Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[bruto]

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

Pro: there's a film.

Con: you can't say for sure what it's a film of.

 

[Drewbot]

It seems like all the stories about Patterson coming home after the shooting and showing Bill Green and these people being totally fooled by the film and Rogers story.

But here is one showing that not everyone got fooled.

The wire services were permitted to view but the owners were excluded and within fifteen minutes the 'scientists'* announced that "It is not kosher (a funny word to use for a spokesman of a scientific organization) because it is impossible".
Upon this, LIFE washed their hands of the whole thing and LOOK followed suit on the grounds that if the AMNH said it was a phony, it was. At this point we pounced; and contract was signed between the owners and Mr. Hal Steeger, publisher of ARGOSY, late that night. We then went to work to round up some other scientists and notably physical anthropologists.

Also- In regards to the 'American Bigfoot' leader on some of the films.
Could it be that this was a copy of a BBC produced piece, which they sent back to Patterson, and for their purposes, they put 'American Bigfoot' on the leader? Since it was to be sent back to America for Roger Patterson. He then Copied it and sent it out. (meaning it was a Bigfoot movie, slated for American Distribution)

This is the status of the story as of now. A copy of the BBC Documentary, enclosing several runs of Patterson's 'strip' is being given to Roger for private showing in this country and for sale to TV or other outlets. It is rather amusing, but typical of such incidents, that all the networks here, several independents, some film companies and a host of agents are now scrambling for an exclusive first showing here. Thus we have avoided the wipe and maybe saved the scientific discovery of the age, but there is a long way to go yet. A film is not conclusive proof of the existence of anything. Only a dead, stunned specimen, or a skull, will prove the matter and convince the scientists and other skeptics. Roger has to get back into the field to obtain such. Meantime, we know of no less than nine other serious minded and in some cases fully financed outfits that are going into the field this spring. The funny thing about this case is that the topnotch scientists most deeply concerned with the specialty are taking it very seriously. Further, most of these scientists are government employed, and both the Canadian and American Governments themselves are deeply interested. This is something quite new in fortean endeavor.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/pursuit68.htm

 

[Crowlogic]

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?

Maybe the leader says American Bigfoot because Patterson had actually gone internationl in his quest to hoax. They could have gone down to Mexico and dashed off a reel or two of Kodachrome then gone up to Canada and put Bobo H through his paces in Manitoba or Winnipeg. Why not just about everything else has been attributed to these guys. So golly there may be reels with leaders that say Mexican Bigfoot as well as Canadian Bigfoot. Bet Gimlin's truck was worn out after all that international traveling.

 

[Crowlogic]

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

Ok Cheese eating Gerbil it is then!

 

[Crowlogic]

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

Tsig

And still I wait! What are your credentials concerning the knowledge of optics that you've been battering Bill Munns with?

 

[Dfoot]

It's comparison time....thanx to Dfoot......


Here is 'Paddy Stiffy'....

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/stiffpadding2.gif


...and here is 'Patty Flexy'......

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk56.gif

Hey Sweaty - I appreciate you being here as you sort of stand in for many of the views expressed on the BFF that I'm no longer allowed to refute there.

Atomic Mystery Monster had asked me about an old pic he'd seen of me with some faux fur wrapped around my leg. That's all the above video is of - an early example of me simply safety pinning fur around a thin pad on my leg. It was one of the first things I did. Yet instead of looking at the hair and wondering why it looks so similar to our Patty, you've done what Dr. Daegling mentioned about believers in the film. You are exhibiting that psychological block to seeing what is really there due to a die-hard belief and wish for it to be real. Hoaxers use this kind of behavior to dupe smart people all the time.

Here is what causes the little bump that is constantly being referred to as a "thigh injury". ---

The skin layer is both glued and stitched to the foam underlayer. There is a spot on the thigh where the glue isn't holding and a tiny portion is loose. The rubber kneecap has stitching around it. During the downward stomp the kneecap pad pushes up on the little bubble. That is what you are seeing.

Meanwhile, it's fascinating to watch Dr. Meldrum and others go back and forth staring at the close ups of this while totally ignoring the in-your-face edge of the thigh pad that wraps around the leg.

Since all I did was safety pin a bit of fabric around my thigh you don't get the glued on effect. However, I could try to recreate this "thigh injury" by performing the glued layer trick for you sometime. Even better, you could actually experiment with this yourself instead of just using your imagination and Bigfoot fan-talk to shore up your belief.


On the LEFT is Patty. On the RIGHT is a bear suit. In the movie it's worn in the idea is that someone has made a ceremonial bear costume out of old bear hides. Of course, the costume isn't made of real bear hides, it's acrylic fur with a type of vinyl rubber skin. The make up fx people lightened some hairs and shaved off others to get this effect on the arm.

Here is that bear costume being worn by an actor next to Patty. The shoulder and elbow have similar pads in them to Patty's. The actor isn't wearing gloves at all and his fingers go to the end of the sleeve.

The red areas show where pads are. The green "puckering" is something you can spot on Patty's back. Since the fabric is glued tight to the foam except in the area where the scapula is it will look smooth as long as the arms hang down. When the arms swing back the movement creates the puckering around the glue and stitches.

This foam suit isn't what is under Patty's skin. Yet it might give you an idea of how the scapula pad sits beneath that skin.


So check out the kneecap pad and see if you can spot the stitching above and below it.

A good example of a foam suit would be the one above. Patty isn't nearly as detailed as this one. Patty's shoulders do not follow natural lines as this foam suit does. They curve the wrong way.

Remember, the reason you see the top line of Patty's thigh pad is because the suit was meant to be worn by a shorter person like Janos. If Janos wore Patty and did his "ape squat" walk you'd never see the thigh pad line. With a 6'1" cowboy walking along a sand bar.... well... it stares us in the face.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I am curious if you have read this assessment by W. H. Fahrenbach on kodachrome resolution and if so whats your take? Doesnt this limit the range of details such as muscle movement, thigh hernias etc. that can be claimed to be seen in the PGF.

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

That is an interesting article about resolution and goes with the argument I made a few pages back where I stated people were seeing "faces in the clouds" when analyzing the PGF.
According to this article, somebody looking at the ORIGINAL film would only be able to resolve something down to about 1-2 ". However, that does not include the fact that what we are seeing is a copy of the film and not the original. You can not make an EXACT duplicate of the original film, which means the resolution will not be as good as the original. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1-2" resolution was achieved and probably was more like 3-4" at best.
Looking for seams and small telltale signs of a suit seems unlikely faced with this type of resolution capabilities. Unless the suit had some outrageous flaws, it is unlikely that anything obvious would be found. This means that even an amateur-made suit might just pass for being Patty as long as it looked real enough as to what people think bigfoot should look like.
Until somebody can demonstrate the resolution power of the camera and film used under the conditions of the original film are better than the analysis above, then any claims that such things can or can not be seen are without merit and can be considered wishful/biased thinking/analysis.

 

[Hitch]

Pro: there's a film.

Con: you can't say for sure what it's a film of.

I think you're being over-generous. Lately, I'm not sure any more that there is a film. All these video clips, animated gifs, enhanced still frames, etc. could be part of an elaborate hoax. Can anyone say for certain where the PGF is and if it actually exists?

 

[Hitch]

That is an interesting article about resolution and goes with the argument I made a few pages back where I stated people were seeing "faces in the clouds" when analyzing the PGF.
According to this article, somebody looking at the ORIGINAL film would only be able to resolve something down to about 1-2 ". However, that does not include the fact that what we are seeing is a copy of the film and not the original. You can not make an EXACT duplicate of the original film, which means the resolution will not be as good as the original. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1-2" resolution was achieved and probably was more like 3-4" at best.
Looking for seams and small telltale signs of a suit seems unlikely faced with this type of resolution capabilities. Unless the suit had some outrageous flaws, it is unlikely that anything obvious would be found. This means that even an amateur-made suit might just pass for being Patty as long as it looked real enough as to what people think bigfoot should look like.
Until somebody can demonstrate the resolution power of the camera and film used under the conditions of the original film are better than the analysis above, then any claims that such things can or can not be seen are without merit and can be considered wishful/biased thinking/analysis.

That's just it. If the reproductions of the PGF that we see today are to be believed, there are "outrageous flaws" visible. Diaper butt, thigh fold, completely unrealistic breasts...

And yet people still want to believe. Fox Mulder, we salute you.

 

[LTC8K6]

The diaper butt does not actually exist on Patty. It's created by the outline of a log in between Patty and the camera.

 

[Óðinn]

That is an interesting article about resolution and goes with the argument I made a few pages back where I stated people were seeing "faces in the clouds" when analyzing the PGF.
According to this article, somebody looking at the ORIGINAL film would only be able to resolve something down to about 1-2 ". However, that does not include the fact that what we are seeing is a copy of the film and not the original. You can not make an EXACT duplicate of the original film, which means the resolution will not be as good as the original. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1-2" resolution was achieved and probably was more like 3-4" at best.
Looking for seams and small telltale signs of a suit seems unlikely faced with this type of resolution capabilities. Unless the suit had some outrageous flaws, it is unlikely that anything obvious would be found. This means that even an amateur-made suit might just pass for being Patty as long as it looked real enough as to what people think bigfoot should look like.
Until somebody can demonstrate the resolution power of the camera and film used under the conditions of the original film are better than the analysis above, then any claims that such things can or can not be seen are without merit and can be considered wishful/biased thinking/analysis.

Being an astrophotographer I thought you would pick up on this. The film resolution limits doesn't equate to inches unless you factor in the distances from the camera and the image size. I'm not discounting Fahrenbach's resolution estimate of 63 lines/mm (+ or - ?) but then you have to measure Patty's image size and correlate that to a known physical height. So what frame represents the minimum distance from the camera? It seems that Patty's height and distance from the camera aren't even addressed in Fahrenbach's blurb. Fahrenbach is obviously not a film expert.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....... I am content with the people who do take me seriously, and I don't mind that you are not among them.
....

So, you only take people who agree with you, seriously ?


But, you expect us to take you seriously ?

 

[LTC8K6]

The film resolution limits doesn't equate to inches unless you factor in the distances from the camera and the image size.

Fahrenbach is speaking mostly about when you enlarge an image, though. This is what virtually all examinations of the PGF have been based on, enlarged images.

If the original's best resolution is X, what is the resolution when you enlarge the original hundreds of times? Those life size blowups that veryone says look so good come immediately to mind.

His stated resolution for the original negative should be accurate since he is speaking of the best you could get under ideal conditions and specifiying that it's actually much worse in reality.

One problem for Fahrenbach is the perfect toes frame. How did we get that, when we can't get any such resolution in any other frames? We have found pretty good shots of Patty's left hand facing the camera. No sign whatsoever of an individual finger, though. If we can see Patty's toes, why can't we see fingers and a distinct nose, eyes, and lips?

 

[tsig]

So, you only take people who agree with you, seriously ?


But, you expect us to take you seriously ?

He's a footer all the way just hasn't got the guts to say it here Sad.

 

[rgann]

Sorry I missed that last question. I'm fairly certain that it's a spool and you would replace your take-up spool with the one you just used, and then thread the new spool. I think you could safely get away with swapping out under a jacket or poncho…

M

Thanks for the info coupled with the internal shot LT posted of the K-100 my questions where answered. I was in a camera shop here in San Francisco that was relocating and they where closing out all it old 16mm, 8mm & Super 8mm gear (my favorite, still have a great little Nizo I break out occasionally) and noticed what I thought was a 16mm Cartridge and was curious.

Rick

 

[mangler]

Astro,

I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at here;

“You can not make an EXACT duplicate of the original film, which means the resolution will not be as good as the original. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1-2" resolution was achieved and probably was more like 3-4" at best.”

K2, 25 ISO had an RSM of 11 with 63 to 100 lines per mm (the K2 40 probably would have been less). Velvia 50D/ Cinevia has an RMS of 9 and is rated high in resolving power; today’s high rating is between 100 and 149 lines per mm. So actually it might be possible for a person to tweak the film process (time, temp etc.) to degrade the 50D back to ballpark K2 specs. On the plus side the 50D is E-6 process so any joe with access to an E-6 machine could screw with it. Don’t get me wrong it’s a little more complicated than this but I see no reason to go into elaborate detail at this point.

Both lens and film will contribute to the films final resolution. The optical resolution of the lens has to be factored in, only then will you get an accurate lp/mm read. It’s a simple formula.

Astro if I’m confused as to what you were implying I apologize.



m

 

[mangler]

rgann,

Too funny I just missed that one again. Kodak did in fact load 16mm Cartridge's for some of their cameras but as far as I know the Cine K100 was not one of them.


m

 

[rgann]

Thanks for the reference to the kodachrome resolution. I had not read it, but will put it into my notes for reference.

Regards your question about limiting range of detail that can be extracted, I agree it does. My hope is to find out more about how much it limits perception of detail, from a testable position...

Glad you enjoyed the read, it’s the one sticking point for me on many of the really detailed claims many have made over the years. I look forward seeing more of your results.

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...

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...

Bill

Thanks for the clarification on those statements, I completely understood that you where not ruling these out, but simply based on the parameters of your working hypothesis and your expertise these elements where settled, to paraphrase its not a judgment on whether what is being seen in the PGF is real or not but whether the individual items are outside the capabilities of 1960’s technology.

However the statements in my opinion are definitive and are making a judgment that won’t go over big with proponents but based on what I’ve read your goal is to use the tried and true Scientific Method and let the evidence speak for itself.

I will be sure when and if I quote these statements to keep them in context; I have had conversations at BFF and with people here that felt these items (in and of themselves) where not possible using late 1960’s materials and technology. Just as a side note, I am often surprised at how that era is considered archaic. Things like the space program and Duane Hansens work must have been anomalies.

Rick

 

[Óðinn]

LTC8K6:

Enlarging an image doesn't affect the limits of film resolution. When an enlargement adds to the detail it becomes an issue. All the enlarged images we see are digital anyways. Digital and film are different animals.

His stated resolution for the original negative should be accurate since he is speaking of the best you could get under ideal conditions and specifiying that it's actually much worse in reality.

What would be the difference in resolution between Roger's foot and Patty at 200 feet? The image size and its physical dimensions must be factored in.

One problem for Fahrenbach is the perfect toes frame. How did we get that, when we can't get any such resolution in any other frames? We have found pretty good shots of Patty's left hand facing the camera. No sign whatsoever of an individual finger, though. If we can see Patty's toes, why can't we see fingers and a distinct nose, eyes, and lips?

We can see some features better than others for many reasons. Shutter speed, motion, lighting, lens quality, etc. affects what can be identified on film. Attempting to nail down what detail we can theoretically see on film isn't so simple. We not only see toes at 150+ feet from the camera, we see the shadows between them. That's certainly better than + or - 4" of resolution. Patty gets much closer to the camera than the perfectfoot frame. Many other features get over/under exposed and motion blurred. It's a crapshoot.

 

[rgann]

...I wonder why it says, "American Bigfoot". Isn't this date too early for American National Enterprises?

WP

Good question, I agree, 1968 would have been in the middle of the Northwest Research Associations barn storming with the film.

Here are two clippings I have from that time period. The first I have not seen an exact year attributed to it, but it clearly shows that by March of 68-69 the BBC had put together Patterson’s footage with additional footage entitling it simply “Bigfoot” completely speculative, the BBC may have designated the American Bigfoot?

The second shows that Green and Dahinden had the rights on Jan 12 1968, no idea where copies where made and when.

Rick