Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I would like for someone to point out the finger movement in the PGF.. Then we can talk about how it was accomplished.
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Diogenes, check out the "bear or bigfoot" thread. I found a clearer shot of the "bearfoot" print. You can see the other foot print throught the water more clearly, I think.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
This will illustrate why the Patterson footage on LMS is crap..
-
The picture on the left is a Cibachrome.( sp? ) I don't know much about it, but it is a print that is made from the actual 16mm film..
Info here..http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html
You would think it would be worthwhile to produce a lot more of these, since they reveal a lot more detail..
Maybe they reveal more detail than some people would like us to see?
You can make up all kinds of stuff when analysing blurry out of focus images..
In another post I was questioning the lumps on the arms. Here you can see how the calve muscles look like no other calve muscles on the face of the earth.. I have pointed to what looks like a couple of folds on the lower leg that will not be found on any human or primate..
But that is to be expected since Patty is a unique, made up creature..
The picture on the left is a Cibachrome.( sp? ) I don't know much about it, but it is a print that is made from the actual 16mm film..
Info here..http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html
You would think it would be worthwhile to produce a lot more of these, since they reveal a lot more detail..
Maybe they reveal more detail than some people would like us to see?
You can make up all kinds of stuff when analysing blurry out of focus images..
In another post I was questioning the lumps on the arms. Here you can see how the calve muscles look like no other calve muscles on the face of the earth.. I have pointed to what looks like a couple of folds on the lower leg that will not be found on any human or primate..
But that is to be expected since Patty is a unique, made up creature..
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
The calf muscles always look like folds in a costume to me. Then there is that right hand that suddenly appears. The difference in resolution between those images does NOT justify the detailed right hand.
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
It seems like there's no shortage of fake musculature, seams, unrealistic hair coverage, etc, etc, etc. Every time someone throws up a photo, I see more signs of fakery. So, why don't they just shoot one (with a tranquilizer gun or whatever, for the humane sorts) and bring it in. The film is clearly unconvincing.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Hm. Would "Sceptical Greg" be Diogenes under another SN on BFF?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993&st=0
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993&st=0
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
And? In fact, I haven't parroted that line at all; in the opinion of top execs at Disney and Universal around the time of the PGF, they couldn't have built a suit that good. I'll take their word for it. I don't think it's likely Patterson could have, and Morris pretty obviously didn't.
Saying something like thatcould have been done in the sixties isn't evidence it was.
"It is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit. In my own case the answer turns out to be about 10 inches. But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm. The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it-almost as much of a monstrosity as Edward Scissorhands. The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. It cannot be a man in a suit."
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/thoughts.html
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Some good points by Roger Knights:
The basic point made by inmylight & soarwing above is that if Patterson had wanted to make a film that would have had more commercial appeal, and/or more scientific acceptance, he could easily have done so with no loss of credibility. He could have shot a stabilized film--in the days before stabilization, jerkiness made it hard for audiences to get a good focus on the creature, and made the viewing experience unsatisfying and unconvincing. The jerkiness wasn't useful in concealing flaws of the costume from examination, since he immediately made copies of the film available to scientists for detailed examination at their leisure. That would have enabled skeptics to examine the still frames, which is where flaws would have shown up, if he was worried about such things.
But, as can be seen, subsequent examination of the still frames, or blink-animations of very short segments, have tended on the whole to reveal authenticating details, like the calf bulge and toe-splay on touchdown, the foot bending at the mid-tarsal joint (in 3 sequences), the foot embedded an inch in the sand, tendons appearing at the proper points in the stride, level lower leg lift (which is not apparent when viewed in motion), vertical sole prior to toe-off, mobile kneecap, flexing hand, opening and closing mouth (per Owen Caddy, working with DDA's clarified B&W frames), etc. None of these details BTW would have been easy for a hoaxer to add, and none were noticed in the early days or pointed out by RP as evidence of authenticity, so they gained him nothing. These are more things a commercial hoaxer would have done differently (omitted in this case).
Because he used a good camera (Kodak--though there were cheaper models around), and good film (Kodachrome II had the finest grain, and was very costly: $30-$40 per roll), and good film size (16mm--when 8mm would have hidden details far better), and had the focus set properly, and had the exposure only slightly off, and because he filmed the creature in the open in good sunlight on a level surface (making analysis of its stride and body proportions easier), he was risking a lot if there had been a costume involved, and making fraud detection by analysis of the still frames easier.
If he'd been hoaxing he would have grabbed an 8mm camera and filmed from a stable platform (standing or on his horse), not attempting to close the distance, which caused him to tremble from exhaustion & fear when he got close--and closeness risked revealing more details. He'd have claimed the initial encounter occurred at a much greater distance than 30 feet, saying Queen Kong heard their approach, which would have seemed reasonable. (Indeed, all Patterson gained from his courageous close approach was more sneers that Patty should have heard his approach (hoofsteps muffled by sand and a noisy stream!) and been more alarmed about it.) He would have slowed down the film speed (to speed up Patty's walk beyond the human range) without telling anyone that he was unsure of his speed setting--no one would have been able to prove he'd sped it up (or even thought of the possibility), and he wouldn't have lost credibility by casting doubt on his own film. He'd have claimed if hoaxing that he couldn't get the film started when the creature was closest because he had to get the lens cap off and the controls set--and would have said that if he'd the cap off and controls set right to begin with (as RP did) that that would have been fishy. He would have said the didn't get the settings right because he was in a hurry, so the film is fuzzy. (The original PGF, and extractions made from the in-focus color emulsion layer of the first-generation copies, are not fuzzy, which a hoaxer would have been sure to have done.)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=35&t=13113&st=
The basic point made by inmylight & soarwing above is that if Patterson had wanted to make a film that would have had more commercial appeal, and/or more scientific acceptance, he could easily have done so with no loss of credibility. He could have shot a stabilized film--in the days before stabilization, jerkiness made it hard for audiences to get a good focus on the creature, and made the viewing experience unsatisfying and unconvincing. The jerkiness wasn't useful in concealing flaws of the costume from examination, since he immediately made copies of the film available to scientists for detailed examination at their leisure. That would have enabled skeptics to examine the still frames, which is where flaws would have shown up, if he was worried about such things.
But, as can be seen, subsequent examination of the still frames, or blink-animations of very short segments, have tended on the whole to reveal authenticating details, like the calf bulge and toe-splay on touchdown, the foot bending at the mid-tarsal joint (in 3 sequences), the foot embedded an inch in the sand, tendons appearing at the proper points in the stride, level lower leg lift (which is not apparent when viewed in motion), vertical sole prior to toe-off, mobile kneecap, flexing hand, opening and closing mouth (per Owen Caddy, working with DDA's clarified B&W frames), etc. None of these details BTW would have been easy for a hoaxer to add, and none were noticed in the early days or pointed out by RP as evidence of authenticity, so they gained him nothing. These are more things a commercial hoaxer would have done differently (omitted in this case).
Because he used a good camera (Kodak--though there were cheaper models around), and good film (Kodachrome II had the finest grain, and was very costly: $30-$40 per roll), and good film size (16mm--when 8mm would have hidden details far better), and had the focus set properly, and had the exposure only slightly off, and because he filmed the creature in the open in good sunlight on a level surface (making analysis of its stride and body proportions easier), he was risking a lot if there had been a costume involved, and making fraud detection by analysis of the still frames easier.
If he'd been hoaxing he would have grabbed an 8mm camera and filmed from a stable platform (standing or on his horse), not attempting to close the distance, which caused him to tremble from exhaustion & fear when he got close--and closeness risked revealing more details. He'd have claimed the initial encounter occurred at a much greater distance than 30 feet, saying Queen Kong heard their approach, which would have seemed reasonable. (Indeed, all Patterson gained from his courageous close approach was more sneers that Patty should have heard his approach (hoofsteps muffled by sand and a noisy stream!) and been more alarmed about it.) He would have slowed down the film speed (to speed up Patty's walk beyond the human range) without telling anyone that he was unsure of his speed setting--no one would have been able to prove he'd sped it up (or even thought of the possibility), and he wouldn't have lost credibility by casting doubt on his own film. He'd have claimed if hoaxing that he couldn't get the film started when the creature was closest because he had to get the lens cap off and the controls set--and would have said that if he'd the cap off and controls set right to begin with (as RP did) that that would have been fishy. He would have said the didn't get the settings right because he was in a hurry, so the film is fuzzy. (The original PGF, and extractions made from the in-focus color emulsion layer of the first-generation copies, are not fuzzy, which a hoaxer would have been sure to have done.)
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=35&t=13113&st=
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
And these are supposed to be good points exactly why?
For example...
That´s exactly the opposite. Any half-intellingent hoaxer would not want steady images. Steady images are clearer, and would show more details of the gorilla suit. Also this would be inconsistent with the whole story of Patty´s encounter. That is a very nice excuse for fuzzyness...
I could go on, but it´s just overkill.
For example...
That´s exactly the opposite. Any half-intellingent hoaxer would not want steady images. Steady images are clearer, and would show more details of the gorilla suit. Also this would be inconsistent with the whole story of Patty´s encounter. That is a very nice excuse for fuzzyness...
I could go on, but it´s just overkill.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
And these are supposed to be good points exactly why?
For example...
That´s exactly the opposite. Any half-intellingent hoaxer would not want steady images. Steady images are clearer, and would show more details of the gorilla suit. Also this would be inconsistent with the whole story of Patty´s encounter. That is a very nice excuse for fuzzyness...
I could go on, but it´s just overkill.
Yes, I see no reason for you to go on. The film isn't all that fuzzy, and it's certainly clear enough for measurements. Kranz used several methods and went with more conservative figures, as you may recall.
Maybe you could help me out with something. You stated awhile ago that Gorillas are victims of roadkill. Do you have documentation for this? There are two threads going on BFF on the subject and it seems the posters aren't finding evidence for Gorillas or even Baboons being killed by vehicles. Binocular vision? Higher intelligence in higher primates? (Yes, I know; humans get roadkilled, but there's often alcohol involved, in the killer, the killee or both.)
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1100932066.jpg
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8212&hl=Patty's+left+arm
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Well, IMHO Krantz is just one of the persons that were fooled by the bloke in the suit.
Can you show us at least one of the alleged non-fuzzy frame of Patty? Those used to take measures? The original ones?
Diogenes pics from LMS are fuzzy. All pics of Patty I ever saw (books and sites are fuzzy). Unless your standard for non-fuzzy pictures are well below mine.
LAL, do you know that:
(i) Gorillas and baboons are not the only animals with binocular vison;
(ii) The areas where gorillas live are much more inaccessible than those where bigfeet are supposed to live (PNW included);
Oh, monkey roadkills...
If I have the opportunity I´ll ask to the guys I know that work and live in South Africa and Mali. Next time I go to the field I´ll take a snapshot of a road sign warning people to take care with monkeys crossing the road.
I also happen to know a guy who worked decades ago in Congo (when it was still named Zaire). They had a number of problems with gorillas (actually most of the problems were due to the local workers being very afraid of the gorillas). There were some tragic incidents. However, I don´t think he would want to provide details of the incidents over the internet, not just due to the nature of the occurrences but possibly also due to some corporate rules, so I will not provide details.
I can also offer my "sighting reports" of roadkilled monkeys both at the northern (Amapá state) and Southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul state). Some were big howling monkeys, arboricolal monkeys that can be quite fast and agile at the ground. Heck, even at the rural areas of Rio de Janeiro state I have seen roadkills of monkeys.
Oh, I almost forgot... Are you aware that a lot cases of people rammed by cars in roads had no alcohol or drugs involved? That poor visibility conditions are a major cause?
Can you show us at least one of the alleged non-fuzzy frame of Patty? Those used to take measures? The original ones?
Diogenes pics from LMS are fuzzy. All pics of Patty I ever saw (books and sites are fuzzy). Unless your standard for non-fuzzy pictures are well below mine.
LAL, do you know that:
(i) Gorillas and baboons are not the only animals with binocular vison;
(ii) The areas where gorillas live are much more inaccessible than those where bigfeet are supposed to live (PNW included);
Oh, monkey roadkills...
This is from http://tblogs.bootsnall.com/lb/archives/007855.shtml
This was from http://investigate.conservation.org/xp/IB/speciesdiversity/threats.xml
If I have the opportunity I´ll ask to the guys I know that work and live in South Africa and Mali. Next time I go to the field I´ll take a snapshot of a road sign warning people to take care with monkeys crossing the road.
I also happen to know a guy who worked decades ago in Congo (when it was still named Zaire). They had a number of problems with gorillas (actually most of the problems were due to the local workers being very afraid of the gorillas). There were some tragic incidents. However, I don´t think he would want to provide details of the incidents over the internet, not just due to the nature of the occurrences but possibly also due to some corporate rules, so I will not provide details.
I can also offer my "sighting reports" of roadkilled monkeys both at the northern (Amapá state) and Southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul state). Some were big howling monkeys, arboricolal monkeys that can be quite fast and agile at the ground. Heck, even at the rural areas of Rio de Janeiro state I have seen roadkills of monkeys.
Oh, I almost forgot... Are you aware that a lot cases of people rammed by cars in roads had no alcohol or drugs involved? That poor visibility conditions are a major cause?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Krantz examined a first generation copy through a frame-by-frame enlarging hand-crank viewer.
Nope, I don't happen to have the original, but there are some interesting new developments:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11287&hl=
I've seen the LMS clip on a high res screen. It's not perfect, but it's pretty clear. MK Davis' enlargements show some detail. He was on a live Internet Radio show recently, with links. He gave me permission to post some information he got from Bruce Bonney (who did the "red" image). I'll post it later.
I think it's a safe bet Gorillas don't drink alcohol (in the wild), and yes, I'm aware there are other animals with binocular vision and, presumably, better depth perception than, say, deer. I anxiously await documentation on road-killed Gorillas so I can post it on the threads where monkeys weren't even being discussed.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Monkeys are not even being dicussed... And baboons would be what sort of animals, dear lady?
As soon as have the chance to speak with my fellows from South Africa and Mali, I will provide you the refferences you asked. I´m sure you will accept them, even if they are anedoctal, since its the same sort of evidence for big foot.
In the meanwhile, I will anxiously await for any solid evidence on bigfoot, but I will not hold my breath, since I have no intention of commiting suicide.
I also anxiously await the "high quality" stills from PGF, again not holding my breath...
And the "interesting new developments" are just more blurred pics. Blobfoot, bigblob, whatever.
As soon as have the chance to speak with my fellows from South Africa and Mali, I will provide you the refferences you asked. I´m sure you will accept them, even if they are anedoctal, since its the same sort of evidence for big foot.
In the meanwhile, I will anxiously await for any solid evidence on bigfoot, but I will not hold my breath, since I have no intention of commiting suicide.
I also anxiously await the "high quality" stills from PGF, again not holding my breath...
And the "interesting new developments" are just more blurred pics. Blobfoot, bigblob, whatever.
Z
Variable Constant
Actually, I thought baboons and gorillas were apes, not monkeys.
LAL, thanks for those two comparison shots. There does seem to be some slight hand movement that wouldn't be accounted for with a static or wooden hand. It does not, as of yet, rule out 'grabby hand' type mechanisms, though, but if the measurements of upper and lower arm limits rule out the possibility of arm extensions (i.e. if extension appears to be in the UPPER arm only) then we do have an interesting situation for those claiming "man in suit".
Keep in mind - although I do think the PGF is a hoax, I am open to compelling, conclusive evidence - though, frankly, I tend to limit that to live capture or corpse. Still - the apparent hand movement does make me think a bit.
LAL, thanks for those two comparison shots. There does seem to be some slight hand movement that wouldn't be accounted for with a static or wooden hand. It does not, as of yet, rule out 'grabby hand' type mechanisms, though, but if the measurements of upper and lower arm limits rule out the possibility of arm extensions (i.e. if extension appears to be in the UPPER arm only) then we do have an interesting situation for those claiming "man in suit".
Keep in mind - although I do think the PGF is a hoax, I am open to compelling, conclusive evidence - though, frankly, I tend to limit that to live capture or corpse. Still - the apparent hand movement does make me think a bit.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
No expert am I, unless you count all those hours of figure drawing as expertise, but that hand motion doesn't look like anything that would require articulated fingers.
It looks like the whole arm swung back and in a touch in response to the stride. The whole length of the arm appears to be affected, and the hand appears to have turned marginally with regard to the viewer as a result. It looks more like a slight swing of the whole arm than like some kind of wonderfully articulated finger movements. I really don't see what bit would require some kind of amazing finger suit--I don't even see what's supposed to be finger motions! It just looks like the arm's at a backpoint of the swing, and the angle of the hand to the viewer has altered a bit because of that, the way it does when most people walk.
Even if the hand is at the end of a suit arm and there isn't a real hand in it (a claim I'm still skeptical of, since I don't yet buy the height estimates made at varying points by Footers) it would still undergo this motion.
I mean, is there something I'm missing that I'm supposed to be way impressed by?
If the Bigfoot flipped off the camera or something, THAT'S the kind of finger articulation I'd be wowed by. This is like...ooh, the hand wiggled. What am I missing?
It looks like the whole arm swung back and in a touch in response to the stride. The whole length of the arm appears to be affected, and the hand appears to have turned marginally with regard to the viewer as a result. It looks more like a slight swing of the whole arm than like some kind of wonderfully articulated finger movements. I really don't see what bit would require some kind of amazing finger suit--I don't even see what's supposed to be finger motions! It just looks like the arm's at a backpoint of the swing, and the angle of the hand to the viewer has altered a bit because of that, the way it does when most people walk.
Even if the hand is at the end of a suit arm and there isn't a real hand in it (a claim I'm still skeptical of, since I don't yet buy the height estimates made at varying points by Footers) it would still undergo this motion.
I mean, is there something I'm missing that I'm supposed to be way impressed by?
If the Bigfoot flipped off the camera or something, THAT'S the kind of finger articulation I'd be wowed by. This is like...ooh, the hand wiggled. What am I missing?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Depends on which definition you read, I guess. I like this one:
baboon
(Science: zoology) One of the Old World Quadrumana, of the genera Cynocephalus and Papio; the dog-faced ape. Baboons have dog-like muzzles and large canine teeth, cheek pouches, a short tail, and naked callosities on the buttocks. They are mostly African. See Mandrill, and Chacma, and Drill an ape.
Origin: OE. Babewin, baboin, fr.F. Babouin, or LL. Babewynus. Of unknown origin; cf. D. Baviaan, G. Pavian, baboon, F. Babin lip of ape, dogs, etc, dial. G. Bappe mouth.
Thank you. Evidently the posters are having difficulty finding any kind of references on Gorilla roadkill. I've been out of town and have much catching up to do. ("Welcome back, Lu. How was the museum of Natural history in New York?" "The evolution exhibit was closed for renovation and I didn't get to see for myself how hairy A. afarensis breasts were supposed to be. Drat.")
It's interesting to me that the "missing roll" may not be missing after all and that there is still more to be learned after 38 years. The film ranks with the Zapruder film for most-studied film in history, and while it still may be called "inconclusive" (as is all evidence short of a body), it's far from conclusive that there was any hoaxing involved. The figure at its closest is only 1.66 mm tall inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5 mm tall. Blowing it up past 10x produces what? Fuzziness? Vague outlines?
It took 60 years for a Gorilla specimen to be brought in after they were "discovered" (by Western science), about the same with Giant Pandas. There's time.It's only 38 years since the Patterson film. If I'm still around in another twenty and there's nothing "conclusive" by then I might begin to hve my doubts.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
In a word, great! You're welcome.
The issue of finger movement came up on BFF and I just happened to see the reference to an old thread. I remembered Diogenes wanted to see stills and there they were. The toes articulated too, and the forward position of the ankle can be seen. (Krantz calculated it would be from the Bossburg casts. The PGF wasn't what convinced him.)
Here's a gif from some links from one of the live Internet radio shows Davis was on:
http://artistfirst.com/Righthandcolorlargesmallest.gif
http://artistfirst.com/mklinks.htm
Last edited:
- Status