Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[LONGTABBER PE]

That graphic came from Meldrum's new scientific paper. Gfootecus is saying there are problems with it. The NASI scientific paper has problems too. How unfortunate. On the one hand, Bigfooters wish that science would pay attention to the PGF. But when science does pay attention, it makes errors in the analysis.

Dont you get it- you are only supposed to use "bigfoot science" on Bigfoot because conventional science cannot accurately examine such a non conventional creature that:

Can leave tracks ( or not) at will

Bed with no residual physical evidence

Never dies and leaves a body

Has 100+ feet variants

Uses infrasound as a weapon

Recognizes and avoids all camera traps ( yet is seemingly unconcerned by film cameras on horseback)

Has a resting position identical to an elk

And has orgies, ticklefights, treats snakebites, speaks various NA languages and is an omnivore that has a craving for garlic,pancakes, cans of beans and peanut butter

 

[William Parcher]

Besides the astounding film development timeline/logistics there is another suspicious element. Patterson was so confident that he had successfully captured a Bigfoot on film that he almost immediately told a reporter which went to press. He was taking a risk that something bad might happen to the film leaving him with nothing to show. It could have been misplaced, damaged or whatever. The Times-Standard would have had to run a follow-up story saying the film turned out to be no good.

Mrs. Bigfoot Is Filmed!

A Yakima Washington man and his Indian tracking aide come out of the wilds of northern Humboldt county yesterday to breathlessly report that they had seen and taken motion pictures of "a giant hominoid creature."

Oct. 21, 1967

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Circumstantial indication of a possible hoax. ( doesnt help the credibility much but by itself is suspicious)

From the article

>>>man and his Indian tracking aide come out of the wilds of northern Humboldt county yesterday to breathlessly report that they had seen and taken motion pictures of "a giant hominoid creature."

This indicates they contacted the author the next day ( Saturday)

>>>lie in the some 20 to 30 feet of colored film

Its hard to believe the author plugged that number in ( how would he have known how LONG the footage was on a full roll?)

Its a "strange coincidence" that RP knew how much of the roll actually contained the patty footage when ostensibly at the time of talking to the reporter the film had not been developed/cut ( nor should he have even known if it developed properly)

It seems to me it would have been more likely ( since theoretically he couldnt have known at the time) to say I have it on a roll of film or have film of it or some other general term. Instead he almost nails down the exact LENGTH of the film?

Granted, thats not concrete evidence of anything but it STRONGLY suggests to me that at the time he talked to this reporter, he KNEW exactly how much Patty footage he had ( and didnt have) and that the PGF was shot and developed in advance of the reported date.

 

[JcR]

A question I would like to know where along Patty's path
that Robert Lyle Laverty took his photos of the foot impressions ?
Just having trouble digging up that info right now.
And I am not sure either... where Roger had cast his, in relation to the film.

If that little bit that Dahinden had of the 2nd reel was taken after the encounter ?
Which I question...
I get confused hehe. Since Roger was trying to make a documentary of
Bigfoot previously.
No not really confused, more feeling like I might be getting fed a little bit of deception.
Or did RP have a bucket full of luck ?

 

[William Parcher]

...it STRONGLY suggests to me that at the time he talked to this reporter, he KNEW exactly how much Patty footage he had ( and didnt have) and that the PGF was shot and developed in advance of the reported date.

...and that P&G visited Bluff Creek at least twice. Once to film a guy in a costume, and then again to be there on Oct. 20th to pretend that they had just filmed a real Bigfoot. Or, that they were there long enough to actually ship the film to DeAtley, have it developed and edited, and then falsely claim the encounter on Oct. 20th.

My recollection is that RP contacted the reporter late on the 20th and the story hit the press the next day.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Yeah WP,

I've never been entirely convinced the "cast" trackway and the film subject trackway were the same trackway.

I find that film length accuracy somewhat "damning"

 

[JcR]

Circumstantial indication of a possible hoax. ( doesnt help the credibility much but by itself is suspicious)

From the article

>>>man and his Indian tracking aide come out of the wilds of northern Humboldt county yesterday to breathlessly report that they had seen and taken motion pictures of "a giant hominoid creature."

This indicates they contacted the author the next day ( Saturday)

>>>lie in the some 20 to 30 feet of colored film

Its hard to believe the author plugged that number in ( how would he have known how LONG the footage was on a full roll?)

Its a "strange coincidence" that RP knew how much of the roll actually contained the patty footage when ostensibly at the time of talking to the reporter the film had not been developed/cut ( nor should he have even known if it developed properly)

It seems to me it would have been more likely ( since theoretically he couldnt have known at the time) to say I have it on a roll of film or have film of it or some other general term. Instead he almost nails down the exact LENGTH of the film?

Granted, thats not concrete evidence of anything but it STRONGLY suggests to me that at the time he talked to this reporter, he KNEW exactly how much Patty footage he had ( and didnt have) and that the PGF was shot and developed in advance of the reported date.

Even though I don't see a direct quote from RP saying how much he had filmed, ( if RP did, may have missed it ). I would lean towards RP having told them of this info. Unless the editor of the article had the liberty to add his lucky guess. ( I doubt)
Maybe RP with his experience with filming gave his educated guess
of how much film he might have had of this this creature.
Keeping his fingers crossed that his film would develop OK.
Sure was fast and slick getting this film out.
Good ol' boys sure have their ways sometimes.
Still questionable to me...
Just thinking it all still stinks

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This ties into Gimlins lack of interest in the ( alleged ) debut of the film.

" Ho hum .. Just a film of the only Bigfoot ever caught on film.. I think I'll take a nap .. "

Of course the BFF'ers slap me silly with " ... he was so exhausted and needed the rest . "

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Oops - double post..

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I wouldnt be as suspicious if he had also said some 20-30 SECONDS ( as in time) but he wouldnt know that because he wasnt certain of the film speed ( or at that time be certain of how much film the alleged BF was actually on)

>>>The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

>>>more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

Thats a lot of detail to be noticed in a 60 second encounter from that distance from a guy who just got "horse dumped" ( to the point of crushing a stirrup on his foot) and was running while looking thru a viewfinder on a camera.

 

[JcR]

Feel free to fill.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Feel free to fill.

heres another one for you

 

[JcR]

Might need a bigger Bucket

 

[LTC8K6]

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

McClarin called Sanderson that night, before the film was processed, and said Roger had filmed Bigfoot and wanted Sanderson's help in managing the publicity.

That very night...

 

[Bill Munns]

LT:

">>>lie in the some 20 to 30 feet of colored film "

Its hard to believe the author plugged that number in ( how would he have known how LONG the footage was on a full roll?)

Its a "strange coincidence" that RP knew how much of the roll actually contained the patty footage when ostensibly at the time of talking to the reporter the film had not been developed/cut ( nor should he have even known if it developed properly)

It seems to me it would have been more likely ( since theoretically he couldnt have known at the time) to say I have it on a roll of film or have film of it or some other general term. Instead he almost nails down the exact LENGTH of the film?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but cameras have a device called a footage counter, which tells the camera operator how much footage is left unexposed, so the operator can estimate if he has enough footage for the next scene he might film. Camera operators routinely check the counter after each time they film a segment to see how much unexposed film is remaining, so they can decide if they want to reload or just run out the remaining segment. So you start a new filming segment generally already knowing how much footage is left on the reel.

As a fairly experienced cameraman myself, with 16mm cameras and film, I can assure you that a cameraman knowing how much footage he's got in the camera left to film with, is one of the most common things he knows about it. And if he films something completely to a "runout", he should know within a fairly accurate estimation how much footage he shot in that last filming session.

On a camera that only holds 100' loads, the counter should be accurate to about 5 feet, and 20-30' range is a 5" +- estimate.

Nothing suspicious about knowing the footage estimate, before the film was procesed.

Bill

 

[William Parcher]

...I can assure you that a cameraman knowing how much footage he's got in the camera left to film with, is one of the most common things he knows about it. And if he films something completely to a "runout", he should know within a fairly accurate estimation how much footage he shot in that last filming session.

Nothing suspicious about knowing the footage estimate, before the film was procesed.

And it shouldn't be considered suspicious that the same cameraman doesn't know the film speed he used, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nothing suspicious about knowing the footage estimate, before the film was procesed.

But if he knew how much film was left in the camera, then it is suspicious that he didn't stop the camera when he was moving for position, or that he would film trees for several seconds while waiting for the subject to emerge from behind them .

No bubbles bursted here.. Anyone else ?

 

[Bill Munns]

WP:

"And it shouldn't be considered suspicious that the same cameraman doesn't know the film speed he used, right?"

Actually, "film speed" is the ASA of the film stock, which should have been ASA 25 for Kodachrome II stock in daylight.

I think you mean "camera speed" or "filming" speed", the frames per second of the camera's film transport.

With a variable speed motor, commonly called a "wild motor", a cameraman might commonly set one speed and just leave it at that, not tending to change it except for a specific photographic need. The Kodak K-100 has a "wild motor" and people operating it may settle for one speed and never touch it again, or adjust the speed for photographic purposes.

I've never heard any discussion of Roger's photographic knowledge or sophistication, so I can't guess if he adjusted the camera filming speed for specific purposes or not, during the time he had the camera and was doing all his reported filming. Some cameramen do cretively adjust the camera film speed, others don't.

As for what a cameraman checks, I'd say that first is footage (can't film if you run out), second is exposure (the len's F-Stop) so the film isn't washed out or too dark, third is focus (since he's looking through a rangefinder, not true "through the lens" viewing, so if it were way out of focus, he couldn't see that in his viewfinder), and then maybe double check his filming camera speed setting (a difference betewwn a 16fps rate and a 24 fps rate changes the exposure duration by about 1/3 of a stop, which is well below the film's exposure latitude of about 2 full stops, so a wrong camera speed setting would be the least of his errors as far as a mistake on camera settings go, the least likely to fail to give him some usable footage. So checking that setting isn't his highest priority.

So of four settings that are important to filming, he was vague about the least critical of the four. Not a perfect cameraman, but imperfect isn't necessarily suspicious.


Diogenes:

"But if he knew how much film was left in the camera, then it is suspicious that he didn't stop the camera when he was moving for position, or that he would film trees for several seconds while waiting for the subject to emerge from behind them .

No bubbles bursted here.. Anyone else ? "

You have obviously never filmed a spontanious event you had no control over, and had to make a judgment call of when to shut down the camera and when to keep it rolling, balancing in your head the fear of running out of footage against the fear of missing something sudden and unexpected.

Bill

 

[mangler]

A 100' roll of Kchrome was actually 108'


m

 

[JcR]

I busted my pail...

Was it ever really determined (or a good guess)
what the film speed rate (fps) was ?
I had read into this some time ago.
Probably will remain a mystery for now.