Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[UrsulaV]

To be fair at all costs, the tendency of Footers to try to enlarge chunks of the PGF to find new "details" isn't something unique to them. Probably every commerical artist has had the experience of having a client send them a teeny weeny photo, and when you say "Do you have anything bigger? I can't work with this," they say "Oh!" and double the size in Photoshop, and then send you THAT, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth and wondering how you could call the client a mouth-breathing imbecile in such a way as to still get paid.

A lot of people just don't understand that there isn't an infinite level of data to photos, and that when you blow something tiny up, you don't neccessarily get more information out of it, or that the new "information" isn't neccessarily representative of what was there that day, but quite probably arose from the computer program and however it interpolates and whatnot.

It might be most accurate, kitakaze, to say that the PGF is low-resolution, rather than "blurry." It's too low-res for me to pull anything useful out of, anyway--muscle bulges, scapula, moles, thigh hernias--I wouldn't swear to any of 'em. And particularly when you WANT to see something there...sometimes I feel like the PGF is some sort of funky cryptozoological Rorshach test. "I see scapula!" "I see a thigh hernia!" "I see a bunny wearing a Rolex!"

 

[kitakaze]

See, I'm gonna whine now 'cuz it just seems with all this smart n' funny stuff UrsulaV keeps saying, it's like she's going for a nomination every time!

 

[kitakaze]

A lot of people just don't understand that there isn't an infinite level of data to photos, and that when you blow something tiny up, you don't neccessarily get more information out of it, or that the new "information" isn't neccessarily representative of what was there that day, but quite probably arose from the computer program and however it interpolates and whatnot.

But luckily nobody like that is posting here, right?

 

[Correa Neto]

But luckily nobody like that is posting here, right?

Uh...
You missed the 9-11 conspiracy and related threads with the loose Changers...

 

[tube]

Cropped ? How about missing? Like, another 75 feet or so .. And that's just one roll..

Are we to believe Roger just read the instructions and fiddled with the controls, all those months he had the camera ?

I feel Diogenes has a valid point here. Some Bigfooters have claimed that if the subject of Bigfoot was "tried" in a court of law rather than the "court" of science, then we would surely get a "conviction" that Bigfoot exists. I disagree. In a court of law you must establish a CHAIN OF CUSTODY with evidence and you must have the ORIGINAL EVIDENCE. With many key pieces of Bigfoot evidence, this is sorely lacking. Numero uno is of course the Patterson film itself. In the case of what I specifically investigated, the Onion Mountain cast, the original cast is also long gone.

But as Diogenes has repeatedly pointed out, we don't even have COPIES of large portions of the Patterson film.

Recently Bigfooter Larry Lund spoke at a Bigfoot conference in Ohio. A posting from a Bigfoot Discussion board details how Lund now feels the so-called "Memorial Day" footage, seen on Legend Meets Science, is a hoax, LARGELY BASED ON HIS VIEWING PORTIONS NOT SEEN ON LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE.

Take a look here: http://bigfootdiscussions.invisionz...php?s=&showtopic=1166&view=findpost&p=1366051

Several relevant passages:
Larry Lund, Vancouver, WA
Larry started right off by talking about the Memorial Day video. As it turns out, he was the first person called to review the video. Larry stated that when Owen Pate called him, the first words out of his mouth were "Larry, I understand you're the guy who can help me get this video on TV. How soon can you make that happen and how much money do you think I can get out of it?"

His initial impression upon viewing the video was that it was hoaxed. He did say that seeing it again on "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" almost had him convinced that maybe the thing was real, except for one little thing: On the original tape, Owen Pate had forgotten to stop recording in between the two "sightings" of the creature in question.

He had a copy of the original tape with him, unedited with all of the dialogue going back and forth and boy, is this revealing. The quotes below are written verbatim as we heard them on the video. The camera is on the spot where the subject runs out from for a looonnnng time before it does, while the dialogue below is going on... apparently they know what's going to happen ahead of time. This is the stuff you did not see or hear on LMS:

- "We can make a million bucks!"
- "[undecipherable] enough power to play it back on TV?"
- "I've had two too many drinks!" (laughter)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

............
But as Diogenes has repeatedly pointed out, we don't even have COPIES of large portions of the Patterson film.

Recently Bigfooter Larry Lund spoke at a Bigfoot conference in Ohio. A posting from a Bigfoot Discussion board details how Lund now feels the so-called "Memorial Day" footage, seen on Legend Meets Science, is a hoax, LARGELY BASED ON HIS VIEWING PORTIONS NOT SEEN ON LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE................

Good stuff .. There is someone hyping the Memorial day footage over at BFF right now...

I may need to refer them to this...

Do you know if Lund posts over there ?

 

[LTC8K6]

But luckily nobody like that is posting here, right?

As far as I know, both Diogenes and myself have prefaced our thoughts about what we see in PGF with the idea that it's really difficult to make out any actual small details. You would have to read all of the threads through to realize this.

So, if you are referring to us, no, we don't post like that.

 

[kitakaze]

Uh...
You missed the 9-11 conspiracy and related threads with the loose Changers...

No, I was vaguely referring to these people but then Correa just came right out and said it.

 

[CptColumbo]

Damnit, I wanted to read one thread that didn't mention Loose Change.

 

[Correa Neto]

Beware, for there are intersections!!!

Bigfoot creduloids who belive in CTs!!!

Loose footers?

Foot loosers?
*ARGH! Someone please take Kevin Bacon's image out of my mind!*

 

[kitakaze]

Looters? Foosies? 6 degrees, Correa?

 

[tube]

Humps are not men in boats by the tiller.
QUOTE]

Cos of my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely lady lumps, check it out!

 

[Darat]

erikbeckjord again lied to gain Membership here, I have merged the account he obtained under false premises to his original account. I have also deleted all the posts he made under the new account - I will do the same if he again lies and gains a new account under false pretenses. Since this erikbeckjord is obviously a person that will lie and act in a dishonest manner I would suggest if any Members spot any more accounts he may have they just inform the Mod Team and don't bother responding to his posts as they will be deleted.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Roger Knights]

ROGER - What appears to be happening with all this is that the names of people and who said what gets mixed about on the Internet during these kinds of discussions.

No, this was not “mixed about on the Internet.” The error is attributable solely to Kal Korff, who originated it in his article In Fortean Times, as was apparent from the exact quote of his words I used and the source-citation (Jan. 2005) I provided.

Now, instead of Bruce, they say it was Heironimus' brother who lives between Gimlin and Bob H. and made that statement.

Correction: I (RogerKni) say.

This is very similar to the constantly repeated story that Bob Heironimus claimed Roger told him he'd made the suit from horsehide...

No it’s not very similar, or indeed similar at all.

If you are flipping about with your remote and you happen to notice that an episode of BUFFY is on, you can be sure that I and others are probably getting a little check in the mail. The same holds for Patty Patterson. When you see Patterson's "Bigfoot" on the X-FILES, or in a commercial, or another show and you find the names of Patty and/or the Dahinden brothers in the credits, a royalty check is very likely heading their way.

Of course she’s getting some royalties—no one disputes that. I question your implicit claim to knowledge of their amount. I gather (from Dave Murphy) they aren’t “large.” If you know differently, or have a strong reason to suspect differently, state the reasons for your speculation—and label it as such. Don’t just say “large royalties” as though it was a known fact. (Certainly Dahinden didn’t live like a king on the royalty checks he received--so presumably they weren't king-sized. Ditto for Pat Patterson. She's not "living large," so far as I know.)

 

[kitakaze]

Seems like all parties involved stand more to gain monitarily by coming out with a hoax.

 

[Roger Knights]

And these are supposed to be good points exactly why?
For example...

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.

That´s exactly the opposite. Any half-intelligent 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...

Think critically:

1. A commercial hoaxer would benefit greatly from shooting an audience-pleasing, steady film sequence. He'd try to get one if he could, other things being equal.

2. A single steady frame within the roll would be sufficient to expose the giveaway details in the suit to scientific or skeptical examiners who had "screwed in their loupes." Therefore, every one of the hundreds of frames would have to be blurred by camera shaking for him to benefit from it. He'd gain nothing if only 99% of the frames were blurred.

3. A film in which 100% of the frames were blurred by shakiness would be suspicious on its face. It would be unnatural for there not to have been at least an eighth of a second (i.e., between two frames shot at 16 fps) in which there weren't relative stability.

4. Despite a hoaxer's best efforts, he might accidentally allow some steadiness to occur between two frames.

5. A film in which there was non-stop shakiness--i.e., in 100% of its frames--would also be a commercial disaster. Viewers would get seasick.

6. Therefore, since some steady images cannot be avoided somewhere within the film, it would make sense for a hoaxer to keep things steady throughout but achieve blurriness by the other means I suggested (an 8mm camera with controls set slightly improperly and amateur-grade film, shot from a greater distance), as would be expected in an unexpected encounter). Such means would have had less prima facie suspiciousness. But Patterson didn't do so, when it would have been obvious to his clever, scheming mind that that was the better path.

BTW, he'd also thereby have spared himself being arrested for not paying the camera-rental fee, which would have been affordable for an 8mm camera. (Come to think of it, I believe I read somewhere that Patterson actually owned an 8mm cine camera. If so, that would have made that path even easier for him--but he didn't take it.)

Similarly, an 8mm film could have been developed anywhere, even in the home darkroom of a confederate, avoiding the headache of there being only a handful of labs (just three on the West Coast, I think), none open on Saturdays, that could process the high-tech Kodachrome II film. This foreseeable difficulty would cause foreseeable timeline problems (since the hoaxers deliberately chose a Friday for the filming) that would be awkward to explain away. Most skilled commercial hoaxers would know enough to Keep It Simple and avoid such needless (and expensive) complexity.

(FWIW, simplicity was what blew Long's mind when he contemplated the clever scenario he thought Patterson had devised: "The story was simple in its essentials."--p. 337. If simplicity was what Patterson was after, that would have been an additional reason for him to prefer a home-type, 8mm camera, with film to match.)

EDIT: PS: It's an empty objection to say that a non-shaky film strip couldn't have been shot, because steadiness wouldn't have matched the scenario of the close encounter with Patty. The hoaxer would of course have adjusted the scenario to fit in with filming a blurry but non-shaky film strip. I.e., as I suggested in the material that prompted the response above, he'd have avoided a close encounter, a struggle with a frightened horse, and a scamper to catch up with the creature. Instead, he'd have "kept it simple" and had his small 8mm camera in his pocket, encountered Patty from at least 100 feet away, been able to pull out the camera at once and shoot from a stable horse, using the camera's slightly improper settings. And he'd have had a perfect excuse for the latter: "I didn't want to take time to fiddle with the controls, because I knew most encounters are fleeting, and that there were woods a few seconds away that it could have walked into. I couldn't anticipate that it would walk up the creek instead."

 

[Mad Hom]

Well I for one don't suspect Patterson of being devious or clever. I am on record as stating I believe the hoax came off without much of hitch through dumb luck and dumb luck alone.

I don't think ole Roger was much of a Bigfoot hunter nor do I think he was much of a hoaxer. I think he got lucky that the sum of his cobbled together parts became the bedrock on which Hairy Biped Bleeverism rests.

He slung some crap at the wall and the PGF is what stuck. To attribute much else to him is to give him far to much credit either way.

As for Longs book, I read it and the most important part of the whole thing IMO was the info on just what a shiesty Pr**k Roger Patterson was. To me that was quite telling. It paints him as a person who WOULD try to pull some shenanigans even if no one believes he COULD.

Mad Hom

 

[Yeah_Right]

"They exist in another dimension from us, but can appear in this dimension whenever they have a reason to. See, it's like there are many levels, many dimensions. When our time in this one is finished, we move on to the next, but the Big Man can go between. The Big Man comes from God. He's our big brother, kind of looks out for us. Two years ago, we were going downhill, really self-destructive. We needed a sign to put us back on track, and that's why the Big Man appeared".

This would sound so cool with a Rod Serling imitation.

 

[Mad Hom]

Bigfoot has only been here for two years? Wow!!

So the PGF really is Bullpuckey than huh? Beings how it was filmed ohhh....39 years ago!!

 

[M.K.Davis]

Memorial Day Footage

His initial impression upon viewing the video was that it was hoaxed. He did say that seeing it again on "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" almost had him convinced that maybe the thing was real, except for one little thing: On the original tape, Owen Pate had forgotten to stop recording in between the two "sightings" of the creature in question.

He had a copy of the original tape with him, unedited with all of the dialogue going back and forth and boy, is this revealing. The quotes below are written verbatim as we heard them on the video. The camera is on the spot where the subject runs out from for a looonnnng time before it does, while the dialogue below is going on... apparently they know what's going to happen ahead of time. This is the stuff you did not see or hear on LMS:

- "We can make a million bucks!"
- "[undecipherable] enough power to play it back on TV?"
- "I've had two too many drinks!" (laughter)[/QUOTE]


Based upon color analysis alone, I have concluded as well, that the video known as the Memorial Day Footage, is a hoax. M.K. Davis