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

Just now, Resume said:

What was your point?

Sigh.  Seriously?  The point is that based on math and science the height and limb proportions of the film subject can be determined, based on the evidence.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Guyver said:

Sigh.  Seriously?  The point is that based on math and science the height and limb proportions of the film subject can be determined, based on the evidence.

Yes, seriously; how would we determine the size of Patty's footies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

we could accurately describe his height based on the average comparison to data based on the proportions of a man’s legs or arm, or spine or torso, in comparison to the length of his feet.

Bzzzzzt.  Have you ever been into a shoe shop and noted the range of sizes.  Some small people have very large feet and vice versa.  Also different species have different foot-to-height ratios, of course.

So if you tried that, you'd have to take all of that into account, and then some for an unknown species. 

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

It’s math, it’s science, it’s proven.

It would be largely useless math, and not useful science, or at least would have such a large error range as to be a pointless exercise.

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

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No, I was speaking for myself.  But, if you would like confirmation of my points, I recommend Chris Murphy’s book entitled, “Meet the Sasquatch.” That will give you the science and the facts behind my points.

By the way, which accredited journal published any of the science and facts Mr Murphy alleges?

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

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Bzzzzzt.  Have you ever been into a shoe shop and noted the range of sizes.  Some small people have very large feet and vice versa.  Also different species have different foot-to-height ratios, of course.

So if you tried that, you'd have to take all of that into account, and then some for an unknown species. 

It would be largely useless math, and not useful science, or at least would have such a large error range as to be a pointless exercise.

Nothing like giant error bars to **** up your facts and science.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said all that, we might learn that the Phoot Phantom has very large and soft and spongey feet, in order that s/he can walk silently, with out even crushing leaves or twigs.  Why, ... it would be kind of like s/he didn't actually exist.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Resume said:

By the way, which accredited journal published any of the science and facts Mr Murphy alleges?

Lol.  
Anyway, to save people a lot of reading, and purchasing the book, then waiting for them to read it and comment and so forth, I believe it’s 6’8”.  So, how tall was that fat guy that said he was the guy in the suit?  Who is it, Bob Heironomous?  The guy who could never produce the fake suit or accurately describe what it was made of? That guy? 
Oh yeah…him.  Well, all a smart person has to do is look at a picture of him, know his shoe size, and they can determine his height.  FWIW.  He’s too short and his arms don’t fit his legs if he’s the film subject.  And lastly, his feet are too small.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Lol.  

Why do you find that question amusing?  Can't you answer it? What reputable journal published Mr. Murphy's breakthrough?

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Anyway, to save people a lot of reading, and purchasing the book, then waiting for them to read it and comment and so forth, I believe it’s 6’8”.  

How was that determined?

7 minutes ago, Guyver said:

.  Well, all a smart person has to do is look at a picture of him, know his shoe size, and they can determine his height. 

Yes, what's Patty's shoe size, you know, to determine her height? 

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

5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I believe it’s 6’8”

Wow, I'd LOVE to see the maths & science  for that claim.  As a bit of a general photogrammetrist meself, I am very well aware of what you can and can't do with ratios (and perspective and the like), so I'd be happy to peer review it..  The main assumptions and those error ranges would be most, most interesting.

But I'm guessing they are completely, completely absent.  So Guyver (or anyone) - you have the book, what page is it on, and can you quote the claim in full context, please?

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

4 minutes ago, Resume said:

Why do you find that question amusing?  Can't you answer it? What reputable journal published Mr. Murphy's breakthrough?

How was that determined?

Yes, what's Patty's shoe size, you know, to determine her height? 

No.  I find it amusing that you dismiss the facts of a matter based on what is published in science journals.  Do you have any idea about that business? 

Im asking honestly because, if so, then you must be familiar with the term publish are perish.

Do you know what that implies?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Well, not exactly. What I want to be is the truth. And I am not 100% sold on the PG entity is a bigfoot, btw.
Now, put the same litmus test to the skeptics in here. They "want it to be" that the entity is a man in a monkey suit
so they search only for evidence that backs that presumption. This is a wont amongst the best of debaters, sadly. 

Sorry I don't believe that 

I'd say the skeptics are just believers with a higher standard for evidence.

It hasn't been met. 

There is more evidence to illustrate a suit than there is to support the idea of a real unknown creature. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

No.  I find it amusing that you dismiss the facts of a matter based on what is published in science journals.  Do you have any idea about that business? 

I'm not dismissing anything; I'm asking in what reputable journal did Mr. Murphy publish his footie findings?  Can you answer that question?

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Im asking honestly because, if so, then you must be familiar with the term publish are perish.

Yes.

Quote

Do you know what that implies?

Yes.  I also know what paranoid fringe believer thinks it means.  Also what they think peer-review means.

 

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

58 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Not true.

The film subject does leave itself to be determined in height to an acceptable amount of deviation, due to a thing called proportional analysis.  Since the film subject left physical tracks that were observed, measured, and some preserved in spite of the rain, a scientific comparison can be made.  In its simplest version, you may know it as this…

A=B as C=D

The height of the film subject can be relatively determined.

Darren Naish (@TetZoo) Tweeted:
But he later revised this down to less than 6ft 5in. In more recent years, M. K. Davis has combined Green’s footage of McClarin with the PGF. This seems to show that Patty is shorter than McClarin.

https://t.co/nEQIs2JvzE

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there was a glitch, I meant to correct that by saying “publish or perish.” It is a phrase used in academic circles, and it refers to the fact that your paycheck and continued employment is based upon agreed upon norms. That is what we call vested interest and it leads to a thing called confirmation bias.  
 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many, many scientific journals have published false information.  Do you know how it is that we know this is true? It’s called retraction.  And it’s what happens when a scientific claim has been falsified.  It happens all the time.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Many, many scientific journals have published false information.  Do you know how it is that we know this is true? It’s called retraction.  And it’s what happens when a scientific claim has been falsified.  It happens all the time.

Triangulation is old school 

That's how you determine height.

You need distance and angle. 

They can be any value in that film. 

 

Retraction isn't a regular feature. One particularly rude poster often states science changes every other day. That's a lie. It gets updated but not always changed. It's rare for something to be rewritten entirely. Last time that happened was several hundred years ago. 

Claims are tested these days for falsification before being accepted as fact. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I’m saying is this.  If you live your life based on what is published in science journals, number one…. you are in for a topsy-turvy world….and number two, you should check yourself about the accuracy of what you believe in.  It could all change tomorrow with the “Latest Finding.”

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Many, many scientific journals have published false information.

And then the error is exposed when other scientists attempt to replicate the findings.  It's called self-correction and is what seperates science from dogma.  It's a rare thing for journals to publish actual hoaxes, but when it happens, it gets exposed by other experts, as in the case of Andrew Wakeman and his fraudulent paper on autism and vaccines  Again, self-correction.

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 

 Do you know how it is that we know this is true?

I explained it above

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

It’s called retraction.

It's called testing the findings.

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 And it’s what happens when a scientific claim has been falsified.

No, it's just science.

33 minutes ago, Guyver said:

It happens all the time.

Yes, science falsifies hypotheses all the time.  Sometimes it happens in peer-review, sometimes after publication.  Again, that's what separates science from dogma.  None of which has anything to do with whether or not Mr. Murphy has published his findings in a reputable journal.  Has he?

Edited by Resume
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Murphy's 'paper' was not ever properly published in a real journal.  However it got a little bit of informal review and help from Meldrum...  Who is of course the creator and editor of the ego 'journal' where you'll find that paper.

It's also interesting, no wait, predictable, to note that Meldrum has published some papers on scientific topics, but all of his Bigfoot stuff only goes to his own journal..

Absolutely no sign of bias issues there. {sarcasm}

And the content of the Murphy paper?  It's amateurish rubbish- happy to give specifics, but seeing Guyver isn't quoting his claim properly, I think it's fair to say .. you first.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

All I’m saying is this.  If you live your life based on what is published in science journals, number one….

All science is provisional.  Did you not know that?  But the major theories like evolution and relativity are not likely to be completely overturned.

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 

you are in for a topsy-turvy world…

Can you please present a more reliable epistomology than the scientific method?  

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

and number two, you should check yourself about the accuracy of what you believe in.  

Can you please present a more reliable epistomology than the scientific method?

26 minutes ago, Guyver said:

It could all change tomorrow with the “Latest Finding.”

Why did you put latest finding in scare quotes.  Now I don't think it could "all" change tomorrow, but the scientific method allows for revision based on further data, which again seperates it from dogma.  

Edited by Resume
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I see Murphy's 'paper' was not ever properly published in a real journal.  However it got a little bit of informal review and help from Meldrum...  Who is of course the creator and editor of the ego 'journal' where you'll find that paper.

RHI? * Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!   So much for reputable.

27 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It's also interesting, no wait, predictable, to note that Meldrum has published some papers on scientific topics, but all of his Bigfoot stuff only goes to his own journal.

Absolutely no sign of bias issues there. {sarcasm}

And the content of the Murphy paper?  It's amateurish rubbish- happy to give specifics, but seeing Guyver isn't quoting his claim properly, I think it's fair to say .. you first.

I think Munn's "findings" were published in RHI* as well.

 

*Relict Homonoid Inquiry.  For Guyver.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guyver, could you please describe the metric by which Patty's height was determined?  I'm especially interested how the foot size was established in order to do the calculations you assert.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

All I’m saying is this.  If you live your life based on what is published in science journals, number one…. you are in for a topsy-turvy world….and number two, you should check yourself about the accuracy of what you believe in.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs though. Only that which can be demonstrated upon demand. It's never let me down personally. 

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 It could all change tomorrow with the “Latest Finding.”

No that's just not true. The other poster I mentioned has said this plenty and I've taken it up. Facts aren't stand alone. In general they have many supporting evidences. 

As I said, the last time that happened was when the periodic table came into existence. Science then there have been updated information added to existing theories but a rewrite would mean everything we know is wrong. That's just not going to happen. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Resume said:

I'm especially interested how the foot size was established in order to do the calculations you assert.

Presumably by the plaster casts taken of the supposed tracks.

71426_2x3.jpg

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

18 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I see Murphy's 'paper' was not ever properly published in a real journal.  However it got a little bit of informal review and help from Meldrum...  Who is of course the creator and editor of the ego 'journal' where you'll find that paper.

It's also interesting, no wait, predictable, to note that Meldrum has published some papers on scientific topics, but all of his Bigfoot stuff only goes to his own journal..

Absolutely no sign of bias issues there. {sarcasm}

And the content of the Murphy paper?  It's amateurish rubbish- happy to give specifics, but seeing Guyver isn't quoting his claim properly, I think it's fair to say .. you first.

It seems as if Guyver has been doing some research into science, I just fear he's getting his information from the wrong places.

  • Like 2
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.