Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Questions About the Patterson Film


Tim Fasano questions the most famous piece of bigfoot evidence, the Patterson film. Fasano believes there are several unanswered questions that remain.

70 comments:

  1. Look at this poor pathetic farmer who obviously needs money in order to make ends meet. His opinion then is obviously tainted purely based on the apparent fact that he needs the money and there are people who will pay him to make his argument that the PG film is a hoax. Therefore, the PG film is real, based on opposite opinion of this impoverished farmer that doesn't have a pot to pee in. That's how his inverted reasoning can be used against him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh he is a cab driver....

      Delete
    2. Shut up you silly kunt.

      Bigfoot is real and that is all there is to say on the matter.

      Delete
  2. I have a question. If Tim Fasano had a brain, would he be airing his video implying a hoax about a subject matter that has never been proven to have been hoaxed? The short answer is, NO. The long answer is, Fasano was born without a brain tragically, and never misses an opportunity to put his face on Youtube in hopes of making money off of the hits. There is no subject that is off limits to him. Next month, Fasano will team up with MK Davis, and they both will argue for the existence of a Bigfoot massacre, a Bigfoot with a braid, a Bigfoot with slick in her left hand, a Bigfoot with a gunshot wound on her right thigh, and a Bigfoot with internal hemorrhoids in a 56 year old film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what makes him different from all the other's using the subject of Bigfoot on YouTube videos?

      Delete
    2. “Walks like a man...”
      That would be a problem if we weren’t talking about an archaic human.

      “There is no structure other than the length of bone, the length of arm, the length of leg... same as that of a human.”
      Again, would be a problem if we weren’t talking about an archaic human. And actually, no. Bill Munns who has spent a lengthy period of time, not a matter of seconds, trying to fit the proportions of an average human in the “costume”, and asserts it’s impossible and has the research to back it. Also, in 1998 J. Glickman, Hood River, Oregon Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners wrote;
      “The leg length expected for this height in a human is 46.4" [Winter 1990]. The standard leg to height ratio is .53H [Winter 1990]. The observed ratio extracted from the film is .46H. The leg length of the subject is 3.0 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9 percentile and is present in one out of 1,000 people. While the length of the leg could be the result of a prosthesis, it is the opinion of the author that the probability of this is low because foot flexion is observed in the film. The arm length expected for this height in a human is 38.5" [Winters 1990]. The standard arm to height ratio is .44H [Winters 1990] (See Appendix D). The ratio extracted from the film is .49H. The arm length of the subject is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9999981 percentile or is present in one out of 52.5 million people [Weimer 1993]. This suggests that if the subject is a human in a costume that some form of arm prosthesis is in use. Finger and hand flexion is observed in the film which implies that the prosthesis must support flexion. The use of such a sophisticated prosthesis appears to be at odds with the year the film was made, the technology available at that time, and the financial resources of those involved with the filming.”
      That’s what proper research unfolds. Even though Glickman doesn’t appear to agree that the subject is human... What are the chances of BOTH those limb proportions statistically being the case in a person who just so happens to be that tall, and just so happens to have flexing toes, finger bending, etc?

      “And there’s no structure to the form of hair.”
      I’m baffled what he’s trying to suggest by this. And what’s incredible is that he then references Janos Prohaska, who then goes on to cast utter doubt on his claim. There is no fur cloth technique known to any SFX method for what you see in the PGF. Because of the muscle groupings that are seen moving together, there is nothing in 1967 that money could buy that accounts for that. And that’s without even going into the analysis of a pioneering plastic surgeon who identities biological detail that would be impossible to accomplish even today, let alone 1967;
      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns%20&%20Meldrum%20Commentary_2013.pdf

      "If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business."
      You see... This also just digs a bigger hole, because if someone like Stan can state that the costume could cost a couple of $100, then why couldn't a BBC budget manage it? Why couldn't Blevins manage it?? For someone with as big a rep, he didn't think that one out too thoroughly did he? Well if I someone who had knocked up a monkey suit to best 50 year's worth of advances, I'd hand him a job! Stan Winston is obviously one of the best in his field... but his ego also wants him to stay that way. He’ll have to do more than comparing it to a human (something an anthropologist would be far more qualified in doing), and that would mean showing everyone a fur cloth technique that nobody in his profession has ever devised and would no doubt have wanted credit for. Just look at what Hollywood could put together ten years after the PGF;
      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8c/2d/8d/8c2d8d7cde8dd09a5f177acd1b6602d1.jpg
      ... You’d expect Stan to know his SFX history a little better.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for sparing us further pain and suffering.

      Delete
    6. .45 Mulaney and Blevers(Culver 1992) 65.3 Barkley

      "The transverse fascia precludes a large hominid rather handily whereas a common specimen is overlooked."

      Delete
    7. ikdummÿ is angry with Stan Winston's ghost now?

      Delete
    8. No expedition = no common specimen.

      If “Bigfoot” is genus Homo = Anthropology will often use case studies to observe people in their natural environments. Thus no common specimen is needed.

      Delete
    9. "Common specimen" is a term I threw together. That whole quote was made up BS. You are making things up to argue against a made up term within a made up quote. And btw bigfoot isn't real so you're being silly fanticizing bigfoot's genus.

      Delete
    10. And so it goes. Anyone can throw out statements and if it goes unchallenged it might be generally accepted as fact. All these eyewitness reports and stories relayed about Bigfoot can be taken as factual unless someone takes the time and bother to really delve into them. Someone can hoax a track and if it isn't examined properly at the time then years later it can be held up as a case study and evidence (long after it has disappeared). As shown here anything can be thrown out to see if it sticks so to speak.

      In short nothing can be taken as gospel without solid evidence to back it up.

      Delete
    11. You just put numbers in parentheses with fake scientist annotations and pea brain ikdummÿ just sees "science" and feels he's part of something scientific.

      Delete
    12. "Transverse fascia" sounded scientific to ikdummÿ so he didn't even question it, he focused on "common specimen". LOL

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. And I simply forgot to add quotations marks to “common specimen”. Facts of my comment still remain, and it’s why you’ve proceeded to write several comments as an emotional investment. If Bigfoot isn’t real, don’t cry about it... Prove it.

      “All these eyewitness reports and stories relayed about Bigfoot can be taken as factual unless someone takes the time and bother to really delve into them.”
      ... Yep! And that’s why we have anthropologists looking into thousands of years of transitional oral histories, and 60 years of physical evidence sourced in the exact places where reliable eyewitnesses, even government employees have reported them. The chain of custody for some of the tracks that have been published, is too great for any unqualified person trying to pray away;
      “Now here is the remarkable aspect to all this. Although the Titmus cast was gotten in 1967, to my knowledge only a single screened black and white photo of it, depicted among a number of other casts in Titmus’ growing collection, was ever published, and that initially in 1973 (Green 1973:32). The first replica and analysis of that cast was published by me in 1999, after Titmus’ death. A photo of the footprint itself, depicted in Figure 4, taken by Lyle Laverty, was published in 1978 (Green 1978:122), but no previous investigator had identified or drawn attention to the midfoot pressure ridge, let alone interpreted or discussed its significance for sasquatch foot function. Mr. Yuan had discovered and cast his footprint pair in 1995, with no knowledge of the North American sasquatch phenomenon, let alone details of alleged footprints. The Mill Creek cast was documented in 1991. To these could be added the tracks I cast near Walla Walla in February 1996 (Meldrum 2004a). How could these independent examples, separated by nearly three decades and half-a-world apart coincidently share these sound and significant subtleties of anatomy and functional morphology? Simply a convergent happenstance of unrelated hoaxed footprints? I think not.”
      - Jeff Meldrum

      That’s solid evidence. And a “body” which is what you mean by “solid evidence to back it up“, is at this process of research not in sync with the scientific method;
      1. Ask a question.
      2. Formulate a hypothesis.
      3. Perform experiment.
      4. Collect data.
      5. Draw conclusions.
      Your idea of how science is conducted, point 5 before 2, is embarrassing. Especially since you’re simply trying to worm out of shifting your burden.

      Oh, and Bigfoot’s DNA keeps coming back as human. Throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something who's existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts. But Bigfoot’s existence (to you) all depends on what mood you’re in, eh?

      Delete
    15. You forgot to use quotation marks again — this time around the word “evidence.” Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    16. And while you’re fake laughing... that evidence is making you look silly.

      Delete
    17. Yep, you're a numbskull, ikdummy.

      Bigfoot DNA also comes back as bear but I guess "Throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something who's existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic" doesn't apply there. HAHAHAHA!!!!!

      Delete
    18. Again... 12 morphologically congruent hair samples, one directly linked to a report by government employees, that yielded track impressions of the same creature whose physical evidence was peer reviewed... Means Bigfoot are human.

      Don’t like it? Prove it wrong.

      Delete
    19. Oh, shut up, ikky.

      Morph a dermal doo. You're like fake British Joe with the sprinkling of cheers, loo, nackered, mate... except you're a pea brain trying to sound like a scientist.

      Delete
    20. The flu can’t even stop the power of role playing! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    21. Trackably importentious incongruencies yielded NON-morphologically credible data substrates which lessen((Blevin 2012) remember it was Blevin who peer reviewed Harding)) the credulity of the pargeting cataloged, particulary the 1967 castings.

      Delete
    22. the troll's brains just exploded today after Iktomi schooled them in the scientific method !
      They wouldn't last a minute in science lab 101 !
      They'll be back tomorrow to endure much more punishment like true lemmings they are
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    23. ^ How does it feel to be the fluffer boy for an illiterate psycho in a bigfoot blog comment section?

      Delete
    24. "Oh, and Bigfoot’s DNA keeps coming back as human."

      Of course it does because it IS human as in human contamination you numbskull. There is no DNA recognized by science as definitely coming from a Bigfoot.

      Delete
    25. Every time biological evidence for Bigfoot is sequenced for DNA, it comes back human. Human DNA doesn’t confirm Bigfoot’s classification because the majority of the people observing those results are expecting a new non-human primate’s DNA. 12 morphologically congruent hair samples, all linked to their own evidence, sightings or activity... one of which directly linked to a report by government employees, that yielded track impressions that were among the three peer reviewed... Is the reason why in my opinion Bigfoot is an archaic homo sapien, with those results having nothing to do with human contamination due to the chain of custody. If not, then something so close to us in the genus homo that it requires more testing to establish. Oh, and the sample in question was sequenced by none other then Bryan Sykes.

      Back to sleep!!

      Delete
    26. It's bigfoot even when the DNA comes back as Homo sapien. Role players are covering all the bases.

      ikdummy doesn't realize that Homo sapien DNA does not contain coding for a sagittal crest, 10 feet in height, or PG film hair, especially on a female.

      ikdummy, do do realize DNA can now tell scientists what physical characteristics, like red hair or dark skin, the human had? You do realize that they can now determine whether the "Homo sapien" bigfoot had a hairy body or not???

      Delete
    27. Nuttytomi will never submit to facts and reality. I never seen in the news that Sykes stated that Bigfoot exists and I also have heard nothing recently about his promised paper. He was incorrect about his conclusions about the ancient polar bear so anything he presents concerning Bigfoot will be looked at closely. I'm betting nuttytomi will be waiting for that paper for a long, long time.

      Delete
    28. And just because that information is as of yet unavailable, does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is something you were told many times during the same instances you used the argument under your F-AC Collins sockpuppet;

      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes

      And since hair was used to sequence such info, certain info would no doubt be forthcoming with more testing. I've theorised that some type of extant hominin that could quite easily fit Sykes' theory as to a subspecies of homo Sapien, that lived contemporary to anatomically modern humans, may account for what we are seeing in “Bigfoot”. Secondly, there are two widely reported types of Sasq'ets being reported in North America; the Patty type and the more Native American type. Also the “sagittal crest” could quite easily be a misidentification of something that looks much more like this;
      http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1474_3e-Dmanisi.jpg
      ... All of which come under the classification of HOMO erectus. Remember when we learned what HOMO meant? Oh, and Sykes is an expert in human DNA, not bear.

      Delete
    29. It means that an aspect of your bigfoot role-play has an expiration date and you won't be able to pretend that you have pending proof on existing samples that "bigfoot is Homo sapien" once a scientists clears up the latest bigfoot role-play "evidence", ikdumms. Not to worry, you'll keep creating new "evidence" that "must" be refuted and your bigfoot role-play will go on and on.

      Delete
    30. Facts are inconsequential when you really want to believe in something. It's fun to pretend!

      Delete
    31. well 9:44 , you must not have any fun because you're not pretending to be a wanker !
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    32. If something exists, there’s a steady flow of its evidence. That’s nothing I can pretend or role-play. Stop crying about it... Prove it.

      In the meantime, would you like a tissue?

      Delete
    33. “I'm betting nuttytomi will be waiting for that paper for a long, long time.”

      “It means that an aspect of your bigfoot role-play has an expiration date...”

      Someone’s role-playing coherency.

      Delete
    34. ^ cannot comprehend there is more than once person making these comments with sometimes different takes. We all do agree however that Bigfoot does not exist...except in gullible minds.

      Delete
    35. Sure there is Stuey... It’s like an army of truth sayers, eh?

      (Eyes roll)

      Stop crying about it... prove it.

      Delete
    36. ikdummy, like the "steady flow of it's evidence" in the UK that you may eventually decide to role-play so as not to appear hypocritical, especially when UK prints and other data eventually materialise? Remember, you are a victim of the evidence, wherever that leads. Forget absurd, impossible premises, let the role play begin.

      Delete
    37. Tee, hee! Sounds like you’re already preparing damage control for physical evidence turning up in the UK.

      Suggesting someone who is referencing scientific data is merely “pretending”, is as unscientific as it is childish and illogical. That might be your level, some sort of psychological safety net, but it isn’t debunking any scientific data anytime soon.

      Stop crying... Prove it.

      Delete
    38. 10:33- so what role are you playing? let me guess, the role of a very young James Randi . A perpetual pain in the arse for anyone within shouting distance. Bully for you sir
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    39. Preparing damage control? Very confused you are, ikdummy. I'm absolutely, positively saying that UK prints and other physical evidence will materialise in the UK and I 100% welcome it. I want it to happen. I've been trying to get you to UK bigfoot role-play for weeks.

      Then you will be forced to bigfoot role-play in your own country out of fear of appearing hypocritical. Remember, you dismissed all 450 UK bigfoot sightings as not real.

      Delete
    40. As I said... You’re already using your psychological safety net in reference to the UK evidence when it turns up.

      Stop crying about UK reports that as of yet, don’t have physical evidence... Prove the US evidence wrong.

      Delete
    41. Is that my role in your bigfoot role-play? You list a bunch of faked evidence and I'm supposed to disprove everything you conjure? How about a baby knocks everything off it's highchair and I clean it all up.

      Delete
    42. “Faked evidence”...

      Prove it. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore has to bear a burden of proof. That’s the demands of adult debate. Grow up. Stop...

      https://youtu.be/tNdBLBleO90

      Delete
    43. I get it, already. You only want to be on the offense presenting bigfoot "evidence" and I am supposed to endlessly prove your "evidence" wrong.

      Forget about your silly premise that there are 10,000 10 foot tall 1000 pound hairy monsters perpetually hiding in US woods.... let's just debate plaster casts of faked prints, blurry photos, and stories.

      Delete
    44. Nope! This is how it works... You want to come here and pretend you’re a psuedosceptic to self-medicate your depression, and assert that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. I will subsequently provide you with scientific reasoning as to the contrary. You don’t have to do anything, but there’s a reason why you’re fixated on me. Stop crying, prove me wrong.

      10,000 10 foot tall 1000 pound hairy monsters perpetually hiding in US woods, are substantiated by plaster casts, footage and eyewitness testimony. Stop crying, prove me wrong.

      Delete
    45. Nope! This is how it works... You're a non-scientist, Welsh mental patient presenting faked bigfoot evidence on an inconsequential bigfoot/dogman blog.

      10,000 10 foot tall 1000 pound hairy monsters perpetually hiding in US woods. Stop crying, produce one. LOL

      Schooled!

      Delete
    46. “... faked bigfoot evidence...”

      There it is again. Unfortunately neither of us alone are qualified to make such bold claims. That’s why I tend to reference qualified scientists to support my points. You should probably partake in the same practice with your assertions. Because at present, one of us can reference the scientific method; the other can’t.

      “Stop crying, produce one.”

      Actually, I can produce three (and that’s being modest), since I can reference three casts over three decades, of three individuals, which point to the same archaic features before cast replicas were produced and any powers of suggestion about such foot morphology (Meldrum) was made public.

      Prove me wrong.

      Delete
    47. You produced zero bigfoot bodies living or dead.

      Why must you lie? SMH

      Delete
    48. And what other biological entity with the exact same anatomy as “Bigfoot” is leaving its physical sign on the US, exactly?

      I can reference the trace evidence; evidence of a genuine biological foot making impact with the ground. By that, I can provide you with not one, but three individuals. Just like biologists can evidence the presence of a large mammal in an area during wildlife surveys.

      Delete
    49. Hoaxers are leaving bigfoot "evidence", idiot, and no real biological entity is leaving anatomy consistent with bigfoot hoaxer evidence.

      You can't reference a body. Everyone already knows you reference faked prints, stories, blurs....

      Delete
    50. “Hoaxers are leaving bigfoot "evidence"...”

      Ok... Prove it. Given the information I’ve provided up top, specially at 12:39pm PDT, demonstrate how hoaxers could be so creative so as to manufacture such impossible coincidences. I can’t reference a body, but I also can’t reference an expedition to document one either... Can you?

      “Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.”

      “Everybody knows”? Maybe you can get someone else to help you out then... Because you’re not doing a very good job of demonstrating what’s allegedly so obvious.

      Delete
    51. See-----> I get it, already. You only want to be on the offense presenting bigfoot "evidence" and I am supposed to endlessly prove your "evidence" wrong.


      A bigfoot body, ikdummy. Nothing short of that.

      Delete
    52. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

    53. Nope! I’ll refer you to my comment at 11:50am;
      “If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore has to bear a burden of proof.”

      It is very obvious at this point, that your numerous logical fallacies and attempts to shift that burden, mean you can’t substantiate what you assert and you subsequently lose the debate. Remember you are here every day looking to draw people into negativity, not the other way around. Take responsibility for your assertions. There’s something so stomach churning about someone sidestepping their responsibilities.

      IktomiWednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:23:00 AM PDT
      No expedition = no common specimen.
      If “Bigfoot” is genus Homo = Anthropology will often use case studies to observe people in their natural environments. Thus no common specimen is needed.

      And no argumentum ad ignorantiam makes that go away.

      Delete
    54. Nope! A bigfoot body, ikdummy. Nothing short of that.

      Delete
    55. IktomiThursday, April 12, 2018 at 1:49:00 PM PDT
      This comment has been removed by the author.

      ^Typical of ikdummy to delete his comments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....

      Delete
    56. Nope! Latin phrases typed by a Welsh mental patient on a bigfoot/dogman blog don't dismiss the lack of a bigfoot body.


      A bigfoot body, ikdummy. Nothing short of that.

      Delete
    57. Even if you don’t read my comments... others can/will.

      Just take it on the chin, tomorrow’s another day, eh?

      Nôs da cariad bach!

      Delete
  3. If you know the Roger Patterson back story, then you know that he was exactly the type of guy that would hoax bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, now... I would guess your backstory isn’t something to throw stones in glass houses about, and that doesn’t begin to find you a magic monkey suit.

      Delete
    2. You don't need a back story, and you don't need a suit. What you need is common sense, and actually doing field research.
      Ikdummy lacks both!

      Delete
    3. Snap some photos of your bedroom, Bruce! You’ll find just as many Pokemon. Or are you scared of the gouls & goblins?

      Delete
    4. Oh... and common sense dictates that biological entities cannot turn inanimate.

      Delete