• 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.
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Had to remove the link due to low post count..
AMM the big stick appears to move because it's a foreground object. This is parallax at work.

The optical illusion you linked to only works when you are very close to the object. More parallax.

LTC8K6, this effect is common in film that shows motion at slow shutter speeds. It can be a mishmash of focus. I believe this was one of the clues that the Russian analysts cited that the film was shot at 16fps. Can't recall the source..

I don't think this is a smoking gun. But I do think there is more to come from these two frames.
 
Of crests and fingers...

SweatyYeti:

Would it be possible to get some estimated measurements for the supposedly "impossible for a human head to fit in" crest/head (along with the method used to determine those measurements)?

Óðinn:

Patty's hands appear to be bigger than human hands, so the person in your hypothetical recreation would need to wear big gloves in order for it to be a valid comparison. Come to think of it, wouldn't the recreation have to be done on 16mm film as well? And since you asked about extensions, shoulder pads would also make the arms appear to be longer.

To add to the reasons why many here think that the finger-bending .gif is bogus, the lack of fingers bending the frames 62-71 are a big problem. Think of film like a flipbook; each frame shows the gradual movement of an object in motion. We should be seeing the fingers bending in those frames as well, but we don't. In my opinion, this makes the optical illusion explanation more likely.

The only thing that comes close to a movement not fully showing up on film (and it's not even an exact match) is something that can happen in martial arts movies. During the filming of the Green Hornet TV series, Bruce Lee was doing moves so fast that they (apparently) only showed up as blurs when the film was played back. They also had to slow down the film speed for the footage he shot for "Game of Death" since he (and the other martial artists) were moving around so fast that it looked like the film was being sped up. This is discussed in the 2002 documentary "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey." And Bruce Lee isn't the only person to do something like that. As I recall, they had to remove a scene from the Jet Li movie "The One" because Jet Li was moving so fast that the test audiences laughed. However, I don't know if the film frames missed any of the movements in those films or not.

There's always the question of why would anyone bend their fingers while walking? And if I'm right about the speed issue: Why would anyone bend their fingers at Bruce Lee-esque speeds while walking?

As for the parallax issue, define "very close" I have a printout of the gargoyle figure that still seems to move its head when I'm approximately nine feet away from it (space constraints kept me from experimenting with greater distances). I suggest that you (and others reading this) try printing out/assembling one of those figures, setting them up at different distances, and walking past them to see if their heads seem to move.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
To add to the reasons why many here think that the finger-bending .gif is bogus, the lack of fingers bending the frames 62-71 are a big problem. Think of film like a flipbook; each frame shows the gradual movement of an object in motion. We should be seeing the fingers bending in those frames as well, but we don't. In my opinion, this makes the optical illusion explanation more likely.
Click to expand...
Do you have frames 62-71? Perhaps you could post them. I thought they were too shaky and 61 & 72 were the only clear ones.

As for the parallax issue, define "very close" I have a printout of the gargoyle figure that still seems to move its head when I'm approximately nine feet away from it (space constraints kept me from experimenting with greater distances). I suggest that you (and others reading this) try printing out/assembling one of those figures, setting them up at different distances, and walking past them to see if their heads seem to move.
Click to expand...

Try your gargoyle at 150 feet. The parallax would be less than 1% and probably undetectable.

Almost enough posts..
 
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.
Click to expand...

Your wishful thinking is showing through again, LTC. ;)

Patty's fingers are by no means below, or even at, the limits of resolution of the film.

That's very easy to see, since there are other details visible which are smaller than the fingers themselves.

Here is one, highlighted...

Pattyhand4line.gif
Pattyhand5line.gif


To the right of the arrows, in each image, is a dark line running across Patty's hand....right where her finger bends.

This dark line is significantly smaller than the length of her hand/pinky finger.

Since that line is visible in the same spot of the hand, several frames apart....it's, in all probability, a real feature on her hand....and not "noise" or "random blobs of color".
Logically, then, if that small, dark line is real, and within the limits of resolution (though barely)....then her hand/pinky finger most certainly is real, also.


Bottom line....Patty's right hand is indeed visible, and her fingers are quite clearly bending.
 
Last edited:
AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:
SweatyYeti:

Would it be possible to get some estimated measurements for the supposedly "impossible for a human head to fit in" crest/head (along with the method used to determine those measurements)?
Click to expand...


I haven't gotten that far, yet, in my analysis of Patty's head. Hopefully sometime in the near future I can get some actual numbers, for the dimensions of her head.

One thing I've recently thought of doing, is simply making an exact replica of Patty's head, with the same angles of the forehead, from the sides and the front....to actually see what the smallest size fake head would be that I could fit my head into.....without a helmet on, that is.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Your wishful thinking is showing through again, LTC. ;)

Patty's fingers are by no means below, or even at, the limits of resolution of the film.

That's very easy to see, since there are other details visible which are smaller than the fingers themselves.

Here is one, highlighted...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattyhand4line.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattyhand5line.gif[/qimg]

To the right of the arrows, in each image, is a dark line running across Patty's hand....right where her finger bends.

This dark line is significantly smaller than the length of her hand/pinky finger.

Since that line is visible in the same spot of the hand, several frames apart....it's, in all probability, a real feature on her hand....and not "noise" or "random blobs of color".
Logically, then, if that small, dark line is real, and within the limits of resolution (though barely)....then her hand/pinky finger most certainly is real, also.


Bottom line....Patty's right hand is indeed visible, and her fingers are quite clearly bending.
Click to expand...

Sweaty, what is the dark band that is about 4" above your arrows?
 
Sweaty's back to his old habit of making things up, I see. I won't address his post because I didn't say those things and most of us have spotted him the fact that Patty's fingers bend and he still ignored what we said.

Just to be clear... I have already agreed that it's possible that Patty's fingers bend in discussions. This was always one of the possible answers to what I see. I even said it again in the post sweaty just responded to. The concession was always met with silence and later repetitions of the same finger bending games, as if he had not read a thing, and here we are again.

Sweaty blows right by the fact that I said it could be a hand bending, in order to play games.
 
Here's a big scan of the Argosy cover Feb 1968. Gimlin is in the wig, and his rifle is out of the scabbard. No hat this time, and instead a headband. Roger's packhorse has the boxes, and he appears to be riding Chico (BH's horse). The image has to be from Cowiche Canyon unless the camera was on a tripod (no third person at Bluff Creek).
 
Last edited:
Óðinn said:
Do you have frames 62-71? Perhaps you could post them. I thought they were too shaky and 61 & 72 were the only clear ones.
Click to expand...

I personally don't have copies of the frames, but I thought I had seen them on the JREF forums. After an exhaustive search, I have to conclude that either I'm looking in the wrong places or that it was a mistake in my memory, because I can't find them. Although I'm leaning towards the memory mistake theory (I think I mixed memories of comparisons of other frames with the finger bending .gif discussion), I have found some stuff suggesting that I might not've been completely off base. This thread makes a reference to frame 62 (but it could be a typo) and this post notes that a frame where it's said that finger details should so, but don't. Sadly, the image link is broken in that post. But unless those frames turn up, I'll say that I was incorrect in stating that I knew for sure that the frames didn't show any movement.

Here's some other stuff I found along the way that might be of interest:

The frames used to make the finger bending .gif. The other posts from that page also offer up some interesting notes.

A .gif using those frames.

A blurred version of the doll hand illusion.

A post giving the conditions the doll hand pictures were taken under.

The pictures used to make the doll hand .gif.

A post that illustrates what I was trying to explain with my flip book comparison. Judging from this, mangler might have the frames 62-71.

On fingers and the size/film resolution issue.

A post detailing a glove-based arm extension.

This has notes on arm extensions and how the "finger bend frames" compare to the doll hand .gif.

Bending fingers and the wrist factor.

Try your gargoyle at 150 feet. The parallax would be less than 1% and probably undetectable.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't I do it at 100 feet so that it matches up with the distance in the P/G footage? If you don't mind my asking, how are you calculating this? I'm kind of confused as to why an illusion that supposedly only works from close range now is said to not work at 150 feet away. Surely if it only worked at short distances, it'd stop working at less than 100 feet, right?

SweatyYeti:

I hope that when you do get some numbers, you'll post them here. It'll be interesting to **. If you do trying building a head replica, I hope you document the steps you took to make it. By the way, I don't think Bob H. was saying that he wore a mask over a helmet; he was saying that the interior of the mask reminded him of an old-fashioned football helmet.
 
Lu,

There are NO TULE ELK in Washington. Cross breading a Rocky Mountain Elk with a Roosevelt Elk will not make a Tule Elk.

If Noll said they are a mix of Tule and Rocky Mountain Elk, he is full of S#!^, THERE ARE NO TULE ELK IN WASHINGTON, PERIOD


m

Bolding is mine.

mangler said:
LAL,

Did Noll really say that?

"Rick said Roosevelt Elk are further west in the coast ranges. He thinks the elk in Skamania County are a mix of Tule and Rocky Mountain Elk. Sounds like he checked it out. I could well have been misinformed."

Well then, that explains everything to me, it is now crystal clear, I totally understand. Oh, wait a minute, but, there are no Tule Elk in Washington. Mr. Noll may be needing a smaller shovel soon. For someone so "woods savvy" (Lals words, not mine) this is becoming borderline ridiculous.

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to this, maybe I'm simply getting tired of people saying, "If Rick Noll, John Green, Jeff Meldrum . . . say it is, that's good enough for me." When you start adding up all these miss-fires their credibility starts to go down the crapper. I'm not really trouble buy the fact that they are wrong, what bothers me is that they find such difficulty in admitting it.

Tule Elk in Washington, WTF. :bike:


m
Click to expand...
 
Here is Dfoot's montage of rubber gorilla hands ..

HAND_POSTgloves_comp.gif



Another comment about the ' finger bend ' ..


61_72.gif


Get the sequence in order while viewing. The tree is in the second frame.

Once you are watching it in sequence, notice the right shoulder is moving toward the camera , the arm is swinging to the rear,the palm is rotating out of view, obscuring some of the curved finger tips and creating the effect of straightening.
 
Last edited:


If the beast is angling away from the camera, The angle to the beast must change. Which would account for the different view of the finger. Also, I believe a shadow cut's off the tip of the finger which adds to the illusion of fingerbending.
 
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parknews/newsreleases_20070510_elkdocents07.htm
Tule elk, a subspecies of the North American elk, were once more numerous than deer in many parts of this region. Tule elk are native to California and found nowhere else, but by 1870 were considered locally extirpated and nearly extinct. In 1978, ten tule elk were released into part of their historic range at Point Reyes National Seashore after a 100-year absence. Today, hundreds of elk range the park’s fenced 2,600-acre Tomales Point Preserve while about 30 elk range freely elsewhere within the park.
Click to expand...

Also, A photo like this was enough to convince Jacobs Photo viewers that the 'Bigfoot' was a bear. Why isn't this enough to show BH was Patty?
 
Last edited:
I sent this to Dr. Meldrum on a whim:
Dr. Meldrum,

Would your scientific study of sasquatch allow you to say that Sasquatch has a well-developed Achilles tendon, similar to humans?

If yes, then why would the foot require a mid-tarsal break similar to great apes, which do not have a well developed Achilles tendon?

If no, then wouldn’t that preclude witness testimony saying that Sasquatch walked smoothly/gracefully, and/or was able to run down prey animals? (Lack of Achilles development would require that highly accelerated bipedal travel would be unlikely. (From the Bill Sellers study, detailed here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990319.stm )
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Meldrum's Response

Drewbot said:
I sent this to Dr. Meldrum on a whim:
Dr. Meldrum,
Would your scientific study of sasquatch allow you to say that Sasquatch has a well-developed Achilles tendon, similar to humans?

If yes, then why would the foot require a mid-tarsal break similar to great apes, which do not have a well developed Achilles tendon?

If no, then wouldn’t that preclude witness testimony saying that Sasquatch walked smoothly/gracefully, and/or was able to run down prey animals? (Lack of Achilles development would require that highly accelerated bipedal travel would be unlikely. (From the Bill Sellers study, detailed here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6990319.stm )
Click to expand...

Here is his answer. I thought Kitakaze's FooterBot hijacked my email and replied!

Dr. Meldrum's email response to above query said:
I am on my way out the door this morning to catch a plane, so my answer will of necessity be brief (I suggest you read chapter 13 in my book if you have not already). Sasquatch certainly would be expected to have characteristics associated with bipedalism. If the P-G film can be accepted at face for the sake of discussion, the film subject shows a lengthened Achille's tendon cxompared to a gorilla or chimp, but one shorter than the average human. Retention of the flexible midfoot affords several advantages (enumerated in the book) and associated/correlated anatomies of the foot are evident in multiple independent examples. A flat flexible foot doesn't preclude efficient walking and bursts of speed -- observe a chimp. But ape, and sasquatch I suggest, lack the specializations of the human foot and gracile body form, and physiology, selected for endurance walking and more specifically -- endurance running.

I have to go. Hope this helps.

The link you provided wouldn't open.

Jeff Meldrum
Click to expand...
 
Dynel Wigs

The Gorilla Costume was made of Dynel according to Phillip Morris
Morris recalls, "So I took one of my gorilla suits and shipped it to him. Parcel post, if I remember, it was a standard suit we sold to all our customers. Then, not long after he would have received the suit, I got a call from him. He said he had received the suit, and that it seemed okay, but, he said, 'I can see the zipper in the back.' I told him, 'Just brush the fur down over the zipper.' The fur on the suit was a material called Dynel. It was a nylon fiber, a popular material back then. It was used on lots of things, like plush toys, bathroom rugs, toilet seats.
Click to expand...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280/pg_4

Funny, he doesn't mention wigs.


http://www.rubylane.com/shops/vintagemerchant/item/WG-001
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom