• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

Macgyver1968 said:
Ever noticed Patty doesn't have a buttcrack? :)
Click to expand...

Though it does have a backseam.

"Hey Patty, I like the way the little line goes up the back of the monkeysuit.
I've always liked those kind of wader hips too.
No, no, no, don't take it off; leave it on, leave it on.
Everybody wants some . . . I want some too!!"
 
These two images are of the same frame from the PGF. There is a vertical stick or twig in front of the left calf. Note how the length and thickness of that stick is different in the two images. I did not scale the two images so that they would be the same size, but I believe that a point can be made here anyway.

I think I understand the phenomenon on film known as "bloom" whereby light-colored and/or overexposed objects become larger and/or change shape. You can see that happening with the stick. But I think that that can't really be the end of the story. It would seem that darker objects (such as Patty herself) would become smaller and/or change shape because of the "invasion" of the blooming of lighter objects in the background or foreground.

This suggests to me that there may be challenges to determining true size and/or shape of almost anything in the PGF stills. I cannot say if this phenomenon is entirely eliminated when examining the higher-quality still frames. Additionally, the bloom phenomenon is not going to be limited to the outline/silhouette of Patty. There are lighter and darker areas all over her body, head and face which would be subject to bloom and therefore changing size and/or shape.

This would seem to matter in any analysis in which there is discussion of size and shape of any feature.


062b8a5a.jpg
f0cf8956.gif
 
dmaker said:
It used to be that cell phone cameras were crap. That was the reigning excuse. Practically every cell phone sold today does high res pictures and 720p video.
Click to expand...

I would accept that excuse even now. I can barely take acceptable pictures of my own cat using my cell phone, which is a pity because she is a beautiful Siamese with white boots and mittens.
 
Mudcat said:
I would accept that excuse even now. I can barely take acceptable pictures of my own cat using my cell phone, which is a pity because she is a beautiful Siamese with white boots and mittens.
Click to expand...

Certainly. This is the whole problem.

Bad pictures happen. Some people don't have the knack of taking pictures.

However, if 2 million tourists strolled through your place every year, some of them with thousands of dollars of camera kit, others with the proclaimed intention of taking pictures of your cat, then you can bet your sweet bippy that some amazing pictures of your cat would be out there.

If I can go on a whale watch and take this, why aren't there any pictures of Bigfoot this good?


20020428%20142548-L.jpg
 
John Nowak said:
Certainly. This is the whole problem.

Bad pictures happen. Some people don't have the knack of taking pictures.

However, if 2 million tourists strolled through your place every year, some of them with thousands of dollars of camera kit, others with the proclaimed intention of taking pictures of your cat, then you can bet your sweet bippy that some amazing pictures of your cat would be out there.

If I can go on a whale watch and take this, why aren't there any pictures of Bigfoot this good?


[qimg]https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By-Year/2002/i-X3DDSBJ/2/L/20020428%20142548-L.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ummm...that's not 'Squatch...
 
The woods on the hills are out of focus. There are probably hundreds of bigfoot smiling right at us! Prove me wrong.
 
Last edited:
I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.

Wolrab said:
The woods on the hills are out of focus. There are probably hundreds of bigfoot smiling right at us! Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Darn. You've run rings around me, logically.
 
John Nowak said:
I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.



Darn. You've run rings around me, logically.
Click to expand...
They are everywhere! If there's a blur, it's a Bigfoot. If there's cover, Bigfoot is behind it. That is why they have spread from coast to coast without being seen on roads, bridges, or crossing rivers.
 
John Nowak said:
I guess it must mean that orca are more common, and less intelligent than Bigfoot, and find it more difficult to hide.
Click to expand...

Of course Orca doesn't run an hide from humans, humans haven't been killing them for hundreds of years... oh, wait.
 
Drewbot said:
Of course Orca doesn't run an hide from humans, humans haven't been killing them for hundreds of years... oh, wait.
Click to expand...

And where would an orca hide anyway? It's not like they can just dive underwater or something.

I'm pretty sure one of the footers on this very forum said that there were no good photographs of Bigfoot because they are only visible for "a second or so." Crimeny. That's more air time than a sea lion will give you.

20100318%20103030-L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom