Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 2

[Bill Munns]

Mangler'

"A 100' roll of Kchrome was actually 108'"

which allow for some washed out footage on both head and tail of the reel, that inevitably comes from a "daylight load" which actually is loaded and unloaded in "daylight", and not in a darkroom or a location "black bag"

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

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.

Had Patterson been there alone yes its a lot to take in through a view finder. But he had Gimlin viewing unhindered and they had lots of time to discuss what each saw from thier positions and circumstance.

Also if they went back and cast tracks AFTER the creature shoot then what is the timeline for developing the second roll. Did it not appear at the same time as the creature footage?

 

[mangler]

I’ve shot too many to count spontaneous events (wildlife, music, extreme sports etc.) and never once did I leave the camera running when it was pointed toward the ground.

All is moot without the master.


m

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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.

Patterson stood still and filmed trees for several seconds, supposedly knowing he had less than a minute of film left. ( .. going with your assumption he was keeping track of remaining film. )

Besides, running out of film is just another unverified part of the story; and you appear to be operating from the assumption he was filming a real Bigfoot, a case for which there is no supporting evidence.

 

[Crowlogic]

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

I know how much gas is in the tank of my car by the fuel gauge. I also know the brand of fuel in the tank and the station where I bought the fuel. But I filled up 3 days ago and no I couldn't tell you how much fuel it took to fill it up and which particular pump I filled it at. I also couldn't tell you whether I used a $20 or 2 $10's to pay for it. Let's not loose sight that Patterson was concern with the film and NOT with the camera with which he took the film. Once the film was finished he had to return the rental.

 

[JcR]

I’ve shot too many to count spontaneous events (wildlife, music, extreme sports etc.) and never once did I leave the camera running when it was pointed toward the ground.

All is moot without the master.


m

Shame the master copy is lost, misplaced or destroyed.
And I know I have edited out some quick sloppy ground shots, in some
of my videos... but that's me
He should of lassoed that Big Bugger, being a rodeo man.
I have roped a few cows, so a BF might be easy.
Used to hang my hat outside of Big Beaver Sask.
Miss the place.

 

[William Parcher]

There are at least two scene breaks in the PGF. This is when Patterson either stops filming or there was a section of film removed. He said that he never stopped filming during the Patty walk. If that is true... then we know frames were removed from the walk sequence.

In one of the scene breaks, RP moves a considerable distance without any corresponding film being exposed (shutter closed or frames cut out). He didn't realize that he wasn't filming at that time? How did he know he needed to activate the shutter again and yet later stated he never stopped filming?

There is a laundry list of problems associated with this whole thing. Those things combined with the nonexistence of any functional evidence of Bigfoot's existence causes me to wonder how anyone could really believe that this film is authentic. It's as if a person needs to want the film to be authentic "deep in their heart" to get past all of this stuff.

 

[William Parcher]

Once the film was finished he had to return the rental.

Which he didn't do! LOL

 

[William Parcher]

From Wikipedia...

Patterson's expensive 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17 (Long, 167). This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in good working order. (Long, 169)

 

[JcR]

There are at least two scene breaks in the PGF. This is when Patterson either stops filming or there was a section of film removed. He said that he never stopped filming during the Patty walk. If that is true... then we know frames were removed from the walk sequence.

In one of the scene breaks, RP moves a considerable distance without any corresponding film being exposed (shutter closed or frames cut out). He didn't realize that he wasn't filming at that time? How did he know he needed to activate the shutter again and yet later stated he never stopped filming?

There is a laundry list of problems associated with this whole thing. Those things combined with the nonexistence of any functional evidence of Bigfoot's existence causes me to wonder how anyone could really believe that this film is authentic. It's as if a person needs to want the film to be authentic "deep in their heart" to get past all of this stuff.

I see little leftovers from cuts in my copies
Well... when I look at it frame by frame.
Things are out of place (Frames from differ sequences)
But again not the original.
I had a version on vhs that was given to me a long time ago but it is gone now. Wish I still had it just to see it again.

 

[William Parcher]

You don't want to use the NatGeo footage to look for camera stops or film edits. Not only does it have repeated frames - but it's also missing a bit that other copies show.

 

[JcR]

WP.
Yes I think I have come to that conclusion with the NG copy.
Should let that go.
But I needed to sort that out. I said earlier it was probably their version's edit a messy one to add.
Kinda like to look closely at all my copies.
tedious sometimes. But I learn something each time.
I noticed that some other copies had extra coverage.
Like with the Discovery Channel copy... Think it was that one.
The one with the flipped frame at the beginning.
I didn't see the same edits with that one, like in the NG version.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

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

Its not my bubble thats bursting. ( my old super 8 had a film counter) but given the "calimity" of the situation ( walking up on patty, horse falling on him and crushing a stirrup and such) filming some ground shots and no mention of him having a field notebook or recording anything or checking it before pulling it out of the pack etc.

Then, not knowing the film speed ( which also affects the footage for a shot)

Then not knowing exactly where/when patty appeared in the film

All of this just happens to "coincide"? ( and be accurate)

Lotta what ifs there ( then theres the development /showing debacle) ( not to mention the other questions)

Like i said, not conclusive but very suspicious

 

[Crowlogic]

Which he didn't do! LOL

Does this mean that a search of the Patterson home might turn up THE K-100? Don't answer, we all know that Patterson belatedly returned the K-100. Hmmm I wonder if the camera rental is still around if the very K-100 Patterson used would still be available?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Had Patterson been there alone yes its a lot to take in through a view finder. But he had Gimlin viewing unhindered and they had lots of time to discuss what each saw from thier positions and circumstance.

Also if they went back and cast tracks AFTER the creature shoot then what is the timeline for developing the second roll. Did it not appear at the same time as the creature footage?

>>>Had Patterson been there alone yes its a lot to take in through a view finder.

He was the one making the statement ( and looking thru the camera)

>>>>But he had Gimlin viewing unhindered and they had lots of time to discuss what each saw from thier positions and circumstance.

to "get their stories straight"? ( that didnt work very well did it) and from the accounts, BG never got a clear "face shot" from where he was allegedly at ( plus he doesnt mention it in any account i can remember)

>>>Also if they went back and cast tracks AFTER the creature shoot then what is the timeline for developing the second roll. Did it not appear at the same time as the creature footage

as questionable as the first?

His ( RP's) statements coupled with this "memory failure" regarding the development timeline of the PGF ( as compared to testimony and showings) points to a reasonable conclusion that the PGF was filmed prior to what was claimed.

Bill or mangler, how long ( timewise) would it take to develop 1 108' roll of film from the time it hit the technician's hand until in the shipping box?

Then we need to find both expedited shipping to the mystery lab and expedited shipping FROM the mystery lab ( someone had to pay for all of this separate) and then to put this lone film in front of all other rolls from wherever?

All in a period of about 50 linear hours?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Shame the master copy is lost, misplaced or destroyed.
.

I'm no longer convinced it is

 

[Bill Munns]

LT:


"Lotta what ifs there"

I agree.

"Bill or mangler, how long ( timewise) would it take to develop 1 108' roll of film from the time it hit the technician's hand until in the shipping box?"

I'd guess an hour, in terms of efficient real work. Kinda depends on the processing machine, and whether you are splicing onto other footage going through the soup (the processing baths), like a big lab does, or just splicing on enough headleader and tail leader to run it through a machine by itself (a smaller lab might do this.).

But in general, overnight turnaround (receive it one day or evening, have it ready for pickup the next morning) is common, not an extraordinary request. Other questions, depending on the lab, are whether the lab ships outbound, or whether the film roll was hand delivered to the lab and set for a "will call" pickup from the lab, and what kind of volume the lab was running (16mm films run through a different machine than 8mm, super 8, and slide or print stills). I did a lot of "will call" pickup and delivery in my youthful days as a film student back in the late 60's.

More "if's, I guess, since we don't have the lab info.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

I have another treat I think some people might enjoy.

I think for many skeptics, myself included, Bigfootery really has little to do with any prospective creature. A big part of the fun is the personalities in the Bigfoot game. Bigfoot documentaries can be interesting but if you're like me docs like Legend Meets Science have some tidbits of interest here and there but are mostly snoozers.

While enjoying some classic 70's BF films on youtube the other day I found what I consider to be the best Bigfoot documentary I've ever seen entitled "Bigfoot: Man or Beast?" Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rRL3XWE0s&feature=PlayList&p=885F51D5BD2CF18B&index=0&playnext=1

I was genuinely surprised I had never seen this film before. I would suggest watching it before bed after you've been up to your eyeballs in PGF copyright details or on a rainy day. It is in 11 parts of about 10 minutes each. Youtube and imdb list it as 1972 but the end credits have it as being from 1975. Either way this film is from the height of Bigfootery's golden age. A time when footers could hang out with celebrities and looking for Bigfoot wasn't such a goofy thing to do. There's a lot things of interest for enthusiast and skeptic and certainly the PGF student. Here's some highlights:

- Dude, what the heck are you driving? I want one.

- On camera Albert Ostman interview

- On camera interview with Myrtle Walton, William Roe's daughter, on the well-known illustration. Many think Roger Patterson shot the PGF as a re-enactment of Roe's account.

- One might easily believe that nearly every Canadian speaks with a variety of heavy European accents .

- Prerequisite skeptic scientist commentary and inexplicable microscope use.

- Audio interview with Roger Patterson.

- Following Bob Morgan and his team based in Cougar, Washington and their 3 1/2 month expedition to find Bigfoot. Pre-eruption Mt. St. Helen's is prominently featured. The group seemed very well funded and organized. I think even as a skeptic myself, it's hard not to feel attached to the group and their quest. Throughout the film I couldn't help but draw comparison between this and one of my favourite films, Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. That film is a somewhat of an hommage to Jaques Cousteau but their search for the jaguar shark reminded me much of this.

Hope you guys like it.

 

[JcR]

LT.
Well I hope it is safe somewhere. And the copies made from it.
I had a bootlegger try to sell me, what he said was the real deal once.
Never did buy it.
Maybe it was sealed somewhere and in a storage room.
I have too many thoughts on its whereabouts.

 

[William Parcher]

But in general, overnight turnaround (receive it one day or evening, have it ready for pickup the next morning) is common, not an extraordinary request. Other questions, depending on the lab, are whether the lab ships outbound, or whether the film roll was hand delivered to the lab and set for a "will call" pickup from the lab, and what kind of volume the lab was running (16mm films run through a different machine than 8mm, super 8, and slide or print stills). I did a lot of "will call" pickup and delivery in my youthful days as a film student back in the late 60's.

More "if's, I guess, since we don't have the lab info.

Maybe all of that stuff was typical on business days in Los Angeles. But Al DeAtley was in Yakima. RP supposedly called Al from California the night he "filmed a Bigfoot". If Al arranged for a charter flight, he did it late Friday night. But the stories talk about a post office. Roger and Bob should have handed the film to a pilot, not a postman. Gimlin should have perfect answers to these questions. Will you ask him when you meet him next year?


This BFF thread wasn't that long ago. "Much is claimed, what are the facts?"