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

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Presumably by the plaster casts taken of the supposed tracks.

71426_2x3.jpg

I'm sure that will be his answer, in fact I hope so.  

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

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Presumably by the plaster casts taken of the supposed tracks.

71426_2x3.jpg

Hrrrmzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Can't see the alleged mid tarsal break.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hrrrmzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Can't see the alleged mid tarsal break.

 

 

Mid-tarsal fake; mid-tarsal farce.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Presumably by the plaster casts taken of the supposed tracks.

71426_2x3.jpg

Grover krantz self appointed footie expert said many times and i paraphase,

That sure tracks can and are faked but they are easy to spot as they are just enlarged versions of a human foot. <end.

To me what patterson is showing a very generic looking large human foot, intriguing it looks a lot like the fake tracks made by Wallace who patterson did question about how to make tracks and casts....hum.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 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.

No, it cant and to make claims otherwise isnt science at all.

We do not know camera speed, distant from subject, subject speed, pattersons speed, their angles, etc so you are wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

To put my point above in simpler terms…think of it like this.  You know that famous photo on the Beatles album cover, I think it’s Abbey Road?  IDK.  The one where they are walking across the intersection of a street? That one. I think at least one of the Beatles is barefoot in that photo.  If we knew the size of that Beatles feet, 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.  It’s math, it’s science, it’s proven.

Weak, very weak, The barefoot beatle is a real person we have his foot to prove that, for this to apply to the PGF you must prove the film subject made the track, the provenance isnt there, the time lines do not fit zero way you can prove the track patterson claims was made by that film subject actually was so your whole claim is moot.

Not science at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

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.

Wrong, lol, you mean you didnt even look up BH height, too funny, 6ft and very within range of tge subject.

BH told a great amount of details about the suit and it all fits when looking at the suit,  he didnt own the suit it was pattersons no reason BH should have it he was in his 20s and recalls it just fine,

You really do need to reaserch this better, not just jump in what supports your wishes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

the term publish are perish

Do you mean "publish or perish"

Isnt it used as a cop out for those who cant back up claims

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

10 hours 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.

As I stated and you have now corroborated,

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

The film cannot tell us the height or weight. information external to the film is required.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

I think Morris was a liar and had nothing to do with the making of the PGF.

You and I very much agree. Which raises the question, *who* made the monkey suit,, or did *anyone* make that suit?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

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. 

Well, that may be true, I suppose, but you seem to take the side that says if there is not enough evidence, that *proves* it is not a creature.

sorry, I disagree.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, that may be true, I suppose, but you seem to take the side that says if there is not enough evidence, that *proves* it is not a creature.

sorry, I disagree.

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence where evidence is necessarily expected as it would be for a breeding population of continentally distributed 6-9-ft bipedal apes. It has nothing to do with "taking sides" but everything to do with recognizing objective reality.  

Want to establish footie?  Produce one, or part of one, or provide a location where footie can be reliably observed.

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

10 hours 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.

I don't think you have an actual understanding of the how science proceeds or the terminology.

 

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

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

We know that isn't true. It sure sounds good to those that don't believe in science and testing out ideas.

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

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I don't think you have an actual understanding of the how science proceeds or the terminology.

 

I would like him to explain his notion of the scientific method (not one he googled) and why publication and peer review are important.

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

25 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You and I very much agree. Which raises the question, *who* made the monkey suit,, or did *anyone* make that suit?

My bet is on Patterson himself or an as-yet-unknown taxidermist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Resume said:

I would like him to explain his notion of the scientific method (not one he googled) and why publication and peer review are important.

Of course he isn't the only poster who seems to misunderstand science, but at least he has the courage of his convictions and (mostly) doesn't run away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

My bet is on Patterson himself or an as-yet-unknown taxidermist.

I go with him because it eliminates an extraneous player in on the hoax. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 1:39 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

How the smeg has it never been seen since?

If you look at the top left of this map where you have populations between 1 and 10 people per square mile is where the film was shot.  If you ever go there (totally worth the trip to see the Red Wood Forest) you understand how isolated that area really is.  Also it is still spotted in that area (second map)

karte-bevoelkerungsdichte-kalifornien.pnBigfoot-Sightings-Map-Feature-Image.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

If you look at the top left of this map where you have populations between 1 and 10 people per square mile is where the film was shot.  If you ever go there (totally worth the trip to see the Red Wood Forest) you understand how isolated that area really is.  Also it is still spotted in that area (second map)

karte-bevoelkerungsdichte-kalifornien.pnBigfoot-Sightings-Map-Feature-Image.jpg

 

Yet every single brown bear was eliminated from California and that isolated area by 1922, when the population was less than 4-million.  Where did footie hide?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Resume said:

Yet every single brown bear was eliminated from California and that isolated area by 1922, when the population was less than 4-million.  Where did footie hide?

Assuming that I'm arguing that there are big foot in the area rather than explaining to someone how isolated the area is and how there are to this day still BF sightings, I would say that the population in the area was much different during the gold rush when most of the bears were killed and before law protected the area as a national park and point out the bears are attracted to human populated areas because they scavenge from humans.  Also brown bear still exist in CA

https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2019/06/07/seven-things-to-know-about-california-bear-activity-right-now/#:~:text=There are hundreds of thousands,for bears and other wildlife.

Quote

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of wild habitat in nearby Lake, Solano, Colusa, Sonoma and Napa counties where bears are present. The Knoxville Wildlife Area in Napa County, the lands around Lake Berryessa and the Cache Creek area provide wild habitat for bears and other wildlife. These rugged areas, however, are not that far from population centers in the greater Bay Area where dispersing and foraging bears could accidentally end up.

 

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Assuming that I'm arguing that there are big foot in the area rather than explaining to someone how isolated the area is and how there are to this day still BF sightings, I would say that the population in the area was much different during the gold rush when most of the bears were killed and before law protected the area as a national park and point out the bears are attracted to human populated areas because they scavenge from humans.  Also brown bear still exist in CA

https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2019/06/07/seven-things-to-know-about-california-bear-activity-right-now/#:~:text=There are hundreds of thousands,for bears and other wildlife.

 

There are plenty of black bear, but no brown bear in California.

https://treehozz.com/how-many-brown-bears-are-in-california

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_grizzly_bear

And from your link

Quote

California is home only to one species of bear – the black bear. Black bears, however, come in a variety of colors, including black, brown, blond and cinnamon.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Assuming that I'm arguing that there are big foot in the area rather than explaining to someone how isolated the area is and how there are to this day still BF sighting

But no bigfoots.

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

would say that the population in the area was much different during the gold rush when most of the bears were killed and before law protected the area as a national park and point out the bears are attracted to human populated areas because they scavenge from human

Does nothing to explain the lack of footie harvested while sharing the same habitat.

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 Also brown bear still exist in CA.

Where in your citation is this assertion backed up, I missed it?

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There are hundreds of thousands of acres of wild habitat in nearby Lake, Solano, Colusa, Sonoma and Napa counties where bears are present. The Knoxville Wildlife Area in Napa County, the lands around Lake Berryessa and the Cache Creek area provide wild habitat for bears and other wildlife. These rugged areas, however, are not that far from population centers in the greater Bay Area where dispersing and foraging bears could accidentally end up.

Again, this does nothing to explain where footie hid during the exploitation of Northern (or Southern) California.

Edited by Resume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Resume said:

But no bigfoots.

But you can't prove that it's just something you believe due to lack of evidence.  Good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Resume said:

Does nothing to explain the lack of footie harvested while sharing the same habitat.

If they exist then they avoid humans unlike bears who are attracted to human areas for scavenging.  though I already suggest that.

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.