• 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.
Both are thrown in this version and Patty is ahead, not to the left. In most versions, Gimlin is not thrown.

We rounded a sharp bend in the sandy arroyo of the creek. Then it happened.

The horses reared suddenly in alarm and threw both of us. Luckily, I fell off to the right and grabbed my camera. Why? Because I had spotted what had turned our horses into mad broncos. About one hundred feet ahead, on the other side of the creek bed, there was a huge, hairy creature that walked like a man! 'Gosh darn it, Ivan', [he said] 'right there was a Bigfoot. And, fer pity's sakes, it was a female! Just wait till you see the film.'
Click to expand...
 
Óðinn said:
The optical printer that Mangler mentioned was used to make copies from the original reel (and copies of the copies). In the case of Green's copy, it appears the printer was set to crop the frames to half size. Optical printers can rescale images but not usually for individual frames.
................
Click to expand...

I have seen it claimed that Green has a first generation copy..

If that is the case, the producers of LMS did the cropping we see on the DVD ..

Rick Noll seems to have an inside track to the production of LMS, but I have never got a straight answer from him about the zooming and cropping on LMS ..
Why so sinister ?
 
mangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

They're in California.

Seems the St. Helens herd is a mix, but it didn't say of what. It seems they are not Roosevelt Elk and whoever told me the herd on Greenleaf Peak was Roosevelt was apparently mistaken. Rick may be too, but he's evidently correct about elk in the area being a mix.

I had an e-mail ready to go to the State Director of Wildlife, but never sent it due to a malfunctioning Windows e-mail, and then I got distracted by real life and forgot all about it.

Why are you so upset? Wasn't the original dispute over the size of the elk knee and whether there are Roosevelt Elk in the area at all?
 
Last edited:
“The first generated copies of the film are “cropped” versions of the film. This was done to make the creature appear larger. The information on the periphery, or outside edges of the frames, was cropped out of the film. The version of the film that was recently broadcast by the National Geographic Channel was either the master copy, or a scan of the original master. The NGC broadcast film; contained on the tail of the film, hand written wording. When I imported the film into my computer and aligned the lettering, it said: “American Bigfoot.” Patterson had loaned the “original master” copy of the film to a company called “American National Enterprises.”

MK Davis

http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2006_05_20_archive.html

The master copy is not full frame either.


Lu,

The point is Tule Elk was stated, this statement needed/needs to be corrected, regardless of who said it. Other than that I could really care less.

BTW, I'm well aware of the location of the different elk herds in the St. Helens region, as well as where one would find hybrids etc. When you get your email back from the WDFW, if you feel the need we can discuse this more. I'll provide the maps if need be.


m
 
There is not one full frame image of this film anywhere that I am aware of, except possibly, the Ilfochrome/Cibachrome images.

While it is true that single frames are not usually manipulated/enhanced when going through an optical printer the capability is certainly there. There are at least three, possibly four scenes within the 952 frames of this film. The first scene is the questionable scene, it’s either 88 frames or 179 frames, this scene could have been duped at a different scale, I doubt that any of the people analyzing the film would have ever picked-up on it (I have very little faith in any of these clowns). The fact of the matter is we do not know for certain if the camera was turned off at these points or whether the film was spliced.

No, I do not know if there was any deception in regards to the film between the Master and LMS. I do know that there was ample opportunity, it’s not like there was any chain of custody document that was being passed around. When I start to think about the people that were intimately involved with this film from 67’ through the early 70’s I naturally see red flags.

BTW, Óðinn you are starting to sound familiar to me, would there be a reason for this or am I simply being paranoid? :jaw-dropp


m
 
Óðinn said:
In frames 61-72, Patty is at least 30% farther away from the camera (image is 30% smaller) than in frame 352. If we assume that Patty is 120 feet from the camera in frame 352 (which you could dispute), that puts her at 150+ feet for frame 61. Image size is inversely proportional to the distance from the camera. The illusion doesn't actually stop working at any distance. But the farther away you get from two objects the less they appear to move relative to one another when you change your POV. Parallax increases with the distance between 2 objects from the observer. Since the distance between the head and body in your illusion is small, you need to be pretty close for the parallax to be noticeable.
Click to expand...

Since we're working with frames that've been enlarged, doesn't this mean I should look at the gargoyle with binoculars, a telescope, or a magnifying glass in order to create a similar effect? Also, you forgot to tell me how you were calculating all this. Please fill me in; I really do want to know more.

1 step difference, 150+ feet from the camera. This change of angle would be pretty small, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Doesn't the illusion of the moving stick show that there was enough of a change in angle to create such an effect? And, yes, I know that it's closer than it appears to be on the film, but that still doesn't change the issue of angles. And, as you've already noted, the change in angle could be caused by the hands themselves and not the camera.

I hope this doesn't come out the wrong way, but why did the number jump from 100+ feet to 150+ feet? I should note that I wouldn't have asked this question if you had originally said 100+ feet and then settled on the more concrete 150 feet.

For me, there's enough apparent bend between these frames to doubt the illusion hypothesis.
Click to expand...

This would imply that you've seen frames 62-71. If this is correct, could you please share them with the rest of us?
 
Mangler,
Just to clarify.. Do you have reason to believe this is not a full frame ?

352scale.bmp


Also, the footage seen in ' Mysterious Monsters ' looks less cropped than LMS ..
Do you have any information about the source of that footage ?

No biggy, if you don't have anything to add, but your insight is respected as always..


P.S.

It's worth repeating LTCK86's observation, that the one relatively clear shot of the sole of the foot, with those crisp piggys, is about as red as a flag can get ..


Sure would be nice to see the NASI digitization ..

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi2.html


Each of the 953 frames of the Patterson-Gimlin film were digitized three times, once each through red, green and blue filters. Each of these three colors was digitized using 12 bits (4,096 levels) at the rate of 2,656 pixels horizontally and 1,912 pixels vertically. This provided 36 bits per pixel at a digitization rate of slightly higher than 250 dots per millimeter (approximately 6,350 dots per inch) which was high enough to image the film grain. Each frame of the Patterson-Gimlin Film yielded a 30,470,144 byte Silicon Graphics (SGI) file composed of a 512 byte header followed by the pixels organized in 3 planes, one for each color. These frame data files were buffered locally on a Silicon Graphics workstation until twenty frames were accumulated which were then written to an 8mm Exabyte tape cartridge in Unix tar format. The twenty frame files were written twice to each tape to minimize the chance of a tape defect rendering a frame inaccessible.
Click to expand...

Again, we see where a first generation copy is only 23 feet of a 100 foot roll ...
 
I would like to submit frame 310 for comparison of the appearance of the right hand of Patty with frames 61 and 72. It looks like the glove is slipping off to me. Fingers appear longer, bend point appears different. Possible gap to sleeve? Thoughts? I think the dark line, pointed out by sweaty, rules out motion blur as a lengthening factor. You can still see the dark line on the edge of the hand pretty well. Am I seeing things again? :D



310.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greg,

Like I said in an earlier post I lost my hard drive awhile back so I can’t post what I had, but I made a quick one as an example. All one has to do is take the same frame, 352 for example, from the different clips and/or stills, dvd, vhs whatever the format, overlay them and you will see what I mean, they have all been cropped different ways. The reason could be as simple as different aspect ratios needed for different viewing purposes. BTW, I’m not really trying to imply that something deceitful happened with this film so please don’t infer that, what I’m trying to say is that without the master this question mark will remain.

I am not 100 percent certain but it’s possible that one of the ANE copies used for a documentary (Bigfoot: Man or Beast? (1971) /maybe one that went to the theaters?) could be full frame, the problem is without a known full frame for reference, like the cibas (if in fact they are true full frame), it could be hard to tell. As LT observed perforation marks don’t necessarily make it full frame, unless they are on the cibas. When I stated above that the Master copy was cropped I was referring to the Master copy that Davis was referring to. Until the person and/or people come forward that actually printed/duped all of these different copies I doubt we will ever know what the hell happened.


M

This example is not perfect by any means but it’s close enough for this circus.
 
mangler said:
Lu,

The point is Tule Elk was stated, this statement needed/needs to be corrected, regardless of who said it. Other than that I could really care less.

BTW, I'm well aware of the location of the different elk herds in the St. Helens region, as well as where one would find hybrids etc. When you get your email back from the WDFW, if you feel the need we can discuse this more. I'll provide the maps if need be.


m
Click to expand...

I haven't e-mailed them yet. I agree the statement should be corrected if Rick was in error, but isn't that something that should be taken up with him?

Rick's point was that there were no Roosevelt Elk in the area and the difference in knee size wouldn't be great in any event. The hunk he used didn't fit the impression in the Skookum Cast.

He may have meant Roosevelt but said Tule. Hard to correct a mistake on live radio if you don't catch it.

I just dropped in to see what SY was up to here after checking another thread and saw my name. I don't see a need to discuss elk, especially on a PGF thread.

Ciao.
 
Last edited:
mangler said:
I am not 100 percent certain but it’s possible that one of the ANE copies used for a documentary (Bigfoot: Man or Beast? (1971) /maybe one that went to the theaters?) could be full frame, the problem is without a known full frame for reference, like the cibas (if in fact they are true full frame), it could be hard to tell. As LT observed perforation marks don’t necessarily make it full frame, unless they are on the cibas. When I stated above that the Master copy was cropped I was referring to the Master copy that Davis was referring to. Until the person and/or people come forward that actually printed/duped all of these different copies I doubt we will ever know what the hell happened.
Click to expand...

The Dahinden Cibachromes are important evidence, and I've said before that Eric Dahinden ought to make them available for research and inquiry. It's a damn shame that we do not have modern high-quality digital scans of these images to look at. I suspect that these Cibachromes include (near) full frames as well as crops. The first Ciba to be shown in print was Frame 352 in Manlike Monsters on Trial. It was not full frame in that book (but the original Ciba could be full frame). That image also has the controversial right hand. I think it was drawn onto the Cibachrome to replace what looks like a featureless stump. Some think this is a film defect that just happens to look like a hand. If we could inspect the original Dahinden Cibachrome, we could probably make better judgements on whether this is a flaw or was intentional. We have similar questions about Perfectfoot. Which piece of film (we already know the frame number) is the one that can be enlarged to show the perfect foot and toes? Where and when was the first time that Perfectfoot was shown to the world? Who did the work that brought us Perfectfoot? It is shown in Meldrum's paper. Was that the first time? Is that a Dahinden Cibachrome, or an enlargement from one of the film copies?

Concerning what people saw in theaters: Was this theatrical film really as short as 90 seconds? All I've ever seen is less than a minute of Patty and less than 20 seconds of other stuff (riding, casting, cast display). Did original viewers see much more riding, scenery, etc. that would make it a longer film? Was it always 16mm, or did it ever get put onto 35 or 70mm?
 
LAL said:
Wasn't the original dispute over the size of the elk knee and whether there are Roosevelt Elk in the area at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, and Roosevelt Elk are found in the area of the Skookum Cast, and they grow significantly larger than 650 lbs. Using smaller Rocky Mountain Elk to eliminate all elk as the possible culprit, equates finding what appears to be feline prints, and then using lynx body parts to eliminate the possibility of cougar. :boggled:

I'm still not sure I get this whole achilles tendon bit anyway. See, I'm not sure I fully understand how having a clearly defined achilles tendon (as the Skookum Squatch supposedly has) relates to having a midtarsal break. Why would squatch require both? And why do we see what appears to be a calf muscle flexing in the PGF, but no achilles tendon?

RayG
 
LAL said:
Rick's point was that there were no Roosevelt Elk in the area and the difference in knee size wouldn't be great in any event. The hunk he used didn't fit the impression in the Skookum Cast.
Click to expand...

Apparently Rick was wrong about no Roosevelt Elk in the area. Why should one assume that using the knee of a larger animal wouldn't result in larger measurements? The hunk that was used that didn't fit was from a smaller Rocky Mountain Elk. Roosevelt Elk grow nearly twice as large. Declaring the imprint a sasquatch without ruling out elk is shoddy science.

RayG
 
GT/CS said:
Sweaty, what is the dark band that is about 4" above your arrows?
Click to expand...

All I know about it is that it's a dark area.

In this high-quality image of Frame 352, there is no indication of a band around either arm...

Pat1.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
All I know about it is that it's a dark area.

In this high-quality image of Frame 352, there is no indication of a band around either arm...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pat1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So you pick one frame that does not happen to show the band and post that as evidence of no band?!! The other frames clearly show a band, which proves a bloke in a suit......unless you can think of some other rational explanation.
 
LAL said:
I just dropped in to see what SY was up to here after checking another thread and saw my name. I don't see a need to discuss elk, especially on a PGF thread.

Ciao.
Click to expand...

So I take it that, since you're leaving, you won't be telling me whether or not that factoid about the height of the subject of the Snow Walker video was what made Dr. Meldrum think it was real? Oh well, it's a good thing that I'm handy with a search engine...

"They used a kind of snowshoe foot for the tracks, so the measurements for the figure came out to 9'." Okay, so it looks like the height is what made him think it was real. I find it odd that an expert in primate locomotion didn't notice that the subject of the video was struggling through the snow instead of being relatively at ease with it. After all, wouldn't we expect an animal that lived all its life in such an environment to be able to move with little difficulty?

I also found this quote from another one of your posts on the Snow Walker footage: "Eventually, after Paranormal Borderline was cancelled, the producers finally outright admitted the hoax, and explained how it was done."

In other words, they confessed after they figured that no more money could be made from the series.

From an alleged 12/20/96 e-mail from Dr. Meldrum found here:

The matter has been taken up by a German TV producer. She has made contact both with First TV and with the former producer of Paranormal Borderline, at least the latter seems cooperative. The video was purchased by First TV $2000. She has shown the episode footage to German specialists in Himalyan region who confirmed that the scenery is consistent with the region, and to a German zoologist who was impressed by the video. I have suggsted that she try checking the tour permits with the appropriate Nepalese government agency for a Belgian or French couple. I am trying to do some checking through my Nepalese wildlife biologist contact."
Click to expand...

Funny how he didn't do any double-checking about the scenery, or else we would've found that it was consistent with Mammoth Mountain, California.

Here's some more stuff on the Snow Walker video.
 
William Parcher said:
Concerning what people saw in theaters: Was this theatrical film really as short as 90 seconds? All I've ever seen is less than a minute of Patty and less than 20 seconds of other stuff (riding, casting, cast display). Did original viewers see much more riding, scenery, etc. that would make it a longer film? Was it always 16mm, or did it ever get put onto 35 or 70mm?
Click to expand...

I have a question to add: If it was shown as a short film prior to getting included in documentaries, did it have a copyright notice anywhere on it? I ask because the lack of the copyright notice on a film upon its release is what got "Night of the Living Dead" thrown into the public domain. It's original title card (baring the name "Night of the Flesh Eaters") had a copyright notice on it, but the notice was accidentally left off when the film was given a new title card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom