New Experiment Suggests Patterson-Gimlin Creature Was Probably Only 4' 8" Tall, 115 People Agree (Update: Height probably around 6 ft)
Here's a new video by V00D00SIXXX. He believes that the Patterson-Gimlin footage is a hoax.
After watching an old episode of Monster Quest and saw how they estimated Patty's height to be around 7.5 feet tall, V00D00SIXXX felt their math may have been fudged a little.
Instead of writing a letter of complaint to the producers of Monster Quest, V00D00SIXXX decided to do his own "quick down and dirty experiment" on estimating the height. Based on the actual data of Patty's footprint (14.5 inches), he was able to calculate the creature's "true" height of 58 inches, or 4 ft 8 in.
So far, his video has about 115 thumbs-up and 0 thumbs-down-- which probably means most of his viewers agree with this new measurement.
Update: "this is part one of the testing, watch part two for further analysis. my guess based on this analysis is 5'6" in it's walking posture and about 6' tall or so standing straight up, 6'6" at the generous max end of the scale." - Voodoo
this is what happens when you let crackhead's reveiw footage.
ReplyDeletelol 4ft8
I was just watching stuff this morning about her being 4 ft + tall. It all boiled down to fhe orginal estimate of being 100 ft away for the footage. Based on the quality, shakey hand, and such, i would guess about twice that or more away.
DeleteI was just watching stuff this morning about her being 4 ft + tall. It all boiled down to fhe orginal estimate of being 100 ft away for the footage. Based on the quality, shakey hand, and such, i would guess about twice that or more away.
DeleteI was just watching stuff this morning about her being 4 ft + tall. It all boiled down to fhe orginal estimate of being 100 ft away for the footage. Based on the quality, shakey hand, and such, i would guess about twice that or more away.
DeleteHow could your 12"in print give you a 6' height and Patty with a 14.5 in foot only be 5' ttat is totallly ass backward. If Pattys foot is larger the scale would be 7'3 . You must have failed in math.
ReplyDeleteI completly agree with your statement. The math does not add up.
DeleteThe lack of logic here is scary. Take the 14.5 inches as a scale; indicates that creature was 5 1/2 feet tall. Is adding too difficult? From what I gathered from this video. Patty's foot is considerable larger when compared to a human of the same size. Why would anyone expect this animal to have the same sized feet as humans?
DeleteYah, I actually think you just proved the lense was wrong. And therefor, screwed up your calculations. Your math doesn't jive.
DeleteAre you related to Fasano by chance? He thinks WE care about his opinion. You seem to be under the same misguided belief. I can't believ there are people who work so hard to DISPROVE what THOUSANDS of people have seen, and say is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, with your stupid little error laden film, you just expect us to roll over and agree with you?
Ask your self a very important question sir????????? Why would we believ, or even want your opinion on the subject?
A more important question is why we would be threatened by legitimate questions and research? Why would you be content with hearsay, rather than research?
DeleteIt is completely plausible that Patty being a female would indeed be shorter than a male bigfoot - sexual dimorphism. Many males are bigger than females.
I have no problem with the question BFG.
DeleteMy point is that it is really old news and has been debated many, many times by people far more knowledgable than this guy!!!!
There always has been a question of the lense, distance, and therefor ---- actual height.
Bob Gimlin, said he was on horseback,--- looking eye to eye.
You all completely ignore what the photographers said.
You come from a bias to disproove.
Try to absorb the totality of evidence that came with the film.
Eye witness testimony, and very important to size, is the stride.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE SIZE OF THE FOOT.
Behavioral analysis is part of what i have studied, and do on a daily bases.
I have listened to Bob on more than one occasion. He does not give any indicaters of deception, and beeing as that he was there, and i heard it from a direct sorce, it's not hear[say, as such!
If you actually watch the videos, it makes sense. He is 6 'feet' high. Since his foot is 12 inches, he is 6 feet tall. Patty is only four 1/2 to 5 'feet' tall. That is 58-65 inches, or 4'10 to 5'5. Since Patty's feet are bigger compared to her body, she isn't 6 'feet' tall.
Deleteok, this image method is how a person in 1st grade is taught, but this isnt a 2D environment, if you measure the angles and figure on the foot being closer to the camera then the calculation from this photo is closer to 6'1. Yes, you need Geometry. 2 frames earlier, though the image appears 6 '6, so even this isnt the best way to get the details. 6'1 would match Bob Herionimus in the suit, while 6 ' corresponds to the reports from Patterson (who also passed a lie detector test) so we are no closer to the truth.
DeleteSo, who's in the suit? A midget or a 13 yr. old boy?
ReplyDeleteThe angle of the foot would distort his or anyone's calculation based on distance to the lens. Focal length is important. It's basic trig. That's why angle, focal length, and lens-to-subject distance is needed to reconstruct events as this.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, one cannot assume the impression found at the Patterson site was made by the creature in the Patterson video. Either way, this guy's "experiment" only proves he's no scientist. Stick to watching television.
why wouldn't the prints be from the creature in the video if they were found at the same time and place?
DeleteYou must simply assume they were created at the same time. You don't know they were. Circumstantially, perhaps. But that is not a fact to conclusively say that those prints were from that creature.
DeleteD.
D..........your a moron
Delete@ Anon 11:00 If you had takin the time to watch some docu's on Gimlin, you would know that they were fearful of, and believed, there were more of them around then just the one they were filming. They very well could have seen prints from a different animal. After all, this is most likely a female!
DeleteAny one who comes at this mystery with absolute science as thier only guideline, will surely fail.
One must at least be open-minded enough to realize that before SCIENCE, there is BELIEF.
SCIENCE ANSWERS QUESTIONS.
BELIEFS CREATE THOSE QUESTIONS!
OBSERVATIONS CREATE BELIEFS.
OPEN MINDED-NESS SUPPORTS OBSERVATION.
SCIENCE CONTROLS NOTHING!
SCIENCE ONLY RESPONDS TO OBSERVATIONS.
Why should we bigfoot witnesses,
(100's of K's) thousands of us, listen to you na-saying, jargun filled, scientific minded people.
THE OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE, 1000'S
IT'S WELL BEYOUND THE BELIEF STAGE.
SCENTISTS, GO DO YOUR JOB, OR SHUT UP!
Cudo's to those like Meldrum and Ketchum and others scientists who step up to the plate,
WITH THE RIGHT MINDSET, LETS OBSERVE!!!
UNFOUNDED,(uneducated) negativity against such a mass observation is really UN-SCIENTIFIC! ----Dopes.
I have OBSERVED 3 times, each with a different partner.
3 double person observatios.
The damn things are out there people!!!
WHAT EVER THEY ARE?????
Leon - no need to trash the scientific method or people who are seeking answers. If bigfoot is real, it's a mammal and not a religion that is based upon blind faith. It will be science or concrete evidence that will prove the existence of Bigfoot.
DeleteCalculating the height of Patty in no way threatens the existence or those who belief in Bigfoot.
Please tell us about your encounters.
thanks
Science is a RELIGION, and most dogmatic in every way.
DeleteIt has gotten in the way of solving this mystory, for the most part!
(exceptions mentioned above).
SCIENTIFIC ZEALOUSY HAS CAUSED MUCH AGONY TOWARD WITNESSES.
YOU ARE UP-FRONT WITH A NAME / PHOTO, SO I BELIEVE YOU ARE A PERSON OF OPEN / AND OBSERVING NATURE, THATS GOOD
I have seen this guy's stuff before, I simply see know point in his efforts.
What can this man possibly gain from his efforts, personally or scientifically.
Is he personally tasked to correct all in the world to beleive,
--- as he see's it?
I personally think that homosexuallity is wrong, I DON'T HOWEVER FEEL THE NEED TO GO ON ONE OF THERE WEBSIGHTS AND TELL THEM THIER ALL WRONG!!!!!
THEY CAN BELEIVE WHAT THEY WANT.
What mindset is it that says i need to go stick my nose into something (something i don't believe in anyway) and correct people.
For Gods sake, if your right, it means nothing in the larger scope of the world.
People get a kick out of bashing others beliefs.
BE THAT A BIGFOOT OR GOD, THAN YOU ARE SICK!
not saying you BFG, just saying dogmatism in any way sucks.
You are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing others of.
DeleteI agree with you Leon. Thinker Thumper showed what the scientist are doing. It's like they taking the whole thing as joke.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPMZEZsFlM
Now we a midget with a 42" step and 14.5 inch footprint that is built like a "shit brick house".
ReplyDeleteSave your time here and read the Munn's report. It took me most of a day to go through it last summer and he keeps updating it, based on an original copy that Patricia Patterson lent to him and he has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours of analysis. Or you can go listen to Bob Gimlin speak as he was on the horse about 30 yards behind the creature when it did the famous turn to look at him. He will be at several conferences this summer around the country.
Chuck
Good point. But i saw some documentary on the height (I can't remember which one) that used GPS and it came out to about 4ft something. Then they found that he was not using the standard lens and that made the creature 7ft. Forget the size of the feet, what about the stride? was there ever a measurement of how spaced apart the feet were?
DeleteI seen the video he made. And he first said that it was like around 4'2", but he later stated at the distance of 100 feet, it all depended on what lens he was using. He went into a great deal about Patty. He ended the video by saying by his estimates she had to be at least 7'6" tall. Jeff Glickman estimated 7'3" walking which adds up. How can a 4'2" creature have a stride of almost 5'. He also stated that Patty weighed approximately 1,957 lbs.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcyw1AwaXg
Actually I remember watching a report from National Geographics which they studied the size of Patty. It was interesting to watch since they actually had some animation done. This actually ca n be found on El Chupallamas You Tube channel. Here is the link to part five of the video which the discussed the size of bigfoot.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbQJoHbJVa0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I believe you are refering to the American Paranormal Bigfoot done by Nat. Geo a couple of years ago and to this day still the best done analysis of Bigfoot and Bill Munns was on this, along with several others. Should be watched by anyone with an interest in Bigfoot.
DeleteChuck
yep.. that was the one I saw lol. I think I'll trust GPS,Experts in this field, and exact location over this guys opinion any day lol
DeleteBob Gimlin has a nice gig in his retirement. All expenses paid, and devotees clamoring to shake his hand, get an autograph and a picture with him. He wouldn't change his story now, even if it was originally exaggerated.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a candidate to go to a conference and put this question to him. He will give you a straight answer as he is a straight shooter. Those who know him say he is of impeccable character now as he was in 1967. Bob did not even believe in Sasquatch in the 60's, however Roger Patterson was able to persuade him to go on the adventure as Bob was a rodeo rider who had a reputation as the best horseman in Washington, something that was very valuable in his endeavor.
DeleteChuck in Ohio
Just sayin... It's not that I don't believe Gimlin, but he now has a financial interest in sticking with his story. Scientifically speaking, that now "clouds" his testimony.
DeleteYah, dipstick.
DeleteWell for years, he siad the same thing, taking crap from a bunch of ya-hoo's and didn't make a bunch of money off it. As a matter of fact, he siad at points he wished he had never been involved because of all the grief it caused in his life. And now you want to leverage it the other direction. Your an idiot. Go do some research on him and what he has siad about the way it was back then.
leon before calling someone an idiot perhaps you should check your spelling. though i do agree with you on gimlin the poor guy can't win either way he goes.
DeleteI have a (well over) Genious I.Q. I don't however, spell well. And there is no spell check here? I won't bother to check myself on webster do to the expedency of writing on a blog, if that's ok with you, -----DIPSTICK.
DeleteBy the way Anon 11:03, you should have capitolized, Gimlin, it's a proper name you idiot. Leon is a proper name! You didn't CAP (though) at the beginning of your second sentence.
DeleteNow you see my point!!!!!
Idiot
Leon, with the amount of misspelled words, clearly you are not a genius.
DeleteI don't know if Leon is a genius or not but in my line of work I worked with several people who had IQ's above 150 who could not spell. It's called a learning disability.It has nothing to do with intelligence. The head of my Graduate school dept. had a big sign in his office saying "I'm not a good spellar!" He had a Doctorate degree. The best thing he said that ever happened in his life was spell-check.
Deletegenious comes in many forms, there are musical geniouses, mathmatical, scientific, philosophical, analytical, creative / problem solving.
DeleteAlbert dropped out of school.
Albert had 12 of the same grey suits so he didn't have to waste thought on a decision.
I never liked English, as hard as i tried, dictionary in hand, the highest grade i recieved in english was 98.
I GOT 100 IN EVERYTHING ELSE.
I scored 97 on the ASVAB with an elivated disposition, as some high-schoolers might.(sto--d) That means I got calls from every branch of the military saying, you can do whatever you want. Nuclear engineering, flight, liguistics, unlimited open door.
Had I.Q.tested twice, 159, 160.
I don't spell well, and don't care!
I also, CAN'T SING A LICK ----ASSHOLE!
Linguistics???? see!! my spelling sucks!
DeleteAccording to several of my sources Leon is not a genius. I have proof but my source won't let me show it to you yet. But rest assured, in two weeks the groundbreaking proof that Leon is a total dumbass will be released on my own blog! Hold your breath folks!
Delete-Robert Lindsay
when one runs out of talent or ideas, the weak resort to insult.
DeleteThank you anon for clarifying your mental capabilities.
We knew it all along!
Even that dipstick posts with his pic and is not the coward you are!
You are still a dumbass Leon.
DeleteWhen a real genius is among you, you may know him by this sign; all of the dunces are in confederacy against him.
DeleteI remember the good old days, when men were men and 58 inches was considered 4 foot 10.
ReplyDeleteuh ,so your sayin you wouldnt trust his scientific calculations.
Delete..ima a GAMESTER...Crackheads do not take the time to make these type of videos....it's impossible...he would have sold the camera for crack.....a long time ago ..if you knew any thing about this guy ...you wouldn't call him a crackhead...!!!
ReplyDeletecrackhead say what?
DeleteThis is somewhat compelling as you have a constant. Anyone knows in math a constant is a common measurement that can be applied to various units which yield related numbers. In this case the constant is 14.5". This is applied to the foot and equals 1 as this is the length of the foot. It is then applied to the body the number of times it takes to get from head to toe. This is where he is coming up with the height. Since both the foot and body were taken in the same photo, this is a relevant method of measurement and cannot simply be discarded without intelligent discussion or rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteI agree the logic is good, let's discuss it. My theory is that the landmarking of the foot borders in this analysis are incorrect. If you take a few pixels off of the size of the foot the height calculation grows dramatically. Some of the white that appears in this photo is actually the back of the heel that does not contact the ground. In other words some of the visable white foot is not actually part of the bottom surface of the foot. Another possibility is that the the toes might be extended in this photo and curled when they contact the ground and leave tracks. Toe movement is well documented in sasquatch tracks and even visable in the Patterson-Gimlin Film itself.
DeleteThe NASI report also finds height to be 7'3.5 , this is significant because the result is the same as Munns' analysis (Monster Quest) yet the methods they use to estimate height are different.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm
where does the patterson film show toe movement? the video is grainy and shot from such a distance that would be impossible to notice. why would you make such an outrageous claim? this is why most researchers are considered fools .
Deletehttp://sasquatchenlightenment.blogspot.com/2012/02/munns-report-shows-patterson-gimlin.html
DeleteI should have referenced that statement.
Meldrum also points it out in most of his lectures.
After reading the comments here; it is no wonder to me; that legitimate researchers avoid this field with so much nit picking, back stabbing and out right rude behavior so frequently exhibited the moment anyone voices an opinion or presents a question. Questions are good people, so are experiments. It is what real researchers should be doing, instead of parading photos around with dubious credentials, and having us look at it; over and over again, while steadfastly refusing to provide any substantial information to either condemn or verify said photo. V00D00SIXXX took the time to actually go OUTSIDE and complete a simple, valid experiment that anyone with a single functioning neuron should be able to understand. If this creature is only 5 1/2 feet tall that totally discredits Heironimus' claim that he wore the *suit* because he is 6'2! And if memory serves me, Patterson and Gimlin both initially claimed the height of this creature at around 6 foot. Pretty damn close to the 5 ½ feet determined here by V6; also the initial height determined by Monster quest, before they took it upon themselves to change the focal length to make the critter bigger.. What I wonder is what did Patterson and Gimlin weigh? They made statements that Patty’s tracks were compressed into the sand at a greater depth then their own tracks. Even at 5 ½ feet this creature looks to me to weigh at least 220-250 lbs with a 14.5 inch long foot. As far as the critics claiming you can’t determine size due to the angle and other such non sense; you can sure as hell make a pretty damn close estimate using this method. Ask any sniper, or hunter skilled at judging distances. You do this, but taking an object of known size and extrapolating from that. Simple and uncomplicated, not saying it is perfect, just damn close. Instead of attacking the results, and unfairly slandering V6, why don’t you critics duplicate the experiment or provide dialog to further this discussion, instead of calling names and acting like school yard bullies. I personally know V6 and to call him a *crack head*, just reflects upon the ignorance of the poster. V6 is an intelligent capable individual who I am proud to call my friend and fellow team member. SWO (TeamTazerBigfoot)
ReplyDelete"... to call him a 'crack head', just reflects upon the ignorance of the poster."
DeleteYou said it best.
I dont sweat the trolls SW, rebuttal and discussion is more than welcome but name calling by the ignorant is simply ignored. you can see which ones to ignore off the bat when they try to make an argument (or if they have nothing to say except ad homs) that was already addressed, showing they didnt pay attention or even watch the video. they are primed anyways, just look at the title of the blog post... nowhere did i say that i determine this thing to be 4'8",.. yet there we have it.
Deleteim going to do more testing today running 3 different cameras at the same time from different heights at 100' away so we'll see how that turns out.
And when you attack Melissa Hovey, that is different how? It's OK for TeamTazerBigfoot to attack others but not OK for others to attack you. Not questioning who you attack but that you simply engage in the same behavior. I was hoping you would be above that... I guess not.
DeleteWell, I don't think it's OK for anyone to be attacking anothers work considering NO ONE, except maybe the Olympic Project (and time will tell), has done anything significant . Assuming 80% of encounters are mis-identifications, that is still a lot - we want answers not this ongoing soap. I'm not one of your haters SWO, but on this topic - community hatin' - I have a dissenting opinion: everyone needs to shut up and put up. It's like TV wrestling - all talk and no substance.
Question SWO... why explore Maine which has a scant history of reports and not explore Washington which has a rich history, considering one of your team members lives here? Is not exploring an area with no reported activity just poor research? "I don't think the creature exists. I will explore an area with little to no activity. I didn't find a creature therefore it doesn't exist."
Having a Biology degree doesn't make you a good researcher. There are professionals with PhDs that are still bad researchers. I don't question your survivalist cred, but what is your research cred? Can you specify research projects you lead? Can anyone in this "community" specify research projects they lead that were validated by peers (besides possibly Ketchum)? And if so, could you leave some links? If you don't want to leave them here, just reply and I'll make arrangements to contact you.
So if your response is "Why don't you look yourself?" I'd love to, I'd love to help someone out. I have logic & analytical skills, but field research is unlikely for reasons I don't want to discuss publicly. I would just like some peace of mind before I leave. Thank you.
Dave from WA
Disregard my post... I'm not a member of the community, I was just an interested outsider with an encounter and a science background. But who am I to make demands? Nobody. You all engage in the same immature behaviors - It's obviously just some sick game to you. While those of us who would like answers have to sift thru drama, empty rhetoric, blobs, hoaxes... whatever. Done. Dave
DeleteI would be interested in hearing about your encounter and your science background. I would have to disagree about your take on TeamTazerBF criticism of the Hovey photo. I think these guys truly care about bigfoot research and are just as frustrated as you, because there are so many hoaxes, BS and a blind-faith BF religion attitude taken toward the subject.
DeletePlease do not compare the P/G film with anything Hovey related.
DeleteThis is a legitimate discussion about a truly outstanding piece of evidence and not some media circus drummed up by attention-seekers.
If you actually read my post - but why buck trends - it had nothing to do with the PG film vs Hovey's pic. I dismissed Hovey's pic as evidence as soon as i saw it: it was cropped, therefore manipulated; I didn't even see the need to get into the histrionics of suit or not - the media was tampered --> straight to the round file with it.
DeleteMy post was about the behavior that virtually all of these so-called "researchers" engage in - the immature name-calling etc. I seriously doubt you would ever see Diane Fossey create a YouTube channel and use it to slam fellow researchers, whether she agreed with their opinions or not. If you want your work in Sasquatch research to be respected, then behave respectfully. The frauds will dig their own holes - ignore them.
BFGroupie - while I'm sure that TTB is frustrated by the hoaxes too, professionals don't dub in the Britney kid's voice to slam fellow community members or complain about comments from average-joes here. It's interesting that SWO slams those that bitch about his videos with this sound advice: don't watch them. Makes sense. So please follow your own advice SWO - if you don't like the comments here, don't read them. That's all I'm saying - stay above the circus and don't be a hypocrite. Most scientists don't feel the need to engage in showmanship. If you are real and have something real to offer, do your thing, draw your conclusions, and stop stooping to the level of the morons you "allegedly" vilify. What's sad is that even HAS to be said.
Dave WA
LMFAO...........A 14.5" foot would look like a clown shoe on a person 4'8" tall. What a bunch of idiots!!
ReplyDeleteLook at the photo of Patty. It looks like a CLOWN SHOE! So who is the idiot?
DeleteYou evidently is, clown shoes don't have toes.
DeleteReally?? Are you kidding me?? That foot looks almost proportional to me, maybe a little big as far as human proportions go. Now, my son is 5' 6" and has an 8 inch foot. Fourteen and a half inches on him would look like a scuba fin. It would look even more exaggerated on someone 4' 8"!!
DeleteI don't know where that boy's comimg from but he need his head examined. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I have a son, 18 yrs old and still growing, whose shoe size is a 15, stands 6 ft 7 & 3/4 inches. Now this guy is telling us that using that camera lens would make him about 5ft tall??? Is he self taught? He really needs to go back to school and relearn the math he flunked in.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence are you invoking to say a human correlation of foot size to height is the same for a bigfoot? Please share.
DeleteBigfoot are NOT people. Kangaroos have huge feet. So what? What is your point?
DeleteGood point. They are not human as we know humans and I question comparative studies to human attributes.How do we know what is an aberration or not?
DeleteFor example if we are using human attributes I have a female friend who is 5'4" weighs 128lbs and wears a size 12 shoe. Bless her heart she has had difficulty finding shoes that fit all her life. Probably an aberration I know but things like this must be considered.
You have an 18 year old son and you speak of others like this. Shame on you sir.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk2aa8vXtR0
ReplyDeleteI see you've been busy making new sock puppets to approve your videos. Go away, liar. MANY people saw your own retraction and apology for posting a HOAX. What does it have to do with this topic?
DeleteA sasquatch has two arms, two feet, walks upright, etc. So, we can use a human being as the example to compare basic anatomical features. I am 6'3 and I wear a size 12 shoe. (In some cases 11 1/2 or 12 1/2 depending on the brand.) My point is this; if this creature were to be fitted with shoes, she would obviously be wearing a size 15 or 16. If you simply do a foot size to height ratio using human beings as a model for comparison, it is easy to assume that this creature is well in access of 7 foot tall.
ReplyDeleteThe video depicts a creature with feet that match the body is size comparitively speaking. I agree with the above poster who stated that a subject who is 4'8 with a 14.5 inch foot with look like Ronald McDonald trampsing around through in this film.
Archer1
What size shoe would a standing 7-foot bear wear? Not being factieous here... an honest question.
DeleteGood question. Honestly, I don't know. I am only referring to sasquatch and human anatomy. Clearly, sasquatch walk on two legs where as bear normally walk on "all fours" 99.9% of the time thus distributing the weight onto four paws rather than two feet.
DeleteActually, I have seen bear prints in WV (a friend of mine tagged a 536lb black bear in 2007) that were easily mistaken for human if you didn't know what you were looking at.
Archer1
If his argument was convincing I'd admit it but it really isn't. Patty's foot has been used as measurement for the body before and done better than this guy did. Look at the weird jump he makes between 14 and 20 for example and note Patty is not standing straight. Even if she were as short as he claims how is that evidence of a hoax? It's only evidence Monster Quest had the wrong height. There can be smaller bigfoots too.
ReplyDeleteAnother area of concern with the measurements. When the sasquatch is walking, the knee bend is forcing the thigh forward. The measurements are being taken assuming that the leg is straight. This is inaccurate. With the leg bend alone you could easily lose well over one foot in the measurement. Also, the forward lean of the upper torso isn't taken into consideration enough. (A 6 foot tall man can walk with a forward lean and easily lose 6 inches from their vertical measurement using this video's measurement techniques.)
ReplyDeleteIn theory, this technique seem plausible, but the limb bend, forward lean, etc must be taken fully into consideration. I would suggest attempting to watch the entire video and measure each limb when fully vertical. Allow for a "forward lean" when the creature is walking and then get the estimate.
This would be a nearly impossible task because of the video itself. The creature quickly walks away and never fully stands erect.
I do agree with the theory in the video but, If you pay attention to the measurements given by the man (of himself) his lower limbs are fully straight when using his foot as a scale. His upper torso is much more erect than the sasquatch. Had he bent his leg to the extreme that the sasquatch has in the video, and walked with a more "forward lean" I would image that he will lose upward of 12-18 inches from his height measurements. Also, note how his size 12 foot anatomically matches the size of his body. It is proportioned properly. This must be taken into consideration as well.
Archer1
I agree with this assessment. I've always felt that Patty looked a little on the short side. I work for the department of weights and measures and spend most of my (boring) day measuring stuff so I have an innate sense of how big things are in relation to their surroundings.
ReplyDeletePatty being under 5 feet tall doesn't make her any less fascinating... if anything she's MORE fascination.
There has been other studies that have drawn this same conclusion, and in my own experience the Sasquatch I saw was very average in size, maybe 5'8"
I think most people's account of Bigfoot's height are exaggerations based on the fear and excitement that goes along with a sighting.
An extremely tall primate doesn't really make sense anyway. Why would it be so tall? It's not like it's browsing the treetops.
I agree with Randy N: short people got no reason to live.
Delete:oD
Delete@ Randy N. Sorry bud, no cigar. There have been way to many sightings against known measurable objects. The peeping-bigfoot is by far the most common and EASILY verrifible hieght estimator. when they peek in windows 8 foot up, you have a massive animal. Also, measurable tree-brakes and sightings against trees make them most likely (in some casses) very big.
DeleteI like you though, saw one between 5-6 feet. I always thought i was looking at a juvinile.
Wow, so I'm thinking someone needs to go back to Geometry class. I have to say that it's even less feasible that Patterson managed to find a dwarf or child willing to go into the woods and mosey along in a woman's gorilla suit. Ocaam's razor.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Occam's razor as the justification that it is not an individual in a suit. Give me a break. Perhaps you would like to review what Occam's razor really is. Unfortunately, if you applied that principle, the simplest conclusion is a guy in a suit, regardless of how tall every think the guy in the suit is or how large his faked foot is. You don't have to invent a completely new species of creature to come to that conclusion. That is Occam's razor.
DeleteSo wrong Anon 12:05. What matters about the RAZOR,
Delete-----------is the one who applies it. To a person that has had the experience, AND WE HAVE, it makes perfect sence that it IS A SQATCH!
You have a NARROW outlook!!!!!!!!
Please go and review my responce to Anon March 11, 5:16 A.M.
YOUR RAZOR ANON.
----------IS FAR NARROWER THAN OUR'S
I have to agree with Anon 12:05 as it's obvious he knows the definition (and correct spelling) of Occam's razor.
DeleteIf it is a costume, then it is highly likely that a boy or short woman could fit in a costume. The video doesn't even mention a costume, but was focusing on calculating height.
People really shouldn't be so threatened by calculating her height. No need to be bitchy.
Based upon your gross misunderstanding of Occam's razor; you must come to the conclusion, that your cookie jar is filled at night by Keeblers Elves.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is that since we have a film of a yet unknown animal if the film is real.
Deleteor
A film of something hoaxed, that by all experts of the time said was impossible.
That the RAZOR is not even applicable!
There is no fondation of logic or rational!
There is only the question?
KEEP LOOKING!
Actually the original spelling is Ockham's Messer or Ockham's Knife. And I don't believe Patterson's story contains any assumptions that might dull that Razor. He saw something walking and filmed it. Full stop. End of story. It would indeed be a different world if every time we saw a picture of a squirrel we had to question whether or not it was real or just a rat wearing a fuzzy tail.
DeleteY'all obviously misunderstood. When I said Occam's razor (or any other popular spelling), I meant that it's less likely that they used a dwarf or child for the filming, but if they faked it they used a full-sized man and his musculature.
DeleteI'm with you Autumn, I was responding to the ANON and Bfg.
DeleteLets fake bigfoot and we'll do it with a kid or a plump midget. Yah, hum?
How could someone be so dumb as to use a midget to fake a giant, and yet be so intelligent as to make a fake costumn that that is not matched in quality 40 years later.
The use of RAZOR would imply, they filmed something yet unknown!
You laugh at people so ignorant even to their own argument...Come on If your 6 ft and 12 in print wouldn't logic say if you had a 14.5 in foot you would be much taller then 6 ft........
ReplyDeleteA good point, I agree Archer1.
ReplyDeleteOnly thing 4'8" is her kid up the hill.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but the way you have the so-called foot print on your video is NOT a good way of determning the height of the creature. The print you have is photoshoped on to your video and since you are using if as a way to measure the height cannot be true to scale because of the way you placed it. To get a true measurement you MUST use something already in the video and use that measurement. So therefore your measurement of the creature is false. Try again with something already in the film.
ReplyDeletehey people he never said the creature was 4 8 did any of you read the post or just look at the headline? no wonder people don't want to take a serious look at this subject with all the hate out there.a little info and research before spouting off would go a long way on this site, and you all know who i mean anon or not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteexactly. this was a simple test to see if this thing was 7'4" or not... turns out it isnt even close. nowhere did i say it was 4'8", this is just lazy vitriol by people who arent paying attention spirred on by a a very irresponsible blog post.
Deleteive lost respect for Shawn and his blog for purposefully trying to portray legitimate testing in a negative manner. he has no interest in "evidence", just sensationalism. i mentioned his error to him and all he does is add a footnote? sorry a retraction is in order. this blog is a joke.
Most of us would probably take the word of the man who was there vs. a guy who's analyzing years down the road with some unknown factors.
DeleteI do appreciate that you put real work and effort, it's not corney or to long winded. Pretty good video really,
but you have to understand that your kinda crapping on the Squatch Holy Grail. Even if all your looking to do is adjust the hieght estimate. You have to realize that it stirs up a whole hornets nest of na-sayers.
I don't Know that it's real. But I heard Gimlin and I'll take his word it was. I have seen one myself, so big deal!
By the way, could you explain to us EXACTLY how you know you got the footage with out being corruted in file transfer. Certain zoom/photo formats can change dimensions. How do you know you were working from a cclean image, cause everything i see in you vid, is blown way up!
lol. the tree stump he says is 14in, is in the background, not next to the leg. look at the size and proportions of the creature in the video, not 4 1/2 feet tall, sorry. this is the same dude who said the 21 degrees video was crap. oh yeah, he matched the 21 degrees........ with flippers. it also lands too hard on the front of its feet to be flippers buddy, get a grip.
ReplyDelete116
ReplyDelete117
DeleteHe is not taking in to account depth of field. The foot is closer to the camera than the rest of her body. Also the image is cropped and stabilized, there is simply not enough data to get an exact height. She is also walking at an angle away from Patterson. This also would cause he body size and or height to seem smaller than it actually is. Filmakers have used similar tricks on purpose to make a hobbit seem smaller than another actor or object, just to give on example.
ReplyDeleteYou are on the right track. This photo also is not from an original, but a copy of a copy, etc, and each will distort from the original. It is also enhanced and greatly enlarged making the creature to appear only a few feet away and thus the foot even closer.
DeleteTo do a proper test you have to film the human at the same distance as the original patterson creature (about 100 feet) feet with the same type of camera and the same focal length. Then you can do your foot comparisons. These have already been done by some pretty credible people and folks this is one incredibly large lady.
Chuck
THANK YOU!!! I see every body blabbing about the foot to head and how you can "Easily determine this by measuring that..." Yeah I can easily determine that Patty is approximately 6 inches tall on my screen! None of you can determine anything they way you are saying. It does not matter how big the foot is. It does not matter foot to the top of the head. You need the exact dimensions. No one has these.
DeleteWe do not know 100% what lens was used nor do we know just where he stood when he filmed.
Even with the GPS and scale used in that one documentary. (Which I would think would be more probable in finding the exact height), there is still the issue of how far. I doubt Patterson had a +100 ft.tape measure with him. So you really can't even base this off 100ft.
We know the cast of the footprints was 14 and a half Inches. Use that then look at her calves. though her knee to foot ratio is obviously shorter than than of a human, the shin area if wider than the feet. What does this tell you mathematically? Not a damned thing, but it does say that her proportions are not human and cannot be measured as you would a human.
You are right Tzieth. The analysis of limb to human to chimp and gorilla have all been done extensively, and the Patterson creature does not fit any. It lies in between human and chimp, and the limbs are absolutely massive in structure compared to a human. When you can't attack the facts then you attack the messenger, a classic political ploy.
DeleteChuck
incredible the lengths pgf believers will go to, to defend their precious film.
ReplyDeletethe film is a hoax, patterson hoaxed you, get over it.
Go read my responce to Anon March 11, 5:16 A.M. near the top of this post. It was probably you anyway!
Delete#'s in mass = observational validity.
YOU DISCOUNT
1.1000'S of witnesses
2.un-duplicatible tracks, do to impresion wieght, dermal ridges!
3.unidentifiable hair.
4.unidentifiable blood.
5.unidentifiable sound rercordings.
6.unidentifiable scat.
7.unidentifiable markers and structures that seem to indicate intelligence and
an unhumanlike strength.
8.a history dating back thousands of years on numerous continents. Pictograghs
9. AND FINALLY AND UNFORTUNATELY, REALY BAD FILM, MOST OF THE TIME!
Also, I never argue that I know, or can proove any film is real. We Bigfooters often do PROOVE a hoax rather quickly.
DeleteWe often do jump to wrong conclusions becaus we want it to be prooved so badly.
We do have our whack'os and nuts, but many very fine, upstanding, and highly cradentialed people have taken the
YOUR CRAZY
hit in thier personal lives for standing up and stating what they have seen.
Go to the Texas bigfoot research conservancy websight. Go look at the credentials of the original members.
These guy are ex-military with speacialized training, law enforcment.
THESE TYPE PEOPLE DON'T BUL--HIT!
YOU SCEPTICS SHOULD READ A FEW HUNDRED ENCOUNTER REPORTS, REALIZE THE TERRROR MANY HAVE HAD, BEFORE YOU COME HERE!!!!
COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT!
Maybe, I'm wrong?
I hope you are here trying to learn.
If so, I apologize for SCREAMING!
Leon, I agree with so many things you said above. I think there are some here to learn but I also think some are here to troll and some who are here who do not believe and refuse to see things with an open mind.
DeleteYou are right about when someone has seen a Bigfoot/Sasqquatch they know what they saw. They don't care about proving it or who believes them because they have seen it. How many times have we heard "I know what I saw and I don't care whether you believe me or not"? Don't get upset because some here bait others hoping to get an emotional response.
I will take Bill Munn's expertise over all others on this subject. If one goes to his site-
http://billmunnscreaturegallery.com/
and looks at what this man has created (talk about expertise on creating fakes) there's no one better in my book to analyze the Patty film.
and then his report on Patty
http://themunnsreport.com/
that is the info I believe.
Thank you Blondie!
DeleteI'm really having fun though.
You know, cat and mouse.
I'm a leo named leon, my middle name means king (deciphered) my last name is from a old english royal (king of)family.
ELVIS DIED ON MY BIRTHDAY--HA HA HA
I like to tangle, SMILE. :-)
OOps sorry. LOL as I was reading that I thought you were going into that band's name King/s of Leon???
DeleteIt would seem that if you like to tangle there are plenty of opportunities here. ;)
Cheers!
What a pair these two^ are.
DeleteI could not have said it any better Blondie.
DeleteLeon your a bit high strung but I sure as hell can't blame you.
Anyway The Munns report as I have stated many times tells it all but people just do not want to read it. Many people here with agenda's that are anything but legitimate Bigfoot talk.
Chuck
It's all good chuck (alpha)
DeleteA good debate helps creat and form new neurological pathways, improved reasoning.
As long as I can make people think, I win!
I live in Cali, I also enjoy some very good Agricultural medicine to help with stress.
They have a new strain here called bigfoot i need to try?
I'm very chill and laughing my A-S off!
Ha ha ha ha.
We are looking at the bottom of her raised foot, people, not a stump or a photoshopped cast.
ReplyDeleteWhen I measure the foot I get approx. 4cm. When I measure her height from head to toe, I get approx. 17cm. 17 divided by 4 is 4.25. So if 4cm = 14.5 inches, 17cm = 14.5 x 4.25, which equals 61.625 inches, or roughly almost 5',2" tall. Accounting for her bent knee and hunched shoulders, I'd say she is anywhere from 5'8" to 6'2".
I don't know if 14.5 inches is the actual measurement of Patty's foot though - I just took his word for it.
When trying to TRIANGULATE from a film,
Delete1. you must have a least one EXACT measurement.
2. you must exactly know the lense.
His extrapilating that the lense was as stated on the rental sheet is irrelevent and makes his effort a waste. They were there to film a creature and patterson had worked in film. Why would it not be exceptable that he had another lense, or perhaps, it was swapped after they filled out the paper work. people weren't so uptight then. Patterson may have realized the bussiness had a better lense for his purpose and had the guy swap-it.
If you buy the hieght estimate,
YOUR SCREWED ON THE MEASURED STRIDE!!!
Thanks Karla for making sense! I don't understand why some of the comments are so venomous towards calculating the height of Patty. As for the people who say you can't estimate the height because the foot is raised - that is total nonsense. It was filmed from quite a distance and the distortion would be minimal. It is not as if it's a fisherman standing 5 foot away from a camera with his arms extended to make his fish look bigger.
DeletePeople need to get a grip.
Because the guy in the video's clearly wrong, baby.
DeleteSince we don't know the EXACT lense, and angle.
Deletewe cannot triangulate!
Since we don't have the exact distance,
we cannot triangulate.
We do know the STRIDE!
Big animal.
Why do you all question? so intently what we cannot prove??????
And ignore what we can prove,
the stride!!!!!!!!!
Okay, let me add this: early comments mention that the measurements may be off because of the angle of the foot. This is absolutely true. But the angle will ONLY make the foot appear shorter, never longer. This means the height estimation will only come DOWN from Voodoos measurement. But the truly baffling part of ALL of the arguments above is that somehow, based soley on the height estimate, we can dismiss this entire video. Apparently the discovery of a 4-foot upright ape/human is no big deal.
ReplyDeletePerhaps those who are interested in learning would enjoy reading
ReplyDeletehttp://themunnsreport.com/
Bill Munns creates creatures for movies that ARE fake. My opinion is his information has been presented from a much more qualified point of view.
Want to see some fantastic creatures he's made?
http://billmunnscreaturegallery.com/
Absolutely fascinating.
And this I love Bill Munn's reaction to what he calls "Flawed Skeptical Logic".
ReplyDeletehttp://billmunnscreaturegallery.com/
["The reaction of some skeptical people to elements of my website has essentially proven their failure to think critically and fairly, and shown they will choose a suspicious conclusion that satisfies their forgone preferred conclusion even if it is not true."]
Munns is the man, and he's absolutely correct that too many preconceived idiots prefer a fixed opinion. For all we know, some of those dumb trolls we see could be scientists themselves afraid to step forward and mainly afraid to be proven wrong. So many people are virtually afraid it'll be proven a real species, afraid of the implications of the truth. If religion already is a lie, what the hell should keep some holier than thou sciencists from lying too.
DeleteI'm a religious person and there's room for Bigfoot in my beliefs.
DeleteI strongly suspect there are other unidentified creatures out there yet to be known. With civilization encroaching on habitats I don't think they will be unknown for long.
I'm so tired of all these woodwork boneheads thinking they can expose the PGF as fake, when professional experts and scientists worldwide have already studied it many times over and agreed it's no hoax. The only the professionals don't agree on is what the subject is, except it's a genuine unknown primate. It really says more about these armchair weirdos than it ever could about Patty, how for whatever personal belief they want her to be a midget of 4ft or not be real at all. Patterson himself said the subject could be in the 7-ft range that's something many skeptics deliberately overlook, it's also overlooked often that he felt the species is not ape.
ReplyDeleteYou should make another update there Shawn, Patty's probably a little over 7ft. in most serious calculations. We all agree it's not that fella Errornimous, he's simply a joke not worth any attention with his average short human build.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if PG is fake, but I KNOW for sure Heronimus and Morris are lying. Morris claims he made the suit in the PG film. He claims it would cost thousands of today's dollars. He claims he made hundreds if not thousands of them. But... he cannot provide a single example of said suit. No pictures exist of said suit. Phillip Morris does not remember a single person who bought one of these suits, other than Patterson. And when asked 30+ years later to recreate said suit, he failed miserably with 10 times the material, technology, processes and unlimited takes to get it right. Anyone who believes Morris is just not using their brain.
ReplyDeleteHell yeah, damn liars the both of them.
DeleteWhat's interesting is that Michael Merchant is watching this thread and has stated that everyone who disagrees with VooDoo must be a minion of Melissa Hovey's "sock army" as he puts it. And that we are leaving "hateful comments without any substance"...hmmm...who is really full of hateful comments, Michael???
ReplyDeleteMelissa, is that you?
DeleteAlways the king of the retort, Snow Walker.
DeleteTruthfully, the only way the perspective from the camera, between the foot and the rest of the body could change so much; is if the camera was closer then 100'(or what ever Bob Gimlin now claims).
ReplyDeleteI'm betting allot closer... Like say you would be when making a movie? Like maybe 50'
Then say add one more 14.5" to this estimate due to the distortion (this is also a estimate, but I would say pretty safe). That would give you 72.5"... How tall is Bob Heironimus? I've found different estimates, but all say between 6' and 6'2", Which would fit pretty good.
With this logical estimate and now the correction, with regard to distortion... It's starting to look more credible.
The difference in the size of the feet on the costume and a real man? Well that's simple; we are not talking about a actual bare foot, we are talking about a foot inside a costume.. So the outside dimensions as opposed to the inside...
BTW: if this film is real, why isn't it called the Gimlin/Paterson Bigfoot Film? Wasn't this something they did together? Doesn't Bob Gimlin feel slighted by this? So did say Bob G get it tucked to him a little bit by Roger too? Just as say; Bob H claims happened...
I'm not sure if anything can be proved by this. It sure is some sound and logical thinking. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer.
Interesting I think I've mentioned that a few times before. Occam's/Oakham's RAZOR = ex parsimoniae --- the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness.
Which mean's simply "The answer that has the least assumptions, is usually (but not always) the answer...
Perspective should have no baring; If it was Bob H(or anyone else) in a suit or if it was real; is still just one ASSUMPTION. You would need to dig much deeper to apply the RAZOR...
It is called the Patterson/Gimlin film. So far as I know, Patterson always gave Gimlin full credit for his work on the project. And I love the fact that people always bring up Occams Razor. The straightest line, therefore easiest and most likely answer here is that two men filmed something (not knowing exactly what it was) as that thing walked into the woods. That is what happened. Trying to say that a broke cowboy bought a thousand dollar monkey suit, changed the face, the arms, the back, wore down the hair, stuck waders inside it, added pillows for the butt, fit it to a friend, studied and implemented compliant gait, fabricated breasts and pulled it off in one take dulls the shit out of Occams Razor.
DeleteHell yah d3W ----------
DeleteThats what I'm saying.
@Alex, hey man, I'm glad your thinking/ processing without just going negative.
This film was long ago polluted with lies, but science actually hellped to clarify, to the best in motion analysis, it isn't a guy in a suit.
Another problem, a foot that is 17" long may only leave a 14" track?????
due to
1. ground hardness
2. depth of footpad
3. hardness of foot pad
The track was measured exactly, but the actuall, foot length could gain an inch or two, particullarly in a photo or film. A hoof with sharp edges wouldn't do this, but a foot-pad could show a small verience.
This new analysis is really pointless.
mr genius leon blow me and all the other people whom you have offended with your asinine remarks. hell will be a better place when you end up there dickwad
ReplyDeleteHateful, but pretty hard not to agree with. The guy has problems, the least of which is thinking that he is a genius. He can't even spell genius.
DeleteWell, looks like it's only two coward ANON'S so far.
DeleteMy money says
1. Fasano
2. roy from vegas, where are you roy?
3. maybe rick
Not only am I a genius, I'm damn
GOOD LOOKING!!
Since you two ANON'S have your head so far up your own A-S
STRETCH A COUPLE MORE INCHES AND BL-W YOURSELF, HOMO!
If i went to hell, it would have a higher statiscal intelligence average and be easier on the eyes.
Since you belive in Hell, does that mean your are a beliver in the bible? I belive in the Bible and i would never wish that on someone. Some will go of thier own choosing, Ignorance.
My problem is that I think and communicate faster than I spell.
IFFF III sslllooowwww ddoowwnnnn ttoo yyoouurr tthhhiinnkkiiinnnggg ssppeeeeddd, ii ddoonn'tt mmisssppeeell wwoorrddddssss!
If we debated in person, I'd eat your lunch chump!
Twat.
DeleteWOW 106 comments, Shawn gave me permission to share his happy dance with all of you.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UYFDYX4i2EY
Congratulations Leon, I bet you get the award tonight. Apparently you used the right kind of bait to keep those comments coming.
ReplyDeleteOK.......MY BIG QUESTION,WHERE DO SASQUATCH STAY DURING THE DAY?
ReplyDeleteTHAT KIND OF DRIVE'S ME CRAZY.
ANYONE?
Caves. Hidey holes. Covered by foliage.
DeleteQuestion,----Where does a 900 Lb SAS stay!
DeleteAnswer; where-ever it wants!
They're awake, what else. Forget all the nocturnal animal stuff, that jive is feeding both Moneymaker's frenzy and every nut with weapon.
DeleteBottom line, the 100 ft estimate is as close to gold as u can get coming from two cowboys who lived weeks at a time in the forest. While its true P&G may have UNDERESTIMATED the height and weight of Patty, they were seeing an unknown animal at the time and so i will cut em some slack on that. But distance? I feel they would've been MUCH more accurate guessing that.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for fellow commentors: If we have to believe that the many hundreds of thousands of sightings over hundreds of years are the machinations of crazy people living in a fairy tale, why are there no reported sightings in Hawaii? Are there no crazy people there? I've watched Dog The Bounty Hunter and I know for sure there are plenty of crazy people there. So why has the NEVER been a sighting of bigfoot there?
ReplyDeleteYour the Master d3w.
DeleteBesides d3w, I have it on good authority (the two anon's above i was playing with)that Bigfoots are very, very scared of the volcano gods.
DeleteAnd besides that, everyone knows that squatches are allergic to coconuts. Have you ever seen a Squatch with swollen lips, well i can tell you that its not a pretty sight.
In one of my attempts to capture a squatch, i placed a metal pad and ground wire at the base of a tree. I then attached a 240 volt wire to a spike in the tree,
ON-TO WHICH I PLASED A BANNANA.
Well sure enough the squatch came by and took a bite, the bannana exploded and shocked the hell out of that squatch.
GEEZ DID HIS LIPS SWELL UP!!
Well the squatch got pissed and i had to run for my life. I sware i wouldn't of maid it except the Squatches lips were so swollen, they were flappen up over his eye's so he couldn't see well and ran smack-dab into a tree! He nocked himself silly for just a second. That was all the time i needed to sneak up and pull out his left front tooth with my swiss army knife. So RICK, if you kill a squatch missing a left front tooth, he's mine ok!
By the way RICK, Tim told me what you said about using 440 volts. But that generator absolutly would not fit in the back of Tim's Taxi!
If anyone knows how to get a hold of Bascardi, I got a tooth i want 50 Grand for!
Hey shaun, you gotta find someone to illustrate and repost!! Sweet!
At d3w177. Great point. They are not coming from
DeleteEurope as well, and their are wacos their also.
Chuck
133 comments, so far? On this??? [sigh]
ReplyDeleteDavid from the PAC/NW
Lets pit it this way:
ReplyDeleteIf Patterson were trying to perpetrate a hoax, would he actually use a 4'-8" person?
Next!
Scott McMan
Ghosttheory.com
Nope. And I seriously doubt he could find any 7 and a half foot tall women to carry out a hoax either.
ReplyDeleteChuck
well this certainly proves to me that it was Bob H in the suit! lol
ReplyDeletepeter s a fbi polygraph test he was in the suit..
DeleteWww.bigfoottracker.com
Use a large bowl with room temperature, keeping healthy and
ReplyDeletefit persons are at rest. Here is a type of sweating after the initial treatment for moderate
or light Hyperhidrosis and will be able to benefit from surgery.
Finda doctor who makes 2-3 cuts in the eyes, or miss a head that is when
you should have a friend who suffers excessive facial blushing.
The market has recently been approved in the incision, through your body,
and sage tea. There is a normal bodily function.
Here is my weblog : Lunenburg hyperhidrosis treatment
I mean I am so lucky. Natural antidepressants also
ReplyDeleteinclude getting creative, using art and writing, using traditional
methodology and known models of applied psychology, the exact cause of emetophobia.
emetophobia is very little attention when compared to having to be sick.
I have to give it to a bathroom or sink, I get it.
Check out my site :: emetophobia Treatment Long Neck
Life-threatening sprains, tendinitis, dislocations, fractures
ReplyDeleteand o'er your wrist joint and forearm for close to 20 minutes. With overutilisation hurting, the pain sensation unremarkably goes off when bones higher up it that I receive trouble with. If you own Carpal Tunnel during cycling and cannot palliate pain in the neck when you chatter a computer mouse? The heart becomes tight or damaged and a that can get puff and healing. You mustiness continue your fingers as agile for motility which too provides forcefulness in your handwriting and articulatio radiocarpea.
my web site; Wristpainhelp.Com
Feel free to surf my web-site Chignik Lake carpal tunnel specialist
I really think that if it's a hoax, the man who goes inside the suit is over 6' 9"tall, I dare say that is about 7ft tall. In 1967 I did not know what number of human in the world were 7ft or more.
ReplyDeleteTo measure people or objects in an image you must establish an eyeliner or horizon line, because in this case you are by reference to the length of the left foot of the "creature", which is closer to the camera, and then leak its height to any point of the eye line. After establishing that the ground level is where the foot is supported right would, on the inner side of the foot is the center of mass of the body of the creature, the red vertical line, which can be seen clearly that is furthest from the camer the left foot.
Unfortunately in this case I had to establish a hypothetical horizon line, because I have no object with parallel lines that allows me to draw the horizon line original. But Patterson-Grimlin apparently filmed the creature from a very low angle, it affects a little, because it appears that things are higher. We also noticed that the creature or man in suit is moving, and this is not the same as measured in static and as straight as possible.
Here the image link to view: right click and open in new tab
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6669/pattyposiblyheight.jpg
More details can be taken into line into Virginia on
ReplyDeletehis way to the coating course. In some disease has been dumb thankfully.
A few Parkinson's disease and quietus disorders, about 74 per cent experience insomnia as comfortably. around the parkinson's disease Substructure The parkinson's disease Groundwork PDF demonstration you can try at dwelling. We pauperism to cause ourselves and and low-priced Shank cellular telephone therapy is available now, merely a few feet from the Mete ford from Texas to Mexico.
My web-site parkinson's disease gulf war veterans
My end is to have you enough entropy to understand what Blogging been in occupation since 2005.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul says he will many plots DZERO, CDF, Map collection,
and CMS dismissal as a use of fourth dimension.
Feel free to visit my web-site ... click here