Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[LTC8K6]

This may be a silly question, but what was the frame rate of the PGF?
How much time passes to allow for the alleged movements of the face? And muscles for that matter?

Roger is uncertain about the camera setting, and the setting is smoothly variable from 16 to 64 frames per second. If he went by the instructions for the camera, he would have set it at 16fps. There's little agreement on the original filming speed, except that it's on the low end of the camera's settings.

Sasquatches have quick twitch facial muscles.

They can completely alter their look and position in just a couple of frames.

The head reshaping muscles are a little slower.

A normal human eye blink takes a few frames, 3 to 4 tenths of a second, even at 16 frames per second.

16fps is about 62.5 milliseconds per frame.
24fps is about 41.5 milliseconds per frame.

 

[William Parcher]

Also...what do you think is the likelihood that a 'suit mask' would show that degree of 'eyebrow movement'?


Frame 348 is the first, or second Frame which shows direct sunlight lighting-up the cheekbone...(as Patty is turning to look back at Roger)....and the eyebrow appears lower in that Frame, than it does in the surrounding Frames.

So the frame on the left above my clown picture is 348 and on the right is 368. The big high-rise, half-moon clown eyebrows are what you would see on Patty at any time the sun is not in her eyes. In the PGF, you see those clown brows both before and after the sun gets in her eyes.

Is that correct?

 

[William Parcher]

I also just noticed that the lower jaw (mandible) is at least as large as the brain cavity (cranium).

They are not like us at all.

 

[SweatyYeti]

This may be a silly question, but what was the frame rate of the PGF?
How much time passes to allow for the alleged movements of the face? And muscles for that matter?

Like LTC said, Roger wasn't sure what the filming speed was. He said he normally filmed at 24fps...but, after shooting the footage of Patty...he noticed the dial on the camera was set to '18'. The dial doesn't have the number '18' on it, though...so it is assumed that he he must have seen it set at '16'....(which is the lowest number on the dial)....and mis-read it.


I think it's possible that the camera may have been running at an even slower speed than 16fps, though....based partly on the visible movement of Patty's mouth. The mechanism of the K-100 is not a high-precision mechanism....it has a high tolerance factor...and it can run at a significantly different speed than what the dial is reading.
Therefore...it can run slower than it's lowest setting...of 16fps.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

I think it's possible that the camera may have been running at an even slower speed than 16fps, though....based partly on the visible movement of Patty's mouth. The mechanism of the K-100 is not a high-precision mechanism....it has a high tolerance factor...and it can run at a significantly different speed than what the dial is reading.
Therefore...it can run slower than it's lowest setting...of 16fps.

Or it could have been running faster than the setting on the dial.

At 16fps, your three frame vocalization would have occurred in less than 2/10 of a second. Much faster than the blink of an eye. To slow that "vocalization" down to mere eye-blink speed, the camera would have to have been ridiculously out of tolerance, like 8fps.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Or it could have been running faster than the setting on the dial.

At 16fps, your three frame vocalization would have occurred in less than 2/10 of a second. Much faster than the blink of an eye. To slow that "vocalization" down to mere eye-blink speed, the camera would have to have been ridiculously out of tolerance, like 8fps.

But, Patty moves pretty quickly within the space of only 2 frames. Here is another 2-frame animation showing the next frame, in this series of Frames...Frame 373...(along with F372)...

Patty either has 'fast twitch' muscles...or the camera was running on the slower end of it's range of speeds....or....both.

 

[LTC8K6]

Or her head is mostly shifting noise...

 

[LTC8K6]

Or it's camera and Patty movement for the arm and body...

If Patty is largely moving left to right and her arm is also swinging left to right in the frame, and the camera is moving slightly right to left...the speed of Patty and her arm frame to frame could be exaggerated...

But that wouldn't affect the shifting face/head noise much, imo.

 

[tsig]

In the video I posted of the dog moving it's eyebrows...is part of the dog's skull moving, also?

Also...what do you think is the likelihood that a 'suit mask' would show that degree of 'eyebrow movement'?


That is incorrect, William.

Frame 348 is the first, or second Frame which shows direct sunlight lighting-up the cheekbone...(as Patty is turning to look back at Roger)....and the eyebrow appears lower in that Frame, than it does in the surrounding Frames.


Edited to add:

Cryptomundo has a new, short article about the Patterson Film....and included a 2-Frame 'mouth movement' animation of mine, that I had sent to Loren last year...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/data-p-g/


Those two Frames are the start of Patty's turning her head away from Roger...and, opening her jaw somewhat. Quite possibly...a soft vocalization directed at Roger, as she was turning away from him.
Patty shows apparent eyebrow movement...and apparent jaw/mouth movement....just like a real, live animal.

First a wink and now sweet nothings, did Roger and Patty have a thing going?

 

[tsig]

Or it could have been running faster than the setting on the dial.

At 16fps, your three frame vocalization would have occurred in less than 2/10 of a second. Much faster than the blink of an eye. To slow that "vocalization" down to mere eye-blink speed, the camera would have to have been ridiculously out of tolerance, like 8fps.

Obviously the camera ran at whatever speed is required to make the story work.

 

[DennyT]

Dang parn. That does seem a wee bit overzealous. Couldn't they do it on the ground a hell of a lot easier? Seems like a lot of error in your position as well might be possible depending on how your data collection is done.

Just seems like a weird and possibly dangerous way (expensive?) to go about gathering that data set. ..... especially considering the circumstances and results. (45 year old film sight near a creek bed for a hoax) Sure makes for dramatic TV though......

Aw, darn, now Bill's all mad again. He doesn't think his "design" looks like lawn furniture. There ya go...it's all about the subjective impression....kind of like, does that film show a guy in a suit or an uncatalogued "thing"?

Like this video...is it a guy in a costume or an uncatalogued creature? I think it's a guy in a costume...what do you think?

I see Tontar is trying to give Bill a little engineering help with the attachment points, which are what?... snap hooks and ring bolts? LOL. That's like what you use in a porch swing. In that same vein, the dual ropes/cables (at each "corner") idea is also a very bad idea...it is the reverse of a safety factor.

Needz mor chikken engineering.

 

[Drewbot]

Would a commercial helicopter pilot even consider hoisting that thing up in the air?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[DennyT]

I must admit to LOLing at your sketch; I'm sure Bill doesn't appreciate my amusement, but hey, this is BIGFOOT! They need to have at least one camera pointing back at the riders.

 

[Sonny2]

Needs more cowbell.

 

[GT/CS]

First a wink and now sweet nothings, did Roger and Patty have a thing going?

She was actually telling Gimlin not to shoot her in the butt.

 

[Castro]

Would a commercial helicopter pilot even consider hoisting that thing up in the air?

Maybe this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3gamijezc

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I don't understand the chopper. If they're serious, shouldn't they be using the Space Shuttle?

Or a submarine. They could dredge the creek deep enough to get a nuclear powered submarine in there and use the periscope

 

[tsig]

She was actually telling Gimlin not to shoot her in the butt.

I guess I shouldn't over analyze that post.

 

[Vortigern99]

It's weird to think back to the time, about 3 1/2 years ago, that I was convinced I was looking at something inhuman when I was seeing Patty. This was before I discovered the material folds and before I knew about the muscle-suits that pre-dated Rick Baker's work in the 1970s. I was arrogant enough, I guess, to think that because I had a foundation in undergrad primatology and anthropology, and knew a thing or two about make-up effects to boot, that I couldn't be fooled by such a simplistic fur suit. I thought I was seeing musculature when the suit is either padded in the right places, or it shows something of the human form beneath.

It only took me about a month of posting here, though, to come around. Others have been posting for longer and are still convinced. That's either a testament to Patterson's skill or to the propensity to self-delude.

 

[StankApe]

for examples of self delusion, see Munns. He worked as a special fx guy for years (albeit a minor one) yet he has ignored all of the evidence pointing to a suit in favor of twisting the data to fit his belief that Patty is a forest monster.