• 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.
this high-quality image of Frame 352, there is no indication of a band around either arm...
Click to expand...

I see the bands. Not as clearly, but they are there. Keep in mind that in this clear frame, Patty's hands are not visible. The right one is blocked by a stump, the left one is just a mystery.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I see the bands. Not as clearly, but they are there. Keep in mind that in this clear frame, Patty's hands are not visible. The right one is blocked by a stump, the left one is just a mystery.
Click to expand...

The mysteriously deformed or "missing" left hand of Patty is yet another bit of evidence pointing in the direction of the film being legit.

Why would Roger have created a suit with a normal-looking right hand, with mechanically-controlled fingers....and then make the left hand deformed??? :boggled:

It makes absolutely NO sense....except to a skeptic.
 
Thanks for posting those 2 doll-hand images, in post #8532, AMM.

doll2.gif
doll1.gif


They demonstrate how the doll-hand illusion is not what's going on with Patty's finger-bending.

In the image where the doll fingers appear more bent, the hand appears wider.

DollHand2.gif


Yet, in the image where Patty's fingers appear more bent....the hand does not appear any wider......in fact, at the joint where it bends, it appears thinner.
 
Last edited:
Why would Roger have created a suit with a normal-looking right hand, with mechanically-controlled fingers....and then make the left hand deformed???
Click to expand...

Why do you assume Roger made the hand appear that way deliberately?

Since your argument assumes a suit, couldn't it have had a loose hand or glove?
 
SweatyYeti said:
Thanks for posting those 2 doll-hand images, AMM.

They demonstrate how the doll-hand illusion is not what's going on with Patty's finger-bending.

In the image where the doll fingers appear more bent, the hand appears wider.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/DollHand2.gif[/qimg]

Yet, in the image where Patty's fingers appear more bent....the hand does not appear any wider......in fact, at the joint where it bends, it appears thinner.
Click to expand...

Come on, Sweaty. Why does Patty have a perfecty straight band across her wrist? Was she tagged by the forest service for tracking purposes? Then it's a conspiracy!!!
 

Attachments

  • handmove1.gif
    handmove1.gif
    45.5 KB · Views: 87
SweatyYeti said:
Thanks for posting those 2 doll-hand images, in post #8532, AMM.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/doll2.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/doll1.gif[/qimg]

They demonstrate how the doll-hand illusion is not what's going on with Patty's finger-bending.
Click to expand...

We must be looking at different stills, because the pictures of those doll hands are dead-ringers for Patty's hands. Maybe you'd see it if someone positioned the straightened doll hand so that it was at the same angle that Patty's hand appears to be...

In the image where the doll fingers appear more bent, the hand appears wider.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/DollHand2.gif[/qimg]

Yet, in the image where Patty's fingers appear more bent....the hand does not appear any wider......in fact, at the joint where it bends, it appears thinner.
Click to expand...

I'm not married to any particular theory, but as I (and Spektator) recall, someone pointed out that this wasn't quite the case. I also remember someone pointing out that plastic doll hands and rubber gorrilla gloves wouldn't be an 100% match since they're not the same thing, but I must admit that I find the resemblence of the hand positions to be quite compelling.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only if you REALLY want to know...alright then. You can look at the gargoyle with any lens you want and it won't change the parallax effect. It's completely dependent on the distance between 3 objects, the background object, the foreground object and the camera. The closer the foreground object is to the camera, the more it appears to move relative to the background object when you change your POV.
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, the change in angle must come from the hands, not the change in POV.

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.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that Patty was 100 feet from the camera in frames 61-72. I don't think the exact conditions are required to see if the hand illusion can be recreated. I suggested being 100 feet from the camera to ensure that all parts of the hand are evenly scaled.

Incidentally, I had a closer look at the doll hand stills and I call BS. I still don't see any articulation, but I contend that the fingers have been straightened. It's real easy to do, and who ever originally posted this animation must be getting a good chuckle from it all. This is NOT an illusion. I don't believe the doll hand could be orientated into the change we see. The camera position hasn't changed and the doll hand hasn't been rotated. IMO, this amounts to fraud. I would prefer to debunk the PGF legitimately.

This would imply that you've seen frames 62-71. If this is correct, could you please share them with the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Okay. I found frames 62-67 which show the frames right after the bent digit. Unfortunately, they're in a gif that exceeds the limit. I guess I could split it up and post the frames if you're REALLY interested. Let me know.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, I had a closer look at the doll hand stills and I call BS. I still don't see any articulation, but I contend that the fingers have been straightened. It's real easy to do, and who ever originally posted this animation must be getting a good chuckle from it all.
Click to expand...

That's a strong accusation...
 
Óðinn said:
Incidentally, I had a closer look at the doll hand stills and I call BS.
....
Click to expand...

Then you are being fooled ..

We discussed this at length earlier in the thread .. ( Or it might have been the ' Simple Challenge ,,,, ' thread ... ) The source of those photos demonstrated clearly that the fingers are rigid..


Fool me once.... etc... ;)


Hey Spektator ! I think you have just been called a liar ...

Wet noodles at forty paces .. I will be proud to stand as your second sir ...
 
Last edited:
RayG said:
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:
RayG
Click to expand...

Just when was this established? Roosevelt Elk are in the coast ranges. Rick said the Skookum area elk are mix of Rocky Mountain and Tule (which were once more widespread). Even if they're a mix of Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain, they are presumably smaller than Roosevelt.

The 650 lbs. was dressed weight, wasn't it? Regardless of size, the shape is wrong.

But back to the PGF. Someone (Parcher? I'm not finding the post) mentioned Bigfoot: Man or Beast? It's available from Retroflicks (I have it) and it doesn't have much on the PGF other than the footge and shots of riding and casting. It does have Fred Beck and Albert Ostman in interviews as well as Dr. Krantz and John Green. It's mostly about a Robert Morgan expedition and his picture is on the cover with the caption: "With your host, Grover Krantz."

Regarding any financial interests of Roger Patterson in ANE, John Green addressed this when the book came out.

"I know that Roger Patterson was not employed by American National to assist in the production of their Bigfoot movie, because I had that job, and I still have the correspondence to prove it. Korff has also claimed at times that the making of the movie was somehow a Mormon conspiracy. Ron Olson, son of one of the three owners of American National, says that none of them were Mormons, and that their only association with Patterson was that they paid him for using his footage in their movie. In his article Korff glosses over the fact that “The Making of Bigfoot” contains two detailed, specific, totally contradictory descriptions of the costume supposedly worn in Patterson's movie, one by the man who claims to have worn it, the other by the man who claims to have made it."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/response_si.htm
 
LTC8K6 said:
Sweaty, do we ever get a good look at Patty's left hand? Any good stills? Maybe frame 375ish?
Click to expand...



You got it, LTC....a great, unobstructed look :eye-poppi at Patty's left ( deformed ) hand.....


Pat1.jpg



This is a top-quality Cibachrome picture of Frame 352. Small details are visible in it, such as the dark shading underneath the right leg calf muscle.

If Patty had a normal laft hand, a 'normal left hand' would be clearly visible in this picture.The hand doesn't appear normal.....because it isn't.

It's as simple as that.
 
SweatyYeti said:
You got it, LTC....a great, unobstructed look :eye-poppi at Patty's left ( deformed ) hand.....


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


This is a top-quality Cibachrome picture of Frame 352. Small details are visible in it, such as the dark shading underneath the right leg calf muscle.

If Patty had a normal laft hand, a 'normal left hand' would be clearly visible in this picture.The hand doesn't appear normal.....because it isn't.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

All I see is a fuzzy blob. How about presenting a picture with a little more detail?

BTW Sweaty, any luck explaining the sleeve/glove band?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom