Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I have read that Bob Gimlin did as well. That said, it is possible to fool those tests. The word of one against another, in the end. Not enough to
decide either way. And, yes, my opinion, and that of many others.
Sounds like the sort of bulls--t bigfootery is founded on. Got a (genuine) documented source for that one?
Gimlin is well known for refusing to take a polygraph and also refusing any critical scrutiny of his story...Unlike Heironimus who has taken
polygraphs on two separate occasions and passed both times.
Before you come out with the "they are not infallible", I agree in some instances. It is Gimlin you need to convince, he obviously seems far less
It isn't just
the word of one against the other, as if they are equal. It is the word of someone confident enough to substantiate his
story with polygraphs and whose general story of a hoax has been corroborated in different ways, against the word of someone who refuses such tests
and whose story/film is very “iffy” both in what it portrays and the circumstances it was filmed.
They used a computer to determine the length of limbs, joint placement, etc. These characteristics are why the walk isn't possible to
duplicate. I have looked at every such attempt I can find, and none match the original. I have, in fact, tried it. Can't do it, nor can anyone I
know. Besides, even discounting the study, no one has made a replica anything like as convincing as the original.
Not this old canard again.
Here is one experiment by experts in human locomotion. There are others. Even Meldrum not only agrees that a human can replicate the
, but is surprised how easily it can be done. As he puts it, it “doesn't rule out a man in a costume”, he just “believes it
isn't”. Though he also seems to believe in Joseph Smith and the gold plates, so much for belief. I like the comment of one anthropologist who feels
that simply trying to walk in such a suit would be enough on its own to cause this gait. Another anthropologist remarks that the proportions of Patty
are “obviously quite human”.....
Ever tried to walk in big floppy rubber feet? Anyway, Heironimus matches the walk easily and very accurately.
Here is a sceptical appraisal of the “dermal ridges” on footprints that don't match any known creature. This is because they are not from any
known creature, they are casting artifacts. They have been recreated experimentally.
As to the Gigantopithecus nonsense claimed by 'footers, you might enjoy these links. To quote from the relevant primatologist...”If it's real, this
animal is exceedingly human like”
..........."Apes can walk on two legs, but not with the the gait and stride of the Patterson bigfoot.
That's a human trait"
I also know what the BEST Hollywood could do at the time was, because we saw that in the Planet of the Apes. WAY inferior to the
Patterson/Gimlin film. The movie people didn't even use whole costumes, because anything like that back them was very obvious.
So a film shot in high definition movie quality for the big screen (about 70 x 30 feet) with crisp clear close ups where actors have to be able to
talk etc with prosthetics, where even the slightest blemish would show.....you are seriously comparing the two? You have got it bad.
The film has been stabilized, though, and what we see there, grainy or not, beats the Hollywood stuff hands down. You can see muscle movement.
If this is an unknown/unclassified primate, we cannot make assumptions about specific traits. So Patterson wrote a book? That doesn't mean this was
Wow, it's been stabilized...
Yet even after such enhancements, it is worthless. For everyone who sees a real creature, another sees fake rubber
feet, zippers and joins ( and the strangest looking non descript lump/backside of all time- minus a crack :lol
You see muscle movement. I see the bulge where Hieronimus forgot to take his wallet out of his trousers. It is called pareidolia.
That Patterson wrote a book in which his bigfoot sketch had breasts doesn't prove on it's own that the film is a fake. What it does is pre empt the
usual bigfoot religious fundamentalists from the "who would fake a bigfoot with breasts" pitch. Obviously, Patterson would have.
There is nothing about the film which rules out “human”, unless we resort to pure pseudo science based on wishful thinking. Which is usually what
believers offer. “Patty” is a human, either the only hairy hermaphrodite (with bizarre enough physical anomalies to make it look like a b grade
movie prop) ever filmed, or one of the six billion or so garden variety ones that are known to exist, in a costume. Those are not good odds.
Bigfootery on the whole is a cultural phenomenon. It is make believe for adults. Very similar to a religious belief, where all objectivity is removed
and confirmation bias becomes an accepted way of life.
Quite a shame for the few genuine researchers who are looking for the truth and get tarred with the same brush. Also for those who think they have
seen one and would like an explanation. Bigfootery will offer them nothing but mythology.
Even in a branch of pseudo science (crypto-zoology) that isn't known for it's objectivity, bigfoot culture sets the bar extremely low. Not to mention
it would be by far the least likely of the “hairy men” to even exist. Some of the others sound at least plausible, have a rich fossil record,
extant relatives of Sivapithicus (therefore Gigantopithicus) living in the region and descriptions of something that could conceivably be real. Unlike
the sensationalised Hollwood version (bigfoot).
edit on 23-11-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.