• 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.
Look at Patty's right shoulder in the above motion frame, note the crack midway through the clavicle, it looks like the edge of a vest moving with the arm swing.
 
Your right Sweaty, I don’t know what I was thinkin.

Hey Lu, find one of those St. Helens tule elk yet? You know, the one's that Noll is suppose to have up his sleeve.


m :bike:


 
I don't see the doll hand animation demonstrating anything useful. The 2 frames were taken at a different camera angle, with different lighting and very close up. Not the same situation at all. The shadows and light reflection seem to change more than the fingers actually do. There is certainly no apparent bend in the fingers. Why doesn't someone post a similar animation using their actual hand, at 100+ feet from the camera? Keep your hand static and turn your wrist at various angles. Make sure not to change the lighting or the camera position. Make an animation then we might have a comparison.

Admitting that the fingers are bending isn't a game breaker anyway. This doesn't exclude other explanations that put a man in the suit. It makes things a bit more complicated perhaps, but there's always doubt in absence of proof. IMO, the focus should instead be on hand extensions that RP might have used. And where's the elbow?
 
Óðinn said:
I don't see the doll hand animation demonstrating anything useful. The 2 frames were taken at a different camera angle, with different lighting and very close up. Not the same situation at all. The shadows and light reflection seem to change more than the fingers actually do. There is certainly no apparent bend in the fingers. Why doesn't someone post a similar animation using their actual hand, at 100+ feet from the camera? Keep your hand static and turn your wrist at various angles. Make sure not to change the lighting or the camera position. Make an animation then we might have a comparison.

Admitting that the fingers are bending isn't a game breaker anyway. This doesn't exclude other explanations that put a man in the suit. It makes things a bit more complicated perhaps, but there's always doubt in absence of proof. IMO, the focus should instead be on hand extensions that RP might have used. And where's the elbow?
Click to expand...
We covered the ' extensions ' he used over at BFF .. I'll try to find you a pic if you think it's really necessary .. They are simply rubber gorilla hands ( gloves ) .. The wearers fingers end smewhere near the palm of the glove.. Nothing expensive or sophisticated at at all ..


The location of the elbow is most apparent here ..
elbow2.gif


Line 1 ...



No, the doll hand is not a precise reconstruction.
What would be the point?

The principle is the same .. Notice how the angle of the PGF subjects back, with respect to the camera, changes between the two frames ..

The slightly cupped hand is seen throughout the film .. Changing perspective gives the appearance of slight finger flexion ..
 
Not trying to support the finger bending, but I disagree with some of the assumptions. The camera angle is the same, only the orientation of the hand may have changed. The POV is the same except RP is panning the camera view to the right. He couldn't have changed the camera position significantly in less than a second, which is the only way to change his POV. Unless Patty abruptly changed direction, her back orientation couldn't have changed much either. Patty's arm is in nearly the same position and the lighting is consistent. I just don't see a static hand that creates the illusion of an articulating finger. Could be I suppose, but I have my doubts re the "turning of the cupped hand" hypothesis. I think it would be very informative if this effect could be demonstrated using similar conditions. It would at least show that it's possible to create this kind of illusion. The doll hand anim doesn't do it for me. Until then I'm going with hand extensions. No need to post a pic.

Diogenes, where would you expect an actor's elbow to be if hand extensions were used? How close would it match your elbow placement?
 
bruto said:
Well, that just shows to go you that it wasn't a cheap gorilla suit. It came with a vest.
Click to expand...
See my vest, see my vest, made of real gorilla chest....

gorillavest-ae6.jpg


Sorry, I couldn't resist :blush:
 
LTC8K6 said:
The camera moves all over the place in less than a second in several places during the film. You can probably do a 180 in a second.
Click to expand...
I agree, but you're referring to camera orientation, not position. In this case we know exactly how much change in orientation occurred between frames 61 and 72. Camera position is much more difficult to determine with only the film as a reference. But you're suggesting that a static object can change its appearance by being in different locations in a camera's field of view. This isn't the case. Unless an object is so close to the edge of the field of view that the lens aberrates the images, the images will be identical. The camera has to change position to change the POV. The motion of the camera itself would be distorting the images, more than any change in view. Do you think the finger bend is distortion?
 
Last edited:
Do you think the finger bend is distortion?
Click to expand...

I think I can't tell what the noise is doing or showing. The subject is very small in the frame, and we are talking about objects near the resolution limit of the film.

It could be a hand flexing. I see no actual fingers. It could be just noise and light blobs causing the effect. I think the latter is the most likely, given all of the enhancing those frames have been through.

It's just too bad the hand didn't come out like those perfect piggy toes...
 
bendpov4.gif


When blockfoot is up, the image is in pretty good focus, yet we have a vague blockfoot in the blowup.

When perfectfoot is up, the image gets blurry, yet we have perfectfoot with nice clear toes in the blowup.

Anyone else notice that and find it odd?
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think I can't tell what the noise is doing or showing. The subject is very small in the frame, and we are talking about objects near the resolution limit of the film.

It could be a hand flexing. I see no actual fingers. It could be just noise and light blobs causing the effect. I think the latter is the most likely, given all of the enhancing those frames have been through.

It's just too bad the hand didn't come out like those perfect piggy toes...
Click to expand...
Yes, at these distances we're at the edge of film resolution, or it could be motion of the camera, or a change in orientation of the hand, or the fingers are flexing, or the fingers are merely flexible. That's why a recreation might be informative.

Yes, those toes are especially crisp considering the rest of the frame is more distorted than 72. This could be coincidental motion, however. If the movement of an object counteracts the motion of the camera you can get moving objects in focus while the rest of the frame isn't. Conversely, 72 looks like the camera was relatively stable, while the left foot was still in motion.

Diogenes, panning doesn't change the POV to an object if it remains in frame.
 
LAL said:
Snowshoe feet were used, which gave a height estimate of 9'.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the height is what made him think it was real? I didn't ask any questions regarding the height and I'm a bit confused as to why you're posting this information (I do appreciate the information, though).

Why is it skeptics fail to mention Dr. Meldrum exposed the hoax?
Click to expand...

As others have noted, a person determining that something is a hoax after that person said that it was real doesn't change the fact that he got fooled at first. I should also point out that he only got suspicious after the producers gave him the runaround about the location and the couple that they claimed shot the video. This is similar to what happened with the Ivan Marx cripplefoot film; the investigators were only able to determine that the film was a hoax after going to the filming location (revealed by some children and taking measurements that showed Marx's claims were false.
 
That big, curved stick to Patty's right seems to be moving as well. This either indicates a change in the camera's position or is an optical illusion broguht on by the changes in film clarity.

Oh, and speaking of optical illusions, here's something that compliments Diogenes' moving doll hand .gif.
 
Last edited:
Blockfoot should be about stationary near the end of it's travel. Perfectfoot is moving in the middle of it's travel.

Blockfoot is fairly clear and perfectfoot is very blurry in the animated frames, imo.

Look closely at the feet in the animated frames. No shiny white perfectfoot, imo.

Yet in the blowup, we have snow white and crisp perfectfoot.

bendpov4.gif
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom