I don't keep up with the show, but wasn't this a new(er) episode last night (08/05/09)?? I had never seen this one, and I found it compelling. Now, I am referring to the one with Meldrum (don't they all) doing the laser tests(?) on the footprints looking for the Metatarsal Break, with the Orthopedic Dr. looking at the cripplefoot casts. And the guy using a 2 dimensional computer model of the PGF to estimate the height of Patty, along with some other people. Everyone already seen this one??

Well if you have, screw you cause I'm gonna talk about it again!!! LOL . . . Just joking. But seriously,I found this a very intersesting show. Especially the guy working on the PGF. He found (in his opinion) that Patterson was using a 15mm lens on his camera instead of a 25mm which everyone assumed was on the camera. Because of this, the fact the lens is a different size, throws off most of the work & estimates people have done on the PGF (these are his words). He came to the conclusion that Patty was most likely 7'4'' tall. With a margin an error, she is between 7'2'' to 7'6''. He also made 5 reproductions of the subjects head, re-filmed the PGF using a high def cam & the camera Patterson used. To make a long story short, he concluded the subject COULD NOT be a human in a mask.

The Ortho Dr & Meldrum said the Cripplefoot cast would have been virtually impossible to hoax. And most of the prints that he already had determined as authenticate, had a Metatarsal Break in them.

Just curious as to what others thought. I don't see where this episode had been discussed here. It was definitely one of the best B/F productions I have seen, just from a scientific view. Anyone???

yeah, i've seen that episode one or two times myself. its one of the better MQ shows if you ask me.
the only part that i dont agree with is where they say patty is wearing a wig of long hair.
the work that was done to find that the camera was a 15 and not a 25 really shows how the film is being taken seriously ( by some at least ) and not dismissed.
what was interesting was how an average sized human was overlayed on the patty image , and the body joints ( knees. hips , shoulders ) dont line up, that says alot to me
and i think defining the mid tarsal break ( the work dr. meldrum is doing ) will lead somewhere, ruling out human or bear tracks, allowing for positive BF to be i.d.

So this was not a NEW show, obviously not since you've already seen it. Damn, I need to invest in TV Guide! Well, at least you agreed with me that it was a good one, LOL.

The person claiming Patterson used a 15mm lens is Bill Munns. Here is a link to a discussion about his theory.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24839

Also, this show was discussed in another thread, probably one reason you didn't get a bunch of responses.

I caught the show as well. I record it regularly and this was the first time I'd caught this episode. I think the online guide dated the episode as 2009 so its fairly new anyway.

Just a couple of quibbles with the episode.

- They wasted too much time on the aborted helicopter mission when they were able to get everything they needed once the guy figured out the 15 vs 25 mm lens discrepancy.
- I was a little confused by the laser analysis of the footprint casts. He seemed pretty confident that the test for the metatarsal break was a really good tool for identifying real prints but he didn't really get into any casts other than the one with the crippled foot. Seems like there's probably more than a few that he could tag as likely real or likely fake but it didn't happen.
- For being in their top 5 pieces of bigfoot evidence, they spent very little time on the other video.

I'll stop nagging and say that it was actually one of the better episodes that I've seen in a while. Its definitely worth watching.

Mike

A few remarks about the show:

It was first broadcast on Wed. July 8, I believe, and then repeated last Wed, Aug. 5.

The 15mm lens issue I presented is, at present, a highly contended subject. There are some people who think it's been fully resolved, but it has not.

From a mechanical standpoint, other lens options are possible, and there are still issues with both the PGF camera lens and the lens on the camera used for the McClarin reinactment filming which are still being evaluated.

The most important thing is that it remains a worthy subject for research effort, and has some potential for a factual resolution.

Bill Munns

questions about the lens size. if the lens is a 15mm, it makes the creature 7 something foot tall, but if the lens was a 25mm, then the creature would be 5 foot tall ( heights are guesses on my part ) ? but if a 25mm lens makes the creature 5 or 6 foot tall, or of patterson was closer or futher when filming, would a stardard size human overlay fit the body joints better ? or is the creature fundamentally different in structure all together ?

Scibaer:

"questions about the lens size. if the lens is a 15mm, it makes the creature 7 something foot tall, but if the lens was a 25mm, then the creature would be 5 foot tall ( heights are guesses on my part ) ? but if a 25mm lens makes the creature 5 or 6 foot tall, or of patterson was closer or futher when filming, would a stardard size human overlay fit the body joints better ? or is the creature fundamentally different in structure all together ?"

First, distance is one of the numbers affecting a height calculation, so with either lens, if you set a closer distance, the subject is smaller, and if you set a farther distance, the subject is bigger. That's why a site model with some kind of dimensional reference, and an attempt to locate the subject path and position in the site, becomes important to try and determine.

So the subject could be 7' tall with a 25mm lens, if she's far enough away, but the site dimensions reported, and which trees she walks in front of and behind, tend to limit the distance to her being closer, and that makes her shorter, with a 25mm lens.

As to the body comparisons, she has a curiously short lower leg, in relation to the upper leg (what anthropologists call a Crural Index, the comparative length of the Femor to the Tibia). The normal human range is in the mid 80's, meaning the tibia (lower leg main bone) is about 83-85% of the length of the femor (upper leg bone). A Crural index of 78-79 is rare among human populations, mainly found with the Sami People of Lappland and the Inuits of farthest North America. The Neanderthal people also had this low Crural Index.

So a short lower leg, like "Patty" has, is rare among the human population, and almost non-existant for humans who are very tall.

Bill

thanks for the explaination Bill. i understand better now why so much work has gone into the patterson film. the shortness of the lower leg does seem revelent now.
let me say that i appreciate your efforts and work you do .
glenn