Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
L,

Not the optically enhanced stuff, Green/Davis. It’s better if you use a tweaked copy from the clip where the still you just posted came from.


m
 
L,

I'd show you what I mean but I lost the hard drive that contained all my bf stuff. Guess I may have to take a trip to West Seattle and borrow some DVD's, again.

Anyway, when Patterson is filming the last scene (not sure of frame #'s) there is a serious lack of shadows cast on the ground in the vicinity of the creatures pathway, but there is shadow in the background. It's hard to explain without the visuals. I'll try to articulate better at a latter date.



m
 
I can't post images yet, but there are 3 prominent trees that Patty walks past (Tree 1 behind, Tree 2 in front, Tree 3 behind). Trees 1 and 3 cast a shadow on Patty's back. She must be very close to Tree 3 since it casts a shadow almost as soon as she passes it. If the arrangement of these trees is known as well as Patty's direction of travel, then the shadows might reveal the time of day.
 
Óðinn/Oden,

The azimuth is ballpark for the suggested time of day, give or take, but the azimuth only changes 5 degrees or so for 30 days prior. The altitude is what is important, or, length of shadow cast. 38 degrees for Oct. 20 or 48 degrees for Sept. 20.

So in all reality the film could have been taken in late Sept. with little difference in the suns azimuth. This is why I find the lack of shadows as far as with the subject so compelling. At 45 degrees the cast of the shadow on the ground should be equal to the subjects height, at 38 degrees altitude it should be even longer (I just don’t see it). Of course with foreshortening etc. it’s a tough sell.


m
 
LTC8K6 said:
I can see a piggy toe, so I should be able to see a big old tendon.
Click to expand...

Thanks; my knowledge of the finer points of anatomy could dance on the head of a pin. Oddly enough, my attempt at seeing if the issue of tendons had ever been brought up before led me to two earlier posts in this thread. This one makes a comment about the tendon running up the side of Patty's leg and this one notes how it fails to intersect the, quote, "two lobes of the gastrocnemius." Is this tendon is just parodelia or if we should entertain the possibility that Roger Patterson didn't have a good anatomy book to copy from?
 
William Parcher said:
Look, the breasts don't act like they obey our physical laws. This is because they are fakes applied to the front of a costume. Anybody who tries to argue that they look natural (even for an unclassified hominoid) is making a special pleading for their private fantasy.
Click to expand...

Oh, no arguments here; Patty's immobile breasts remind me of a pair of foam rubber novelty breasts that I once saw at a costume store. I was just commenting on how proponents tend to come up with laughable "explanations" for things that should tip them off that the film is a hoax based solely on the fact that the film "looks real" to them, therefore it "must" be real.

Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please?
Click to expand...

Sigged!
 
I was going to comment on that fact that this article reveals that several Hollywood creature suit experts analysed the P/G film frame-by-frame and determined it to be a man in a costume, but then I remembered that I learned how all special effects types are just a bunch of egotistical, denialist scoffics at the last HRPRO (H.R. Pufnstuf Research Organization) meeting.. Well, except for this one who thinks the P/G footage is real based solely on how he doesn't believe that 60's technology was that advanced.

This is the best modern Hollywood special effects can do when it comes to recreating the elusive creature filmed by Sid and Marty Krofft. As you can see, it doesn't even compare. Notice the mouth and pupil movements on the real creature and how the recreation doesn't come anyone close to duplicating them. I'd continue, but I need to go try some call-blasting using Doobie Brothers CDs...
 
The only way that the azimuth of the sun could betray the timeline, is if it were too high in the sky to be either the claimed time of day, and/or the time of year. The problem is that an absence of shadows can only be a red flag. But the orientation of the shadows should be able to confirm or refute the timeline. The shadows cast on Patty's back as she walks past the trees tells me that the sun was over her right shoulder, otherwise the trees wouldn't have cast a shadow on her. The footage of Roger P casting the tracks shows the shadows come from the left side of Patty's trackway. This angle could indicate the time (not day) between these events, but not the absolute time of day. If you knew Patty's direction of travel, you could use this relative angle to pinpoint the time of day, for both events. So what is this angle? 360deg=24hr
 
At this time no one has proven this film is a fake . Even the man that bought the rights to the film many years ago spent his life trying to prove it was fake could not and died trying . Keep trying he could not prove it to be fake and you most likely will not ether .
 
Creekfreak said:
At this time no one has proven this film is a fake . Even the man that bought the rights to the film many years ago spent his life trying to prove it was fake could not and died trying . Keep trying he could not prove it to be fake and you most likely will not ether .
Click to expand...

All the film proves at this point of time, is that PG filmed something, but that something can NEITHER be proved 100% to a big foot nor a guy in costumes. Since the burden of proof is on the pgf=bigfoot exists side, and, well, no one has proved that there exists a real bigfoot either (body, bones, excrements, whatnot) , but it was consistently demonstrated that it COULD have been a guy in costume, I would say one has to take the most likely explanation for having a betetr odd, in absence of corroborating evidence for any other explanation.

In other word, good luck proving this is big foot on the film, because right now a lot run AGAINST that explanation, whereas NEXT TO NOTHING runs for it being bigfoot.
 
Creekfreak said:
At this time no one has proven this film is a fake . Even the man that bought the rights to the film many years ago spent his life trying to prove it was fake could not and died trying . Keep trying he could not prove it to be fake and you most likely will not ether .
Click to expand...
What's the matter with you guys and your heads, thinking that way? That's the oldest, lamest woo poo in the bag. Bad footer form, back five squares. Burden of proof switcheroo = hit with your purse, Alice.

Bring us a hairy cans, diaper butt, paddle foot samsquatch and we'll talk.

Boo, hiss.
 
mangler said:
In closing, I believe (but I could be wrong) that Green obtained a box of these reels from Mrs. Patterson recently. Anyone recall where I may have read/heard this?
Click to expand...

I vaguely remember this being brought up here. I think that Green got a bunch of reels containing footage of Patterson riding around in the wilderness.
 
kitakaze said:
What's the matter with you guys and your heads, thinking that way? That's the oldest, lamest woo poo in the bag. Bad footer form, back five squares. Burden of proof switcheroo = hit with your purse, Alice.

Bring us a hairy cans, diaper butt, paddle foot samsquatch and we'll talk.

Boo, hiss.
Click to expand...

p.s. Try to find one that's visible, because the other kind:

a) are really hard to see;

b) belong in a different thread.
 
Óðinn said:
I can't post images yet, but there are 3 prominent trees that Patty walks past (Tree 1 behind, Tree 2 in front, Tree 3 behind). Trees 1 and 3 cast a shadow on Patty's back. She must be very close to Tree 3 since it casts a shadow almost as soon as she passes it. If the arrangement of these trees is known as well as Patty's direction of travel, then the shadows might reveal the time of day.
Click to expand...

Here is a crop of a map from one of the Bigfoot books.. The distances between the trees are supposed to be pretty accurate, and I believe the map is oriented with North at the top .. I believe mangler could identify the source and correct me on the orientation, if I'm wrong ..

trees.bmp
 
Creekfreak said:
At this time no one has proven this film is a fake . Even the man that bought the rights to the film many years ago spent his life trying to prove it was fake could not and died trying.
Click to expand...

Well, he claimed that he originally tried to prove it was a fake and then decided to cash in on it (by buying the Bob Gimlin's share of the rights) after he couldn't do it. I think it speaks volumes that Rene Dahinden sought to "destroy" Bob H. when he started making rumblings to the public about being the man in the suit. You'd think that someone out to disprove the film would've welcomed him with open arms (or at least would've interviewed other Yakima residents like Greg Long did). Mr. Dahinden did neither.

I should also point out how he thought that Ivan Marx's "cripplefoot" film was real. Said film is included in Marx's movie, "The Legend of Bigfoot," which can be seen here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom