill


An edited afterthought:

Apeman (an all here in the Forum)

I had an afterthought following my last post reply to you, and thought I'd add it now just to give all interested a bit more "history" of the subject.

I knew about prosthetics (foam latex appliances, in particular) even before the PG Film existed, but first learned to actually make them myself in early 1969. And at the time, they had two common uses, monster makeups and old age makeups. In aging makeups, we build up smile lines, jowels, and double chins, the more common attributes of old age. But the foam latex never really moved exactly like real jowels or double chins. And so I have been looking at ways to add a fluid pouch or similar weighted mass into aging prosthetics since then (never did figure it out, but neither did anybody else). So from 1969, I've been thinking about how natural tissue folds and how prosthetic simulations fail to replicate that.

Same goes for suits. To fold in any natural way, they need to be "baggy" and that "baggy" quality is simply uncontrolable in terms of getting things to fold exactly as you plan. So suits generally never tried to do any kind of soft tissue folds.

But I bring it up simply to point out it was an issue I was paying attention to as far back as 1969, and looking at both the problems with the technology of the time and the potential solutions I (and everybody else) thought of but never get working). That's why the heavily plasticized BJB compounds of the 80's stand out in my mind. They finally started to do what we dreamed of in the late 60's and even into the 70's.

So when I appraise the potential materials of the time, I reference this prior interest, study, and intent to try and find ways to simulate exactly what I see in the film, and did not see being done by makeup people until the 80's.

Very very interesting. I was struck by the pattern of fat deposition. I seem to recall that humans store subcutaneous deposits of fat in a diagnostic distribution, on the torso with love handles and a fatty apron on the back and front when under certain metabolic conditions. I'd also heard that when the other great apes put on weight it's more likely to be located differently and within the muscle and organ structures. Could the fact that the pattern of fat deposits on Patty resemble human patterns be significant? I'm caregiving a diabetic and see a similar pattern and am led to believe in my reading that it is indicative of the syndrome. Just a thought.

Dogu4:

Your observation is interesting. The breasts of Patty may be generally described as more humanoid than apelike, so having fatty tissue similarly following humanoid patterns is consistant.

Bill

Dogu4:

Another afterthought:

the footprints as well seem to be more humanoid than apelike, the toe positions and proportions, etc.

So we see quite a few humanistic physical aspects in the creature.

Bill

So you can think of no other explanation for what you see there?, You are claiming 'definitely' that that is 'flab'? No other explanation possible? Woo doggy! that's quite a claim there.

Those possible flab lines on the back have been noticed and marked on the photos elsewhere so Bill is not the first person to notice them. I've never seen any Gorilla costume with anything like that. Almost looks like the fat lines seen on the backs of Sumu (sp) wrestlers. If it is a suit than it points more than ever to its creator as someone with knowledge light years beyond that of even the clever Roger Patterson.

Amazing the stuff cowboys can do with horse hide these days! Opps! I mean amazing the stuff cowboys did with horse hide in those days!

Well Drew,

if it's a real body, those areas I highlighted aren't skeleton, not muscles as i know them to form, aren't organs, aren't just wrinkles on the skin, and aren't just hair patterns. Doesn't leave much aside from soft non-muscular tissue.

And as i said, the folding behavior does not match fur cloth as i know it, or any costume padding influence on furcloth I have ever seen.

I welcome your suggestions of what else it may be.

Bill

Touché! (for those of you unfamiliar with fencing that it is a term used to acknowledge a "hit")

Soundman

OK I'm cool, I just didn't see the part in the opening post where you said "If it's a real body", because that makes a pretty big difference in how I read that first post now.

lets not forget the reason Patterson went to Bluff Creek in the first place. There were 3 different sets of tracks reported. One of the sets was smaller than the others indicating they were left by an infant. The large breasts probably mean Patty was lactating. If she is lactating, would she not have left over fat deposits?

Well, we could debate the notion of what might be an infant in this case (my recollection is that the smallest tracks weren't that small, and I can't remember if these are the same as the famous Onion Mtn tracks which I think were fake).... But I've been up close and personal with plenty of wild apes, in every imagineable stage of estrus, pregnancy, and infant care, and I've yet to see one with anything resembling visible rolls of fat. Usually an adult female animal will be relatively thin around weaning because they've used up those stores to raise their offspring. But regardless, even if she was at her naturally fattest stage, I still have a hard time imagining flabby love handles as Bill has proposed. Even if she was raiding campgrounds or something like that.

If there really are flabby lovehandles there (which I don't think is the case), and it's not just a costume fold, then I think we need to go back and think about a fat actor in a leotard-type suit. One of the big name skeptics I know has always said his first guess is a something like a long-underwear suit, but then we need to explain the apparent hair.... which is one reason I brought my (still unanswered) question about how we can even show there is really longish hair on the figure?

-A

Todd Partain made an excellent bigfoot "outfit" for his documentary "Eyes in the Dark" using just black long johns and hair extensions. If you haven't seen the outfit, it's pretty darn good...especially since I think he only paid like $250 for it (at the end of the documentary there is a whole discussion on how he made the suit).

And just for the record, love handles are cute!

Apeman:

I know you've seen more live apes than I (and I've seen a lot more than most people), so I certainly won't disagree with your observations and experience in the matter. But we do need to step back a bit and ask, is Patty an ape or a hominid? And if a hominid, than the physiology of humans may be more comparative. I don't have an answer to this, just a point of consideration to bring up.

On the "apparent hair" as you stated, yes, the film resolution (especialy the degredation due to the copying repeatedly) makes it hard to actually see hair clearly enough to determine length and density conclusively. Ideally, filming a variety of mammals with similar film, camera, distance, and viewed through similar copy generations would give us a much needed research reference to how varying natural hair types and densities do in fact render out in such photographic circumstances. I'm working up a research proposal (obviously pending funding) which would include such photo studies to try and nail down the specifics of the hair in a rigorous, impartial way. If it could be done, it would certainly help us one and all in deciding the specifics of the surface character of the figure in the film.

On the fat guy in a longjohn suit with hair on it, it would have to be a complete hand tied (ventilated) suit, with a higher density than the 2001 ape suits, and higher hair density means higher cost (more knots to tie), and I believe the 2001 ape suits were about as good as it gets back then for this type of suit fur method, and those apes don't even come close to the anatomical definition seen in the PG Film. First ventilated suit I've seen that even comes close to Patty is Rick Baker's "Sidney" gorilla suit, made in 1981 (there abouts) and Josephine Turner did his ventilating (hair tying). I also heard that suit cost $250,000. (came with a few spare parts and backups, plus the animated head)

Bill



Hairy Man:

Sounds like the hair you're referring to is wefted hair (the hair sewn into rows, and commonly used for wigs and some hair extensions on people). Usually sells for about $10-$15 per quarter pound (1980-1990 prices) and a 6-8" length (the shortest length usually sold) has about 15-20 running feet of weft per 1/4 pound.

Figure if you sew it on to longjohns spacing the wefts about an inch apart, you need 12' to cover a square foot. So you're looking at about $10 a square foot of coverage.

I used this method once to make a wooly mammoth for a museum client (but used much longer hair, and a lot more of it).

It works fine for a longer hair look, but once you cut it short, the wefted structure becomes very apparent. Leaving it long will tend to obscure the anatomical details of contour shown in the PG film.



Bill

QUOTE

.....it may well be an even stronger argument for reality if you consider that the fatty tissue bulges and contours seen late in the film, the "Flab" is even harder to replicate, with 1967 technology and particularly under a furcloth outer suit material.

It's hard to argue with gravity. I've tried. I lost. So would any suit technology of 1967.

How about suit technology from the 40's ?



This suit has features very similar to the features you highlighted.

Greg:

I'm taking a guess here to say maybe that's one of Charlie Gamora's gorilla suits, and maybe the one I've heard he put a huge pouch of water in the belly to make a more fluid appearance of anatomy.

But without seeing this suit from the back, and especailly under some kind of similar lighting, comparing contours can become more argumentative, because you haven't accounted for all the variables.

The trick is not so much in making a shape as in how the shape changes when the human inside moves around. So when you see a smooth contour change to a lumpy, folded or flabby contour, you are more likely seeing something real flesh and blood, than a costume fabrication.


Bill

Where in the film are you seeing the features you diagrammed above, in motion, for more than a second or two ?

here are a few more observations for the mix

going back to the other thread- theres no way from a visual observation of the film to make an accurate determination of the hair, length or any way to distinguish it from furcloth or any other commercially available product. It cannot even be determined that its "hair" in the first place.

Thats just reality.

As far as the muscles- theres no definition of movement that couldnt be explained as shifting padding or any number of alternatives- just because it doesnt have an obvious clue doesnt mean its not.

Always remember this- there are only 2 possible outcomes

1) this is a genuine BF

2) this is a suit

Seriously- theres not a 3rd option- it is literally true or false ( and that simple, cut and dried)

With that said- the only way to "prove" anything regarding suit V BF is in proving BF exists ( or make a logical case to the pro) because if that fails- the suit wins be default ( as its the only other alternative- regardless of any arguments to the contrary)

So the root question is- what is the probability BF actually exists ( or still exists)? Thats important because each improbability in that case defaults to the pro suit side and bolsters that argument. ( simply because thats the only alternative)

Regardless of any opinions ( pro or con) on the question of suit V BF- it will NOT be settled with the PGF because the PGF is not capable of settling the issue. ( after 40 years- if it could be- it would have been by now)

So we are now back to a preponderance of the whole body of evidence V suit argument.

At that point- the suit theory is way ahead simply because if theres a low probability of a species such as BF existing- the probability of the film subject being a suit is RAISED in equal proportion.

So, the correct way to assess this is:

suit-50%

BF-50%

Now let the total body of all available evidence, suit technology, known history regarding theories/probabilities of the possible existance of BF, lack of all other supporting evidence ( and everything else) be put in the mix.

When thats done- the probability of a suit is well over 90% because by default is theres a weak scientific case for the existance of BF in the first place- the probability of suit is equally strengthened.

Greg:

I'm basing my analysis on the frames I showed in the original post.

Bill

Longtabber:

Clearly you feel that no amount of study or analysis of the film will yield any conclusion, and I certainly respect your right to that opinion, even though I emphatically disagree.

I see many potential areas where I feel the inconclusiveness of the issue rests more in the lack of proper studies and scientific experiments, and so I believe a properly done scientific study can, in fact, yield far more conclusive determinations than have been made thus far, and may potentially yield a fully reliable conclusion. But the only way I can advance my hypothesis is with a funded research program, and that is being explored now.

So for now, you see it your way, and I see it mine. And I plan to keep looking for answers, instead of just writing the whole thing off as unanswerable.



Bill

Some interesting folds and fur seams on this one

yes and if we had a full frontal of the lower back, the same flak jacket muscle bulk on either side of midline would appear to be present
based on what I see on the right side of this gorilla, something to think about, gorilla in a fur suit maybe?

Partner, lets go down the list

>>>Clearly you feel that no amount of study or analysis of the film will yield any conclusion, and I certainly respect your right to that opinion, even though I emphatically disagree.

Its not a case of reaching a conclusion because conclusions have been reached before- the problem is in the TESTING and VALIDATION of those conclusions. ( thats part of the acid test of science- as heartless and unbending as it is) so any "conclusion" reached will be based on hearsay, opinion or speculation. NONE of those will pass an acid test. That said, the BEST than can be hoped for is an OPINION based on an OBSERVATION. ( thats how science works- so if the effort is 100% successful- the MOST that will be derived is a THEORY supported by circumstantial and speculative evidence)

Thats not me- thats just reality

>>>I see many potential areas where I feel the inconclusiveness of the issue rests more in the lack of proper studies and scientific experiments, and so I believe a properly done scientific study can, in fact, yield far more conclusive determinations than have been made thus far, and may potentially yield a fully reliable conclusion. But the only way I can advance my hypothesis is with a funded research program, and that is being explored now.

This is where I have to vigorously but RESPECTFULLY disagree. For "science" to be valid- science has to be able to produce results. In order to do that, there must be a YARDSTICK to measure against. There is no such thing in existance as a BF "fact" and no amount of study, financing or research is going to change that until there is an impiracle base to establish that "yardstick"

There can be no legitimate "science" at this time because theres NOTHING to gauge and results by. Also, ( regarding the PGF) theres nothing to research- the film itself ( quality wise) and currently existing technology will not deliver a definitive answer ( which is what science hopes to get) against the yardstick. A mountain of "opinion" ( regardless of how well qualified the opinion or resultant theory) does NOT and WILL NOT ever become a fact.

The only "conclusion" possible is to answer the base question is to address the ROOT QUESTION and that question if:

BF live

BF Memorex

Its that simple, if its NOT "live"- its memorex ( no 3rd option)


Again, thats just reality.

>>>So for now, you see it your way, and I see it mine. And I plan to keep looking for answers, instead of just writing the whole thing off as unanswerable.

I'm all for research but as I have stated in other threads- that research ( to be scientifically valid) must pass an acid test and must reach a conclusion that can be proven and measured against all challengers.

Thats a HIGH bar and its high because it has to be. Analysis of the PGF will never reach that bar- much less cross it. Thats not to say to not continue looking for answers but those answers WILL be tested and MUST withstand it

I hate being the harbinger of bad news and i am certainly not disregarding your obvious expertise in your area- but I have to adhere to the tenets of legitimate science and respectfully but vigorously stand you down on this particular issue. ( even when it contradicts my own personal beliefs and experiences)

I've seen you type this several times and it is not entirely true. Scientists study other solar systems, stars, galaxies, etc. by observation without any possibility of truly measuring those systems; paleontologists name entire species on fossilized footprints; archaeologists don't see who left the artifacts at the site, but we hypothesize who left them and what they were doing. The point is you don't have to have a body (or star or dinosaur or human body) to make scientific observations...it's called deductive reasoning. Remember, science is a method not a thing.



I realize that you don't mean "acid test" literally, but I'd wish you stop saying it because someone, somewhere is going to think that there is going to be some acid applied to all hypotheses.

Longtabber:

Quoting you: "I'm all for research but as I have stated in other threads- that research ( to be scientifically valid) must pass an acid test and must reach a conclusion that can be proven and measured against all challengers."

Fine. If I can put together the research plan, that's what I'll aim for. When I'm done, we'll see if I succeed or fail.



Bill


Hairy Man:

Thank you. I concur.

Bill

This is where theres a disconnect hairy and no I'm not wrong- not even in the slightest.

Its the difference between hard science and soft science. Thats why paleontologists, evolutionists, quantum physicists call them THEORIES and thats why its the THEORY of relativity and not the LAW of relativity.


The question is BF is a true or false ( no 3rd option)

There is already the "possibility" because since its impossible to prove a negative- "possible" wins by defauly- at that point, its based on evidenciary probability. ( thats how science works)

Science is a method but ALWAYS works to a goal and that goal is measured in tangibles. ( difference between science and junk science)

the FACT is that there is ZERO physical evidence and very little probability ( based on total knowledge) that such a species can exist, much less does- again, thats reality.

That doesnt mean it cant but makes it a high odds against. Again, reality

Its also the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

Inductive can be any probability model- the question of BF will never be established on inductive reasoning because theres not a single fact to shore it up- deductive is what actually establishes something because then there are facts on the table to actually "deduce" something from.

There are NO "scientific" inductions regarding BF because there is ZERO evidence to induct a reason from- they are all stories or junk science ( at this point) so no legitimate inductive science applies either.

Right now, its a theory based on campfire tales- hardly a "scientific" case in any venue

Those frames represent less than one half second of film. Not a very comprehensive data set.

Even moreso since they don't represent change over as series of continuous frames .

How can you rule out a suit for not exhibiting characteristics, that you haven't shown exists for the subject of the film ?

What you call a ' rolling ' change, just looks like one frame is more blurry than the other .

Longtabber:

You say it's real or fake, no other option.

Then you say (in another post) "Inductive can be any probability model- the question of BF will never be established on inductive reasoning because theres not a single fact to shore it up- deductive is what actually establishes something because then there are facts on the table to actually "deduce" something from.

There are NO "scientific" inductions regarding BF because there is ZERO evidence to induct a reason from- they are all stories or junk science ( at this point) so no legitimate inductive science applies either."


So inductive reasoning can be applied to the issue of "fake", because there are facts on the table to shore up what fakes can do, are made of, and thus can be measured, qualtified, tested, and objectively evaluated. If inductive reasoning is applied to the "fake" side, it may allow for "deducing" a fake is not on the film, and if so, by your statement, if it's not one, it's the other.

Unless you have a third option?


Greg:

I made my analysis on the data I had. If you want to say my source data is insufficient to prove any conclusion, Longtabber will buy you a beer.

My notes are what they are, for now. You may take them or leave them, as you like. And I will continue to study the issue and hopefully will increase the quality of the data i base my ideas upon. When I have something more, you are welcome to criticize that as well.



Bill

There is no difference at all. All science uses the same methods of developing research questions, testing that question, and coming up with hypotheses. A hypotheses, after more testing develops into a theory...then from there a law. Bigfoot, right now, is in the hypotheses stage.



Social Sciences work without tangibles all the time...and they are a science. And I can name several "theories" that aren't the least bit tangible (don't make me bring up Einstein!)



That's not a fact at all...there is indeed evidence, just not proof. That is why people need to use the scientific method to continue looking for evidence that will prove existance one way or another.



Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

Personally, I see no point in discouraging anyone from doing any study they feel like doing. You can't have it both ways...you can't complain that there are no scientific studies and then tell people not to bother cause the study won't be scientific!

edited to remove sarcasm....

LT...if you think it's a 90% chance that what we see in the PGF is a man in a monkey suit then all I can say is........ ...........it left me speechless!

Lets go by the numbers

>>>There is no difference at all. All science uses the same methods of developing research questions, testing that question, and coming up with hypotheses. A hypotheses, after more testing develops into a theory...then from there a law. Bigfoot, right now, is in the hypotheses stage.

No argument from me there- if I didnt believe in the possibility of success ( based on my experience) I wouldnt be here in the first place

>>>Oh really, so every science has a measurable tangible? Social Sciences work without tangibles all the time...and they are a science.

Thats why they are a SOFT science based on interviews, projections, studies, questionable data and such- thats why they dont carry the weight of impiracle sciences and are always "changing" and thus not absolutes( also why 1 study with different controls often contradicts other studies). Thats the difference between the 2.

>>>That's not a fact at all...there is indeed evidence, just not proof. That is why people need to use the scientific method to continue looking for evidence that will prove existance one way or another.

Show me ANY "evidence" that has passed ANY legitimate scrutiny and held firm. That I want to see.

>>>Of course there are inductive studies going on right now. The TBRC are conducting a camera trap study, based on probability, that was funded by a grant. Peter Aniello is conducting probabilities models based on GIS and sighting locations.

sure, now lets review the datasets and see how "probable" the probability study really is. ( lets see how they fare under scrutiny as well- its called GIGO) I know the difference.

>>>Personally, I see no point in discouraging anyone from doing any study they feel like doing. You can't have it both ways...you can't complain that there are no scientific studies and then tell people not to bother cause the study won't be scientific!

I certainly can and will. I'm not discouraging anyone from anything- but with that said, "junk science" or questionable data/metrics wont pass muster. I know the difference and how to slice and dice.

I know I should know better but I can't stand to watch you try to verbally intimidate everyone here....


(Ignoring for the moment that that distinction is really a social construct...) Perhaps, but both are still science, so maybe you need to choose a different term when you make overreaching, and sometimes untrue, statements like:


Apeman

PS- I'm no spelling champ myself, which is why I keep dictionary.com on my personal toolbar (free tip), but you're the first engineer I've known who couldn't come close to spelling empirical... which, I have to say, makes me wonder a little.

There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparate
as physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example. The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with
refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate
statistical analyses. And, it is not all GIGO.

Thats why I love dealing with you- its so easy

>>>I know I should know better but I can't stand to watch you try to verbally intimidate everyone here....

I'm not convinced you do know better so I'm going to help you in your quest. I find the your use of the word "intimidating" to be unfounded ( unless you consider stating a stronger position against a lesser "intimidating" in which case you have simply devolved to another ad hom insult in a feeble attempt to make a point) With that said- enlighten me, where do you draw the line and what exaxtly do you find "intimidating? If you cant answer that- why did you open your mouth in the first place? I'm interested in hearing this so please enlighten us all about this "intimidating" you accuse me of doing and how my premise is wrong. ( after all, if all I am doing is "intimidating" then my entire premise is faulty[ because intimidation is a weak defense against a stronger argument] and one such as you should shoot thru it with ease)

I'm waiting on this one so please dont disappoint me with your analysis

>>>Perhaps, but both are still science, so maybe you need to choose a different term when you make overreaching, and sometimes untrue, statements like:

I made a correct distinction- you are arguing minutia- is that all you have?

>>>PS- I'm no spelling champ myself, which is why I keep dictionary.com on my personal toolbar (free tip), but you're the first engineer I've known who couldn't come close to spelling empirical... which, I have to say, makes me wonder a little.

Sure, I post on the fly and make mistakes like everyone- if you are talking about things that make one wonder- I can refer you to several threads regarding your comments such as about laws regarding what can and cant be done ( where the LE and others chimed in) that left no room for "wonder" in other areas. How far do we need to carry your "wonder"? Let me know.

Ah...another longtabberism...



That isn't the definition of soft science. A soft science is a science that doesn't use a mathematical explanation to explain their data. "Soft" science, such as archaeology, anthropology, behavioral science are indeed science. Both mathematical and social sciences can be used to address the same research questions and both are acceptable in their observations and conclusions.



I think you continue to use the word "evidence" when what you want to say is "proof." Native American traditional stories are evidence; footprint casts are evidence; unknown hair is evidence; unknown howls are evidence; witness reports are evidence. What they aren't is proof.



Ask them yourself. I'm sure you are more than qualified with your biology and GIS degrees to subject their methodology to scrutiny.



Oh, yeah, I forgot that you are the height of encouragement.

Bill...please do continue on with your work. It's intriguing.

Here we go again

>>>That isn't the definition of soft science. A soft science is a science that doesn't use a mathematical explanation to explain their data.

I said that ( not in so many words)

>>Soft" science, such as archaeology, anthropology, behavioral science are indeed science.

I never said otherwise

>>>Both mathematical and social sciences can be used to address the same research questions and both are acceptable in their observations and conclusions.

sure the same methods apply but the conclusions are another matter. Thats why the "social sciences" have so much contradictory results. See, 1+1=2 and thats hard to argue. In the social set- one study pits its "conclusions" against another- thus the quagmire. Thats science ( in a form yes) but hardly an absolute.

The question on the table is this BF exists or not- theres no "conclusion" there ( as far as theory)- it either exists or not ( thats an absolute)

>>> Native American traditional stories are evidence; footprint casts are evidence; unknown hair is evidence; unknown howls are evidence; witness reports are evidence. What they aren't is proof.

They are evidence alright- just useless evidence leading nowhere. So, how much useless evidence does it take to establish a fact ( BF exists- Y,N) and then what part of this "evidence" has survived any objective scrutiny or are we just supposed to accept it on its face "just because?"

So, what "evidence" is there that amounts to anything beyond a good story at this point?
what do 100+ year old stories establish?
What "unknown" hair/dna is there that demonstrates something?
What "howl" has ever been shown to come from a BF?
What "witness report" has actually been INVESTIGATED ( by any legitimate standard applied anywhere) that has resulted in more than "the witness SOUNDED credible" with nothing to back it up other than an observer opinion?

If I'm missing something, please show it to me

>>>There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparate
as physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example.

Sure, IF there is something to measure them against

>>>The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with
refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate
statistical analyses.

OK, let me ask you this- how much validity do you put in a "what if" deduction based in an "it could be" dataset derived from an "it looks like" examination?

>>And, it is not all GIGO.

In light of the above, then I'm missing something- what else is it?

longtabberPE wrote:





Ya know, I WAS looking for a new signature. Thanks.

All science starts with a "what if?" as do all hypotheses, there is nothing contradictory about it, and all hypotheses
are formulated on some form of "it could be" and how many times have scientists seen an "it looks like" moment only
to serendipitously discover either a new species, new branch of science, new whatever?

Hi

Ya know, I WAS looking for a new signature. Thanks.




Peace
Tim

Longtabber:

You said "They are evidence alright- just useless evidence leading nowhere. So, how much useless evidence does it take to establish a fact ( BF exists- Y,N) and then what part of this "evidence" has survived any objective scrutiny or are we just supposed to accept it on its face "just because?"

And you love to say:
"BF live

BF Memorex

Its that simple, if its NOT "live"- its memorex ( no 3rd option)"

You say there are no facts, no testable ingredients to prove "BF live". You deny that there are testable ingredients to prove "BF Memorex" (the suit) True of False in that film.
You put all the burden of proof on one option, as if the other needs no proof at all.

Sorry, my friend, but proof cuts both ways, and there are scientific issues that reasonably can be researched, studied, and used to deduce or determine probability, likelyness, and maybe even conclusive fact, on at least one side of this fence. And if one side has potential for rigorous scientific study, (based of facts, real physical materials and real physics) that renders a conclusion for one of your choices above, than the strength of that conclusion on one side is inversely applied to the other choice.
Ergo: If you can prove what's in the film is not a suit, then it's real.

Now, I haven't proven it yet, but I took some time to refresh myself on what I've posted in the last two months.


I studied the motion and physical dynamics of cloth materials.

I studied the motion and physical dynamics of foamed plastics potentially used for padding.

I studied the interaction of light and shadow on fur/hair masses based on their bristled or erect posture as opposed to their laying down or shingling posture.

I studied the physical dynamics of mechanical devices to animate fabricated prosthetic appendages.

I studied the physical dynamics of bladders using air or fluids as the pressure transfer medium for accomplishing simulations of animation in costumes.

I studied the physiological response of humans to the particular circumstances of wearing a formfitting and heavily insulated suit which retains body heat, inpedes motion, and retards traditional body cooling mechanisms.

I studied the architecture of costume closures as they impact upon the mobility of said costume.

I studied the functionality of operating this device (a costume) in a wilderness setting as opposed to in a controlled studio setting, in terms of necessary support personnal and their job performance criteria.

I studied the capacity of human dexterity in relation to the prospect of dressing one's self in a suit and grooming same, and concluded some functional processes cannot be done by the suited person without assistance from a person outside the suit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was studying physics, chemistry, biology, human anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics.

The fundamental flaw of your passionate arguments is that you ignore all the scientific potential to prove one of your two options as true or false, in the stated circumstance (the PG Film). And proving one option true or false would, by your reasoning, prove the inverse for the other. Prove one true, the other is false. Prove one false, the other is true.

So allow me to apply your logic to this:

There are many kinds of creatures - True

There are many kinds of costume suits - True

Is there a known creature exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No.

is there a known costume suit exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No.

Seems to be a pretty level playing field here, and so if I can use physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics, as applied to such existing and tangible substances as cloth, fiber, resins, foamed plastics, metal parts, and various fabricated structures based on these tangibles, and thus prove that one option can not exist ( a costume of appearance and functionality equivalent to what is in the film), than the other option is the only one standing.

Worth a try, don't you think, to maybe get us all out of the quagmire?



Bill