Bigfoot - serious, not follies

LAL said:
I can't give you a time, but it apparently has all 953 frames, from the time Roger started trying to get the camera on her to when she is no longer visible behind trees.
You are being obtuse again.. I think we can rule out intentional now..

Most DVD players have a running time display...

Or try this..

Que the movie.. Find a clock/watch with a 2nd hand or seconds display.. Start the clip and count how many seconds it runs..


Does this sound too difficult for you ?
 
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2004outwest/Trip Photos/Elk 01.JPG

A picture of elk laying down. They appear to be resting on their side and their feet do not appear to be directly under them as someone keeps claiming they would be.

They appear to have sunk straight down as far as their legs will allow, and then rolled over on their side.

It looks to me like these elk would roll back towards the side their feet are on and then stand up.

So, it appears they would not necessarily mar their body imprint with hoofprints when they got up.

I see excellent possibilities for "bigfoot's heel" here as well with the front legs folded.

You'd have to imagine them in mud, of course. :D
 
quote:

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.


Quote: ( Lu)

It is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------



I'ts NOT Lu ...


It is however many seconds, of two rolls of film, that the makers of the DVD chose to include ...

The fact that you are satisfied with it, has no bearing on it's completeness or accuracy..
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, I just dismiss Beckjord outright and don't bother to listen after the first few sentences.

I dismiss all Bigfoot believers outright. It's too late to really claim Bigfoot to be a reality. This myth game has been going on for centuries and intensively for about 40 years.

I don't count Beckjord against the rational folks who genuinely believe in sasquatch.

Rational folks may believe in Bigfoot, but the belief in Bigfoot is irrational itself.

They do need to weed those folks out of their conferences and symposiums though.

They didn't at a recent conference. Check out Kewaunee Lapseritis at the Bellingham Sasquatch Research Conference in May. Conference Reviews

If I decided to attend one to learn about bigfoot and the state of bigfoot research, and had to listen to any of those lunatics, I would be mighty upset. If I had paid any money, I would demand it back.

It would seem that 'anything goes' in Bigfoot research since there is no type specimen to create any kind of naturalistic standard for the creature. If you claim that Bigfoot is a visiting extraterrestrial... who the hell is going to prove that it isn't?

Demand a refund? Would that be like paying to go through a Halloween spook house in order to be scared, then asking for your money back because the guy in there with the bloody chainsaw really isn't a murderer?
 
bruto said:
I don't know what sort of camera was rented for the occasion, but if it was a reasonably good quality 16 mm. camera of the era, it would likely have had three prime lenses on a turret, rather than a zoom; if so a sudden change of focal length would not be in and of itself an anomaly. You'd expect them to change lenses from time to time as the subject changed distance, and these changes would have been abrupt.



It was a Cine-Kodak K-100.

What is still a problem for me is the fact that nobody, apparently, except for some distant "experts" has seen the other footage.


What other footage are we refferring to here? Do you mean the rest of roll 2? Ten feet were removed and given to Dahinden (the part with the footprints) and used in documentaries. The actual roll is missing. See Murphy.

For all her dancing around the subject, LAL cannot really explain why a party intending to shoot a bigfoot documentary woud have blown the majority of their film on scenery, leaving none at the end with which to document the tracks of the bigfoot they filmed, and why, if this is the case, the extra footage is now nowhere to be found.


Evidently they shot some scenery on the way (I'm still checking this out). The roll ran out as she walked into the forest. Tracks were filmed at the beginning of the second roll. If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery? They wanted to film some tracks for the documentary. They had plenty of film for that.

If the extra footage has been destroyed or lost or hidden, skeptics are entitled to be suspicious of its contents. The alternative explanation, which is that the people who made the film were careless and not very competent, is a kindness.
The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?
 
Diogenes said:
quote:

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.


Quote: ( Lu)

It is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------



I'ts NOT Lu ...


It is however many seconds, of two rolls of film, that the makers of the DVD chose to include ...

The fact that you are satisfied with it, has no bearing on it's completeness or accuracy..

Let me rephrase: It's the whole sequence of the footage with the creature, including the jumpy, smeary beginning, which often is edited out. It's not just the clip where she turns. That can be seen in close-up in the extras. There's nothing from the second roll, which is missing, but Murphy has a shot from it on pg. 48. Laverty's photos were better.
 
The second roll wasn't returned to Patterson. How does that make him careless and not very competant?

Returned to Patterson from who/where?

Did Patterson raise a big stink about not getting the film back? If not, why not? I would have.

They had plenty of film for that.

I disagree. They hardly had any film at all in total, imo, and should not have used up 3/4 of the roll and then rode around with a nearly empty camera.

The P/G film we have seen is supposedly 1/4 of a roll. So, a roll was about 4 minutes worth. So, they apparently had a total of 8 minutes worth of film with them.
 
LAL said:
Drs. Meldrum and Nelson. See LMS.

The film speed was 18 fps. That rules out human even according to Grieve. Krantz found some flaws in Grieve's analysis. I'm still reading about this.

I didn't think anyone knew the exact film speed?

I know some have attempted to guess...but no one really knows, do they?
 
Diogenes said:
From the same story....

Jones first saw a sasquatch while on a hunting trip as a teenager in 1967. "I watched him for almost 40 minutes through a nine-power rifle scope, so I knew it wasn't a bear or any other known creature," he recalls," A herd of elk passed by this animal, which had squatted down in the grass to be unobserved, and the elk never sensed his presence. Then a couple of hunters came on the scene, and they, too, walked within feet of him. After they passed, he moved away so quickly and stealthily that it was hard to believe what I'd seen." Fearing ridicule, Jones told no one about his encounter, not even his father, but the image has remained vivid in his memory. When he discovered the BFRO web site, he decided to share his experience—and to dedicate much of his spare time to the pursuit of Bigfoot. "I went down to New Mexico last year to verify some information from a Jicarilla Apache who had reported a close encounter that he'd had almost two years earlier," says Jones. "We'd gone out to the location to reenact the circumstances he described, and as we were walking back to our car, one of our party spotted a huge creature just yards from her in the brush. I went right in, chasing it up the side of the mountain almost 350 yards. When I finally stopped on a saddle where I could see, he was about 75 feet away, peeking around a tree, staring at me. We looked at each other, eye to eye, for almost a minute, and then he snapped a branch, turned, and disappeared. Since it was getting dark, and I couldn't get anyone to go back in there with me, I waited until the next day and went down with another guide to check for prints. There was nothing good enough to cast, but we could see where he'd scrambled up a 60-foot cliff, tearing away the moss as he climbed."

What's wrong with this story ? I mean really wrong...


I've got a $1.00 off coupon for RightGuard, for the correct ansewer.. ( this really should be in the Puzzles forum )
Thanks for playing... There will be a consolation prize of a casting kit, with an autographed picture of Koko ..


Here we have a Bigfoot hunter of 40+ years who travelled to New Mexico to check out a report.. The creature shows up, and SURPRISE ! SURPRISE !

He apparently doesn't have a camera with him !!


( Waiting for lame excuse, about how he DID have his camera but got flustered or something and couldn't manage to use it ... )
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2004outwest/Trip Photos/Elk 01.JPG

A picture of elk laying down. They appear to be resting on their side and their feet do not appear to be directly under them as someone keeps claiming they would be.



Who was that? The imprint doesn't look like the side of an elk. I've never said they can't lay on their sides. They roll too.

How, pray tell, do they manage to get up without having their legs under them? Or down, for that matter? Even rolling over, the imprints of legs and hooves would have to be very close to the imprint of the side. There is nothing like that in the photo.

They appear to have sunk straight down as far as their legs will allow, and then rolled over on their side.

It looks to me like these elk would roll back towards the side their feet are on and then stand up.

So, it appears they would not necessarily mar their body imprint with hoofprints when they got up.



See an elk. They scramble quite a bit. The front legs tend to splay as they finally make it to their feet. If you can't see a real elk, a horse is a good approximation.

I see excellent possibilities for "bigfoot's heel" here as well with the front legs folded.

You'd have to imagine them in mud, of course. :D

Since you seem to have shown this conclusively (to your own satisfaction, anyway), I suggest you e-mail Meldrum (the email is on his web page at Idaho State) and, with his permission, post his reply. I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
 
"An elk will gather their feet under them when they get up," he said. "But there are no elk hoofprints in the center of the cast."

That was Noll. He is clearly saying there should be hoof prints in the body print.

I would say he is mistaken. The hoof prints would not be in the center of the cast at all.
 
Okay, the things bothering me today:

Someone (Lu quoted them) said the film speed was 18fps. I find this unlikely since apparently the camera didn't have a setting for 18fps. The closest were 16fps and 24 fps. One of the settings may have been somewhat out of tolerance, but the claim an absolute 18fps seems unlikely.

"All of the footage" includes the other 190 feet of film Patterson took into the woods with him, not just the 10 feet with Patty. Apparently he had 2 100 foot rolls. Some of us want to see everything that was shot, even if the Bigfoot enthusiasts consider it unimportant. There might not be anything there, but at least we'll no nothing is being hidden.

According to Lu again, Gimlin claimed Patty was standing in the stream when they first saw her, then she walked into the woods. Why don't her feet or legs look wet? Wet fur should be noticable. Especially given the details some people see, like muscles rippling, the overlap between the body and leg pieces of the suit, ruptured thigh muscles, etc.

I have to admit that and elk lying in the mud to eat apples without leaving hoof marks on the body imprint is unlikely. But I don't consider it less likely than a Bigfoot doing the same thing without leaving footprints.

I'm not saying Bigfoot does not exist. I can never prove that. I feel it's unlikely, and the evidence I've seen is still far from convincing.
 
LAL said:

If they had reallly expected to encounter a Sasquatch, do you think they would have been shooting scenery?
No, but it's a real good exuse for having only a few seconds of footage of your primary objective...

Do you really think that someone who is planning on making a professional quality documentary, is going to be armed with only 2 rolls of film, and use it filming scenery and tracks?

Every indication is that P&G set out with every expectation of filming the creature..

I'll dig up the sources if you insist...
 
LTC8K6 said:
I have seen references to single lens K-100's and 3 lens K-100's.

As far as I know, Patterson had the single lens variety.

7' 3.5" and 2,000lbs.

Wow! :D

How come these days it's 6' 2" and 350lbs?

Read Krantz. 6'5"-6'7" and 500 lbs.
 
LAL said:
Read Krantz. 6'5"-6'7" and 500 lbs.
Yep.. Fits the tracks better.. Had to dump the NASI report ( 2,000 lbs ) ...


What's wrong with this picture?


Get distinguished forensic scientist to investigate film. Findings don't match other evidence. Disregard findings.
NASI and expert is never called upon for further investigation.
 
Diogenes said:
You are being obtuse again.. I think we can rule out intentional now..

Most DVD players have a running time display...

Or try this..

Que the movie.. Find a clock/watch with a 2nd hand or seconds display.. Start the clip and count how many seconds it runs..


Does this sound too difficult for you ?

I already timed it with my watch before I read this post. I was refering to an official time given in a book and was reading Murphy to see if he gives one. I'm trying to weed, cut back Kudzu and burn old papers while I'm posting. While I'm doing my best to spend every waking moment on this board, I do have other things to do on my days off.

Why would I think you'd believe me if I gave you a time off the DVD?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom