• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drew, you animated what I call blockfoot and perfect foot.

One an indistinct rectangular blob, the other a near perfect bigfoot foot with cute little toes and all.

The blob is just a real nice foot with mud on it, don't you know....
 
Just to add some more color to what AtomicMysteryMonster wrote, here's some Kaiju action for you. I posted some of these before to luminous, to counter his arguments on how cumbersome gorilla suits should be. AFAIK, he made no comment...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmx4u2fm1LM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhG-wDwsUQ
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmx4u2fm1LM
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=dLvcRj5YMgg
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=aanYNjjoCQo
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=TyD7JRhZhoQ
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=xil2YKJpOWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phmIH8V2TiE
Check 2'25" of this one for an inhuman gait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLvcRj5YMgg
Oh, and check this still:
kaijufoot.jpg

Look at the foot! Not unlike Patty's, eh? And what about the IM? It excludes a man in a suit.

ETA:
WoooooooHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
At last a post of mine was sent to AAH!!! Yes! Now I'm happy! I'm a bad guy!

Whoa! I feel good, I knew that I would, now
I feel good, I knew that I would
 
Last edited:
At least two new bits of PGF trivia are now apparently coming from watching both the southwestdj clip and the Mysterious Monsters clip.

Both clips are narrated by Peter Graves but they do not show identical segments from Mysterious Monsters. The SWdj clip has additional narration and footage of the plaster pouring and a pan shot of a few tracks. So we seem to have two different video clips from the Mysterious Monsters program.

We also get to see an interesting bit of creative film editing. Watch either of those two clips again. Note the second bit of horseback footage of Roger pulling the white packhorse. At the same time that Peter Graves says "Suddenly there was a commotion...", we can see Patterson's horse suddenly stop. The action of that horse combined with the narration provided a visual segue into the next scene of the Patty encounter. It's obviously a bit of creative editing. The part showing Roger on horseback came well before the proposed Patty encounter, but it does show a sudden halting of his horse.

So the MM clip presents us with a dramatic, yet false, transition from a horseback scene to the Patty encounter itself. It's probably no accident that the packhorse scene stops with a sudden horse halting and the next shown clip is of the shaky start of the Patty encounter. That momentary visual change to the Patty encounter also has a canned horse audio clip, which sounds like an excited neigh or whinny. Was this version of the PGF edited by MM so that the packhorse halt immediately preceded the Patty encounter? Or, did a version that Roger produced have this same scene transition?

Another question: Is it known that the Kodak K100 camera that Roger was using had a zoom lens? The reason I ask is because the MM footage shows an obvious zooming to Roger after we see Bob Heironimus. Did the camera lens zoom, or did somebody later do a reproduction zoom from whatever film they were working with?
 
The mobilgrip is just a handle. It doesn't look like you can keep it on the camera and keep the camera in it's case. If Roger used the mobilgrip, he must have just had the camera stuck in a saddlebag, which is not good for keeping your settings from changing.



Okay, this mobilgrip isn't just a handle and can apparently trigger a camera. I can't see where it could attach to the K-100, though. We can see good pics of one, and I don't see a place where it would screw in.

 
Last edited:


This is what I think is going on with the mid-tarsal break. Unless it is something else.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The mobilgrip is just a handle. It doesn't look like you can keep it on the camera and keep the camera in it's case. If Roger used the mobilgrip, he must have just had the camera stuck in a saddlebag, which is not good for keeping your settings from changing.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7934701409b2ce91.jpg[/qimg]

Okay, this mobilgrip isn't just a handle and can apparently trigger a camera. I can't see where it could attach to the K-100, though. We can see good pics of one, and I don't see a place where it would screw in.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7934701444186e80.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I have one of those old mobilgrips, and it just has a hole in it where you can insert a standard (or nearly standard) cable release, which is what you see in the second picture. It's quite likely that the K100 has a cable release socket with which it can be remotely triggered, and almost certain that it had a standard tripod socket on the bottom, to which the mobilgrip could be attached.

I'm not sure, in this case, what would be gained by this, because I think the K100 was designed to be shot with a hand through the top handle, and I'd expect something like the mobilgrip to have been less steady unless used two-handed. But I'm pretty sure that it would have worked mechanically.

I thought somewhere back in the deep recesses of this thread there was a reference that stated that the camera used by Patterson had a fixed-length lens on it rather than a zoom, but I am not going to bother finding it now.
 
Bruto, there are some very good shots of a K-100 at the ebay links above, including with it opened up. I just don't see any indents in the bottom of the body where a threaded hole can be. If there is a standard tripod socket on that camera, I'll be durned if I can see where it would be. It looks like we ought to be able to see it easily.

I think Patterson did not have a zoom lens. However, in the clips we see of the horseback riding show, a zoom appears to be in use.
We just don't know. If Patterson had a zoom lens, he apparently did not use it for Patty's debut.
 
Last edited:
Robert Rouveroy writes :

>We used 16mm GSAP (General Service Aerial Photography?) >camera's with modified lens mounts. They are rather small, have 50 >feet cassettes, good for about 90 seconds.

In my feckless youth I used GSAPs (modified with C-mounts) as cockpit cameras in competition gliders, where space is at a premium. When they worked, they worked. And when they lost their loops (which happened more often than not) we got "special effects." Ugh.

My preference, whenever possible, was to use spring-powered Kodak K-100 cameras instead. The non-turret (single-lens) models were very compact, weighed little more than GSAPs, ran 40 feet on a winding, and never gave us a lick of trouble. They were about the same height and width as GSAPs but twice as long from stem to stern. They took 100-ft rolls. The main downside was that you couldn't remote-control them without a jury-rigged cable release.

The K100 was a sort of streamlined, "prosumer" spinoff of a pro 16mm camera called the Cine Special, to which Bolex motors could be easily adapted, and which used 100-ft and 200-ft quick-change magazines. The K100 couldn't be externally motorized off the shelf, but with some modification it probably could be. I have no idea whether it would be possible to modify a K-100 for Super-16 -- I suspect it wouldn't be very hard.

You can see some excellent pictures of a turret model K100 at:

http://www.cinevision-ny.com/salesinfo/K100z/K100z.html

The single-lens model was rare, even in its day, and I've never been able to find one via Google.

Dan Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA
Click to expand...

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages DW/CamerasOnMotoGPBikes.htm
 
Despite the lack of bottom shots, I'm willing to bet that the K100 had a tripod socket somewhere, since it would be virtually worthless for many applications without it. One of the selling points of this camera was its professional qualifications, and its ability to do stop-motion animation. e.t.a. Its predecessor, the Model K, definitely had one, but I've found no references yet that confirm that they kept it.
 
Last edited:
historian said:
Now how did he grow over a foot tall, muscles, add 300 lbs, and find a suit with a butt crack and two tits, with hair consistent with a paranormal person of that shape.
The P-G Bigfoot has a weave that is consistent with the body shape.
Click to expand...

Historian, could it be that Patty is a hermaphrodite sasquatch? That could explain the apparent rarity of this creature. Not to mention those 'powers'. Kinda like a combination of Venus and Apollo.
 
Bigfoot have always been the tallest of the orb family of paranormal people, as far as I know. The smallest are 4 legged lizard like people that love to snuggle into your sleeping bag at night. They all can turn into spirit orbs to fly long distances, or just recon your campsite. Then with a little zzzzzzzt, they convert energy back into matter again, and take on their three-dimensional form in an invisible dimension, normally. Very exciting! Very cutting edge, except the government has known about it since the 60's, from their Lawrence Livermore National Lab, captivity study. The report of which, Stephen Hawkings spent a year studying in 1974-75, at U.C. Berkeley. Bigfoot number in the millions. Buggerous minimus, aka, little buggers, are the 4 legged lizard people that number in the billions. One touched me just 2 weeks ago. Then he dematerialized inside of a sealed tent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom