RE ; Is It Possible ?

[sapere aude]

See Bill Munns video showing extreme toe flexure in two consecutive frames F309 and F310 at the 0:16 second mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AnJWb2fs0

Thanks. Once again, do you have anything that doesn't require enhancement/manipulation to find? ie. a simple close up of the relevant part of the unaltered original film (or direct copy), to compare. Has any independent professional/ expert corroborated his findings and in conjunction with an unbiased anthropologist backed the conclusions etc ? Stabilizing a film isn't really going to bring out extra detail without further manipulation. Every step taken with manipulation gets further from the original and risks introducing things that aren't really there. If I or someone else were to try to replicate such analysis, to seek advice from relevant scientists etc, where might the original film be found, or a direct copy made available for this purpose?

Using the best (poor quality) footage I can find yields the results below, exceptionally poor quality, riddled with artifacts, a thick line running down the screen etc.

4-1.jpeg

Two consecutive frames showing toe flexure exactly when and where is should be, proves that it is authentic. The degree of flexure is non-human.

Aka wishful thinking.

splayed hair pointing away from the spinal column, did not exist in costumes in 1967.

Combs, brushes?

Authentic mammory gland dynamic jiggle, did not exist in costumes in 1967.

Looks like it was attempted on at least one occasion, though.

If a toe wobbles to an extreme extent in a flexible rubber foot, then it would also be impossible for that flexible toe to leave an imprint like was left in the footprint casts of that event. Therefore, there were no flexible rubber feet as part of a costume. And since the extreme toe flexure is non-human, then the PG film shows an authentic non-human bipedal primate.

Fair enough that you choose to believe it. All any of it really demonstrates is that proponents and detractors can find anything they want in this film, wishful thinking IMO. Apparently there are alll sorts of people, horses, bigfoots in the trees, the thigh anomoly is a ballistic strike etc etc. There is no end of such nonsense regarding conspiracy theories, this is more of it. If this is the best anyone can come up with for bigfoot (manipulating a fuzzy, grainy and artifact ridden film, discussing and accepting pariedolia, simply making claims of opinion as if fact etc.) then it's highly likely that bigfoot does not exist.

This film is overwhelmingly thought to be fake for very good reason. Considering the circumstances surrounding it's creation, while not part of a scientific approach, doesn't add to it's possible authenticity. It is slightly worse than an anecdote, as with a simple story we aren't forced to look at something like this and expected to take it seriously. I find it far more likely that if bigfoot does exist, it might be found in one of the "blobsquatches" that people offer. This would be far more consistent with amateurs photographing real (and extremely rare) wildlife. It isn't easy. Yet in a creek bed beside a logging road, the most secretive and stealthy creature in existence (that happens to look like a cheap movie prop) that has never been captured on film before or since (in fact, nothing has ever been captured that would genuinely point to it's existence) doesn't notice armed men approaching on horseback and when it does, doesn't retreat into the forest, instead sashays for some time in full view turning at one stage to give a catwalk model type of "get back stare", before strolling away..............................It might take more than Munn's opinion to accept that. A bigfoot would be good (one that is consistent with the human in the pg), or failing that, something that might (scientifically) genuinely suggest they exist.

[sapere aude]

OK so if it was a hoax, why hasn't anyone done it again since then?

Why would anyone want to?

This one was done at very short notice afaik. Not hard to see with enough time to alter the suit, a grainy, distant and poor quality film that covers up any detail, a younger fitter and thinner Bob H. could easily have been the folly from Bluff Creek.

I appreciate your position of open minded skepticism FM 80, no doubt that is a good position. I take the view, given the track record of bigfoot and US research generally, claims like these are likely bs unless there is some good reason to think otherwise. I haven't found any reason to think otherwise (quite the contrary).

[sapere aude]

themanfromglad, these are the best quality I can find of the pg film. Said to be direct copies. The apparently "upright toes" in the relevant frame seem to disappear when I zoom in (without any other manipulation), though potential artifacts in the area are numerous. I would keep looking for the exact original frame (know where I might find it?), but it doesn't really matter anyway because it is nonsense IMO. This film is simply not good enough quality to appraise detail in any way remotely resembling scientific analysis. Which seems to be acknowledged by all but a very small group of people and an even far smaller group of scientist/believers (yes, Meldrum does definitely agree nothing in this film precludes modern human in a costume when talking to other scientists.....he just "believes it's a bigfoot) who are likely having themselves on.

[Scarts]

At frames 339 and 343, Patty's backside does not conform to natural muscle shape, and instead looks like a loose costume pulling out from the wearer's body and temporarily retaining unnatural looking angles and straight lines.

Frame 352 is the money shot!

[Rastus]

Themanfromglad you posted " It is a shame that nobody in Australia has demonstrated the cahoanes so far, to attempt such a simple experiment."

Im pretty sure there are a number of researchers on this very forum that are out there utilising both audio and visual equipment in a bid to record yowie activity in the Australian bush. For you to say no one in Australia has the balls to do so is plainly incorrect and arrogant to boot.

Fair enough I dont agree with your theories, but I have bitten the bullet so to speak in order to not comment on your theories again as you are fully entitled to your views, and I respect that now. You have mentioned the lack of bravery that you perceive exists in this country a few times now and it is quite belittling for you to think no one dare do what your high and mighty self suggests.

I spend around 10 hours a day sometimes longer , 4 days out of every week in the bush by myself ( bird photography nut ) and have at times as suggested by you cursed the hairy man in order to make something happen as you have said would occur. Nothing yet. Did I feel foolish ? Yes. Did it scare off wildlife in the vincinty? Most certainly. Was I scared? Nope.

You might think that placing a recording device or cursing yowies / bigfoot requires gonads the size of basketballs but to us Aussies it really is nothing at all. In that regard you probably need to harden up a little.

I am actually pro yowie and bigfoot also in case you wondered as i know some of my posts sound like I'm not.

Have a nice day.

Rastus,

I don't recall ever suggesting that someone curse at the Yowie in order to get their attention, on this board. Could you please direct me to where I stated that absurdity?

You stated that there already are a number of researchers that are already utilizing audio and video equipment. Unfortunately, you appear to have missed my point entirely. You need to be real-time and observing the area around the highly sensitive microphone setup that is so powerful that it can record your every breath when positioned at least 15 meters/45 feet away. And simultaneously observe that there is nothing visible in the vicinity to make those noises. Dollars to donuts says that there is not one single researcher who has that quality of audio equipment, currently. Standard audio equipment carried by researchers, will not record a persons breath from more than 30 cm/12 inches from the microphone. Please note the difference.

Despite your initial lack of appreciation for the specific equipment required for this field experiment, I am quite impressed by how easily you throw out names meant to draw disrespect like, "arrogant, high and mighty". If I had screwed up my interpretation of a field experiment as badly as you appear to have done, and then confidently christened the person describing the experiment with a series of childish names, I think that I would be on my hands and knees right now, profusely apologizing. But hey! That's just me.

In order to speed up the timeframe for you to be justifiably amazed, might I suggest for audio equipment: a 1" diameter diaphragm XLR studio microphone with signal to noise better than 80db, a beachtek XLR adapter with phantom power, a Sony SR7 camcorder, most any headset and a comfortable chair. Apparently, Aussies come standard issue with cahoanes the size of basketballs, so any suggestion in that department would be boringly redundant.

I never stated that you said on this board. But yes I will gladly point you toward a thread where you as an alter ego called Historian suggested to a user called Locknar that speaking ill of bigfoot will make things happen to him, and also pretty much that he wasnt brave enough to do so. So pretty much that which I said earlier.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost3047301

a few times from this point onward you have suggested that disrespecting bigfoot by thought or audible insults would result in warnings. Let me know if you need more.

I really do try to bite the bullet these days when it comes to you and not try to offend you , because as I said earlier you are entitled to your views. But it seems to me that if somebody shows even the slightest hint of doubt or asks a question of you then you go on the offence and the belittling commences. But as far as I see it if you make any claims be prepared for questioning. You come across as though we should take your word as law? No thanks.

You are obviously an intelligent person with a fine handle of the english language, some of us are not very good at getting our point across and perhaps you see that as easy game and try to blast us out of the water. Or it could be that you are the most successful troll in the history of bigfoot forums.

I really dont know.

[themanfromglad]

I never stated that you said on this board. But yes I will gladly point you toward a thread where you as an alter ego called Historian suggested to a user called Locknar that speaking ill of bigfoot will make things happen to him, and also pretty much that he wasnt brave enough to do so. So pretty much that which I said earlier.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost3047301

a few times from this point onward you have suggested that disrespecting bigfoot by thought or audible insults would result in warnings. Let me know if you need more.

I really do try to bite the bullet these days when it comes to you and not try to offend you , because as I said earlier you are entitled to your views. But it seems to me that if somebody shows even the slightest hint of doubt or asks a question of you then you go on the offence and the belittling commences. But as far as I see it if you make any claims be prepared for questioning. You come across as though we should take your word as law? No thanks.

You are obviously an intelligent person with a fine handle of the english language, some of us are not very good at getting our point across and perhaps you see that as easy game and try to blast us out of the water. Or it could be that you are the most successful troll in the history of bigfoot forums.

I really dont know.

Rastus, James Randi is where dysfunctional adolences and government disinformation artists lurk. Locknar was one of those. As I recall, I was testing out how stupid he was, in seeing if he would attempt to get a reaction by cursing at them, from his backyard. I was playing a game on a dysfunctional game player. Cursing remains an absurd method that has not produced results to my knowledge. However, thinking about someone harming them, can produce results from my personal experience.

I am sorry that your ego does not permit you to receive recollections or other person's experiences, as anything other than arrogant dictating to you as to the way it is. Your inability to receive information, is likely a psychological problem of some sort. I know narcicistic sociopaths who have similar problems, but since I don't know much about you and am not a psychologist, I have no idea what your problem is. Which is the only answer on this board that cannot draw a verbal attack of some sort, "I HAVE NO IDEA".

Since you do not receive others persons recollection of experiences very well, check back in about 20 years, and tell us all what you have learned. I doubt that you will experience everything there is to experience, without drawing on other's experiences in some fashion. But hey, maybe you are superman and require no assistance.

Trolls disrupt the exchange of knowledge. I share knowledge. You disrupt the exchange of knowledge. You appear to be a Troll, while cleverly accusing others being Trolls. The cat is out of the bag now. Please do not address me in the future.

[themanfromglad]

themanfromglad, these are the best quality I can find of the pg film. Said to be direct copies. The apparently "upright toes" in the relevant frame seem to disappear when I zoom in (without any other manipulation), though potential artifacts in the area are numerous. I would keep looking for the exact original frame (know where I might find it?), but it doesn't really matter anyway because it is nonsense IMO. This film is simply not good enough quality to appraise detail in any way remotely resembling scientific analysis. Which seems to be acknowledged by all but a very small group of people and an even far smaller group of scientist/believers (yes, Meldrum does definitely agree nothing in this film precludes modern human in a costume when talking to other scientists.....he just "believes it's a bigfoot) who are likely having themselves on.

You appear to have copies frame 311 but you have no record of which frame you copied. However that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

The Bill Munns video will also show what you showed for frame 311. But I did not reference frame 311. I referenced frames 309 and 310. I recognize from past experience, that there is no way that anybody is going to convince you that the film is authentic. So I won't be wasting any further time on pointing out the errors in your thinking.

[themanfromglad]

themanfromglad, these are the best quality I can find of the pg film. Said to be direct copies. The apparently "upright toes" in the relevant frame seem to disappear when I zoom in (without any other manipulation), though potential artifacts in the area are numerous. I would keep looking for the exact original frame (know where I might find it?), but it doesn't really matter anyway because it is nonsense IMO. This film is simply not good enough quality to appraise detail in any way remotely resembling scientific analysis. Which seems to be acknowledged by all but a very small group of people and an even far smaller group of scientist/believers (yes, Meldrum does definitely agree nothing in this film precludes modern human in a costume when talking to other scientists.....he just "believes it's a bigfoot) who are likely having themselves on.

Your copy is not as good as Bill Munns copy. Jagged edges can be seen on leg edge lines. Your copy is worthless for any analysis, in my opinion.

[themanfromglad]

themanfromglad, these are the best quality I can find of the pg film. Said to be direct copies. The apparently "upright toes" in the relevant frame seem to disappear when I zoom in (without any other manipulation), though potential artifacts in the area are numerous. I would keep looking for the exact original frame (know where I might find it?), but it doesn't really matter anyway because it is nonsense IMO. This film is simply not good enough quality to appraise detail in any way remotely resembling scientific analysis. Which seems to be acknowledged by all but a very small group of people and an even far smaller group of scientist/believers (yes, Meldrum does definitely agree nothing in this film precludes modern human in a costume when talking to other scientists.....he just "believes it's a bigfoot) who are likely having themselves on.

You appear to have copies frame 311 but you have no record of which frame you copied. However that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

The Bill Munns video will also show what you showed for frame 311. But I did not reference frame 311. I referenced frames 309 and 310. I recognize from past experience, that there is no way that anybody is going to convince you that the film is authentic. So I won't be wasting any further time on pointing out the errors in your thinking.

Upon further review, you do not appear to have frame 311, but rather just a poor copy of frame 309. Garbage in = garbage out. MK Davis used a 4th or 5th generation copy as found all kinds of stuff that was never there. Apparently, you took a play out of his book. He has since removed all of his photo misinterpretations from the internet. Hint, hint.

[Rastus]

I never stated that you said on this board. But yes I will gladly point you toward a thread where you as an alter ego called Historian suggested to a user called Locknar that speaking ill of bigfoot will make things happen to him, and also pretty much that he wasnt brave enough to do so. So pretty much that which I said earlier.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost3047301

a few times from this point onward you have suggested that disrespecting bigfoot by thought or audible insults would result in warnings. Let me know if you need more.

I really do try to bite the bullet these days when it comes to you and not try to offend you , because as I said earlier you are entitled to your views. But it seems to me that if somebody shows even the slightest hint of doubt or asks a question of you then you go on the offence and the belittling commences. But as far as I see it if you make any claims be prepared for questioning. You come across as though we should take your word as law? No thanks.

You are obviously an intelligent person with a fine handle of the english language, some of us are not very good at getting our point across and perhaps you see that as easy game and try to blast us out of the water. Or it could be that you are the most successful troll in the history of bigfoot forums.

I really dont know.

Rastus, James Randi is where dysfunctional adolences and government disinformation artists lurk. Locknar was one of those. As I recall, I was testing out how stupid he was, in seeing if he would attempt to get a reaction by cursing at them, from his backyard. I was playing a game on a dysfunctional game player. Cursing remains an absurd method that has not produced results to my knowledge. However, thinking about someone harming them, can produce results from my personal experience.

I am sorry that your ego does not permit you to receive recollections or other person's experiences, as anything other than arrogant dictating to you as to the way it is. Your inability to receive information, is likely a psychological problem of some sort. I know narcicistic sociopaths who have similar problems, but since I don't know much about you and am not a psychologist, I have no idea what your problem is. Which is the only answer on this board that cannot draw a verbal attack of some sort, "I HAVE NO IDEA".

Since you do not receive others persons recollection of experiences very well, check back in about 20 years, and tell us all what you have learned. I doubt that you will experience everything there is to experience, without drawing on other's experiences in some fashion. But hey, maybe you are superman and require no assistance.

Trolls disrupt the exchange of knowledge. I share knowledge. You disrupt the exchange of knowledge. You appear to be a Troll, while cleverly accusing others being Trolls. The cat is out of the bag now. Please do not address me in the future.

Yep, pretty much as I said in the bolded part above. I suppose I should have expected it from your past history on other boards. I just dont get how you expect people to acknowledge your ideas without them asking questions which result in you going off tap ?

I doubt that you will experience everything there is to experience, without drawing on other's experiences in some fashion

I totally agree. Nowhere ever have I stated that I am a researcher doing my own thing. I visit this forum as it is a localised version of something I am interested in. I like to hear other peoples stories and to look at the evidence they have provided and their answers to questions other members may have asked. They freely do this without agro and have no problem looking at their own information from another persons viewpoint in an attempt to get to the bottom of things. This is a subject I believe to be real and that is why I am here. Just because I didnt paint the Sistine Chaple or the Mona Lisa doesnt mean I cant admire the work of those that did.

I know narcicistic sociopaths

I'm sure you have a very close personal experience of this.This is something you have provided ample evidence of and which nobody needs to question.

You share knowledge, yes, but you also expect people to follow that knowledge without question and flame anyone who doesnt do so. Its absurd to think people will follow you without question, unless your name is Benito or Adolph, and they didnt get to far either.

Please do not address me in the future.

If you continue to belittle people, and not just me either, and get mad at their questions then yes I will address you in the future . Whether you choose to answer is up to you , but as you are entitled to your say, so are others and myself.


I dont know how they do it in your parts of the world but over here we give what we get.

[FM80]

Just trying to get back on track a bit here.

Manfromglad, I'll try to summarise what you've put forward, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. They are invisible
2. This invisibility is somehow related to string theory
3. Recording sounds in the bush will demonstrate this
4. Pictures and videos are useless (except the Paterson film you seem to be supporting, and a picture of a bigfoot urinating, these seem to get your nod)

[themanfromglad]

Just trying to get back on track a bit here.

Manfromglad, I'll try to summarise what you've put forward, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. They are invisible
2. This invisibility is somehow related to string theory
3. Recording sounds in the bush will demonstrate this
4. Pictures and videos are useless (except the Paterson film you seem to be supporting, and a picture of a bigfoot urinating, these seem to get your nod)

FM80, Thankyou for your civil behavior without attacking me. Please allow me to clarify your summary:

1. They have the capability of becoming invisible and tend to stay invisible in the States during most of the daylight hours when man can be nearby, and will likely be invisible all of the time when they live in the backyard of humans.

2. The string theory explanation of how invisibility works, is contained in the book "X3", by Adrian Dvir. I do not have any way to personally confirm it. But I have described a method to confirm invisibility.

3. Simultaneous live observation of the area around a super sensitive microphone/amplifier/recorder/head phones setup, during daylight hours, will help convince the observers of invisibility of bipedal people that they cannot see. Some will have a light footfalls and some will have heavier footfalls. A very good night vision monocular will be required if you intend to carry on this experiment after dark. More action takes place after dark.

4. Given the advancement of photoshop technology, still pictures are useless for proving anything. Given the advancement of computer generated images (CGI), recently filmed videos as proof, are much more open to debate. Even if one acquired an authentic still photo, how much have you really learned about the subject matter? Not much. I also like the Russian galloping yeti and the Freeman footage.

[sapere aude]

You appear to have copies frame 311 but you have no record of which frame you copied. However that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

I alluded to the obvious artifacts at the toe area. A cursory glance at what I provided would have told you it was frame 307, hence the following quote from my post regarding the correct frame.

(know where I can find it?)

that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

It did not prevent me from claiming in the frame I provided (2 frames before the relevant one) that what at first glance looks like upright toes dissapears on zooming, leaving relevant artifacts in the relevant area.

Your copy is not as good as Bill Munns copy. Jagged edges can be seen on leg edge lines. Your copy is worthless for any analysis, in my opinion.

Which is what I said. Which is why I asked if a better copy is available for those who wish to review Munn's work properly. That seems to be how science works. The provided cibachrome stills are "supposedly" first generation images originally belonging to Dahinden.

I would doubt any copies (or the original, is there an original?) would be suitable for scientific analysis. I also further doubt the people making the analysis are qualified to do so. It is very easy to see in the link you provided that this person either has no knowledge of optical effects such as foreshortening (particularly relevant), perspective, parallax error and the like or have seen fit to disregard it. They haven't even taken into account the correct placement nor made any attempt to gauge the plane of the foot.

If they had they would realise the amount of apparent flex in the "claimed" toes are far less than they believe (far less than half, but we would need information of the camera and accurate site measurements to be sure) and well within human range. Then we might ask what type of creature flicks its toes up for one frame (around 0.05 seconds?) when it walks. Could this be consistent with humans, bigfoots, or certain footwear? That's if we allow that it shows a faithful image of the toes at all, which is unlikely.

I can only suggest you look further and not take such things on surface value.

I recognize from past experience, that there is no way that anybody is going to convince you that the film is authentic. So I won't be wasting any further time on pointing out the errors in your thinking.

This appears to be veering toward ad hominem and inviting of a similar response, which is rarely productive. I realise you feel some might be attacking you personally, I haven't and will be unlikely to do so. The information you provide, is a different thing though.

This is one problem with bigfoot research, it spurns any form of skeptical opinion or review that might challenge the belief and thus resembles religion more than science. I hope it doesn't catch on here, at the moment the Aussie researchers are quite tolerant and accepting of well meaning input.

Rather than discussing optical effects and pariedolia, it might be better to first discuss the more obvious that is less prone to the noted vagueness of looking for detail where there is unlikely to be any. Such as a sagital crest and its incongruity with the abdomen. As we know the function of such a crest and can infer digestion from known primates, this makes little sense.

A sagital crest such as this one, is generally a male characteristic. The Krantz notion it is a result of size holds little weight for very good reasons (far smaller primate fossils have this feature, therefore it should be more common among female gorillas if so). The thick fur/hair covered breasts would be unusual for a female also, though not so much for males (most notably in homo sapiens). All indications are that it is a male human (with some incongruities), so what to make of the breasts? Patterson not only discovered the most illusive creature in existence, he just happened to get one with a hormonal disorder? A hermaphrodite? Is Patty just a really butch female bigfoot? Would any of this be consistent with a fake, by any chance?

There seems no way to prove this fake. Surely there are many reasons to doubt. Parsimony?


ps. Is there anywhere online where I might be able to read a basic working hypothesis regarding bigfoot and string theorie(s)? if I didn't wish to buy any books? I would be (genuinely) fascinated to read it. While I can't guarantee I will believe it, I already agree with certain things/possibilities you mention.

[forestguy]

Hi GladMan - thanks for clarifying FM80's summary there.

I understand (I think) what you're proposing for the experiment, but even if successful, it's only going to be of any benefit to the person on site actually carrying out the experiment, isn't it? It can only be "proof" for the person there on site watching 1st hand, hearing the noises in the mic while visually confirming that there's no-one (visible) near it?

The key to making science work is documenting & repeatability. You need to document everything so that others can repeat the process and get the same result.

The fact is, I'm going to struggle to document that something invisible is making a noise near a microphone - and even if someone does try it and gets the same result...

If you're correct and we're trying to (more or less) scientifically document a phenomenon that is literally light years ahead scientifically of our science, then what's the point? It can't be done, we might as well all pack up and go home.

I've said essentially the same thing to Sapere before - I personally will continue to persevere on the basis that they're flesh and blood, because if they're not there's nothing we can do anyway.

[FM80]

Just trying to get back on track a bit here.

Manfromglad, I'll try to summarise what you've put forward, correct me if I'm wrong.

1. They are invisible
2. This invisibility is somehow related to string theory
3. Recording sounds in the bush will demonstrate this
4. Pictures and videos are useless (except the Paterson film you seem to be supporting, and a picture of a bigfoot urinating, these seem to get your nod)

FM80, Thankyou for your civil behavior without attacking me. Please allow me to clarify your summary:

1. They have the capability of becoming invisible and tend to stay invisible in the States during most of the daylight hours when man can be nearby, and will likely be invisible all of the time when they live in the backyard of humans.

2. The string theory explanation of how invisibility works, is contained in the book "X3", by Adrian Dvir. I do not have any way to personally confirm it. But I have described a method to confirm invisibility.

3. Simultaneous live observation of the area around a super sensitive microphone/amplifier/recorder/head phones setup, during daylight hours, will help convince the observers of invisibility of bipedal people that they cannot see. Some will have a light footfalls and some will have heavier footfalls. A very good night vision monocular will be required if you intend to carry on this experiment after dark. More action takes place after dark.

4. Given the advancement of photoshop technology, still pictures are useless for proving anything. Given the advancement of computer generated images (CGI), recently filmed videos as proof, are much more open to debate. Even if one acquired an authentic still photo, how much have you really learned about the subject matter? Not much. I also like the Russian galloping yeti and the Freeman footage.

One problem I see is that the extra dimensions proposed by string theory are minuscule, far too small for a yowie to reside in.

[themanfromglad]

One problem I see is that the extra dimensions proposed by string theory are minuscule, far too small for a yowie to reside in.

The "far too small" reasoning came from physicists. Physicists are great liars when they do not want to alarm the public. If you think of the extra dimensions existing side by side like the frequencies on a radio. Each frequency has a very narrow band width, while being in an adjacent frequency will often receive feed from another nearby frequency. Yet you get full power from each frequency when tuned properly on that frequency. Extra dimensions can be viewed in a similar fashion. Orbs in dimensions just barely outside of man's visible spectrum, look exactly like flying white golf balls. If you watch a whitish orb slowly disappear as it flys into trees or into the ground, you will see a gradual transition with no jerky action as it transitions the subdimensions of the 4th dimension. At some point, it will arrive at a subdimension where it can occupy the same space as a tree trunk, and have no resistance to travel through that tree trunk. Each sub-dimension that it transitioned, has an VERY TINY band width, yet the sub-dimension is as substantial as any other dimension including man's dimension, in my opinion.

It will be a cold day in hell before physicists step up to the plate and truly explain Bigfoot and the sub-dimensions of the 4th dimension. They love confusion and never taking old hypothesis off of the books because they can no more prove the old ones, than the new hypothesis. For instance, the hypercube was concocted to represent the 4th dimension back in the 60's. They also tossed it in the 60's. Yet it still reappears in physics books and does nothing but confuse physicists who don't know any better.

[themanfromglad]

Hi GladMan - thanks for clarifying FM80's summary there.

I understand (I think) what you're proposing for the experiment, but even if successful, it's only going to be of any benefit to the person on site actually carrying out the experiment, isn't it? It can only be "proof" for the person there on site watching 1st hand, hearing the noises in the mic while visually confirming that there's no-one (visible) near it?

The key to making science work is documenting & repeatability. You need to document everything so that others can repeat the process and get the same result.

The fact is, I'm going to struggle to document that something invisible is making a noise near a microphone - and even if someone does try it and gets the same result...

If you're correct and we're trying to (more or less) scientifically document a phenomenon that is literally light years ahead scientifically of our science, then what's the point? It can't be done, we might as well all pack up and go home.

I've said essentially the same thing to Sapere before - I personally will continue to persevere on the basis that they're flesh and blood, because if they're not there's nothing we can do anyway.

You could attempt the experiment in the middle of a large flat area, covered with dry leaves, so that you can videotape a 100 meter diameter area. Better have the videocamera perched up high and inside of a vehicle, so that the frequencies that it emits, does not alarm the yowie. Heavy footfalls that are close to the microphone, will tend to prove the point. But then, the naysayers will simply say that you added the audio in editing. So nothing can be proven absolutely, to persons who were not present.

You will have a lot more positive field results, if you work with a highly sensitive microphone. "A lot more" would mean 98%+ success for every camp you set up. If you stick with the F&B only belief, you will get skunked 90% of the time and soon become discouraged. You may hear something, but won't likely be able to see what caused the unidentifiable noise.

[themanfromglad]

You appear to have copies frame 311 but you have no record of which frame you copied. However that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

I alluded to the obvious artifacts at the toe area. A cursory glance at what I provided would have told you it was frame 307, hence the following quote from my post regarding the correct frame.

(know where I can find it?)

that defect in your collection of evidence, did not prevent you from triumphantly claiming that there are no upright toes, therefore there is no non-human toe flexure.

It did not prevent me from claiming in the frame I provided (2 frames before the relevant one) that what at first glance looks like upright toes dissapears on zooming, leaving relevant artifacts in the relevant area.

Your copy is not as good as Bill Munns copy. Jagged edges can be seen on leg edge lines. Your copy is worthless for any analysis, in my opinion.

Which is what I said. Which is why I asked if a better copy is available for those who wish to review Munn's work properly. That seems to be how science works. The provided cibachrome stills are "supposedly" first generation images originally belonging to Dahinden.

I would doubt any copies (or the original, is there an original?) would be suitable for scientific analysis. I also further doubt the people making the analysis are qualified to do so. It is very easy to see in the link you provided that this person either has no knowledge of optical effects such as foreshortening (particularly relevant), perspective, parallax error and the like or have seen fit to disregard it. They haven't even taken into account the correct placement nor made any attempt to gauge the plane of the foot.

If they had they would realise the amount of apparent flex in the "claimed" toes are far less than they believe (far less than half, but we would need information of the camera and accurate site measurements to be sure) and well within human range. Then we might ask what type of creature flicks its toes up for one frame (around 0.05 seconds?) when it walks. Could this be consistent with humans, bigfoots, or certain footwear? That's if we allow that it shows a faithful image of the toes at all, which is unlikely.

I can only suggest you look further and not take such things on surface value.

I recognize from past experience, that there is no way that anybody is going to convince you that the film is authentic. So I won't be wasting any further time on pointing out the errors in your thinking.

This appears to be veering toward ad hominem and inviting of a similar response, which is rarely productive. I realise you feel some might be attacking you personally, I haven't and will be unlikely to do so. The information you provide, is a different thing though.

This is one problem with bigfoot research, it spurns any form of skeptical opinion or review that might challenge the belief and thus resembles religion more than science. I hope it doesn't catch on here, at the moment the Aussie researchers are quite tolerant and accepting of well meaning input.

Rather than discussing optical effects and pariedolia, it might be better to first discuss the more obvious that is less prone to the noted vagueness of looking for detail where there is unlikely to be any. Such as a sagital crest and its incongruity with the abdomen. As we know the function of such a crest and can infer digestion from known primates, this makes little sense.

A sagital crest such as this one, is generally a male characteristic. The Krantz notion it is a result of size holds little weight for very good reasons (far smaller primate fossils have this feature, therefore it should be more common among female gorillas if so). The thick fur/hair covered breasts would be unusual for a female also, though not so much for males (most notably in homo sapiens). All indications are that it is a male human (with some incongruities), so what to make of the breasts? Patterson not only discovered the most illusive creature in existence, he just happened to get one with a hormonal disorder? A hermaphrodite? Is Patty just a really butch female bigfoot? Would any of this be consistent with a fake, by any chance?

There seems no way to prove this fake. Surely there are many reasons to doubt. Parsimony?


ps. Is there anywhere online where I might be able to read a basic working hypothesis regarding bigfoot and string theorie(s)? if I didn't wish to buy any books? I would be (genuinely) fascinated to read it. While I can't guarantee I will believe it, I already agree with certain things/possibilities you mention.

Frame 307 from your source, looks to be the same as frame 309 on the Bill Munns digital copy off of Mrs. Patterson's master copy.

Having spent much time in the sticks, I know that they exist. I also can tell the difference between a costume and the real deal by inspecting 1. the gait, 2. the arm swing, 3. the arm proportions, 4. the feet, 5. the lower leg, and 6. the splay of the hair. Costumes have a human gait with human arm swing and human arm proportions, a poor excuse for the feet, a pant leg cuff, and pathetic hair or fur. I see no indication of a costume in the Patterson Gimlin film.

The book X3, is the only one that I know of that mentions "nature people having the ability to be invisible" and describing the nuances of string theiory. It does not use the word Bigfoot in the book, as I recall. It is only about $25 US.

[Scarts]

Manfromglad, I like your explanation of string theory and dimensions being akin to different radio frequencies that can be tuned into. We are surrounded by different radio and mobile phone frequencies all the time. I have a mild understanding of that concept and have observed first hand, figures vanishing into the bush, complementing your invisibility explanations.

Image analysis is where this thread has taken a detour to and I think it timely we throw in the following image:



Manfromglad, can you provide a backstory and explanation of the above image? I mean, it's either bigfoot taking a piss or someone once again is taking the piss out of us. Which is it?

[Dion]

Manfromglad, I like your explanation of string theory and dimensions being akin to different radio frequencies that can be tuned into.

Have to agree here good explanation Manfromglad.

Scarts, Interesting picture it looks reminiscent of pictures I have seen of ectoplasm forming in Physical Phenomena seances. Although what seems to be someone Taking the Piss is actually the ectoplasm coming up from the ground and forming into a human shape?

[FM80]

One problem I see is that the extra dimensions proposed by string theory are minuscule, far too small for a yowie to reside in.

The "far too small" reasoning came from physicists. Physicists are great liars when they do not want to alarm the public. If you think of the extra dimensions existing side by side like the frequencies on a radio. Each frequency has a very narrow band width, while being in an adjacent frequency will often receive feed from another nearby frequency. Yet you get full power from each frequency when tuned properly on that frequency. Extra dimensions can be viewed in a similar fashion. Orbs in dimensions just barely outside of man's visible spectrum, look exactly like flying white golf balls. If you watch a whitish orb slowly disappear as it flys into trees or into the ground, you will see a gradual transition with no jerky action as it transitions the subdimensions of the 4th dimension. At some point, it will arrive at a subdimension where it can occupy the same space as a tree trunk, and have no resistance to travel through that tree trunk. Each sub-dimension that it transitioned, has an VERY TINY band width, yet the sub-dimension is as substantial as any other dimension including man's dimension, in my opinion.

It will be a cold day in hell before physicists step up to the plate and truly explain Bigfoot and the sub-dimensions of the 4th dimension. They love confusion and never taking old hypothesis off of the books because they can no more prove the old ones, than the new hypothesis. For instance, the hypercube was concocted to represent the 4th dimension back in the 60's. They also tossed it in the 60's. Yet it still reappears in physics books and does nothing but confuse physicists who don't know any better.

You see this is where you lose me. You're saying that physicists are lying about yowies residing in extra dimensions in order to not alarm the public. I honestly struggle to comprehend how you can see this as a reasonable assumption.

Firstly, it's not 'reasoning'. All of this boils down to mathematics and if you or I were smart enough to do the math involved we would come to the same conclusions that physicists have. This isn't privileged information, it's open for anyone to explore and discover, even intelligent life from other planets would come up with the same conclusion because it's physics. So how would this secret be policed? Are all physicists briefed on this and asked to sign something saying they won't tell anyone? I bet some young physicist who wanted to make a name for himself or secure more funding would at some point say "Screw it, this will make me rich and famous, the public will have to deal with interdimensional bigfoots".

Which brings me to my second point. As I've mentioned in other threads, science is very good at regulating itself. We don't have to worry that physicists are keeping the truth from us because like in the example above, the best way to make a name for yourself in science is to disprove a well known idea or theory. On a side note, evolution has probably been the most attacked scientific theory in history yet it has stood up to 150 years of people trying to disprove it.

The reason you give for them keeping this secret or lying is, in my opinion, probably the most least thought out point in your post. Just start thinking about all the shocking things we have learnt from science and the list grows quite quickly -

we have a common ancestor and are therefore related to other primates, the fact alone that we are just another in a long list of primates!!
nuclear weapons - chemical weapons
the fate of the Earth when the sun dies
the fate of the universe

Physicists aren't in the business of protecting the feelings of the public.

Lastly, you have proposed another theory. No offence, but I'll go with the hard work and peer reviewed science of physicists rather than your ideas. It irritates me when you talk about your theories like fact. I mean when I read your post, it's like reading a physics textbook. You string together these flowing sentences that sound so reasonable to people who don't know much about physics. I don't know much about physics, but I know it's not as easy as you make it out to be. So far your evidence is one obscure book. That's it. The rest is 'physicists are lying'. You don't have any data that I know of, any equations. Surely you know that to explain your ideas the way you do you need a hell of a lot more evidence than that.

I hope this doesn't seem too harsh. I respect the fact that you're having a go at thinking outside the box, that's how great discoveries are often made. It just seems a bit, well, lazy, to say you're right and physicists are not even wrong (which would be the less offensive reason why you're right), but they're lying about it. And presenting your ideas as they stand at this stage as fact seems a bit rich.

[themanfromglad]

You see this is where you lose me. You're saying that physicists are lying about yowies residing in extra dimensions in order to not alarm the public. I honestly struggle to comprehend how you can see this as a reasonable assumption.

Firstly, it's not 'reasoning'. All of this boils down to mathematics and if you or I were smart enough to do the math involved we would come to the same conclusions that physicists have. This isn't privileged information, it's open for anyone to explore and discover, even intelligent life from other planets would come up with the same conclusion because it's physics. So how would this secret be policed? Are all physicists briefed on this and asked to sign something saying they won't tell anyone? I bet some young physicist who wanted to make a name for himself or secure more funding would at some point say "Screw it, this will make me rich and famous, the public will have to deal with interdimensional bigfoots".

Which brings me to my second point. As I've mentioned in other threads, science is very good at regulating itself. We don't have to worry that physicists are keeping the truth from us because like in the example above, the best way to make a name for yourself in science is to disprove a well known idea or theory. On a side note, evolution has probably been the most attacked scientific theory in history yet it has stood up to 150 years of people trying to disprove it.

The reason you give for them keeping this secret or lying is, in my opinion, probably the most least thought out point in your post. Just start thinking about all the shocking things we have learnt from science and the list grows quite quickly -

we have a common ancestor and are therefore related to other primates, the fact alone that we are just another in a long list of primates!!
nuclear weapons - chemical weapons
the fate of the Earth when the sun dies
the fate of the universe

Physicists aren't in the business of protecting the feelings of the public.

Lastly, you have proposed another theory. No offence, but I'll go with the hard work and peer reviewed science of physicists rather than your ideas. It irritates me when you talk about your theories like fact. I mean when I read your post, it's like reading a physics textbook. You string together these flowing sentences that sound so reasonable to people who don't know much about physics. I don't know much about physics, but I know it's not as easy as you make it out to be. So far your evidence is one obscure book. That's it. The rest is 'physicists are lying'. You don't have any data that I know of, any equations. Surely you know that to explain your ideas the way you do you need a hell of a lot more evidence than that.

I hope this doesn't seem too harsh. I respect the fact that you're having a go at thinking outside the box, that's how great discoveries are often made. It just seems a bit, well, lazy, to say you're right and physicists are not even wrong (which would be the less offensive reason why you're right), but they're lying about it. And presenting your ideas as they stand at this stage as fact seems a bit rich.

FM80,
In the States, physicists won't touch the subject of Bigfoot with a 10 foot pole, unless they happen to be a college professor. And then they won't say more than a sentence or two. So physicists don't lie about Bigfoot/Yowie because they don't talk about them in the first place. You will also be hard pressed to find one who will talk about other dimensions from any position of personal observation. After all, they would have to admit that something living resides in other dimensions, before they can study it. They won't do that because it alarms people. I do recall hearing Dr. Michio Kaku specifically admit that physicists will not make statements that may alarm the public. Therefore, physicists will not tell the whole truth. If they started talking about Bigfoot as if they were real, they would be alarming the public.

Although the study that I described appears to be open to the public, you would first have to have the equipment to observe orbs, and then the observation skills to study them. That combinations does not happen very often. I have yet to read about, or hear of a Bigfoot researcher who has stopped to study them. When Bigfoot researchers see orbs, they normally just blow them off as dust particles. Although when the BFRO started ridiculing my orb orbservations publically, in short order they were seeing large visible orbs with their naked eye, on their group expeditions. They didn't ridicule me after that. Coincidence? Not likely. The Bigfoot keep up on current events and apparently will take steps to set the record straight, when they judge that it needs to be set straight.

As far as my radio frequency correlation is concerned, physicists explain their theories by correlating it to something that we have personal experience with and already understand. Sure it is all in my opinion. But just try and find a physicist who is willing to step up to the plate and put it into writing. He would be fired from his job if he did. That's how a democracy controls the right of free speech. You are certainly free to come up with your own correlation or explanation, and write about it here or anywhere else.

[themanfromglad]

Manfromglad, I like your explanation of string theory and dimensions being akin to different radio frequencies that can be tuned into. We are surrounded by different radio and mobile phone frequencies all the time. I have a mild understanding of that concept and have observed first hand, figures vanishing into the bush, complementing your invisibility explanations.

Image analysis is where this thread has taken a detour to and I think it timely we throw in the following image:



Manfromglad, can you provide a backstory and explanation of the above image? I mean, it's either bigfoot taking a piss or someone once again is taking the piss out of us. Which is it?

The back story is that somebody placed this on probably the Bigfoot forums board maybe 5 or 6 years ago. As I recall, he stated that he did not know what he was looking at.

It would appear the the Bigfoot's body is in transition between the cloud phase and the 3-D physical entity phase, OR it's entire body has not yet been tuned into the same frequency/sub-dimension yet. Take your choice. Bigfoot have been known to urinate on tents.

[Rastus]

Themanfromglad :

Although when the BFRO started ridiculing my orb orbservations publically, in short order they were seeing large visible orbs with their naked eye, on their group expeditions. They didn't ridicule me after that. Coincidence? Not likely.The Bigfoot keep up on current events and apparently will take steps to set the record straight, when they judge that it needs to be set straight.

Bigfoot surfs the web looking at the BFRO forums now?

[Scarts]

Thanks for the background manfromglad! I must say, he looks armless enough, even if he is pointing that thing at the camera and unleashing!

[sapere aude]

Having spent much time in the sticks, I know that they exist. I also can tell the difference between a costume and the real deal by inspecting 1. the gait, 2. the arm swing, 3. the arm proportions, 4. the feet, 5. the lower leg, and 6. the splay of the hair. Costumes have a human gait with human arm swing and human arm proportions, a poor excuse for the feet, a pant leg cuff, and pathetic hair or fur. I see no indication of a costume in the Patterson Gimlin film.

When you put it across as your considered opinion I can respect that, even if I disagree.

The book X3, is the only one that I know of that mentions "nature people having the ability to be invisible" and describing the nuances of string theiory. It does not use the word Bigfoot in the book, as I recall. It is only about $25 US.

Thanks.

I doubt string theory is one of the most solid or well backed theories in physics just yet, seems to have great potential though. Other dimensions sound fascinating, who knows, yet we don't even know where or in what form the other 96% of the matter and energy that makes up this dimension is comprised of, as yet.