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 -

Experts use AI and Computer vision to determine if the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film is real


jethrofloyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

This has to be one of the dumbest stories ever.

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

These goof balls need to go back to school and learn what can be determined

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loony comments:

"There is a flexing in the middle of the foot, which is commonly seen in apes and not humans, and an upward turning of the toes that would be impossible to see if it was just a person in a costume"

False if stepping in a dip in the sand - therefore a laughably false statement by the wingnuts in the article

"Definition is also seen in the calf muscles as the creature walks, which would not be seen in manmade furry suit either."

This is never seen which shows how pathetic the prevaricators in the article are.

A  lot of commentary comes from Meldrum, not AI.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, stereologist said:

Loony comments:

"There is a flexing in the middle of the foot, which is commonly seen in apes and not humans, and an upward turning of the toes that would be impossible to see if it was just a person in a costume"

False if stepping in a dip in the sand - therefore a laughably false statement by the wingnuts in the article

"Definition is also seen in the calf muscles as the creature walks, which would not be seen in manmade furry suit either."

This is never seen which shows how pathetic the prevaricators in the article are.

A  lot of commentary comes from Meldrum, not AI.

Thank you.

Great to see you back. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Thank you.

Great to see you back. 

I took a vacation from substandard thinking. I see that the standards here are pretty good again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as weight goes there is a means of determining weight. The PG crew took casts. Actually Titmus took the casts

http://paramuseum.com/pieces/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-cast/

https://bigfootcasts.com/products/bigfoot-patterson-patty-track-footprint-cast

Anyone notice anything odd here? It's a perfectly flat foot. You try doing that.

Also, the hooves of the horses left no prints. So whatever made the prints either did some messing around or BF weighs in the ton plus zone

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 years and that little scrap of film is all they've got and that makes it, in my mind, too good to be true.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that, @Hammerclaw, the third person claiming to be Patty? Ya, even the so-called hoax busters can be hoaxers looking for that 15 minutes of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What's that, @Hammerclaw, the third person claiming to be Patty? Ya, even the so-called hoax busters can be hoaxers looking for that 15 minutes of fame.

Patty is like the Loch Ness Monster.

You need to put effort into believing the stories. Only those who want to believe Patty is real actually do anymore. 

It's just a story these days. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What's that, @Hammerclaw, the third person claiming to be Patty? Ya, even the so-called hoax busters can be hoaxers looking for that 15 minutes of fame.

Well, somebody was in that suit and this guy looks like bigfoot without it!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 7:41 PM, stereologist said:

This has to be one of the dumbest stories ever.

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

These goof balls need to go back to school and learn what can be determined

 

On 1/15/2022 at 7:52 PM, stereologist said:

Loony comments:

"There is a flexing in the middle of the foot, which is commonly seen in apes and not humans, and an upward turning of the toes that would be impossible to see if it was just a person in a costume"

False if stepping in a dip in the sand - therefore a laughably false statement by the wingnuts in the article

"Definition is also seen in the calf muscles as the creature walks, which would not be seen in manmade furry suit either."

This is never seen which shows how pathetic the prevaricators in the article are.

A  lot of commentary comes from Meldrum, not AI.

Hope you been good,

Like i keep braying 99% of claims about seeing this or that detail in the PGF is based on a personal belief desire agenda not science.

No one knows the distance, angles, speeds, that the subject or patterson were moving nor do they know for sure camera speed so to make claims of the subjects size, weight etc is not science its assinine,

( all covered in HCs link )

 

Enter Bob Heironimus,

The man tells the tale of being bigfoot and likely was but shot himself in the ( big ) foot.

Heironimus knew and was a neighbor with gimlin, at the time he was young and recalls details imnsho as good as anyone would, hes built odd and walks balls on like patty,

So his blunder,

Phillip morris jumps up to take credit for the costume, most people who have researched this case believe likely the costume was either no name or johnny chambers made,

morris and heironimus team up and morris makes a suit that sucked even with heironmus doing the walk,  so that gave true believers fodder.

If one traces back the provenance pretty much all the made up non science about details and how the subject cant be a suit is being spewed by meldrum who has a mountain sized glass fragile ego, iirc he bailed out of here when he didnt like the questions,

So keeping in mind meldrum makes a lot of $$$ off his spewing one much cut him slack,

I truly believe that patterson widow could show a bloopers real while gimlin danced a jig in the suit and meldrum would still tantrum out its not a man in a suit,

Lets not forget meldrums epic blunder with snowwalker hoax which he said was in par with the PGF and no way a man in a suit.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we don't have is Patty showing up claiming to be the man in the suit.  That would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Patty is like the Loch Ness Monster.

You need to put effort into believing the stories. Only those who want to believe Patty is real actually do anymore. 

It's just a story these days. 

[earth shattering] :huh:

ya, I can actually agree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

[earth shattering] :huh:

ya, I can actually agree with that. 

For once....

I'm speechless.....

Doesn't happen often.... :lol:

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/15/2022 at 4:41 PM, stereologist said:

This has to be one of the dumbest stories ever.

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

These goof balls need to go back to school and learn what can be determined

One thing you can learn about, which these goof balls know a little bit about is called corroborating evidence.  That is, the physical evidence that accompanies the film.  
 

Anyway, I’m bumping this thread to say, after three days of quarantine and watching way too much television, I really appreciate that “The Proof is Out There” runs their videos through professional analysis to determine if they are fake, before they do anything else. So many of these other television shows, like Paranormal Caught On Camera and the like, they don’t even check the videos for fakery.  In my mind, those shows are not worth watching, but this one is.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

One thing you can learn about, which these goof balls know a little bit about is called corroborating evidence.  That is, the physical evidence that accompanies the film.  
 

Anyway, I’m bumping this thread to say, after three days of quarantine and watching way too much television, I really appreciate that “The Proof is Out There” runs their videos through professional analysis to determine if they are fake, before they do anything else. So many of these other television shows, like Paranormal Caught On Camera and the like, they don’t even check the videos for fakery.  In my mind, those shows are not worth watching, but this one is.

Nice you brought that up there is zero collaborative evidence supporting the PGF

There was no hair found, no droppings etc  and the paster cases that Patterson claimed the took that day which if you actually research that the time line doesnt support he could have made casts that day,

Anyway the casts do not match the flat rectangle foot the PGF suit had,

On the other side of the coin there is far more circumstantial evidence to support a hoax starting with patterson had a shady reputation as a con man he even stole the camera, none of the story of when and how they got the film developed adds up and the rest is well known.

However if you have physical evidence to support the PGF some thing they never had that it is a real creature please share it as it will blow the lid off the hoax i imagine it would give a great comfort to gimlin to have some proof after all these decades.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the13bats said:

Nice you brought that up there is zero collaborative evidence supporting the PGF

There was no hair found, no droppings etc  and the paster cases that Patterson claimed the took that day which if you actually research that the time line doesnt support he could have made casts that day,

Anyway the casts do not match the flat rectangle foot the PGF suit had,

On the other side of the coin there is far more circumstantial evidence to support a hoax starting with patterson had a shady reputation as a con man he even stole the camera, none of the story of when and how they got the film developed adds up and the rest is well known.

However if you have physical evidence to support the PGF some thing they never had that it is a real creature please share it as it will blow the lid off the hoax i imagine it would give a great comfort to gimlin to have some proof after all these decades.

Also, as you said in another thread, he drew a female bigfoot prior to filming and lo and behold, it looks exactly like the being on his film.   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Myles said:

Also, as you said in another thread, he drew a female bigfoot prior to filming and lo and behold, it looks exactly like the being on his film.   

I have read where some researchers believe that drawing was his plan for the suit, bob heronimous the guy in the suit questioned the added on breasts,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

One thing you can learn about, which these goof balls know a little bit about is called corroborating evidence.  That is, the physical evidence that accompanies the film.  
 

Anyway, I’m bumping this thread to say, after three days of quarantine and watching way too much television, I really appreciate that “The Proof is Out There” runs their videos through professional analysis to determine if they are fake, before they do anything else. So many of these other television shows, like Paranormal Caught On Camera and the like, they don’t even check the videos for fakery.  In my mind, those shows are not worth watching, but this one is.

But these things cannot be determined from the film:

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

If we look at so-called corroborating evidence from the area we have casts which show that the flat foot prints were deep and yet none of the horses left deep prints.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

But these things cannot be determined from the film:

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

If we look at so-called corroborating evidence from the area we have casts which show that the flat foot prints were deep and yet none of the horses left deep prints.

P&G forgot to lay them.  OOOPS!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2022 at 2:16 AM, the13bats said:

 

Hope you been good,

Like i keep braying 99% of claims about seeing this or that detail in the PGF is based on a personal belief desire agenda not science.

No one knows the distance, angles, speeds, that the subject or patterson were moving nor do they know for sure camera speed so to make claims of the subjects size, weight etc is not science its assinine,

( all covered in HCs link )

 

Enter Bob Heironimus,

The man tells the tale of being bigfoot and likely was but shot himself in the ( big ) foot.

Heironimus knew and was a neighbor with gimlin, at the time he was young and recalls details imnsho as good as anyone would, hes built odd and walks balls on like patty,

So his blunder,

Phillip morris jumps up to take credit for the costume, most people who have researched this case believe likely the costume was either no name or johnny chambers made,

morris and heironimus team up and morris makes a suit that sucked even with heironmus doing the walk,  so that gave true believers fodder.

If one traces back the provenance pretty much all the made up non science about details and how the subject cant be a suit is being spewed by meldrum who has a mountain sized glass fragile ego, iirc he bailed out of here when he didnt like the questions,

So keeping in mind meldrum makes a lot of $$$ off his spewing one much cut him slack,

I truly believe that patterson widow could show a bloopers real while gimlin danced a jig in the suit and meldrum would still tantrum out its not a man in a suit,

Lets not forget meldrums epic blunder with snowwalker hoax which he said was in par with the PGF and no way a man in a suit.

 

I really doubt that Heironimus and Morris had anything to do with the PGF, considering how p***-poor their recreations were. Krantz could do the walk better! Patterson was a pretty artistic and crafty guy and I wouldn't be surprised if he made the suit himself. To me it looks like it was made from black bear hide, not synthetic fur or horse hide like is sometimes claimed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

I really doubt that Heironimus and Morris had anything to do with the PGF, considering how p***-poor their recreations were. Krantz could do the walk better! Patterson was a pretty artistic and crafty guy and I wouldn't be surprised if he made the suit himself. To me it looks like it was made from black bear hide, not synthetic fur or horse hide like is sometimes claimed.

Not exactly, well i have a different opinion,

Krantz shot himself in the foot, no pun intended when he did do the PGF walk rather well.

Bob Heironimus, ( BH ) does walk pretty much just like the PGF subject, and has the build and as far as im concerned he recalls the details as good as anyone would decades later, i booked some killer bands in my 20s and only recall bits and pieces so it could be said i am lying?

BH passed a polygraph, to me passing doesnt mean as much as failing like Travis walton did.

Imnsho Here is BHs epic blunder, he teamed up with Phillip Morris, ( PM ) a fellow who figured since everyone was dead or couldnt prove anything he would take credit for the suit, a suit he obvisly didnt make, like the PGF suit PM stuff wasnt top end in its day and he humiliated himself trying to reproduce it, ( i personally believe johnny chambers was involved in the suit then patterson tweaked it )

Patterson was known to have asked Wallace about making tracks and fake feet,

So BH messed up big time teaming with PM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

I really doubt that Heironimus and Morris had anything to do with the PGF, considering how p***-poor their recreations were. Krantz could do the walk better! Patterson was a pretty artistic and crafty guy and I wouldn't be surprised if he made the suit himself. To me it looks like it was made from black bear hide, not synthetic fur or horse hide like is sometimes claimed.


Somewhat of a mystery here is how no one back at that time duplicated the effort to make that monkey suit, proving that it was man made. Amazing that, eh?
Also, going forward in time, I can't ever recall seeing a monkey suit being used as a BF look this sophisticated. Nobody got to that level yet? Strange that, eh?

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
reword
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Somewhat of a mystery here is how no one back at that time replicated the effort to make that monkey suit, proving that it was man made. Amazing that, eh?
Also, going forward in time, I can't ever recall seeing a monkey suit being used as a BF look this sophisticated. Nobody got to that level yet? Strange that, eh?

You seem easily impressed by that suit. There's plenty older and new that actually are much better. The forum is filled with examples. It's a well debunked claim.

The diaper butt has been a pretty obvious flaw laughed at for a long time now 

It's amazing to you because you want it to be. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Somewhat of a mystery here is how no one back at that time duplicated the effort to make that monkey suit, proving that it was man made. Amazing that, eh?
Also, going forward in time, I can't ever recall seeing a monkey suit being used as a BF look this sophisticated. Nobody got to that level yet? Strange that, eh?

Attempted recreations have all approached it from the wrong angle by using synthetic materials and Hollywood-style manufacturing. As far as I know, no one has ever tried bear hide and taxidermy-style stitching.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

You seem easily impressed by that suit. There's plenty older and new that actually are much better. The forum is filled with examples. It's a well debunked claim.

The diaper butt has been a pretty obvious flaw laughed at for a long time now 

It's amazing to you because you want it to be. 

Hell, I've seen monkey suits in Three Stooges shorts that would look just as convincing as Pattycakes if shot in the same manner with the same equipment as the pgf.  Especially to those of a credulous bent.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.