lordmongrove
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,935
Paranormal (un) Explained looks at the Patty footage.
Interesting question ... Off hand, I don't recall seeing / reading where anyone attempted to test the gait with a female in a similar suit.Had a quick search but I can't find any mention of this.
There is a lot about Patti's gait compared to a man in a suit but given that male and female gait are different has anyone tried asking a woman to don a suit and try to replicate the gait in the film? ...
I think this is a brilliant question, and one that needs to be answered by the serious researchers.Had a quick search but I can't find any mention of this.
There is a lot about Patti's gait compared to a man in a suit but given that male and female gait are different has anyone tried asking a woman to don a suit and try to replicate the gait in the film?
I'm sure the perceived differences in the bigfoot/human gait are not the same as in the differences in the male/female gait but I asume that if it was a man in the suit he would be trying to alter his gait. Therefore could a woman alter her gait to replicate Patti's better than a man could? Probably a daft question but I know nothing about the mechanics of this, so I thought I'd see if anyone on here knows.
Given the size etc. if it were a woman she'd be large but not outside "normal" human range.
Sorry but I now have an image of Patti looking over her shoulder and saying "Does my arse look big in this?"
Having seen all of the re-enactments - well, all those to which I could ever find reference - no, they're all men. They've concentrated primarily on size.There is a lot about Patti's gait compared to a man in a suit but given that male and female gait are different has anyone tried asking a woman to don a suit and try to replicate the gait in the film?
Tun11: "Given the size etc. if it were a woman she'd be large but not outside "normal" human range."Had a quick search but I can't find any mention of this.
There is a lot about Patti's gait compared to a man in a suit but given that male and female gait are different has anyone tried asking a woman to don a suit and try to replicate the gait in the film?
I'm sure the perceived differences in the bigfoot/human gait are not the same as in the differences in the male/female gait but I asume that if it was a man in the suit he would be trying to alter his gait. Therefore could a woman alter her gait to replicate Patti's better than a man could? Probably a daft question but I know nothing about the mechanics of this, so I thought I'd see if anyone on here knows.
Given the size etc. if it were a woman she'd be large but not outside "normal" human range.
Sorry but I now have an image of Patti looking over her shoulder and saying "Does my arse look big in this?"
There's an issue with some of that. Patterson said the creature was around 7 feet. Dr Don Grieve, Reader in Biomechanics at London Royal Free Hospital who analysed the film in 1971 confirmed the creature’s height to be around 196 cm (6’5”), estimated weight of 127 kg (280 lb) which would render at most a 30 cm (12 inch) footprint, which is well within normal human range, and at variance with Patterson’s estimate of a 7 foot (215 cm), “very heavy” creature.My understanding is that all estimates of her height come from a set of assumptions about distance from the camera, camera altitude compared to Patti, lens type, extrapolations from human foot size:height ratios, etc. I vaguely remember that her height was estimated at 6 feet to 6 feet 6 inches.
John Napier states that the footprints that Patterson cast after the sighting, which Patterson claimed were those of the filmed figure were closer to 15 inches (37 cm) long, which would indicate a much taller creature, at least 7’8” (234 cm) in height with an indicative 53 inch stride: however, the distance between the footprints is only 41 inches (104 cm), whereas a 6’5” humanoid would have at least a 45 inch (114 cm) gap, and given the exaggerated stride of the creature in the film it would be closer to 48-50 (c.125 cm) inches, which largely tallies with Grieve’s estimates. So, the footprints that Patterson presented belong to a supposedly much taller being, but with a markedly shorter step than the one in the film. Whatever their provenance, Napier concludes that the two items - film and prints -do not belong together.
“Surely a specialist can identify traits of a BF not found in a large human???”We have LOTS of examples of BF tracks...both individual feet and tracks of them.
Some of them aren't even from the North American continent.
There's an absolute embarrassment of them.
Surely a specialist can identify traits of a BF not found in a large human???
Meldrum's Exhibit A is the mid-tarsal break, ie the foot can flex halfway along. Almost impossible to fake convincingly and certainly not consistently.Surely a specialist can identify traits of a BF not found in a large human???
Meldrum's Exhibit A is the mid-tarsal break, ie the foot can flex halfway along. Almost impossible to fake convincingly and certainly not consistently.
I have seen that look over the shoulder from different animals as they assess whether or not you are going to chase them or threaten them as they move away from you: coyotes, bears, rabbits, elk, deer, javalina, etc. So, for me, it seemed realistic from an animal.A little off topic but one factor of the Patterson film for me was how I first saw it. On a mainstream news programme and treated IIRC a little more seriously than most "filler" items. It was a time when America was leading up to the moon landings and anything seemed possible. Also no internet and no facility (at least for most ordinry mortals) to record it. There was no mainstream follow up that I remember, so we were left with one view of the film and that was that. It was quite a few years before I saw the film again. The main thing that stuck in my memory was the iconic look over the shoulder.
The reaction of family members who were also watching, although not interested in the topic, was interesting. General consensus, once it was established that it wasn't 1st April was that it actually didn't walk like a man in a suit and was "weird." When I saw the film again I expected to be disappointed, but I wasn't and as stated above I still can't make my mind up.
Do you mean you’ve read the previous 35 pages of discussion here and still can’t believe why some are reluctant to say this is a real creature?Frankly I cannot believe all the questioning of the Patterson Gimlin film. The height of the creature, the general build, the walk showing muscles rippling beneath the fur, the long arms (that alone told me this was no human), that lack of a neck, the position of the hands while walking, just the whole film was so obviously of a real animal. The horses themselves panicked at the sight of Bigfoot, it's there in the film, you cannot avoid that fact, the horses knew this was something strange. And that book from 1956 "The Long Walk" by Slavomir Rawicz includes a chapter on finding some Yeti / Bigfoot in the Himalayan mountains, haven't any of you read it? So many sightings and footprints found over the years tells me that Bigfoot is real. Questioning it endlessly is pointless, it is what it is.
Do you mean you’ve read the previous 35 pages of discussion here and still can’t believe why some are reluctant to say this is a real creature?
Another interesting analysis. If I were forced at gunpoint to declare Patty real or fake I'd go for real but I still have doubts. Has the issue of the film speed been settled definitively? IIRC it had significant impact on the gait analysis.Anyone seen this interesting evaluation of the Patterson Gimlin video?
And how to explain the panicking of their horses upon seeing this strange creature?
Animals have more acute senses than humans.
Off topic but 20 or 30 miles on a unicycle… blimey. How long does it take you to do these distances?Horse may react badly to anything unexpected or unfamiliar. I am a road unicyclist, often riding 20 to 30 mile circuits around the lanes and villages near my home. Although I am very definitely human, and horses have generally seen bicycles before, they can shy unpredictably at the sight of a unicyclist. Back when I used to deal with insurance claims, I handled a few where riding school horses had thrown students after being spooked by a bag flapping in the hedgerow.
I am sceptical of "gait analysis" mainly because someone who is trying to appear other than human can fake a walk.
My three thoughts about the PGF remain:
1) It looks to me like a big bloke in a suit, adopting a loping walk.
2) However, I suspect that almost anyone faking being a Bigfoot would be more likely to overdo the "monkey walk" than to underdo it. It would take a subtle hoaxer to do the double bluff of not looking outré enough — particularly in view of the attitudes of the time.
3) Also, a hoaxer giving that much uninterrupted view of the "monster" is giving analysts a lot to work on. If I were doing the hoax myself, there would be tantalising glimpses of the creature moving between and behind things, followed perhaps by a brief full view, just enough to convince, but not enough to invite analysis.