Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

Mendel

Senior Member.
Is that really the only third option? Why not a demon, or a time traveler, or a secret CIA experimental hologram, or alien UFO pilot, or...? Once you open the door to things which are not known to exist and for which there is no evidence, the options seem to extend well beyond the one you picked.

B07G2VPSQZ.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SX500_.jpg
Bigfoot might not be from these parts…
The idea that Bigfoot is a yet-to-be-discovered North American bipedal ape is hard enough for most people to believe, but to imply that the big guy is really an alien makes it even harder for people to fathom. But, if you think about it, the idea that Bigfoot is an alien, with glowing green eyes and Green luminescent blood, actually simplifies the Bigfoot mystery!
Content from External Source
A WORLD IN NEED

When the military recruits Amy Rush, a nymphomaniac who craves fulfillment, to seduce and sleep with extraterrestrials in order to acquire their technologies, they know they're getting more than they bargained for.

A WOMAN WHO NEEDS IT

Amy loves the planet (hey, she's loved a lot of the people on the planet) so she's excited to try and help save the world, and if it means she gets laid by Bigfoot, she's willing to take one for the team. Or take two. Or three. Or, well, however much Bigfoot is willing to give. Of course when it comes to Bigfoot, his feet aren't the only big appendages.

This short story clocks in around 4900 words, and was designed to be read with one hand free.
Content from External Source
A1Ig7DnP6sL._CLa_2140,2000_81zTi5LPvvL.png_0,0,2140,2000+0.0,0.0,2140.0,2000.0_AC_UX679_.jpeg.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But I don't understand, if bigfoot is real, why can't just walk into the forest and find bigfoot society? Like we can find gorillas and chimpanzees. Is the idea that there are only a handful of them? But why would that be the case? Not that I'm seriously entertaining the idea that bigfoot is real, just wondering what bigfoot believers would say about it.
Basically it seems to me the explanation (according to TV documentaries etc) is that America (adn siberia and china) has huge swatches of open land and Bigfoot is fairly intelligent so he avoids people. We don't find any bodies because either they bury their dead in remote locations or die in fairly remote locations and animals "disappear" when dead rather quickly depending on conditions. one show i saw recently showed a deer decomposing on trail cam and pretty much in 5 days it was unrecognizable as a deer even without scavanging.

Alaska recently discovered a new species of beaked whale ...same concept: big ass ocean.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
But that doesnt explain the Patty prints.

But Patterson and/or Gimlin and maybe somebody else faking them does. After filming the person in the suit, they made some fake tracts to cast and photograph. And if Murphy and Green's claims are correct that people cast these prints a whole 9 days later, they would have been fairly deep:

Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his sister and brother-in-law nine days later.[77] Titmus made plaster casts of ten successive prints[78] of the creature and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.[79]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

According to Gimlin's there was a huge amount of rain that washed out the road the next morning and made Bluff Creek rise by 12". And yet he managed to put pieces of bark over these prints in sandy gravel in a downpour, such that 10 of them were still castable 9 days later:

At either 5[71] or 5:30[72] the next morning, after it started to rain heavily, Gimlin returned to the filmsite from the camp and covered the other prints with bark to protect them. The cardboard boxes he had been given by Al Hodgson for this purpose and had left outside were so soggy they were useless, so he left them.[69][73]

When he returned to the camp he and Patterson aborted their plan to remain looking for more evidence and departed for home, fearing the rain would wash out their exit. After attempting to go out along "the low road"—Bluff Creek Road—and finding it blocked by a mudslide,
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

So I rode up there. It wasn't even quite daylight. And there was dead trees there, so I thought, I gotta' cover these tracks some way. So I started pullin' that dead bark off the trees and covering these tracks. Which later on I was glad . . . Bob Titmus was glad, John Green, René Dahinden, they were all real happy that I covered a bunch of these tracks. Cause it rained so hard that that little creek that was about 12 inches deep.
Content from External Source
From @jamesrav transcript (post #267) of Gimlin interview on YouTube

Sounds like some very deep tracks. Like made by 500# + creature would make.

Except as Mendel pointed out:

Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.

I forgot about this, as did Patterson I think. If the creature's foot is as large as this:
1659315968852.png

and still left very deep tracks, yet is only around 6'-7' tall, it's incredibly dense.

IF Gimlin's recollections are correct as recorded:

So then I got on this big horse [Chico], and it weighed 1,200 lbs. With four feet distributing its weight, its tracks didn't go as deep as the tracks of the creature.

Chico is 1,200 # on four feet, that makes 300# per foot right? Not exactly:

The forelimb is complex in the horse, with the head and neck being a crane-like structure that causes 60% of a horse’s body weight distribution to the forelimbs. Therefore, impact is greatest on the front legs (except when pushing off from behind).
Content from External Source
https://thehorse.com/123412/comparing-humans-and-horses/

So more like 720# for the front feet and 480# for the rear, plus 150# or so for Gimlin spread out. Now if Chico walked over to the tracks, at some point he's putting 1/2 his, and Gimlin's weight onto 1 of his front and 1 of his rear feet, the other 2 are moving. So, 720#+ and 480# + on front and rear foot respectively, correct? Or something close?

And Chico's foot (hoof) which is smaller than Bigfoot's foot does not sink into the sand/gravel as much as Bigfoot's does. And yet, he has a much bigger foot to displace the weight than does Chico.

There is a calculation for the Foot Surface Area for human feet from this abstract:

The results show that foot-length and ball-girth are effective estimators of FSA for the total (FSA=1.043 x foot-length x ball-girth, R(2)=95.4%). A test on the necessity of gender-specific formula indicated that no gender-specific formula is needed, and the formula for the total is good for both genders.
Content from External Source
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18937935/

More importantly this is what an average human footprint looks like:

1659370881207.png

We have an arch, so there is a section of our foot that does not support our weight directly, unlike Bigfoot. As our Soviet Bio-mech expert, as well as Krantz noted:

Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature. **

**The above emphasis was Rene Dahinden's...compare this statement with the findings of anthropologists Grover Krantz and of the two Russians, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev in Chapter 9 of Dahinden's book, "Sasquatch" in the 1993 revised edition. Each of these three sources arrived at the same conclusion totally independent of the others.
Content from External Source
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm

So, it has huge feet with no arch, meaning the weight can be further spread out, yet it still makes tracks much deeper than a 1200# horse with smaller feet (hooves), according to Gimlin.

Think of it this way, if Chico's 2 front hooves, which are supporting 720# make a track or impression, in the sandy gravel that is say, 1" deep, what happens if Chico then puts his hooves on the Bigfoot sized cutouts (stompers) and spreads the 720# over a much larger area in the same sandy gravel? Does it go even deeper? Quite the opposite, correct? It's the same effect as using snowshoes to spread one's wight out and not sink.

If I'm wrong, and I'm not that good at math so let me know, but it seems we are getting way beyond 500-700# for the creature, giving the size of the foot and the supposed, and almost necessitated, depth of the prints. We're getting into the 1000# range if not more, yet it's still only 6'-6' 6" tall. That just doesn't add up.

Now if they were faked and Patterson didn't think it through and just figured, correctly, that if people saw deep prints, they would assume it was a heavy creature, not realizing it might be way heavier than he thought.

It walks like a man, an inhuman man, yet has breasts.
Consistent with a man walking strangely in a female costume. Your own description of the show in Vancouver answers the "why put breast on it" question.

This is all for not if we're going with what I would call the Six Million Dollar Man Bigfoot solution, or $6MilBF (Edit: $6kBF whoops, made him the Six Thousand Dollar Man, a bit low budget.) The writers of the campy '70s TV show posited that Bigfoot was an alien-built robot:

1659373086470.png
https://www.nbc.com/the-six-million-dollar-man/video/the-secret-of-bigfoot-part-2/3762494

I don't think $6MilBF is all that different from Interdimensional Hopping Bigfoot, IHBF or the game creator's Carachter Insertion Bigfoot, CIBF. They are all beyond the relm of our current reality and can do whatever they want.
I can remain open to extra spatial dimensions Bob H. as a possibility, but the only responsible position is to remain skeptical
Indeed.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
According to Gimlin's there was a huge amount of rain that washed out the road the next morning and made Bluff Creek rise by 12". And yet he managed to put pieces of bark over these prints in sandy gravel in a downpour, such that 10 of them were still castable 9 days later:
or maybe—just maybe—they didn't think of the tracks until 9 days later, so the bark became their cover story for the tracks having survived the rain. But instead, they faked the tracks then and there, not considering that that the rain-softened ground would make for much deeper tracks than on the day of the filming.
 

RTM

Member
Never knew the bigfoot rabbit hole went so deep until reading this thread haha... I've always thought that famous video just looked like a guy in a suit to me, but never considered aspects like how advanced the suit must have been at the time. Pretty interesting stuff.

But I don't understand, if bigfoot is real, why can't just walk into the forest and find bigfoot society? Like we can find gorillas and chimpanzees. Is the idea that there are only a handful of them? But why would that be the case? Not that I'm seriously entertaining the idea that bigfoot is real, just wondering what bigfoot believers would say about it.

And shouldn't there be a sizeable population? There just can't be a handful, or they'd die out due to inbreeding, no offspring etc.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Depth of footprints is a function of pressure, so if bigfoot's foot is twice as big as a human's, his weight can double to achieve the same pressure.
I feel like there is some cube/square stuff that needs to be taken into account when thinking about increases in mass and increases in sole-of-foot size and what that does to pressure under the foot as you scale up a humanish body.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I feel like there is some cube/square stuff that needs to be taken into account when thinking about increases in mass and increases in sole-of-foot size and what that does to pressure under the foot as you scale up a humanish body.

Pressure is just F/A, so pretty linear.
 

jamesrav

Member
The chances that there are some unknown facts, misremembered details, odd co-incidences and possibly outright lies and fabrications that makes a hoax possible are all known and well understood properties of reality and human events as we know them.

If there is a biscuit missing from the jar and you ask your toddler if he took it and he says no, do you immediately assume that a multidimensional entity stole your last chocolate hobnob?
for the PG film (which is all we are supposed to be considering here), the one in play here is 'outright lies and fabrications'. It's the "800 pound gorilla (or Bigfoot) in the room." I've posed simple questions, but nobody wants to stick their neck out and say "this explains your point". Bob H. has given many interviews in which he brags/chuckles that everyone knew it was him (either immediately or as the years went by). This strategy makes sense, since it lays the groundwork for his reveal in 2005 or thereabouts. He can say there was a provenance to his later claim and it didnt just come out of the blue. But his bragging causes problems too. Everyone in Yakima (population now of 93,000) knew it was Bob? The PG film (and Bigfoot) has been in popular US culture for 50 years. Why wouldn't somebody who wanted to make a name for themselves nose around and write the exposé ? Deference to Bob H. ? When has deference been in a driving force in journalism? And Bob's 'claim' violates a principle of as you say "well understood properties of reality and human events". The city and his bar buddies know it's Bob in the suit that has "pendulous breasts" as the commentators always point out. I seem to recall a book we all read in High School titled 'The Scarlet Letter' . How is his situation, at a "human events" level any different, but in a comical way? He's known all over Yakima as the guy in the Bigfoot suit, the suit with pendulous breasts? The phrase "could never live it down" comes to mind. A silly point to bring up? I dont think so. Think of all the bullying going on nowadays on the Internet , the consequences for some people is suicide. I've never heard Bob address the breasts issue in an interview, I wonder why. Bob H. also flat-out says Gimlin was in on the hoax, clearly he never saw the BBC documentary in 1998 when a very pro-hoax host concludes Gimlin was a patsy. This is a huge contradiction. So when you mention "outright lies and fabrications" I will come back with "outright contradictions" And the height issue. Bob H. is not 6'7", not nearly. The BBC overlay (and they apparently obtained a first-gen copy so they had a very good one) was done by the BBC. I think they know their stuff. It's a perfect overlay, the host says so. McClarin knew the exact path to walk (From a distance of 80' would a 1' discrepancy make a difference? that's a classic metabunk problem. I've seen people of similar size talking from that distance, if they 'rotate' it doesnt seem to have any effect on their height). So somehow Bob H. at 6'1" is coming across in the PG film as being 6'7" or taller. What's the prosaic explanation for that? To paraphrase Johnnie Cochran "if the suit does not fit, you must acquit".
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I've posed simple questions, but nobody wants to stick their neck out and say "this explains your point"
that is not true.

Why wouldn't somebody who wanted to make a name for themselves nose around and write the exposé ? Deference to Bob H. ? When has deference been in a driving force in journalism?
heresay isnt journalism. at least it didn't used to be.

the suit with pendulous breasts? The phrase "could never live it down" comes to mind.
except several of us on this thread never even noticed the breasts for years and years after. you think most people analyze such things with a magnifying glass?

A silly point to bring up?
yes. which also explains why members likely ignored a question or two of yours in the past. no offense. but 'why didnt he take a souvenir?' is a really far out question.

Bob H. also flat-out says Gimlin was in on the hoax, clearly he never saw the BBC documentary in 1998 when a very pro-hoax host concludes Gimlin was a patsy. This is a huge contradiction.
what are you talking about? who cares what a pro-hoax host thinks. I don't. why would Bob?


I'm going to be ignoring the rest of your questions, but i dont want you think i'm "afraid to stick my neck out", it's just because many of your questions make little to no sense to me.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
or maybe—just maybe—they didn't think of the tracks until 9 days later, so the bark became their cover story for the tracks having survived the rain. But instead, they faked the tracks then and there, not considering that that the rain-softened ground would make for much deeper tracks than on the day of the filming.
I thought of that too. There is a ranger that claimed to have been by the site, at least according to Perez in his book and his newsletter. The problem with some of these sources is they're in books and newsletter that have to be purchased or subscribed to. Perez's Bigfoot Times newsletter is $20.00 a month to learn about all the non-evidence that's out there. So, were stuck with Wiki:

US Forest Service "Timber Management Assistant"[75] Lyle Laverty said, "I [and his team of three, in a Jeep] passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th"[76] and noticed no tracks. After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

Plus, by all accounts it seems Patterson and Gimlin headed back to Yakima, ~580 miles away, the next day. Now it doesn't rule out a third conspirator hanging around, but that would be totally speculative.

What is interesting about the quote though, assuming its accurate, is that they "passed the site" the day before or the day of the encounter. That doesn't seem to fit with having to go 3 miles up creek by horse back from their camp to a remote area.

Granted, Jeeps can go where a horse hauling truck can't, but it comes off as they were just passing by checking timber, not out 4 wheeling and trying to see how far off road they could get.

There was a lot of logging and timber harvesting going on in the '50s and '60s. In fact, the main lumber export town of Eurika had a bigger population in 1960 than it does now:


202026,512−2.5%

196028,13722.0%
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka,_California

One other thing, not only did Patterson set out to find a Bigfoot and stumble upon one, but he also managed to capture one on film in one of the few spots along a creek where footprints could be left and preserved. If Bigfoot was a few yards one way or the other, it would have been walking through the water or maybe in the brush on leaves and pine needles.

I was up in the forest yesterday, most of the creeks around here are rocky and gravel, and/or very overgrown. I haven't been to Bluff Creek but even there, it was likely the big floods of '64 created a temporary sand/gravel bar:

For decades, the exact location of the site was lost, primarily because of re-growth of foliage in the streambed after the flood of 1964.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And Bob's 'claim' violates a principle of as you say "well understood properties of reality and human events". The city and his bar buddies know it's Bob in the suit that has "pendulous breasts" as the commentators always point out. I seem to recall a book we all read in High School titled 'The Scarlet Letter' . How is his situation, at a "human events" level any different, but in a comical way? He's known all over Yakima as the guy in the Bigfoot suit, the suit with pendulous breasts? The phrase "could never live it down" comes to mind. A silly point to bring up? I dont think so. Think of all the bullying going on nowadays on the Internet , the consequences for some people is suicide. I've never heard Bob address the breasts issue in an interview, I wonder why.
Bob is 6'1 and secure in his masculinity, so your attempt at shaming him doesn't concern him.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I forgot about this, as did Patterson I think. If the creature's foot is as large as this:
1659315968852.png

and still left very deep tracks, yet is only around 6'-7' tall, it's incredibly dense.
I see that print, and the nice clear prints of the toes. I'd believe that print might have been made in sand, or in mud, but whatever they meant by "sandy gravel", that doesn't appear to show any gravel at all. If no gravel is in the ground at that point, I'd expect it to be much softer than they're describing it to be. Couple that with the heavy rains, and a lot less force might have been needed to make (or fake) a track.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Bob is 6'1 and secure in his masculinity, so your attempt at shaming him doesn't concern him.
not to mention in AMerica men used to dress up like women all the time for shows they put on. somewhere i have a pic of my grandfather and his friends in a skit they did for some show (a club they were in like a VFW type thing). Bonnets and all. Apparently it was funny back then?.

so I can't imagine Bob being embarrassed in anyway. (even now, most guys i know wouldn't be embarrassed either, they'd be joking right along...note: we have no proof Bob admitted it was him in the suit to his friends, he just said they knew)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCjSw8grUck
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
or maybe—just maybe—they didn't think of the tracks until 9 days later, so the bark became their cover story for the tracks having survived the rain. But instead, they faked the tracks then and there, not considering that that the rain-softened ground would make for much deeper tracks than on the day of the filming.
Or maybe - just maybe - they made and cast the prints in a mud hole someplace entirely different, maybe even before they made the film.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Pressure is just F/A, so pretty linear.
Pressure of a foot that stays completely flat should be. But most animals (including us) don't walk like that. It's very hard to do that at all unless a person is wearing a solid orthopedic-type shoe. There should have been a deeper imprint of the front part of the foot as someone-or-something pushes off for the next step. The picture of the cast of the footprint looks even more of a fake than the costume.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
but 'why didnt he take a souvenir?' is a really far out question.
I've worked as day player and extra in a number of tv shows and movies. When a shoot wraps, you might be allowed to take home a souvenir... I have a soup spoon from the Chinese restaurant set in "Year of the Dragon" in my spoon drawer... but you would not take a piece of the monster costume from a monster movie after shooting a short piece of film during preproduction. They would not even have begun using the suit in their planned Ape Canyon mocumentary film at that point! Yeah, they never got around to shooting the movie... that was not known when the were shooting th PG Bigfoot footage.
You would absolutely not expect the guy in the suit to have taken a piece if it home.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
"sandy gravel"
To be fair, "sandy gravel" is the term I've been using. It appears there was some sort of "sand bar" along Bluff Creek where the film was shot. How convenient. But this is up in the mountains, not on the beach and my experience in local creeks closer to me is that finer sand like material is mixed with bigger gravel like material. Granted, I'm ~200 miles from the site, but it's an alpine creek, not a beach.
 

jamesrav

Member
I've worked as day player and extra in a number of tv shows and movies. When a shoot wraps, you might be allowed to take home a souvenir... I have a soup spoon from the Chinese restaurant set in "Year of the Dragon" in my spoon drawer... but you would not take a piece of the monster costume from a monster movie after shooting a short piece of film during preproduction. They would not even have begun using the suit in their planned Ape Canyon mocumentary film at that point! Yeah, they never got around to shooting the movie... that was not known when the were shooting th PG Bigfoot footage.
You would absolutely not expect the guy in the suit to have taken a piece if it home.
so much to respond to :) As far as the 'souvenir', my humor was apparently missed. I meant take for extortion purposes. There, I said it. Bob is owed $1000 ($7700 in todays money) , Roger is piss-poor always, couldn't pay for the camera rental, yet he promised to pay Bob H $1000 for as Bob H. says "10 minutes work". I would taken something from the assortment: the suit, the helmet, the arm extensions, the booties, maybe a sash to link a top and bottom half - so many options! Or maybe just a photo if I'm super nice like Deirdre. But Bob H. did not think of that. I hate to call someone dumb, but I almost have the impression in 2005 Bob H. said to himself, "Roger has been dead 31 years, I dont think he's gonna pay me the $1000". You know why Bob H. said $1000 in 2005? because it was a nice large number, something worth 'pursuing'. Had he broken his silence and said "Roger promised me $100,, I'm pissed off" people would be going , "wow, raising a stink for $100". But he said $1000 to impress people , yet forgot that equated to $7700 today. And Bob H. was happy to be part of a 9 person volunteer force in a trek thru the mountains prior to Oct 20th.

The photo of Roger and the footprint is deceptive in the sense that Roger is 5'2" or 5'3". I'm 5'6", size 8 shoe, and my foot is 10..25". So a 14.5" inch footprint for something 6'5" to 6'9" is not unusual at all. We dont know how heavy a body would need to be to make prints of that depth, since we dont have such a person weighing 350 or 450 or 550 pounds. They are rare. I was shocked to read that there are only perhaps 2800 people on the planet 7' or taller. Andre the Giant , who was the Bigfoot in the famous episode, weighed around 550 pounds, but slimmed down to 480 when he quit drinking. I think he could have made prints that deep (and I await a post asking "where was he on the 20th ?").

"Bob is 6'1 and secure in his masculinity, so your attempt at shaming him doesn't concern him." You'd think he'd bring it up in interviews then, just for comic effect. Never has to my knowledge. Yakima seems pretty 'macho' to me, it's cowboy country. Bob as a transvestite Bigfoot would seem to be fodder for kidding - until someone got killed

It's a perfect overlay, the host says so
:) if the host says it is so, then surely it must be so.

I give Packham credit on this one, he would certainly want to portray the subject as being shorter than McClarin, but could not lie about it. He's happy to admit that due to the BBC's "digital wizardry" they could match it up perfectly, and what results is a subject taller than McClarin. I wonder what the first word out his mouth was when he saw that.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
As far as the 'souvenir', my humor was apparently missed. I meant take for extortion purposes.

yea. you said that the first time.
as for not taking a souvenir, while still apparently being owed $1000 ($7700 in todays money - and as the above post mentions " For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, meaning Bob H. didnt apparently mind being a volunteer at that point) you are just too nice.

He also says he was 'given the suit' (doesnt mention the helmet as a separate item, I'll give him a pass on that since the entire 'costume' is usually spoken of as 'one thing', even if it was in fact: a suit, sticks for arm extensions, a helmet, special shoes/booties ... I'm probably overlooking some items). Then later he gives everything back to Roger and "that's the end of it". So he makes no effort to keep a little, tiny souvenir to back up his claim at a future date. A little snip of a bootie? a 2" x 2" piece of the suit? a picture of it all ? never crossed his mind. He's owed $1000 ($7700 in today's money - that's another red flag since Roger never had any money, and I'm sure Bob H. knew that - the Long book is mostly a character assassination of Roger), you'd think for extortion purposes he'd keep a tiny memento. Nope.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Pressure of a foot that stays completely flat should be. But most animals (including us) don't walk like that. It's very hard to do that at all unless a person is wearing a solid orthopedic-type shoe. There should have been a deeper imprint of the front part of the foot as someone-or-something pushes off for the next step. The picture of the cast of the footprint looks even more of a fake than the costume.
That's where the clown shoe gait comes in: Bigfoot does not "push off", but instead lifts his foot carefully, angling the knee overmuch, as if to leave a clear track. With a normal swift gait, the edges of the print will be 'eroded' at the front and back, especially on sand, from the forward motion of the foot as it sets down and lifts off. The only way to leave clear deep prints is to deliberately lift and set down your feet perpendicularly: clown shoe gait.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't really follow the scenario where Bob is scared to be known as wearing a female gorilla costume, yet would be fine with damaging that costume to extort a friend who had no money.
The first might result in friendly ribbing, but the second could really damage his standing.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Pressure of a foot that stays completely flat should be. But most animals (including us) don't walk like that. It's very hard to do that at all unless a person is wearing a solid orthopedic-type shoe. There should have been a deeper imprint of the front part of the foot as someone-or-something pushes off for the next step. The picture of the cast of the footprint looks even more of a fake than the costume.
Agreed, just wanted to comment on pressure.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But F and A don't both grow linearly. A is the area of the feet, which increases by the square, but F is itself a function of the body's mass (or density * volume), which increases by the cube.
Yes. So when the foot is twice as long, but the creature is only twice as heavy, the pressure is half.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
If I'm wrong, and I'm not that good at math so let me know, but it seems we are getting way beyond 500-700# for the creature, giving the size of the foot and the supposed, and almost necessitated, depth of the prints. We're getting into the 1000# range if not more, yet it's still only 6'-6' 6" tall. That just doesn't add up.

I've not eyeballed the maths, but you're definitely heading in the right direction, and I'd say you've more likely undershot than overshot (horse hooves are pretty small). Hafthor Bjornsson ("The Mountain" on /Game of Thrones/) is taller than this beast and weighs less than a third of it. So either this beast is three times as corpulent - contradicted by the video "evidence", or three times denser, contradicted by what mammalian biomatter is composed of.

All I can conclude is that the combinded evidence for bigfoot is hefty enough to destroy its own rain-soaked tissue of lies.
 

Mauro

Active Member
But F and A don't both grow linearly. A is the area of the feet, which increases by the square, but F is itself a function of the body's mass (or density * volume), which increases by the cube.
Yeah, but with F/A you take a quantity which scales as the cube of the 'length' (the F) and divide it by a quantity which scales as a square (the A), so the final result is that F/A scales linearly with length, as @Ravi said.

Example: if the linear size of something with weight F and feet area A is doubled, the weight will become 8*F, the area becomes 4*A, and the pressure is (8/4)*(F/A) = 2 * F/A, double than the original and scaling linearly with the size increase.
 
Last edited:

Easy Muffin

Active Member
Yes. So when the foot is twice as long, but the creature is only twice as heavy, the pressure is half.
I guess by that you mean if the creature is also twice as tall? It'd be more than twice as heavy then.

Example: if the linear size of something with weight F and feet area A is doubled, the weight will become 8*F, the area becomes 4*A, and the pressure is (8/4)*(F/A) = 2 * F/A, double than the original and scaling linearly with the size increase.
And if I triple it instead I don't get 8/4=2 but 27/9=3. That's not a linear scale?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I guess by that you mean if the creature is also twice as tall? It'd be more than twice as heavy then
I meant what I wrote.
And if I triple it instead I don't get 8/4=2 but 27/9=3. That's not a linear scale?
Yes, it is. Triple the size, triple the pressure. x times the size, x times the pressure, in linear proportion.

But while Bigfoot's footprints were twice the size of a human, his body in the film was not.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I meant what I wrote.

Yes, it is. Triple the size, triple the pressure. x times the size, x times the pressure, in linear proportion.

But while Bigfoot's footprints were twice the size of a human, his body in the film was not.
The confusion of several members in this thread over that concept is due to the fact that "size" can mean weight/mass but can also mean height, which is just the cube root of mass, but only IF all other dimensions are in proportion to that height. In other words, "size" is an imprecise term to use. We have all known short, heavy people and tall, skinny people.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
. I would taken something from the assortment: the suit, the helmet, the arm extensions, the booties, maybe a sash to link a top and bottom half - so many options!
You would not have been given the opportunity, if the suit was planned for use in the Ape Canyon mockumentary that was then in preproduction.
 

jamesrav

Member
You would not have been given the opportunity, if the suit was planned for use in the Ape Canyon mockumentary that was then in preproduction.
Bob H. is 6'1" , Roger was apparently 5'3". Bob H. has been promised $1000 and was briefly entrusted with the suit (he says so) after the filming. At some point the 'never again to be seen suit' is retrieved by Roger. And people here are down-playing the role human nature might play in that scenario? If I'm owed $1000 and have something 'useful' in my possession to help obtain said $1000, I'm going to employ that option. And it could have been simply TAKE A PHOTO. It's funny that this whole thread is about a film - film evidence - and yet Bob H. didnt think to do that. I bet he woulda got his $1000 had he taken a picture as proof of the hoax ... if any of what he said was true, which it was not. As for my size mention, he was apparently "confident in his masculinity", yet being owed $1000 year after year by a guy 10" shorter and probably 50 pounds lighter, never used that masculinity to 'encourage' Roger to pay the debt. Either Bob H. is just the nicest, most patient fellow on earth, or he had no claims to extort/pressure Roger for $1000 since he was never owed $1000 in the first place.

Analysis of footprint depth etc. is a nice physics problem, but most court cases are decided on much more mundane evidence, namely witness testimony and believability. The recent Heard vs. Depp trial comes to mind, the jurors felt Heard was lying ; they weren't presented with evidence from a physics professor as to whether a bottle could sever a finger. After watching several videos on the YT 'Sasquatch Archives' channel (which I encourage others to do, even if just to arm yourself with evidence to the contrary), it's clear to me that Roger and Gimlin are absolutely telling the truth, there is no chance in my mind that they have invented a story. And conversely, Bob H. is lying all over the place, most notably when he accuses Gimlin of being in on the hoax (contradicting Packham, who spoke with Gimlin at length and was apparently convinced he was a patsy - exactly how jurors evaluate the veracity of witnesses).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
most court cases are decided on much more mundane evidence, namely witness testimony and believability
Article:
How Can Jurors Tell When Someone Is Lying?

They can't. Most people think they’re good at lie detecting, but as it turns out, laypeople are about as good at it as a coin toss (see here and here). According to former FBI agent and body language expert Joe Navarro, the truth is, there's no Pinocchio effect, or single indicator of lying (see here for a more in-depth discussion). The fallacy that most people think they're good lie detectors is a problem in everyday interactions, and it's even more acute in trials.

People aren't going to change their beliefs about their own ability to detect lies, and they're not going to change the cues they rely on to make these detections. Thus, people will continue to make false attributions about behavioral indicators of lying and get it wrong about 50% of the time.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I've not eyeballed the maths, but you're definitely heading in the right direction, and I'd say you've more likely undershot than overshot
Apparently, I was not thinking big enough. One film propionate had Bigfoot clocking in at nearly 140 stone!

(bold by me)

Substituting the chest circumference in centimeters, the estimated mass of the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film is 887 kg or 1,957 lbs. An error analysis has not yet been undertaken.
Content from External Source
http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

There is an article in Skeptical Inquirer from 1999 that analyzes the above quoted report by Glickman. It goes on to show how it's nearly impossible to accurately determine the size of the creature by looking at the film and comparing it to objects or people at the site. I'll include more quotes, as the article is behind a pay wall. I'm copying from a PDF of the original magazine pages, so sometimes things get wonky. All External Content is from this, unless otherwise noted.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/1999/05/bigfoots-screen-test/

In separate studies, Chris Murphy of Progressive Research' and Jeff Glickman of Photek and the North American Science Institute (NASI),: achieved a remarkable convergence of results when both investigators concluded, via different methods of estimation, that the film subject stood fully 7'3 1/2" (222 cm) tall. Glickman's study (1998) also concluded that the chest of the figure measured a hefty 83" in circumference and that the film subject weighed in at 1,957 pounds.
Content from External Source

In his book Big Footprints (1992), Grover Krantz makes two claims with respect to the film. First, Krantz argues that no human exists whose body dimensions match those of the film subject, even given the effects of a furry costume. Second, he claims thai the kinematics of the film subject arc decidedly nonhuman, that the gaii could not be duplicated by a person wearing a costume.

In essence, two claims seriously undermine the hypothesis thai the Patterson-Gimlin film is a hoax: (1) that the film subject's body dimensions are outside the range of human variation, and (2) that the gait of the film subject cannot be duplicated by a person.

In this report, we argue that the exact dimensions of the film subject are unknowable and that the gait of the film subject is easily reproducible by human beings of average stature.
Content from External Source
Murphy assesses the subject's height by taking a known quantity-—subject heel width from footprint casts—and using this scalar as a calibration standard to determine film subject dimensions. Given the heel calibration and a "stoop factor" correction, he arrives at the stature of 7'3 1/2". Murphy suggests that a stick recovered from the film site years after the t.ent is also an appropriate calibration standard because the subject ostensibly is seen stepping over this stick during the film. Using this independent criterion, he obtains the same result.

In the NASI report, Glickman employs a third method thai also yields the same height for the film subject. His method involves using a later photograph from the film site of an individual of known height, purportedly standing along the original path of the film subject, as a basis from which to determine the film subject's dimensions. This calibration photograph was taken by long-time Bigfoot investigator Peter Byrne five years after ihe film was made, and Glickman uses the alignment of dead trees that appear in the background of the film to match ihe photo with the relevant film frames.
Content from External Source
It is also well-established that, in order to minimize error, a calibration standard must be sufficiently large relative to the object being measured. Given the uncertainty of subject position in the film, it is not clear that objects chosen for calibration purposes lie completely within the intended reference plane. The dimension to be used in calibration and the subject of interest must be positioned equidistant to the camera lens to provide accurate measurement. Thus, a scalar dimension (a known quantity with which to scale other dimensions on an object or image) measured from a calibration standard that is not exactly coincident with a reference plane, even if that standard occupies a point in that plane, will yield uncorrectable errors if this obliquity is present (i.e., the standard is not aligned with the reference plane) but its degree is not known.

For the same reason, measurement error can occur if scalar dimensions and the subject occupy a desired reference plane but when the camera's optical axis is not positioned perpendicular to that plane. This problem becomes particularly acute in the context of the Patterson-Gimlin film because camera position was not controlled relative to the subject's movements along a path defining the reference plane; thus, "coplanar" standard and subject may not be equidistant to the camera lens. Objects that are actually not coplanar may appear to be so if the camera lens is obliquely set relative to the true plane of reference.
Content from External Source
Basically, if one tries to use a known but small object, like the heel of the creature, to extrapolate the overall size, the margin of error is too big. If one uses a known but large object, like a yard stick, it only works if one is absolutely sure the yard stick and the subject are in the same plane as each other. Something impossible to tell with a 2D film.

And little pictures to explain it better:

1659455521746.png
1659455564359.png
Then they try out the different methods and find large errors:

To illustrate the problems posed by these sources of error, we estimated a human subject's stature from videotape recordings using calibration objects of known dimension as scalars under ideal laboratory conditions. One of us (Daegling) was filmed at a distance of 490 cm from the camera (Figure 1). Three sources of calibration were used: a two-meter standard, Dangling's foot length, and his heel width. These standards were digitized on the image7 and used to estimate Dangling's true height (194.5 cm).

As expected, the two-meter standard yielded a very good estimate of stature (193.6 cm). Repeated measures within observers indicated that digitizing error was negligible, and the between-observer standard deviation was a respectable 0.44 cm. Using Dangling's foot length as a standard, the error increases markedly (204.3 cm or 3 percent above the true value). Using a heel-width calibration standard the error balloons to 28 percent (249.4 cm, with pronounced intcr-obscrvcr error [sd=6.5]).

These figures make no allowance for camera obliquity or objects off the intended reference plane. If either of these factors are introduced, errors will increase. For example, when foot length is offset from the reference plane by 10 degrees but the length of the foot is considered to be the same as before, stature estimates are off by about 10 percent (214.9 cm). At a 20-degrcc offset, the overestimate is about 17 percent (227.7 cm). The degree to which the foot is out of plane cannot be reliably assessed from an image unless an independent scalar exists in the plane of reference.
Content from External Source
Glickman's method is far superior since the calibration standard is relatively large." It is asserted that the film subject's course of travel in Figure 6 of the NASI report and the standard included in the figure (an individual at the film site) occupy the intended reference plane. The report does not specify how the coincidence of film subject and standard in this plane is verified. The calibration standard was scaled by superimposing dead trees from the background of the 1972 photograph onto the 1967 film. There may be errors associated with this superimposition, but their magnitude is not known. In any case, this alignment, however precise, docs not establish that the standard and the film subject are coplanar. The likelihood exists that there are out-of-plane errors in Glickman's calculations.

When positioned in the reference plane with the subject, the standard (Daegling) provides an excellent estimate of subject height (178.4 cm, an error below 1 percent). When the standard is our of plane by only I m (closer to lens) the subject's apparent height is 172.3 cm, nearly 4 percent less than the true stature. As the standard moves even closer to the camera and increasingly out of plane, the error is exacerbated; true stature is underestimated by nearly 15 percent (152.4 cm) at a position 4 m out of plane.'

These errors assume that the lens is positioned perpendicular to the reference plane, to satisfy the need for calibration object and subject to be positioned equidistant from the optical axis of the camera lens. The various sketches reconstructing camera and subject position in the Patterson-Gimlin film, however, suggest that the camera was only intermittently, if ever, fully perpendicular to the reference plane.10

This would result in dissimilar distances of calibration object and film subject from the camera lens, with attendant errors in stature estimation. How serious is this problem? When we rotated the camera 5 degrees off an intended reference plane (Figure 3), a calibration standard of 176 cm failed to predict Schmitt's stature of 188 cm with acceptable accuracy, even though scalar and subject were "coplanar." The apparent stature was 172 cm, fully 8 percent smaller than true stature."

Glickman suggests that the error of his estimate of the film subject may be on the order of one inch (< 3 cm) although no error analysis is provided to verify this. I f this error magnitude is to be accepted, the following conditions must have been met:

(1) the lens was positioned perpendicular to the reference plane in which measurements were made,

(2) the subject and calibration object were both positioned in the plane of reference such that they are equidistant from the optical axis of the lens, and

(3) the scalar dimension measured on the calibration object was precisely in line with the reference plane (i.e., not off-angle relative the camera lens). Published material to date does not demonstrate that these conditions apply
Content from External Source
Here is Glickman's photos. First Hodges standing with the dead forked tree behind him, then superimposed over the PG film:

1659471773523.png
1659471832389.png
http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

What I notice right away is that the downed log in the foreground appears much closer to the debris pile behind it in the PG film:
1659472170921.png

It seems like the camera is at a different angle or a zoom or wide angle lens has been used. Byrn took these photos in 1972.


I give Packham credit on this one, he would certainly want to portray the subject as being shorter than McClarin, but could not lie about it. He's happy to admit that due to the BBC's "digital wizardry" they could match it up perfectly, and what results is a subject taller than McClarin.

I would think the above also applies here. There is no way to determine if McClarin was coplanar with the creature and the exact angle of the lens to the subject can only be estimated. It doesn't take a lot of error to get the creature in line with Krantz's estimate of 6'6".
And the height issue. Bob H. is not 6'7", not nearly. The BBC overlay (and they apparently obtained a first-gen copy so they had a very good one) was done by the BBC. I think they know their stuff. It's a perfect overlay, the host says so. McClarin knew the exact path to walk (From a distance of 80' would a 1' discrepancy make a difference? that's a classic metabunk problem. I've seen people of similar size talking from that distance, if they 'rotate' it doesnt seem to have any effect on their height). So somehow Bob H. at 6'1" is coming across in the PG film as being 6'7" or taller.
McClarin could not possibly know the "exact" path to walk. The best estimate is from Titmus (bold by me):

It is alleged that the film subject left tracks on the Bluff Creek sandbar, which were cast subsequent to filming. The tracks measured 14 1/2" in length. About ten days after ihe film was made, Bigfoot investigator Bob Titmus reconstructed the subject's course of travel during filming and attempied to establish the position of Roger Patterson's camera during the event. These reconstructions were performed without a measuring tape or camera'; quantitative efforts to map the positions of the cameraman and film the subject were made in subsequent years. Thus, we know the general course of travel of the film subject but not its exact traverse (cf. Byrne 1975, Green 1981).
Content from External Source
Green went to the site 8-10 months later, I don't know if this is when he brings McClairn or not:

1659474004293.png


As for the height, my work boots make me go from 5'7" to 5'8 1/2". God forbid I have to wear a hard hat, that's another 2" or more and I'm getting close to 6'.

Now take a 6'1" Bob, puts some big shoes on him and a football helmet with a pronounced sagittal crest, something female primates don't have, and he can get really close to 6'6" or more. And thats assuming Krantz is right with 6'6" or the BBC is right with 6'7". If they are off just a little, it may be closer to 6'4".

Finally, they tackle the "non-human gait":

Bigfoot proponents have suggested that the high-velocity, flcxed-hip, flexcd-knee gait of the subject, which also walks with its trunk pitched slightly forward, is absolutely nonrypical of human locomotion. Krantz again opines, "[Jjudging from the way it walks, there is no possibility that the film subject can be a man in a fur suit."" Repeated viewings of the film suggest that, indeed, the subject does not exhibit the normal striding gait of human bipedalism.

But humans are capable of locomotion that involves deeper flexion of the knees and hips similar to that seen in the film subject, and this type of locomotion (a "compliant gait," Alexander 1992) has been studied under controlled conditions (Yaguramaki et al. 1995; Li et ai. 1996; Schmitt et al. 1996; Cook et al. 1997). Two features of the subject's gait that Krantz asserts are atypical of humans are in fact observable in humans who utilize a compliant gait: (1) reduction of vertical oscillations of the head and trunk typical of striding bipedalism, and (2) an extended period of support (weight-bearing) phase during a locomotor cycle (McMahon et al. 1987; Alexander 1992; Schmitt et al. 1996).

Bigfoot investigators have also remarked upon the apparent high speed of the film subject's gait and the length of its stride as being beyond human capability." When a compliant gait is employed, however, there are two measurable effects:

It is possible to walk faster, and the stride length is increased (Table 1). Glickman's calculated stride length for the film subject is 237 cm. This figure is easily surpassed by the authors and two other measured subjects, all of whom are less than 200 cm tall. Reported stride lengths based on footprints at the film site range from 284 cm to 310 cm (Perez 1992). A human over 200 cm tall could be expected to match or exceed these higher figures using a compliant gait. Another peculiarity of the film subject is the forward pitch of the trunk during locomotion. This is again atypical of striding bipedalism, but when humans do adopt this strange posture, a compliant gait becomes the obligate form of bipedalism (Yaguramaki et al. 1995). Assertions that the kinematics of the film subject cannot be duplicated by human agents are thus demonstrably false.
Content from External Source
1659473766249.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Either Bob H. is just the nicest, most patient fellow on earth,
Patterson was his friend, not the guy at Jiffy Lube who hired him to change oil.

I bet he woulda got his $1000 had he taken a picture as proof of the hoax ...
I bet he wouldn't.

You are judging everything from your decades hindsight knowledge that this film has become "famous". (I think you are also thinking it is more "famous", even today, than it actually is.)

How would Bob even know the film turned out pretty "ok'? It's not like Patterson uploaded it to the internet that night. Likely the EARLIEST that Bob actually saw the film was when Patterson showed up to retrieve the suit.

And again, Patterson was his buddy (who also happened to have cancer). I'm betting he would have done the film for free anyway. Having a buddy who always talks about big plans and big money and big promises, who never comes through with any of it..is not that big a deal. It's not like Bob H LOANED him money and got screwed over.

It's fine if you don't believe Bob H was in the suit. But i dont think you are going to convince anyone reading of your interdimensional bigfoot idea by pursuing this line "proof".
 

jamesrav

Member
Article:
How Can Jurors Tell When Someone Is Lying?

They can't. Most people think they’re good at lie detecting, but as it turns out, laypeople are about as good at it as a coin toss (see here and here). According to former FBI agent and body language expert Joe Navarro, the truth is, there's no Pinocchio effect, or single indicator of lying (see here for a more in-depth discussion). The fallacy that most people think they're good lie detectors is a problem in everyday interactions, and it's even more acute in trials.

People aren't going to change their beliefs about their own ability to detect lies, and they're not going to change the cues they rely on to make these detections. Thus, people will continue to make false attributions about behavioral indicators of lying and get it wrong about 50% of the time.
you're ignoring the Wisdom of the Crowd, which is (perhaps coincidentally) a strong basis for using 12 people with different backgrounds as a jury. In the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire, the 'Ask he Crowd' option was somewhere between 91-95% accurate on the initial questions. So based on my reading of hundreds of comments on YT videos featuring Gimlin and Roger telling their story, almost all conclude they are relating what happened, not spinning a tall tale from scratch. Not scientific I know, but perhaps the 'wisdom' in action. And many of these people profess no belief in Bigfoot, just commenting on the veracity of the person who just spoke for 10 minutes.

As to the weight, the NASI report certainly raised eyebrows. A height of 7'3-7'5" is not supported by the overlay. Packham says "slightly taller" at that particular frame, and I would agree. Although I do think if Patty really stood straight up, its possible she would tower over McClarin - that's just how I see the situation. I was a somewhat avid WWE fan in the 80's, and when 7'1" Andre the Giant would stoop over a bit he was often almost eye-to-eye with opponents 6'5". Then he'd stand up straight again and the difference was astonishing. Posture is important :). The largest NFL player this upcoming year will be 6'8" and 380 pounds. Assuming Patty was that height and somewhat more massive in the upper body, a weight of 500 pounds is certainly viable. How deep are tracks made by a 500 pound person on that type of soil? we will never know.

"Assertions that the kinematics of the film subject cannot be duplicated by human agents are thus demonstrably false.". So they caught Krantz in a slight exaggeration regarding 'impossible to duplicate'. If you're going to appeal to the most extreme outliers as being the solution, that's fine "A human over 200 cm tall could be expected to match or exceed these higher figures using a compliant gait". That is about 6'7". So Roger found someone 6'7"+ and extremely heavy, a someone who has never been identified in 55 years Possible, yes. Possible.

"It's fine if you don't believe Bob H was in the suit. But i dont think you are going to convince anyone reading of your interdimensional bigfoot idea by pursuing this line "proof". "

I'm not here to convince anyone of that, I'm not proselytizing, I'm certainly not the head evangelist of 'The Church of the Interdimensional Bigfoot'. Although it's not much crazier than Scientology so I might have to consider it lol
 
Last edited:

jamesrav

Member
Patterson was his friend, not the guy at Jiffy Lube who hired him to change oil.


I bet he wouldn't.

You are judging everything from your decades hindsight knowledge that this film has become "famous". (I think you are also thinking it is more "famous", even today, than it actually is.)

How would Bob even know the film turned out pretty "ok'? It's not like Patterson uploaded it to the internet that night. Likely the EARLIEST that Bob actually saw the film was when Patterson showed up to retrieve the suit.

And again, Patterson was his buddy (who also happened to have cancer). I'm betting he would have done the film for free anyway. Having a buddy who always talks about big plans and big money and big promises, who never comes through with any of it..is not that big a deal. It's not like Bob H LOANED him money and got screwed over.

It's fine if you don't believe Bob H was in the suit. But i dont think you are going to convince anyone reading of your interdimensional bigfoot idea by pursuing this line "proof".
the film is still used in commercials to this day. There was a recent UK horse race (I bet them) and the horse Bigfoot City won. It's the 2nd most analyzed film after the Kennedy assassination film - I would say 1st by now.
SmartSelect_20220803-020549_Samsung Internet.jpg
SmartSelect_20220803-020644_Samsung Internet.jpgCase closed?

P.S. if individuals have a 50% chance of spotting a liar, that means the "crowd" is going to be split on the issue. Knowledge questions do not involve lie detection.
Bigfoot's existence is not the thread. It's the PG film being a hoax. The crowd would have to be familiar with it to some extent. And people chosen would have to be screened (as they are in juries, to rule out prior biases - you dont want an alcoholic on a drunk driving jury). Ask if the Big Bang occurred in the Bible Belt and I'm pretty sure the 'Wisdom' would be a high 'No' %. But in looking at the bar chart, the Probably Fake and Definitely Fake add to 59%, and I too believe it's not real, its a great (simulated or interdimensional) fake. Add in the Definitely Real and Probably Real for good measure and it's at 83%. I think I have Bob H. on the run using statistics !
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
you're ignoring the Wisdom of the Crowd, which is (perhaps coincidentally) a strong basis for using 12 people with different backgrounds as a jury
While I agree with the general principal of a "jury of one's peers" we should note that the "wisdom of the crowd" also gives us things like, oh maybe, lynchings and the Holocaust.

The fact that a group of Bigfoot believers comment positively in what amounts to a giant feedback loop on YouTube is hardly a form of compelling evidence.
 
Top