Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[mangler]

Cheese Eaters, Gerbils, I’ll proudly wear the jersey of either. Off we go.

Since the master seems to have vanished and the processing site of the film is still in question, the following statement by Fahrenbach should be heeded, “The emulsion that was used by Patterson was, as far as is known, Kodachrome II”. (bolding mine)

To help eliminate some of the rhetoric and rhetorical reasoning that goes on in bigfootsville I would suggest before any accurate studies of this film be attempted it seems reasonable that the actual type of film should be a known and not an assumed. IMO this would be the first of many difficult hurdles in an attempt at emulating this film.

Depending on film type something as innocent as improper storage (prior or post process) can create dramatic effects in the films properties. Another consideration would be light damage to the master and/or first gen copies from over projection. Light damage is very cumulative.

The fact of the matter is, it is not even known for certain if the John Green and Patricia Patterson first generation copies are in fact first generation. There is absolutely no chain of custody documentation when it comes to this film; this in itself is an emphatically large problem.

With that said.

Bill, I think if I were going to attempt what you are with the re-filming (if in fact you do attempt it) I would take a serious look at Velvia 50D aka Cinevia as compared to 7285, if you over expose a bit (change the in camera ISO rating) you’ll bring the saturation down and get your gain in contrast. I think you can get 50D in 16mm from Spectra Film down there in Hollyweird.

As I am certain you know K-2 (if in fact it was K-2) was known for it’s high contrast and moderate color saturation, I think if you talk to the right people they could probably set you up with what you want as far as tweaking the 50D (that film is tight). Another thing you might want to check into would be the K-12 process of the 60’s and it’s different dye sets, might even want to look into the lacquer they used at that time. There’s more to consider, but hey, it’s not my project.

Bill, you have bitten off a big old piece of this thing and I’m not sure that what you envision can be accurately accomplished, but I do wish you luck and I look forward to viewing the results.



m

 

[Bill Munns]

Mangler:

Excellent info on films. I will copy it over to the master file of stuff to consider. I'm not settled on the film yet, just hoping to get as close to the original as one can today.

I have thought about trying on some of the filmed tests, to subject the film to wear and tear (over projection isn't one i thought of, so I'll have to get a projector from a school AV department, so it'll hopefully scratch things up a bit too.)

I do remember KII well, used to shoot it in my Nikon for many years. And did shoot some in 16mm cameras too.

I know there are enough things different about the films today, and the known or reported chain of film handling events of the original that somebody will find an excuse to dismis what i'm trying to do, but if it helps me figure anything out, so I just feel I understand it better, than worth theeffort. And When I get it done, I will share the material as openly as I can, to all interested people.

I expect a few are already drafting their "but what about the film takes you're hiding because they prove . . . blah blah blah. speeches.

Thanks for the info, and I'll be pleased to share when there is something to share. Based on your knowledge of film, May i put you down as a prospect for peer review on the film handling?

Bill

 

[captain koolaid]

...I know there are enough things different about the films today, and the known or reported chain of film handling events of the original that somebody will find an excuse to dismis what i'm trying to do... I expect a few are already drafting their "but what about the film takes you're hiding because they prove . . . blah blah blah. speeches...

Bill

What is your position on this factor? It is a very important one, if not the key one, at this time. Are you going to proceed on the assumption that it must have been acheived in a single take, and shot?

 

[Bill Munns]

Captain Koolaid:

"What is your position on this factor? It is a very important one, if not the key one, at this time. Are you going to proceed on the assumption that it must have been acheived in a single take, and shot?"

Initially, i'm not recreating any scene with a suit. First I have to simply set up the whole process pipeline, filming equipment and tests, then processing tests, scanning tests, and seeing what i have to do to reliably reference the HD video to the film frames. So pipeline mechanics is number one.

Then, I'm just studying real hair on live animals, and known fur materials. Then I expect to move up to suit components like seams, and closures.

Next will probably be studies of furcloths in motion, with varying degrees of padding holding their form.

It's a long way for staging a full suit in a full "recreation."

So any specifications on a full scene recreation are way down the line.

Bill

 

[Bill Munns]

Mangler:

"Another thing you might want to check into would be the K-12 process of the 60’s and it’s different dye sets, might even want to look into the lacquer they used at that time. "

As i vaguely recall from those good old days, Kodachrome was Kodak's proprietary processing. They wouldn't let anyone do it, or even know how they did it, so they had a monopoly on the process. So (I have heard), they had to bring out the Ectachrome film and standard E-6 (I think) processing any lab could do, so other labs could process Kodak film. And the constant gripe was they held some things back only Kodachrome could do, so the Ectachrome wasn't as good.

May have been old cameraman gossip, not sure, but if so, that would make info on the kodachrome processing a bit harder to find. I will look into it though.

Bill

 

[tsig]

Captain Koolaid:

"What is your position on this factor? It is a very important one, if not the key one, at this time. Are you going to proceed on the assumption that it must have been acheived in a single take, and shot?"

Initially, i'm not recreating any scene with a suit. First I have to simply set up the whole process pipeline, filming equipment and tests, then processing tests, scanning tests, and seeing what i have to do to reliably reference the HD video to the film frames. So pipeline mechanics is number one.

Then, I'm just studying real hair on live animals, and known fur materials. Then I expect to move up to suit components like seams, and closures.

Next will probably be studies of furcloths in motion, with varying degrees of padding holding their form.

It's a long way for staging a full suit in a full "recreation."

So any specifications on a full scene recreation are way down the line.

Bill

And still we wait. Will you ever be done? Or will your work be forever in progress?

 

[captain koolaid]

Captain Koolaid:

"What is your position on this factor? It is a very important one, if not the key one, at this time. Are you going to proceed on the assumption that it must have been acheived in a single take, and shot?"

Initially, i'm not recreating any scene with a suit. First I have to simply set up the whole process pipeline, filming equipment and tests, then processing tests, scanning tests, and seeing what i have to do to reliably reference the HD video to the film frames. So pipeline mechanics is number one.

Then, I'm just studying real hair on live animals, and known fur materials. Then I expect to move up to suit components like seams, and closures.

Next will probably be studies of furcloths in motion, with varying degrees of padding holding their form.

It's a long way for staging a full suit in a full "recreation."

So any specifications on a full scene recreation are way down the line.

Bill

Fair enough. For clarification, what is your view, not of the suit/beast, but of the footage itself? Do you have no doubts that the original footage reflects the narrative as presented by those involved? Does it have no bearing on your project? Or would you prefer to not comment, at this time?

 

[Bill Munns]

tsig:

perrhaps you have heard of the "Golden Rule" (The one with the gold makes the rules). Well, with research, there is a corralary rule, "the one paying the gold gets to ask, "When will it be done?" Since I am paying for it right now, it will be done when I chose to get it done, and if you are impatient, you can go looking for some other researcher to hurry up.

Captain Koolaid;

In my research, I have specifically excluded all issue of the people and circumstances of the filming and stories about that. I literally am just taking what's on the film, at face value, what it shows. Can the materials of the time duplicate what's on the film. The film does exist. It has an image on it. Can the suit technology of the time have made that image? That's how narrow my premise is at this time.

rgann

The following is a thought that came to me in consideration of your questions, specifically in regard to my exclusions, the five points I said I had already decided warranted no further study on my part. Those were, 1. feet, 2. breasts, 3. a person fitting in the Patty figure, 4. the walk "the compliant gait", and 5. motions of hands and mouths.

You brought up that these issues are of considerable concern to proponents of the PG Film as real, and that my dismissal of these issues might upset or anger proponents.

So I thought it might be well to clarify that there is an important distinction between my study and larger research studies. Allow me to use the feet as the best example. I am simply looking at the film, and asking the question, "Can what I see have been created with suit technology of the time?" My answer is, absolutely, yes, in terms of what I see on film. So for me, the issue is settled.

But this is different than someone asking "are the feet real?" because a person researching this will most likely consider the footprints on the scene and the agruments of whether the technology of the time could fake the prints while the figure walked through the scene, or something like that. This research question is actually different than mine, and incorporates data and issues I am not, so while the foot issue is settled, relative to my specific hypothesis, it may not be settled in other research studies and debates.

I felt this disclaimer was important, because I've been seeing some people take portions of my notes out of context and tried to use them to advance arguments I actually am not making.

So, for clarity, while the five noted items are no longer in my research agenda, my setting them aside does not mean the whole issue is set aside. Other reserchers, with different hypothesis and focus in their research, may still feel the five noted elements are still in contention for study and potential conclusion. So, please do not take my postion of proof of some other hypothesis in this research.

 

[tsig]

tsig:

perrhaps you have heard of the "Golden Rule" (The one with the gold makes the rules). Well, with research, there is a corralary rule, "the one paying the gold gets to ask, "When will it be done?" Since I am paying for it right now, it will be done when I chose to get it done, and if you are impatient, you can go looking for some other researcher to hurry up.

Captain Koolaid;

In my research, I have specifically excluded all issue of the people and circumstances of the filming and stories about that. I literally am just taking what's on the film, at face value, what it shows. Can the materials of the time duplicate what's on the film. The film does exist. It has an image on it. Can the suit technology of the time have made that image? That's how narrow my premise is at this time.

rgann

The following is a thought that came to me in consideration of your questions, specifically in regard to my exclusions, the five points I said I had already decided warranted no further study on my part. Those were, 1. feet, 2. breasts, 3. a person fitting in the Patty figure, 4. the walk "the compliant gait", and 5. motions of hands and mouths.

You brought up that these issues are of considerable concern to proponents of the PG Film as real, and that my dismissal of these issues might upset or anger proponents.

So I thought it might be well to clarify that there is an important distinction between my study and larger research studies. Allow me to use the feet as the best example. I am simply looking at the film, and asking the question, "Can what I see have been created with suit technology of the time?" My answer is, absolutely, yes, in terms of what I see on film. So for me, the issue is settled.

But this is different than someone asking "are the feet real?" because a person researching this will most likely consider the footprints on the scene and the agruments of whether the technology of the time could fake the prints while the figure walked through the scene, or something like that. This research question is actually different than mine, and incorporates data and issues I am not, so while the foot issue is settled, relative to my specific hypothesis, it may not be settled in other research studies and debates.

I felt this disclaimer was important, because I've been seeing some people take portions of my notes out of context and tried to use them to advance arguments I actually am not making.

So, for clarity, while the five noted items are no longer in my research agenda, my setting them aside does not mean the whole issue is set aside. Other reserchers, with different hypothesis and focus in their research, may still feel the five noted elements are still in contention for study and potential conclusion. So, please do not take my postion of proof of some other hypothesis in this research.

More words no substance.

At some point you might want to use facts.

 

[Aepervius]

"I understand. I don't have to defend my opinion, or my right to express it. My opinion differs from yours. Live with it."

So what are you doing ? You qualify it as research when you want , and then qualify as opinion when in a corner ? Can we all now agree that what you express is just an opinion, and is not akin to proper research whatsoever ?

 

[carcharodon]

Quick recap of the last few pages:

Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Suitniks:

"I don't understand what you are talking about Bill because your analysis is way too detailed and expansive and goes right over my head but er, you're wrong......um because I say so. Oh yeah and because bigfoot doesn't exist. Nyah nyah"

Hey Sweaty. How ya doing mate? I see you are still here running rings around these sad little boys. They have been telling everybody who will listen every day for years that bigfoot doesn't exist. You'd think they'd get bored with it by now and go off and do something constructive instead. I guess they have nothing else to do with their time.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze:

You are taking two quote from entirely different discussions, and clearly confused. You said "best results" I didn't. and the quotes of mine don't mean what you misconstrue them to mean.

for example, where you quote me as saying "And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket. ", that was at the end of a probability study, based on an analysis of probable or improbable issues of circumstance, and "best results" of making a suit was not part of that discussion, so the quote has no relevence to your "best results" confusion.

In answer to your numbered questions:

1)Do you presume the figure is a mammal but not a primate?

My generalized assumption is it's a mammal, and if pressed for a better guess, I'd say primate most likely.

2) I'm explaining what is odd and unreal about Patty's breasts and asking you why you don't think they are odd or unreal as you state and what that opinion is based on. Do you understand?

I understand. I don't have to defend my opinion, or my right to express it. My opinion differs from yours. Live with it.

Yes, I must be confused, Munns. For some reason I've been getting the impression from your musings over at the bigfoot enthusiasts forum that you are promoting the likelihood that Patty is likely not a man in a suit.

I'm also confused about the disconnect here. Nobody said you don't have the right to dismiss glaring flaws of the PGF subject as non-issues. It's very simple. You say the things like the breasts are not unnatural and you are asked what you base that opinion on. I can live with your opinion no problem. But, Munns, I would like to understand it. Where it's coming from and why.

I have an opinion also. IMO you are a bigfoot proponent. You believe in bigfoot. You have for quite a long time. It doesn't matter if you were active or not in any bigfoot enthusiast community. You believe in bigfoot and it guides certain actions of yours. What do I base my opinion on? It shows in your writing. I also think your reconstruction of Giganto reflected your beliefs about a possible connection to bigfoot. It's an opinion. If you question me about it, maybe I'll just tell you I don't have to defend it and to live with it. It's also my opinion that you're learning to choose your words much more carefully when you are not swimming around the accolades of bigfoot fans who've chosen you as the current champion for their legitimacy strive. Again, just an opinion.

 

[kitakaze]

How I wish people would interpret the last few pages:

Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Suitniks:

"I don't understand what you are talking about Bill because your analysis is way too detailed and expansive and goes right over my head but er, you're wrong......um because I say so. Oh yeah and because bigfoot doesn't exist. Nyah nyah"

Fixed it.

I understand what Munns is saying just fine, Lyndon. I also understand that when somebody says that glaring indicators of a hoax are non-issues that what they are telling me isn't completely founded in unbiased observation.

Hey Sweaty. How ya doing mate? I see you are still here running rings around these sad little boys.

"If the fingers bend, you must pretend."

Oh, I'm dizzy!

They have been telling everybody who will listen every day for years that bigfoot doesn't exist. You'd think they'd get bored with it by now and go off and do something constructive instead. I guess they have nothing else to do with their time.

Lyndon, if you can restrain the urge to have another bigotry-laden Tourette's fit, then by all means tell the people why bigfoot does exist.

For example, why is it not true that the PGF is far, far more likely to be a hoax?

 

[kitakaze]

Munns, you may have already covered this but have you shared your thoughts on apparent musculature, short glossy hair, and bulk of the Hoffman subject?

 

[William Parcher]

WP and Worm

Something I just came across in regards to the leader/trailer cypher

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

In the second paragraph Glickman states that a first generation copy was made on Nov 8th 1968 on Eastman 78 Safety film so the leader shows 11-7-1968 clearly a date and the SF could be short for Safety Film. Hope that adds something.

That's great researching, Rick. The date on the leader perfectly coincides. I wonder why it says, "American Bigfoot". Isn't this date too early for American National Enterprises?

 

[William Parcher]

What is the earliest approximate time frame in which it is/was known that RP and BG were engaged in making a recreation of the "Roe Encounter"? Likewise a fictionalised doco of the "Bigfoot Hunting Adventures of Roger Patterson"?

It's only idle speculation that RP was intending to recreate the Roe encounter. If he was planning any kind of scene involving a costumed Bigfoot (as a recreation or a hoax), then he would need to come up with a pretend encounter situation. The Bigfoot has to be directed on how to act. The sudden mayhem with shakey camera is a creative touch and gives a real sense of spontaneity and realism. That's all besides the decision on how the suit/creature should look. He may have wanted a female BF subject right from the start. The Roe encounter female may have been the inspiration.

Who knows? Gimlin might know better than anyone about what was going on in Roger's head. It may be true that Ron Olson commissioned Patterson to make a film that showed Bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ronolson.htm

Ron Olson's story.

 

[GT/CS]

Quick recap of the last few pages:

Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Suitniks:

"I don't understand what you are talking about Bill because your analysis is way too detailed and expansive and goes right over my head but er, you're wrong......um because I say so. Oh yeah and because bigfoot doesn't exist. Nyah nyah"

Hey Sweaty. How ya doing mate? I see you are still here running rings around these sad little boys. They have been telling everybody who will listen every day for years that bigfoot doesn't exist. You'd think they'd get bored with it by now and go off and do something constructive instead. I guess they have nothing else to do with their time.

Looks like Sweaty has a sock......a sweat sock.

 

[Big Les]

My brain hurts. What's the best summary of pros and cons re this film, would you say?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Quick recap of the last few pages:

Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

And I have read quite a few OPINIONS from Munns peers that say it is a man in a suit. Conflicting opinions from suit experts means the issue is unresolved. So far, Munns has offerred nothing that suggest his OPINION is correct.