Cracking the Bigfoot Code
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 12th, 2014
From ThinkerThunker:
How to tell a Bigfoot from a man in a monkey-suit, finally! (No, I’m not kidding)
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
This is, plain and simply, ridiculous. The entire point of a gorilla suit is that it looks like a gorilla. It’s proportions, therefore, are going to be those of a gorilla. What this character needs to do is obtain a gorilla suit, or two or three, and measure the arms and legs of the suit. That’s called research. Real research. Not some idiot sitting in front of a computer drawing lines on a picture of a monkey suit.
LordBalto–Well said! I could not agree with you more. The problem is that we are dealing with ThinkerThunker. I don’t want to violate any rules here at Cryptomundo and direct any bashing and name calling at ThinkerThunker. So I will be kind. Let’s just say from viewing several of ThinkerThunker’s analysis videos, he may not be the brightest bulb on the tree.
LordBalto, you are correct, the whole idea of wearing a gorilla suit is to imitate a gorilla. That is accomplished with a suit because it changes the proportions, as the suit was designed to do. So he is making a lot of assumptions in his analysis. That equals bad science!
Then ThinkerThunker takes a look at Kareem and Bruce Lee. He compares two people. Statistically speaking, his sample population for analysis is 2 subjects. Way too small a sample population statistically speaking, to have any significance in the way of proving a hypothesis or even reaching a conclusion. Again, that equals bad science!
Furthermore, using photographs as a measuring device for accuracy is simply ludicrous. Professionally speaking, some lenses compress object. Depending on the lens, some photos can be more flattering for people than others. Taking this a bit further, forced perspective is something a photographer can use to his advantage for illusion. Here’s an easy way to test it. Hold a pencil in horizontally in front of your eyes, parallel to your eyes. Now turn the pencil slowly 90 degrees. Measure the pencil when held horizontally in front of your eyes. It gives you a pretty good measurement of the real length of the pencil. But when you turn it 90 degrees and measure the result, the pencil seems to have shortened. Did it? No! In three dimensions, it is obvious to the viewer the pencil did not change length. But photographs are not three dimensional. They are two dimensional. A photo of that pencil turned 90 degrees would not give you the same measurement as it would if it were held straight in front of your eyes. Yes, ThinkerThunker, angles and position of photographer to subject do make a difference. And they throw your junk science way off base. I don’t have time to explain every aspect of optical physics to you here but I can at least show you by one simple example how wrong you are.
To make matters worse, he states somewhere in the video, talking about Patty that it was not some weird camera angle. That implies that camera angle can throw off ratios. And if you are using photos in which that happened, the input data for the ratios is junk. Simply junk data! Once more, bad science!
Lastly, he contradicts himself in the video. Near the end he states that if hoaxers try to change angles for measurements, that will throw off the ratios. His usage of the ratio equation is his effort to prove that ratios never lie, and in the same breath, he tells hoaxers by attempting to throw off ratios will make them go all over the place. Exactly genius! Bad science demonstrated by ThinkerThunker once again.
And he does get the conclusion correct sometimes. But his methodology and science has nothing to do with it. I don’t have enough time in a day to keep on correcting each of his videos. He cuts on scientists asking for more and more proof. But ThinkerThunker fails to realize that the reason they are asking for more and more proof is because of all his assumptions and bad science.
Please ThinkerThunker, leave the math and optical physics to the professionals. You are not one as is evidenced in almost every one of your video analysis.
Although I and many here, might agree with your conclusion of the PG Footage, I can assure you, very few would agree with your rational, math, or misunderstanding of the scientific method you think you possess, that got you there.
I am now using run on sentences. I guess ThinkerThunker is driving a logical person like me crazy. Does he drive any one else here nuts with his analysis? Or is it just me and LordBalto?
Lord Balto and Photoexpert: You’re being too critical here, imo. The fact he’s a bit loose with things here shouldn’t cause us to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If used carefully, this approach could prove to be a useful tool–but no, not definitive.
(BTW, while it’s conceivable a monkey suit could be designed to reflect more primate-like proportions, there would be little sense in a hoaxer designing or wearing a suit which reflects strictly human-like proportions, if you catch my drift–so it’s safe to say we could eliminate those photos or films which fall into the latter category.)
This and other explanatory videos only serve underline the unfortunate fact that there is no hard evidence in the Bigfoot field of study to base any scientific conclusions on or comparisons to.
Drawing comparative lines over fuzzy images is not going to further any science of any kind and I am on the plus side of the Bigfoot belief line. Enhancement is just that and subject to the wishes of the enhancer. Human proportion ratios vary far more than Thinker Thunker cares to admit. The long standing artistic proportion ratio between height and arm reach is one example. The theory is that a persons height will equal the distance between one’s outstretched arms. I’m 73 inches tall and my outstretched arm reach is just over 76.5 inches. Obviously, I have long arms (17 1/2 neck x 37 sleeve) so any human proportional ratios used as a standard to compare ratios with Bigfoot videos and films is wishful thunking – I mean thinking and not really acceptable as valid research. Add to this that there are no actual standards available for Bigfoot proportional ratios and you can realize that this sort of research is fun to do, but not very scientific.
chewbaccalacca–Yes, I get what you are saying. In fact, I even gave ThinkerThunker credit for doing something right. That was about two or three videos ago. So I give credit where credit is due. But I also hold people accountable for ridiculous analysis and using bad science. I have done that with ThinkerThunker. Why? Because every video he posted prior to the one where I gave him credit were junk!
By junk, I mean incorrect, bad science, giving out bad information, not exploring all possibilities, reaching his hypothesis based on everything but science, etc.. If this is not bad enough, he has a website where he sells T-shirts. Maybe he should stick to that. Maybe he can be successful at that. But he is a failure at video analysis. He is no expert but he knows enough to get himself into trouble. That is one thing but using that misinformation as facts to mislead people and viewers, some of which are young and impressionable, is almost criminal. He does it time and time again.
I am sick of it. And yes, he got one right but even a broken clock is right twice a day. So I will throw out the baby with the bathwater. He has wasted my time, your time, and fellow Cryptomundians time.
chewbaccalacca, if it were just this one video or some of them, or even half of them, I would agree with you. But he does this crapola analysis on almost every single one of his videos. If you owned a gold mine and shoveled through thousands of tons of paydirt and got just a few nuggets, it may be worth it to keep mining. But if you only had one sand grain of gold after all that sweat, money, hardwork, and hope, you may close the mine because it is not worth it. Yes, looking for gold in ThinkerThunker’s numerous videos and finding nearly a grain of worth in any of them, it would be a waste of time and foolish to think the mine is productive. Same with ThinkerThunker’s videos. Out goes the baby with the bathwater!
I am not so much worried about me or my thoughts. And a smart guy like LordBalto can figure it out for himself. But it is the younger members here, newbies to cryptozoology of every age, and those that may not have the intellectual capacity that others were born with. They eat his junk science up as gospel truth. And therein lies the danger. Knowledge is power. But what he puts out there is not knowledge, fact or good science. He is a waste of time.
Proof of my suspicions can be found at the beginning of this video where in his self aggrandizement, he proclaims that what he has to show us is a “game changer”. Seriously? His junk science based on a sample population of 2 people thrown in with incorrect information and misleading statements, a game changer? Yes, it is a game. He is a unwanted salesman! I am not buying it or anything he has to offer. Why? I tried the product and it is poison!
But you go ahead a take a drink of that potion. Meanwhile, I’ll call it out for what it is–nonsense by a self promoting egotistical T-shirt salesman. Anyway, I need to find the baby. Apparently, I threw it out after taking my bath. LOL
Thanks for sharing your opinion chewbaccalacca. I appreciate it. But now you have the other side of the coin.
Thank you for the coverage Craig.
And could someone please explain to the other commenters that while suits can ADD bulk or length, they can’t subtract. And if you look at the comparison of Patty and Bob, you’ll see that with Patty scaled down to Bob’s size, her shoulder is much, much LOWER than Bob’s. Suit’s can’t do that. They can’t make someone smaller than they were.
Can you guys understand that? Or is it that you refuse to even try to understand it? Oh well, it doesn’t matter. Thanks for the views anyway 🙂
I haven’t commented here since 2011, but PhotoExperts comments on the video maker in general demanded my praise. You have written my own opinion better than I could. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Thunker;
When you have an image of an actual Bigfoot standing on level ground next to a scale marker and can compare a man or “Bob” standing on the same level ground next to the same scale marker, then you can make your claim. Otherwise, as PhotoExpert could point out with much more clarity than I, comparisons of size and scale are almost useless between images obtained at different sites, different angles and varying lens resolutions – especially true of video camera and cell phones. Scaling images down to match another image’s size only makes matters worse.
Of course if the aforementioned Bigfoot/scale marker image existed, we wouldn’t be having this dialog on this blog and remember – that I’m on the positive side of Bigfoot being a reality.
ThinkerThunker–You asked the question and made a statement. I will try to address those items for you.
Yes, suits add bulk and length. Correct!
But no, you are incorrect that they can not subtract. I will explain that in a minute. Take the legs for example. If you have a gorilla suit that adds bulk and you want to shorten the legs, you can. You simply bring down the position of the rump. If the person wearing the suit is tall, you just design the suit so the person’s quadriceps are in the body of the suit about where the gorilla’s rump would be. Since a gorilla is bulky, there is enough room in the suit for a tall person to crouch down a bit. A tall person wearing a gorilla suit could wear it and give the illusion of height being much shorter than the actual person wearing the suit. Simply put, depending on several designs, you can subtract height, leg length, and arm length. Not a problem! You are incorrect about that. And this is what is so frustrating for me personally. You make statements that are untrue. You don’t even use your mental energy to figure out how it could be done. You come up with a theory and just run with it so it meets the conclusion you want it to reach.Therein, lies the problem. But the bigger problem is you passing on this misinformation and unproven hypothesis to the public as if it were fact. I do not know if it is intentional on your part or unintentional, but the results are the same as if it was intentional.
I noticed you passed right over the elephant in the room. You failed to reply to any of the posters in this thread about your “game changer”. The issue at hand is not the old news from years ago about Bob H. claiming he wore the suit for the Patty footage. That is old news, well known and a minor issue. The major issue is your “game changing” hypothesis that certain arm to leg ratios are definitive proof for qualifying a Bigfoot versus a human in a gorilla suit. Did I miss something? I watch your video twice. I did not miss a thing. Your video clip was about ratios and proof, not disproving the Bob H. lied about wearing a suit for the Patty video. We ALL already knew that and it is old news anyway. Please do not try to confuse people further and add insult to injury by ignoring the elephant in the room. That elephant is your misinformation, bad science, a 2 person sample group to back up your ratio hypothesis, and jumping to a conclusion you prefer in spite of the facts. And you left out all kinds of things dealing with psychology and optical physics. You leave those things out because they would contradict and prove you theory wrong. When you do that, you end up with a self fulfilling prophecy.You end up with what you believe despite the evidence against it. You embrace subjectivity versus objectivity and the scientific method. That is really the problem with your analysis.
You would have more credence if you humbled your approach. Something like this: Hey guys! ThinkerThunker here. I have an unproven theory or concept but I have been working on it. I may be totally off base but I have this ratio theory. I would appreciate any feedback you could lend me on this matter. Here is what I have so far.
But NOOOOO, you say you have a “game changer” as if to proclaim your subjective theory as infallible. LOL Seriously? And this is why you rub members here the wrong way. Hey! We are all pretty nice to fellow members around here, except when they cross lines. Then we have to call them out. It is the arrogance of your approach. If you were correct and had good data, your approach would not be perceived as arrogance but instead it would be viewed as confidence. But you are incorrect on so many levels, your approach can only be perceived as arrogance. That is what we are left with. To further that point, when you came here to post your comments, you ignored what people wrote. Instead of addressing them directly, you further proved your arrogance by asking other members of Cryptomundo to explain to the commenters your idea. That is arrogant! Members here are not your butlers, message boys/girls, or your slaves. You sound like a pompous, arrogant person–not only in your videos but your posts. You may not be that kind of person but you sure seem like it by your actions. And since we do not know you, and only know you by your videos and posts, you are perceived that way.
At the end of your post you asked: “Can you guys understand that?
Oh, we understand it perfectly. We understand you are incorrect, skewed your data, omitted facts, threw out the scientific objectivity with your subjective beliefs and acted like a pompous, arrogant (fill in the blank).
You went on to state: “Or is it that you refuse to even try to understand it?” Oh, we understand it. We obviously understand it better than you. That is why I took the time to explain why you can both add and subtract from a suit. Yes, we all know Bob H. was lying and was never in that Patty video. We did not need your junk science to prove that. But here is the thing ThinkerThunker, if we know who claims to be in a suit in a known video, we can all easily figure it out as you did. The problem is, we do not know every crazy in a suit that shows up in some anonymous video. So there is no way to know proportions, ratios or if it were a suit or not. It could be a 5 foot girl in a well designed 8 foot Bigfoot suit. Or it could be a 5 foot Bigfoot look-a-like that is actually a bent over 6 foot+ male in a well designed suit. So yes, regardless of your ratio theory, since we do not know who is in the suit or even if it is a suit as it could be a real Bigfoot, your ration theory is invalid. Sorry to be the bearer of this bad news.
Then you go on to say: “Oh well, it doesn’t matter.” Even that sounds arrogant. You might as well say, “I am going to call you guys a bunch of idiots because you disagree with my subjective beliefs. Problem is, this is not an opinion thing. It is black and white. We have all backed up our objective views with facts. Your junk science was disproven in several lengthy paragraphs by various posters and your arrogance mandates that you ignore it. If you could only read, stay on message, not divert by bringing up a small thing like Bob H. when the real issue at hand is your unproven ratio theory–then we could have a dialogue. But your arrogance prohibits that. You arrogant approach prohibits that as well. And your lack of credible data to back up your hypothesis makes your “game changer” a BIG FAIL!
Oh well, like you said, it does not matter because you fail to hear or listen. Argue the facts and quit the diversion tactics.
At least you thanked us for the views. You may be arrogant but at least you do have some manners.
You are welcome!
As Rodney Dangerfield used to say while straightening his tie, “Tough crowd!”
To reiterate/rephrase my earlier post, I think thinkerthunker has introduced an important point which could prove very useful in future studies of Bigfoot–namely, body proportions. We can debate whether the specific instances discussed thus far are perfect case studies of that or not, but I don’t think we can dispute whether the idea is–in principle–an important one we have to consider.
(And at the very least, as touched on earlier, using this general yardstick it’s safe to say we can dispense with photographic evidence where the creature exhibits ordinary human proportions; that seems to me less problematic than debating instances where the creature exhibits more primate-like proportions, since those can be the result of suit modifications.)
Over and out.
Nny–You say you have not posted since 2011? And that it was my post demanded your praise and that is why you posted?
Well, first of all, thank you! Secondly, welcome back! Or at least welcome back to posting. I appreciate your post and sentiment. You stated that I posted what you were thinking. Well, you must be be one intelligent, objective and no nonsense kind of person. We need more like you here at Cryptomundo!
Just do me a favor and try to post more often. If I wrote what you were thinking, then many others think the same as we do and would appreciate your insight. So do not make a stranger of yourself. I am honored to have been the one to get you back on the road to writing posts here and getting more involved. You are welcome, you are welcome and you are welcome! See you around Cryptomundo!
cryptokellie–Spot on post my friend! Great job! As I have been following your posts here for some time, I notice you have this unique ability to call things objectively as you see them. Your opinions are always based on fact and not supposition. Keep up the good work. I like your tenacity too. You always come back and post a second or third time to drive home a point or correct someone that incorrectly challenges you. Love that! I know you posted twice in this thread. There was a comment you made that was spot on and brilliant. Let me go find it and paste it here. Got it: “I mean thinking and not really acceptable as valid research. Add to this that there are no actual standards available for Bigfoot proportional ratios and you can realize that this sort of research is fun to do, but not very scientific.”
Perfectly stated!
chewbaccalacca–LOL OK, you actually made me laugh. And yes, it was out loud. I am a big Rodney D fan. So that tough crowd comment is sometimes what I think when I read posts here. So we are on the same page, maybe with opposing views, but on the same page. I definitely appreciate your humor and professionalism.
I do agree with you on something you posted. You posted: “…we can dispense with photographic evidence where the creature exhibits ordinary human proportions.”
I agree with that. But don’t we all do this already? Even amateurs can figure out when there is a human in a suit. It’s instinctive. Something just doesn’t feel right when we see a human in a suit. And we do not need measurements or ratios to come to that conclusion. So yes, as you pointed out, that is safe to say. I agree. And to reiterate/rephrase my earlier point, this is junk science. I got your point but I think you missed mine. No, I know you missed it or it went over your head because you were not reading carefully enough. Your point was that body proportions and ratios could be a useful tool. And yes, if we had a Bigfoot body, that would be true. Since we do not, you believe that possibility for using this as a tool remains open. You are correct, unless, unless someone could provide an example where this useful tool could be fooled and rendered useless. Well, I supplied that info–altered suits, illusionary aspects of optical physics, photographic manipulation, and even escaped known primates. All these things lead to implementing your ratios photographically since we do not have a body. All of these things would refute the ratio aspect thus rendering it as a tool for future consideration, as ineffective. In other words, it is a fail! Just read the examples I wrote and apply that to the ratio aspect. They would all hold up as being nonhuman but they certainly are not conclusive as Bigfoot. Even worse, a person in an altered suit under your parameters would have to be considered evidence. Correct? Well, you just accepted evidence of a human in a suit as acceptable evidence for ThinkerThunker’s ratio consideration. You would be wrong, no two ways about it. And this is why I have to throw this tool into the trash. Junk science is garbage, trash, junk…. And this is what this whole ratio thing is. That is my point and the point you keep missing. Hopefully, you will get it on the third try.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of hoaxers, we’ve seen some awfully good and awfully bad examples over the decades.
All the best, folks!