The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[Maxmars]

Pointing out that curvature cannot be measured from an image without knowing and correcting for spherical lens distortion is a perfectly valid objection.

The rest of Flat Earth— meh, whatever. It's not Tuesday so I'm not going to bother.

Max is wrong; raw digital scans of film can be as valid, in terms of fidelity of evidence, as the original celluloid. Provided the scanning parameters and post-processing are documented and verifiable. Though they never add data per se, but at best give insight to what is in the original source. In this case, it seems the post-processing is largely image-stabilization, with perhaps some per-pixel brightness and contrast correction? That would not introduce the kind of localized spatial distortions that would make muscle look like cloth.

I appreciate how I'm wrong.

I just fear how far we go with some evidence "taken at face value" alone...

I suppose I'm just an old timer who thinks... "Show me the film not a rendering of it."

But the new standard tech offers only virtual... with a side order of faith.

[Tecate]

Nothing can be proven either way. Truly the end of story.

Believe or don’t. That’s your prerogative and no one will change your opinion, that’s the best part about it all.

my 2 pesos…

Tecate

[WallFlowerActive]

Pointing out that curvature cannot be measured from an image without knowing and correcting for spherical lens distortion is a perfectly valid objection.

Shrugs.



https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/


The rest of the reference goes through aspects about the airplane window and imaging gear.

[NoCorruptionAllowed]

That is not a human IMO, although I bet it has DNA of a human on the mama side. Tests have confirmed that. *(But no college or university is going to concur for obvious reasons)   After hearing testimony from Bob Gimlin is enough all by itself. He's a good honest man. The body of the thing doesn't look human even if it is 'human like'. Crowned head, huge muscles (for a female) haha...  Turns it's head and not really a neck. Turns torso with head in order to be able to turn to watch the guys.  

I saw the original footage aired on television back in the day and remember all the simpletons debunking it with all sorts of ridiculous reasons it was a hoax. (I say simpletons because they just lazily made those assumptions without any investigation). My own Dad was claiming it was someone in a suit and he's a veterinarian. I laughed at him and told him he was real dumb even though he was a prominent DVM. He's always dismissed everything conspiracy related anyways and never talks about such things. (Just a regular good guy).

Also Hollywood special effects guys who made suits have talked about it, that there wasn't materials or tech to make such a suit allowing it to be someone up in the high up hills of California walking around with no reason to be there dressed in a Sasquatch suit on a hot day, totally ridiculous.

And since then, there's high tech software and modeling/tracking programs that analyze it's movements and also enhancing it showing it can't be a human being moving the way it does, it's gait and body mechanics in it's movement don't match a human.

But I feel Gimlin's and Patterson's testimony that they saw a real creature is good enough all by itself, so I don't need anything more to tell me it was a real creature, even though there is a lot more. People are free to believe it or not of course.

The grief that Patterson and Gimlin went through when they publicized their film of it was pretty rough. They never changed their tune because they said they know what they saw, that it was real.

[UltraBudgie]

The rest of the reference goes through aspects about the airplane window and imaging gear.

Great stuff, thanks.

As to the PG footage, I wonder if anyone's done any kinematic gait analysis on the video, with some of the advanced tools that are available now. Simply put, because of the cube-square law, an efficient walking gait for a 300-400lb biped is different than a 150-200lb biped wearing a suit, even if the suit makes them the same size. The proportion of muscle use and stride timing is different. Likely nothing conclusive could be shown, but it might provide more data.

[Halfswede]

Great stuff, thanks.

As to the PG footage, I wonder if anyone's done any kinematic gait analysis on the video, with some of the advanced tools that are available now. Simply put, because of the cube-square law, an efficient walking gait for a 300-400lb biped is different than a 150-200lb biped wearing a suit, even if the suit makes them the same size. The proportion of muscle use and stride timing is different. Likely nothing conclusive could be shown, but it might provide more data.

Yes, they have as referenced by the prior poster. Including one renowned 'gaitologist'.  I forget the details, but a google search of 'bigfoot gait analysis patterson gimilin' will get you there. I don't know which particular analysis is which, but one guy was some well-known guy in the field of animal gaits.  The conclusion was that it just isn't moving like a human would or even really could without some defect.  

To be fair though, this film has been analyzed, criticized, and proselytized more than any other BF film. At the end of the day, just like this thread, the opinions are pretty split and generally pretty adamant.  Personally, I am a 'definitely exists, but PG could have been faked' with a about an 75% lean toward real mostly because of the boobs. The rest being 50/50, I just can't wrap my head around making an already very challenging costume more challenging with boobs for no real gain -- especially at a time when nobody really considered female BF and it wasn't really highlighted until later.

[WallFlowerActive]

The conclusion was that it just isn't moving like a human would or even really could without some defect.  

Like a large and cumbersome suit hiding actual human limbs?


Opinions don’t mean much.  I can bring up numerous videos with people “proving” the earth is flat.  Funny how claiming the obvious, it’s a person in a suit is “whatever”.  But somebody saying the right thing to a target audience gets a little attention and fame.

Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Writer(s): George Roger Waters
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/pinkfloy...ehere.html

We all have roles to play.  Some just bring more fame on social media.

One of the things that bewilders me is how people lying that the earth is flat gives rise to a while class of talking heads that point out the obvious?  People making blatant lies creates a niche industry.

I think it’s the same for the film.  Yes it’s a real film.  Yes, it’s a real person in a real suit.  It’s backed by no actual evidence bigfeet exist. Or a person would have killed, shot, poached, hit one with a car, chased one out of the house, turned on into a rug, had one stuffed, and any number of common interactions that happen between animals and humans.  Yes, people with position will blatantly lie for various reasons.  The last ten years has proven that.

[Solvedit]

The back of the legs look like fabric.  Not muscle.




Added.  There is no evidence of muscle flexing and contracting.  Just fabric swishing around.  

Do the backs of your legs always look like raw muscle?  I am not heavily into believing or debunking the film but it is possible that if that were a real creature, it had first built up, then depleted fat reserves.

[devilhunter69]

I have always thought the film did not feature a man in a suit rather a real creature.
Considering it was made in 1967 and yet here we are in 2025 and still no closer to proving or debunking it just like the Roswell UFO case gives it lots of merit in my view.

[WallFlowerActive]

Do the backs of your legs always look like raw muscle?  I am not heavily into believing or debunking the film but it is possible that if that were a real creature, it had first built up, then depleted fat reserves.

Unfortunately in the video the “legs” flap and sway left to right.  The back of the legs aren’t flexing and contracting up and down in line with the vertical structure of the legs.  



added The back of the suit looks like a guy wearing a giant diaper.  

And there is no getting around the staged look over the shoulder glance that was like a hey bro head nod.