• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

Drewbot said:
Finally something new about PGF

Someone may have found the in camera original

https://vimeo.com/704144478?fbclid=IwAR1aaFfcHyXJNl8arIlEzOa4IWYe3OWfIGbhh5e-mQjYBEl6dagsaVgtt68
Click to expand...

Does this advance the case for or against in any way?

This may have been mentioned before but I just watched History Channel’s "The Proof is Out There" TV show where they assembled various copies and attempted to sum up the data out of the noise. It's described here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...us-1967-Bigfoot-film-determine-real-hoax.html

Spoolier- She's real.

It sounded quite convincing but, given all the other reasons for the impossibility of such large creatures existing to sufficient numbers to breed successfully and not leave a single scrap of incontrovertible evidence (aka "Where's the poop?"), I remain skeptical. ;)
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Does this advance the case for or against in any way?

This may have been mentioned before but I just watched History Channel’s "The Proof is Out There" TV show where they assembled various copies and attempted to sum up the data out of the noise. It's described here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...us-1967-Bigfoot-film-determine-real-hoax.html

Spoolier- She's real.

It sounded quite convincing but, given all the other reasons for the impossibility of such large creatures existing to sufficient numbers to breed successfully and not leave a single scrap of incontrovertible evidence (aka "Where's the poop?"), I remain skeptical. ;)
Click to expand...

It's the Daily Mail. Enough said.
 
Pacal said:
It's the Daily Mail. Enough said.
Click to expand...

I did not judge the source of the story (though it does accurately describe the show) but the show itself. Don't be so dismissive unless you have seen the documentary. It sounds convincing but I am not an expert in film analysis. I would like to see a review by someone who is.
 
Question: Did anyone know the original print was unaccounted for all this time?

Here we have a clear chain of possession of the print held by a lawyer in lieu of overdue payment, which sounds like Patterson's M.O.

I ask because it makes me wonder why a guy who couldn't afford to pay his lawyer to get a "valuable" film back would spend thousands of dollars 1967 dollars on a suit, only to burn it after making the film. I think that thing is sitting in a box somewhere, forgotten.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I did not judge the source of the story (though it does accurately describe the show) but the show itself. Don't be so dismissive unless you have seen the documentary. It sounds convincing but I am not an expert in film analysis. I would like to see a review by someone who is.
Click to expand...

Those "experts" such as Meldrum, Munns, and Strain are the usual suspects who've been pushing this guff for years. There's nothing new on that show. They use the age-old techiques of telling you what you're seeing and what it means, and of pulling some random theory out of their butts and then "debunking" it, as if they're addressing objections to the claims they're making. It's all flash, looking for cash.

ETA: In case it wasn't clear, I just watched it.
 
eerok said:
Those "experts" such as Meldrum, Munns, and Strain are the usual suspects who've been pushing this guff for years. There's nothing new on that show. They use the age-old techiques of telling you what you're seeing and what it means, and of pulling some random theory out of their butts and then "debunking" it, as if they're addressing objections to the claims they're making. It's all flash, looking for cash.

ETA: In case it wasn't clear, I just watched it.
Click to expand...

Surely there is something new in their use of adding the details together from a number of copies and editing out the noise. Prima facie this appears to be reasonable and the conclusions they draw (about the motion of the feet, the movement of the head, shape of the butt, and etc) likewise. I am not a Big Foot believer and for many other reasons (as I have stated here and elsewhere) find it extremely hard to be convinced that such creatures exist. I would just like to see the new "evidence" addressed; not hand waved away.
 
I bet they didn't talk about the evidence that the top and bottom of the suit moves independently.

I looked through the news article, and all of the points they mentioned, have been debunked in this topic ad nauseum.

Pick out your favorite piece of new " evidence ", and we can go over it again.
 
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Surely there is something new in their use of adding the details together from a number of copies and editing out the noise. Prima facie this appears to be reasonable and the conclusions they draw (about the motion of the feet, the movement of the head, shape of the butt, and etc) likewise. I am not a Big Foot believer and for many other reasons (as I have stated here and elsewhere) find it extremely hard to be convinced that such creatures exist. I would just like to see the new "evidence" addressed; not hand waved away.
Click to expand...

No, the video processing and the image stabilization aren't new. None of it is convincing. When you have a grainy image that's copied many times, the only fine detail you can get out of it are artifacts. You can't add detail to an image. You can heuristically extrapolate, which is just a fancy name for speculation.

Patty is a guy in a suit. It amazes me when anyone sees that clip and imagines anything else. People like Meldrum, Munns, and Strain will never shut up, but that doesn't mean they have anything to say worth bothering with.
 
Last edited:
Something on the FB Coalition page that the guy is going to sue Bill Munns or Daniel perez or something for screen capping and posting it on BFF.

More Bigfoot drama...

I'm asking if he has another link.
 
eerok said:
No, the video processing and the image stabilization aren't new. None of it is convincing. When you have a grainy image that's copied many times, the only fine detail you can get out of it are artifacts. You can't add detail to an image. You can heuristically extrapolate, which is just a fancy name for speculation.

Patty is a guy in a suit. It amazes me when anyone sees that clip and imagines anything else. People like Meldrum, Munns, and Strain will never shut up, but that doesn't mean they have anything to say worth bothering with.
Click to expand...


Exactly! Same snake oil in shiny new packaging.
 
In a classic Bigfooter move, the guy who made the film John Johnson, got called out by Bill Munns, Johnson then threatens legal action against Munns, and then starts deleting threads and deactivates the video on Vimeo.

One of the Munns claims that seems to be a complete debunk is this
C. The image second from top (or from right, when it's rotated to read the edgecode writing easily) is double exposed, with some offset for the second exposure, and does not match all known copies of the frame, which means it cannot be camera original. Plus, camera original can't do such double exposures of one frame.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom