Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
the13bats

where is just one good picture of a real BF

305 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Carnoferox
7 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Sure but krantz passed in 2002 and hadnt been all that active his last few years before that, krantz believed it for his reasons at the time, meldrum just made it fit and ran with it, i didnt include my take on krantz in my run down because he is passed, and i kind of liked the old bird, didnt agree with him, to cut it short if anyone, i dont care what their credentials are base their belief of bigfoot only on the pgf i view them as a lost cause, the film proves zero.

I think Krantz is still worth talking about considering his work is responsible for a lot of modern bigfoot lore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

My issues with krantz was i heard him say he based is belief on bf on two things first footprints, well of course he wrote a book on them, and that the pgf is real, he got super closed minded over it, like i mentioned before he would say no way a man could walk like the creature hop up do it rather well realize oops shot myself in the foot ( no pun intended ) and say he didnt do the walk, well or long or whatever.

Many of the prints in his book that he was adamant were real including his crippled individual have basically been proven fake or in serious question to their credibility,

Like you pointed out he basically started the mistaken theory bf was Gigantopithecus i do not believe besides meldrum anyone clings to that one any more,

I believe he was bored and bigfoot helped a little with his boredom,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
6 minutes ago, the13bats said:

My issues with krantz was i heard him say he based is belief on bf on two things first footprints, well of course he wrote a book on them, and that the pgf is real, he got super closed minded over it, like i mentioned before he would say no way a man could walk like the creature hop up do it rather well realize oops shot myself in the foot ( no pun intended ) and say he didnt do the walk, well or long or whatever.

Many of the prints in his book that he was adamant were real including his crippled individual have basically been proven fake or in serious question to their credibility,

Like you pointed out he basically started the mistaken theory bf was Gigantopithecus i do not believe besides meldrum anyone clings to that one any more,

I believe he was bored and bigfoot helped a little with his boredom,

 

While Meldrum might be the only academic who still supports the whole Gigantopithecus thing, it's become "common knowledge" in the bigfoot/cryptozoology community and is inescapable at this point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Sorry hit post too soon,

You confused me a bit are you pro or con Gigantopithecus?

In addition many modern experts point out that the footprint casts most just do not wash under real unbiased scientific testing, and there are myriad reasons they feel that way,

To me to prove a creature made the track you need more than chilcut basing his very reputation on it, he was shown that he had been fooled by faked dermal ridges and an artist proved many ridges were casting artifacts,

Im not sure prints prove anything at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
17 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Sorry hit post too soon,

You confused me a bit are you pro or con Gigantopithecus?

In addition many modern experts point out that the footprint casts most just do not wash under real unbiased scientific testing, and there are myriad reasons they feel that way,

To me to prove a creature made the track you need more than chilcut basing his very reputation on it, he was shown that he had been fooled by faked dermal ridges and an artist proved many ridges were casting artifacts,

Im not sure prints prove anything at this point.

 

I'm very anti-"Bigfoot-is-Gigantopithecus" and I've already dedicated two much longer posts to that subject.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

I'm very anti-"Bigfoot-is-Gigantopithecus" and I've already dedicated two much longer posts to that subject.

Did i miss them in this thread or please link to them at your leasure,

As an anthropologist one would believe he knew better why do you think meldrum clings to the idea?

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
11 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Did i miss them in this thread or please link to them at your leasure,

As an anthropologist one would believe he knew better why do you think meldrum clings to the idea?

Those posts are linked in my signature below. As for why Meldrum still clings to Gigantopithecus, I have no clue. Maybe he feels some obligation to Krantz?

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
10 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Those posts are linked in my signature below. As for why Meldrum still clings to Gigantopithecus, I have no clue. Maybe he feels some obligation to Krantz?

Excellent work on your third link.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
On 2/14/2019 at 10:16 PM, the13bats said:

This, you see an unknown creature i see a man in a crap suit.

Have you ever done ratio and proportion analysis on the length of limbs on the PG film creature or read the work of those who have done it?  Using the footprints left behind as one means of determining relative size....one could extrapolate values and actually assign measurements in addition to the proportional analysis.  This is one way of determining if it could be a man in a suit.  As I recall, the arms are too long in proportion to the legs and body to be a man in a suit without mechanical extensions.  I think there is enough clarity to determine that there are no arm extensions, not to mention that technology may not have even existed at the time and probably didn’t.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Jeff Meldrum

 

Thank you. He sees things in the film which no one else can see Such as the muscles.

Meldrums claim is that mass produced suits for the movie Planet of the Apes are not as good as the suit made by Morris and sold to Patterson.

I believe that. Making one suit to fit one particular person is better than making suits to fit lots of actors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
6 hours ago, Guyver said:

Have you ever done ratio and proportion analysis on the length of limbs on the PG film creature or read the work of those who have done it?  Using the footprints left behind as one means of determining relative size....one could extrapolate values and actually assign measurements in addition to the proportional analysis.  This is one way of determining if it could be a man in a suit.  As I recall, the arms are too long in proportion to the legs and body to be a man in a suit without mechanical extensions.  I think there is enough clarity to determine that there are no arm extensions, not to mention that technology may not have even existed at the time and probably didn’t.

Are there any flexions of the fingers or lower arms in the PG footage to indicate that they’re not simply fake arm extensions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Those tracks look so fake it is funny. Are those tracks from the planet of the apes series of films?

Perfect toes and no heels. :lol:

It's amazing what fools people.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7


January 2019 Russia


 Bigfoot caused an accident according to participants in this incident.
The video provided by Elizaveta Urbanovich.
"You can actually notice a mysterious creature running away from the road through the forest."

 

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

I am using my phone, i do not see any signature links, what do i set so i can see them?

 

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Have you ever done ratio and proportion analysis on the length of limbs on the PG film creature or read the work of those who have done it?  Using the footprints left behind as one means of determining relative size....one could extrapolate values and actually assign measurements in addition to the proportional analysis.  This is one way of determining if it could be a man in a suit.  As I recall, the arms are too long in proportion to the legs and body to be a man in a suit without mechanical extensions.  I think there is enough clarity to determine that there are no arm extensions, not to mention that technology may not have even existed at the time and probably didn’t.

Have i ever conducted those analysts? No, no need to.

Since we will never know for sure the creatures size and the fact we do not know where patterson started filming, his angle, his speed running with and at the subject the subjects speed etc its all guessing and of no scientific value, to make claims otherwise is unscientific.

Since the track casts patterson are highly dubious, proven too deep and perfect and its no ironry krantz said patterson told him that he not only knew how but had dug out and made fake tracks to cast to "show how its done" so the tracks serve no real use, unless to show patterson knew how to fake stuff.

However, since gimlin guessed it was about 6ft and buyrn guessed about 6.5ft im good with that, about 6 to 7ft but im going on the low end, the arm length? Too long to be a mans arm?

sounds great until common sense kicked in and we realize of course this doesnt prove anything, the hards of the suit might be empty,  ive never seen finger movement and rubber costume finger can and do move if on a swinging arm,  Morris claimed to have explained to patterson how to make arm extensions and sold him extra hair, 

i take morris with a grain of salt but the arms could drag the ground it it far from proves its not a man in a suit, people were not stupid in 67 the concept it was too high tech to be done then is insulting and wrong.

As times progressed suits did get better just imagine how good chewie, the jack links mascot or harry Henderson would have looked cast in the role patty got,  filmed with that same camera under those conditions and how people would argue no way thats a man in a suit, btw, leroy blevins proved that in 67 with only materials available in 67 that suit very well could have been made.

Some say patty was a better suit than planet of the apes, well, no, pota first concern was budget then making heston look good and the money was spent on what one would see the most, like McDowells character, the make up won all kinds of awards and set a new standard by the 2nd and other films background extras were cheap masks and suits but wait, potas apes, were not nude they were in clothes, so its not a good comparison in any way to me, except it makes patty look bad, another film at the time 2001 also shows the patty suit more 40s style like we saw in shows like gilligans island or old movies like the ape or monster robot.

Look up old ape suits 30s 40s horror flicks, that fur those suits look a lot like patty to the unbiased eye, saying the tech wasnt there in 67 is ridiculous, the nasty, grainy, shaky pgf hides a lot and makes it look better than it really was.

Carmen_Nigro_Aka_Ken_Roady-604x900.thumb.jpg.227c347e2e889116822a925fcb39942d.jpg

If we took this suit to the pfg sight used same camera under same conditions our only problem would be it looks far better than the patty suit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are there any flexions of the fingers or lower arms in the PG footage to indicate that they’re not simply fake arm extensions? 

Meldrum and one or two others who claim to see things no one else sees in over enhanced copies of the film says yes you can see all that and more but the unbiased non delusional eye doesnt see it and im not sold the hands are not empty just swinging along.

To me the argument that the arms are too long to be a human in a suit is empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 hour ago, the13bats said:

I am using my phone, i do not see any signature links, what do i set so i can see them?

Here are the links:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Epic win!

Thanks carno,   we think very much simpatico on this one

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox

I don't know why that picture of Mick Dodge keeps showing up when I link that first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Do they have Bigfoot conventions and festivals etc ? Seems like a good way for the gubmint to find out who the crazy people are !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
16 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Do they have Bigfoot conventions and festivals etc ? Seems like a good way for the gubmint to find out who the crazy people are !

 That list would burn out a Cray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

I believe many places like bluff creek try to cash in with bigfoot fests, little carnivals to raise money for the town, seems they opt to spend the budget on bounce houses for the kids rather than to pay meldrum to spew his misinformation, the bounce house is far better bang for the buck....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DodgyDaoist
On 15/02/2019 at 5:32 AM, esoteric_toad said:

Like UFO's, it seems to me that there were many more sharp images BEFORE cameras and video because so common place. While it's my belief 99 percent of supposed pictures and video of the unexplained are simply mundane things, outright hoaxes or at the best, just unknown or unknowable. The last type provide no useful information either way.

That is a very good point. Unfortunately when one digs into image quality on film versus digital it opens a can of worms thats simply crazy regarding photographers. With that being said, it does essentially come down to the way digital images are processed within the camera, the size of the camera sensor and lenses used.

From what i can glean though is that older pictures were generally shot with 35mm fiilm. If one correlates the equivelant in digital format it comes out at a minimum of about 87 Megapixels and even then wouldnt resolve the finer details of what can be captured with 35mm film. Film also picks up the smaller details in colour variations better than the everage digital image, thus there is a greater sense of "shape" to an object whereas the digital image will often appear "flatter" which can give the impression of being worked or photoshopped. Older cameras also had a little weight behind them, not necessarily a big factor , but enough of  a factor to reduce hand shaking and blurry images or video when compared to a smart phone while trying to hold it steady and capture a moving object.

A short article about film resolution and pixel count - https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

I think there are many factors to take into consideration within the photographic realm regarding UFO's to cryptids when we consider the older 'sharper' images as opposed to the crop of 'blob' images seen nowadays. Newer technology does not ideally mean better image quality.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
18 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are there any flexions of the fingers or lower arms in the PG footage to indicate that they’re not simply fake arm extensions? 

Yes.  But there also have been some copies of the film that appear to have been edited, so I’m sure that some people would just dismiss the whole thing as a hoax.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
14 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

Carmen_Nigro_Aka_Ken_Roady-604x900.thumb.jpg.227c347e2e889116822a925fcb39942d.jpg

If we took this suit to the pfg sight used same camera under same conditions our only problem would be it looks far better than the patty suit.

Lol.  Not a chance.  Wait......we’re you joking?  It sounded like you just said that under the same conditions, this suit above would look better than the patty suit.  That’s comical.  This suit would show zero muscle contraction.

As recently as 1994, the BBC paid a hollywood special effects company to recreate the PG film, using modern gear with body suit musculature and their attempt failed miserably, looking absolutely nothing like the original.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.