Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
I think it's a curved tree trunk, myself.

There is a film defect in there too.

No thumb, though.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_79346d482af9415b.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_79346d482b912dc8.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_79346d482c893347.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's interesting. I'll have to look into that more.

Why is the National Geographic logo melting LTC? Are you altering these stills in any way?
 
Nothing has been cut out, only cropped. There are three, possibly four scene's in this film, what happened at those point's is anyone's guess.


m

 
mangler said:
This is one of those posts when I have question why I even bother.
Click to expand...
So Luminous, you'll do the right thing and withdraw your ridiculous pareidolia thumb claim here, at MABRC, and any other place you made it and cite when and where that your claim was shown to be false? And maybe even give some thought to problems with your observational skills?

Really, this resembles a footprint more than a piece of dead wood? What's the deal?
 
I would be more concerned with film speed and how much film is truly missing, if any.


16mm - 40 frames per foot max, 100 feet of film. Here is the time run down.

At 24 fps it's 2 min. 47 sec, at 18 fps it's 3 min. 42 sec. and at 16 fps it's 4 min. 10 sec.

This is the kind of stuff that interests me.


m
 
So Luminous, you must now realize that your "opening shot" is seriously cropped and the actual shot is actually much wider. In fact, the whole original film must actually be much wider than we realize, with Patty very small in the frame.

thum_826446d4882094a8c.jpg
 
LTC8K6 said:
So Roger filmed that "track" well after he fimed Patty strolling by then?

Was this before or after the 3.5 mile jaunt after Patty?

Where are these still camera shots? Who wouldn't take a few good shots with a much better camera they had with them?
Click to expand...


C'mon, you've been reading this thread for quite a while now. The possible track has been attributed to another possible Sasquatch in the area. If that's the case, Patty need not be involved.
 
kitakaze said:
So Luminous, you'll do the right thing and withdraw your ridiculous pareidolia thumb claim here, at MABRC, and any other place you made it and cite when and where that your claim was shown to be false? And maybe even give some thought to problems with your observational skills?

Really, this resembles a footprint more than a piece of dead wood? What's the deal?
Click to expand...

I might, if I find that this is truly the case. I'm not sure I'm watching the same version as Manger and others here. I wouldn't call it ridiculous. This was M.K.'s assertion, not mine. I only corroborated what He apparently found. It sure looks like a thumb to me. But I'll research this again in the light of what was shown. If it's in error, I'll correct it.
 
Where are you getting the footage that you're using?
Click to expand...

I got the still from Mangler. Don't know where he got it. I just know that most of what we are shown is seriously altered via cropping and enlarging to make Patty look larger in the frame. You can tell because occasionally you see a full frame still and then you realize just how far away Roger really was and just how small Patty actually was in the frame.

Imagine what might be visible in the actual uncropped film...

So far, that's all we can do.
 
I believe every clip out there has been cropped (except the master and possibly the master copy's), there may be one available that hasn't and I'm trying to track that one down now, but I'm not even sure it hasn't been cropped. To the best of my knowledge this picture of frame 352 is the only full frame out there.






Different aspect ratios are used for different media, theater, television, digital etc. I see no conspiracy theory.


Unfortunately with the different scene's we can't know for certain if the camera was simply turned off and on or if the film was spliced. Then take into consideration the cropping, it's very difficult to accurately track the chronology of events, IMO. But hey that's never stopped anyone before.


BTW Lum according to Caddy the first five frames were spliced in, "Caddy points out the first 5 frames as seen on the Legend Meets Science DVD were not shot at Bluff Creek."
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/bellingham05.htm







In one copy that I have there is the entire 108 frames of that particular clip. I'm not sure how Caddy knows for certain where those frames were taken. Must have something to do with the Green, Noll, Caddy conspiracy.


In regards to this area of the film I would be more concerned with why the first frame is so over-exposed, not only that but IMO the first 190 frames are more over-exposed than the rest of the film.


m


 
Roger had a small camera that had to be wound up to film. Lets say it was fully wound when he came across Patty, does anyone know how long the camera would film before having to rewind it?
 
Patterson's thumb?

Did I really just read that?

Yet more effluvium from the fertile imagination of MK Davis.

Did Davis engage in a Vulcan mind-meld with Beckjord, and fail to break the connection?

This is so nuts it's simply beyond the pale.

Anyone with more than two functioning neurons can see the feature is obviously a Satyr's wang...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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