Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

Fine analysis of the film's history of study. Always fascinating to hear your thoughts.

"This virtually guarantees that trying to figured out whether or not Patty is a hoax based on the film is doomed to inconclusion. "

Here. I must disagree. I can't say that I will figure it out, based on my method, but I have confidence my effort isn't wasted or futile. I don't pursue things that are "doomed to inconclusion" and I have confidence i can sort out the lost causes from the challenges that have some potential for conclusion or success.

On the Kodachrome thing, I just wonder if it has been conclusively confirmed that the film was on Kodachrome stock. If by chance it was actually on Ectchrome stock, the lab/processing issue ceases to be problamatic. I do wonder if the Kodachrome description might somehow have been mis-reported. Just a thought.

Bill

 

[SweatyYeti]

AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:

I linked to that thread on Billy Meier specifically because after years of debate, analysis of his films, and exposures of his hoaxes, he still has supporters and his hoaxes are still being treated as a valid mystery.

Speaking of Billy Meier....I just saw this article about him, a couple of days ago....

"UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel - How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?"


http://www.topix.net/content/prweb/...the-towel-how-did-meier-beat-nasa-by-32-years


Excerpt from article...

Shortly after the release of 'The Silent Revolution of Truth' the lead case investigator for IIG, Derek Bartholomaus, was forced to retract his own claims (included in the Special Features section of the film) that Meier used model trees and UFOs to help hoax his clear, daytime UFO photos, films and video from the mid-1970s

 

[Correa Neto]

Maybe Patty, the real bigfoot, came from a real Martian civilization aboard one of the real saucers photographed by Meier!

For Beckjord, in memorian, Historian and the bigpigfoot guy...

 

[Drewbot]

A. Isn't there a problem with Comparing the creases on a existant quardrupedal Lowland Gorilla, with an Non-Existant Bipedal Hairy North American Foot-Ape?

B. Hasn't the hip crease on a living gorilla argument (with photo) been tried before?

C. Isn't the crease mostly in question on Patty, much lower on the thigh than the crease shown in the gorilla photo?

 

[Crowlogic]

A. Isn't there a problem with Comparing the creases on a existant quardrupedal Lowland Gorilla, with an Non-Existant Bipedal Hairy North American Foot-Ape?

B. Hasn't the hip crease on a living gorilla argument (with photo) been tried before?

C. Isn't the crease mostly in question on Patty, much lower on the thigh than the crease shown in the gorilla photo?[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705489b1cf436d4b.jpg[/qimg]

Drew the photo of the gorilla I posted is not meant as a direct comparison of Patty. It was posted to demonstrate that real living animals can exibit suit like details. That's all it says, that's all I meant. Of course it does move the bar so to speak in the effect that certain assumptions about real vs fake may not be blanket assumptions such as the notion that real animals can't have suit like details.

 

[Crowlogic]

Yeah, see, as I said it's not so much the horror spelling as the gobbledygook coherency that gives me trouble getting through your posts.

Not around here.

"Dullards" usually have a hard time following me.

 

[William Parcher]

Drew the photo of the gorilla I posted is not meant as a direct comparison of Patty. It was posted to demonstrate that real living animals can exibit suit like details. That's all it says, that's all I meant. Of course it does move the bar so to speak in the effect that certain assumptions about real vs fake may not be blanket assumptions such as the notion that real animals can't have suit like details.

There is a big problem with this particular comparison and any comparison to a living gorilla. It isn't really about the "bikini/diaper" lines. It's about the position and proximity of the gorilla.

Patty was never in this position (on all fours), nor was she filmed with clarity at such close range. If Patty was a suit and placed into this same situation it is likely that she would appear to a suit in very obvious ways. For example, if the suit is three pieces (head, torso, legs), you would probably see that the torso portion is very obviously a suit component and is not a complete animal body covered in a continuous skin. Like somebody moving on all fours while wearing a jacket. The jacket doesn't look like it's actually part of their body.

I'm saying that Patty was never in a position or camera proximity to give the best opportunity to declare her a suit. We can find clips and images of gorillas in a sorts of positions, some being close to the camera. But we only have multi-generation copies of a filmed Patty walking upright from pretty far away.

The consequence of that situation is that people can find images of gorillas that have features similar to what is being pointed out as suit flaws. You just did that. Believers take that kind of comparison and count is as a functional rebuttal to a skeptical point. But it's an unfair comparison because it cannot be "reversed". You can't look at this photo of a living gorilla and say that Patty looks the same way when she gets down on all fours right in front of the camera. She never does that and Patterson was never that close.

A living gorilla doesn't look like it's wearing a torso section of a suit (like a big jacket). The skin is continuous and motion dynamics will look just like a real gorilla torso. But the skeptic cannot use that kind of important comparison because it is unavailable. Patty was filmed only walking and at a distance. Believers can search through thousands of gorilla clips and stills to make their point, but skeptics are strictly limited to the single one minute film and a few hundred still frames.

In order to attempt to fool some people with the PGF, Patterson may have had no choice other than to film Patty from far away and basically just walking along. If he had filmed Patty crawling around from twenty feet away, the number of believers might be zero. Or close to zero. LOL.

 

[Correa Neto]

An observation:

I don't think that in this case its correct to say "real living animals can exibit suit like details". Maybe it would be better to write something like "suits can duplicate features/details seen in real live animals". Of course, this may be intentional or not. The details/features seen may depend, for example, on the pareidolia/peyote vision level of the interpreter and/or the level of image processing.

 

[William Parcher]

I have seen some guys in gorilla suits that look a lot like real gorillas, but I have never seen a real gorilla that looked like a guy in a suit.

Maybe real Bigfoots look like guys in Bigfoot costumes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

AMM:

......

On the Kodachrome thing, I just wonder if it has been conclusively confirmed that the film was on Kodachrome stock. If by chance it was actually on Ectchrome stock, the lab/processing issue ceases to be problamatic. I do wonder if the Kodachrome description might somehow have been mis-reported. Just a thought.

Bill

Actually, it doesn't... ( cease to be problematic )

The time line, of when and and how Patterson got the film to a lab of any kind, on the date he claimed, remains a problem ..

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

No.

In response to my question...

Is it possible for there to be 'reliable evidence' for Bigfoot's existence, without Bigfoot actually existing....either presently, or anytime within the period of recorded human civilization? Yes, or no?

So....you're saying that 'reliable evidence' for Bigfoot indicates a 100% likelihood, an absolute certainty, that Bigfoot exists.

Well, by definition.....any piece of evidence which indicates a 100% likelihood (an absolute certainty) that something exists, or is true, is called proof.


But just the other day, you said this......

Sweaty willfully tries to create for the reader the impression that there has not countless times been made a crystal clear distinction between what constitutes reliable evidence and proof.

Where is the distinction, kitty?? Both equate to proof, according to you.


Evidence which does not rise to the level of 100% certainty (proof), indicates only a chance of something being true....a 'percentage of probability' below 100%. Even if a piece of evidence indicates a 90% chance that something is real, or true, that something (Bigfoot's existence, in this case) may not be real, or true.

In other words, there can be strong evidence for Bigfoot's existence...without such a creature even existing. It would be highly unlikely, but still possible.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Speaking of Billy Meier....I just saw this article about him, a couple of days ago....

"UFO Skeptics Throw in the Towel - How Did Meier Beat NASA by 32 Years?"

http://www.topix.net/content/prweb/...the-towel-how-did-meier-beat-nasa-by-32-years

Wow, what a load of crap. The links provided in the thread I linked to clearly provide the things that article claims no skeptic has been able to reproduce. I also noticed that the source provided for the article you linked to comes from a website called http://theyfly.com. When I plugged that URL into Google, I got the following description:

"They Fly is the official site of Michael Horn, Billy Meier's authorized American media representative and features Meier's UFO photos, films, video,

Oh yeah, no bias there. Riiiiiiiight...

 

[bruto]

AMM:

Fine analysis of the film's history of study. Always fascinating to hear your thoughts.

"This virtually guarantees that trying to figured out whether or not Patty is a hoax based on the film is doomed to inconclusion. "

Here. I must disagree. I can't say that I will figure it out, based on my method, but I have confidence my effort isn't wasted or futile. I don't pursue things that are "doomed to inconclusion" and I have confidence i can sort out the lost causes from the challenges that have some potential for conclusion or success.

On the Kodachrome thing, I just wonder if it has been conclusively confirmed that the film was on Kodachrome stock. If by chance it was actually on Ectchrome stock, the lab/processing issue ceases to be problamatic. I do wonder if the Kodachrome description might somehow have been mis-reported. Just a thought.

Bill

On the other hand, if even that report is unreliable, and the original film so far lost as to be uncheckable, how does that reflect on the reliability of the account over all?

 

[Bill Munns]

Diogenes:

(My original statement you quoted) "On the Kodachrome thing, I just wonder if it has been conclusively confirmed that the film was on Kodachrome stock. If by chance it was actually on Ectchrome stock, the lab/processing issue ceases to be problamatic. I do wonder if the Kodachrome description might somehow have been mis-reported. Just a thought."

(Your statement) "Bill
Actually, it doesn't... ( cease to be problematic )

The time line, of when and and how Patterson got the film to a lab of any kind, on the date he claimed, remains a problem .. "

Well, I was a film student in college in 1967, and I routinely used Ektachrome 7255 16mm stock, in 100' daylight loads, and took them to labs for processing, so I can assure you, from my personal experience at the time, you can film something on a Friday afternoon, get it into a lab on Saturday for either a rush same day service (for an extra fee) or a Sat. processing for a Sunday morning pickup (two options, depending on the lab) if you are using E7255 film.

So Patterson's filming on a Friday, and viewing the film on a Sunday, is not problematic if it was Ektachrome 7255 film instead of Kodachrome stock. Can be done, I know, because I did it back then.

Bill



Bruno: Saw your comment after mine posted, so adding to reply.

"On the other hand, if even that report is unreliable, and the original film so far lost as to be uncheckable, how does that reflect on the reliability of the account over all? "

My only concern about the film stock question is that others sem to feel the timeline for filming and processing, as stated, must be false, based on an assumption of kodachrome processing, which i agree would not occur on a Saturday or as fast as the described film day and viewing day. I'm simply allowing that with an Ektachrome film stock, the described "Film on Friday, view on Sunday, is possible. So if people want to agrue the timeline is incorrect, it seems that verifying the stock was Kodachrome is a necesary foundation to that argument.

Personally, what I am evaluating does not require any timeline or film processing issues to impact on what I see and study. I just offered the Kodachrome/Ektachrome question as a point of curiosity. I don't know if it can be resolved, but if not, it doesn't impact on my analysis, but would cloud the issue for someone arguing the timeline is wrong, I would think.

Bill

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bill,

It's not that it couldn't be developed in the time line you suggest, it has to do with when Patterson claimed he was in a Post office, air-mailing the film.

I'm not going to provide the details we have dug up in the past 3 years . I's all here and at BFF .. I couldn't care less if you take my word for it..


Regarding the use of Ektachrome ; if Ektachrome was used, we probably would not be seeing the quality of film we see, poor as it is..

The resolvable resolution would be less, and the likelihood of any detail such as seams or cloth behavior being apparent would be decreased accordingly ..

So if you want to toss out the time-line problem based on the use of Ektachrome, go right ahead ..

 

[Crowlogic]

An observation:

I don't think that in this case its correct to say "real living animals can exibit suit like details". Maybe it would be better to write something like "suits can duplicate features/details seen in real live animals". Of course, this may be intentional or not. The details/features seen may depend, for example, on the pareidolia/peyote vision level of the interpreter and/or the level of image processing.

In the case of the gorilla photo the accurate thing to say is a real living animal exibiting suit like features. Its not a suit and therefore cannot be referred to as being one.

 

[Crowlogic]

There is a big problem with this particular comparison and any comparison to a living gorilla. It isn't really about the "bikini/diaper" lines. It's about the position and proximity of the gorilla.

Patty was never in this position (on all fours), nor was she filmed with clarity at such close range. If Patty was a suit and placed into this same situation it is likely that she would appear to a suit in very obvious ways. For example, if the suit is three pieces (head, torso, legs), you would probably see that the torso portion is very obviously a suit component and is not a complete animal body covered in a continuous skin. Like somebody moving on all fours while wearing a jacket. The jacket doesn't look like it's actually part of their body.

I'm saying that Patty was never in a position or camera proximity to give the best opportunity to declare her a suit. We can find clips and images of gorillas in a sorts of positions, some being close to the camera. But we only have multi-generation copies of a filmed Patty walking upright from pretty far away.

The consequence of that situation is that people can find images of gorillas that have features similar to what is being pointed out as suit flaws. You just did that. Believers take that kind of comparison and count is as a functional rebuttal to a skeptical point. But it's an unfair comparison because it cannot be "reversed". You can't look at this photo of a living gorilla and say that Patty looks the same way when she gets down on all fours right in front of the camera. She never does that and Patterson was never that close.

A living gorilla doesn't look like it's wearing a torso section of a suit (like a big jacket). The skin is continuous and motion dynamics will look just like a real gorilla torso. But the skeptic cannot use that kind of important comparison because it is unavailable. Patty was filmed only walking and at a distance. Believers can search through thousands of gorilla clips and stills to make their point, but skeptics are strictly limited to the single one minute film and a few hundred still frames.

In order to attempt to fool some people with the PGF, Patterson may have had no choice other than to film Patty from far away and basically just walking along. If he had filmed Patty crawling around from twenty feet away, the number of believers might be zero. Or close to zero. LOL.

Its not a comparison to the PGF.

 

[Bill Munns]

Diogenes:

"Regarding the use of Ektachrome ; if Ektachrome was used, we probably would not be seeing the quality of film we see, poor as it is..

The resolvable resolution would be less, and the likelihood of any detail such as seams or cloth behavior being apparent would be decreased accordingly .."

Depends on the Ektachrome. 7255 was about as good as Kodachrome. The high speed daylight and Tungsten Ektachromes were not as good a quality as the 7255 stock. I used them all. Saw the screen results myself.

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

Since the film is widely tauted as being grainy and of poor resolution then Ektachrome could very well be the film stock. If the master is Ektachrome then its color may be washed out by now. Wasn't this a problem with the later filmstocks that while easier toprocess didn't hold color as well.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Here. I must disagree. I can't say that I will figure it out, based on my method, but I have confidence my effort isn't wasted or futile. I don't pursue things that are "doomed to inconclusion" and I have confidence i can sort out the lost causes from the challenges that have some potential for conclusion or success.

I should clarify...I meant that it's doomed to inconclusion in the sense of swaying/convincing proponents. It's certainly possible for you to draw your own conclusion.

On the Kodachrome thing, I just wonder if it has been conclusively confirmed that the film was on Kodachrome stock. If by chance it was actually on Ectchrome stock, the lab/processing issue ceases to be problamatic. I do wonder if the Kodachrome description might somehow have been mis-reported. Just a thought.

As Diogenes noted, that wouldn't necessarily make things cease to be problematic. After all, film development times don't mean much if it was impossible to have sent the film to a lab (and since the post office was closed when Patterson and Gimlin claimed to have mailed it...).

Does anyone here know if one could make cibachromes from an Ektachrome source? I ask because we know there are cibachromes derived from the PGF (they were what MK Davis used in his analysis and were used for books like "Manlike Monsters on Trial"). I've heard references to someone (Dahinden?) having a copyright on them as well.

While trying to answer this question myself, I came across a site that says:

"Kodachrome slides keep better than Ektachrome slides in dark storage, but they fade more rapidly when projected. On several occasions I worked in the field for months using Ektachrome and Kodachrome only to find that all of the Kodachromes were useless while all of the Ektachromes were fine. After the early years I rarely used Kodachrome at all. It has been several years since I heard a photographer mention Kodachrome, and it may no longer be made. I would suggest that if Kodalchrome film is to be used it should not be purchased abroad, and one should first test a roll and use only rolls with the same emulsion number as the tested roll."

So not only does it seem to imply thatm cibachromes aren't derived from Ektachrome , but it could provide a way of testing whether or not the cibachromes came from a Kodachrome source.

There's still the issue of how the tracks survived torrential rain that "caved away" a road and (as Roger Knights concluded) the timeline doesn't work (nor does Knights' attempt at an innocent explanation for it). I'm tempted to point out how the Titmus map contradicts Patterson and Gimlin's account as well.

Personally, what I am evaluating does not require any timeline or film processing issues to impact on what I see and study.

Well, not exactly. Details outside the film that point to a hoax can strengthen or refute your findings, depending on the conclusion that you reach.