bruto
Penultimate Amazing
According to Kodak's ads, a K100 (the model Patterson rented) could pull 40 feet on a winding.
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
According to Kodak's ads, a K100 (the model Patterson rented) could pull 40 feet on a winding.
A bit more on the camera.
The general consensus is that the camera was a Cine K-100, thou I'm not sure whether it was a single lens or turret model, the arrest warrant states "Cine Kodak 100 Lens #RE 2796 camera" Long pg.168 (a little help with the fact's anyone).
I believe the Cine K-100's hit the market in 57' the three lens turret sold for $315, single lens $279, it was and still is a very good 16mm camera. It has a pre-stressed motor that pulls (as bruto states) 40 feet, and there seems to have been ample opportunities for a rewind. Regardless of fps it would still pull almost half the film in a single wind.
m
The general consensus is that the camera was a Cine K-100, thou I'm not sure whether it was a single lens or turret model, the arrest warrant states "Cine Kodak 100 Lens #RE 2796 camera" Long pg.168 (a little help with the fact's anyone).
I believe the Cine K-100's hit the market in 57' the three lens turret sold for $315, single lens $279, it was and still is a very good 16mm camera. It has a pre-stressed motor that pulls (as bruto states) 40 feet, and there seems to have been ample opportunities for a rewind. Regardless of fps it would still pull almost half the film in a single wind.
m
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Would that 40 feet become less as the spring aged?
Would you normally leave the camera wound up?
Would you normally leave the camera wound up?
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
The U-Tube graphic said it was his thumb. Where did you get the tree limb quote?
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Mangler,
What did you use to piece together the full frame in that opening shot. And you're right, the opening is overexposed on the LMS. Any theories on why this is?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I cannot find anywhere where Davis says it's anything but a limb.
You need to provide the quote where Davis says it's a thumb, since that is what you claim.
You need to provide the quote where Davis says it's a thumb, since that is what you claim.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It's even in the you tube clip. limb.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
If Loomy is claiming we are seeing Patterson's thumb, where is Patterson supposed to be and who is holding the camera?
If Patterson is holding the camera, his thumb ( anywhere within a foot or so ) would have pretty much covered the lens ..
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Alright already. I'm not sure where I got the idea that it was Patterson's thumb. I thought it was in the text on the U-tube version. I guess not. I must have jumped to conclusions, not that any of you have done that. Or am I the only fallible person on this board? Sheeze...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Then you have to wonder why Davis said the info had been cropped out of the film...
That's an excellent point LTC8K6 and something I have also questioned. Since Davis had access to Nolls work, and Noll had the Green copy I had always assumed that Davis was working with a full frame copy. I kind of thought that Hajicek probably enlarged and cropped the copy for LMS. Now, I'm not so sure of this because on more than one occasion Davis make statements to the effect of this "The first generated copies of the film are “cropped” versions of the film." If the original copies are in fact cropped . . . I'm not sure how this effects my train of thought.
Lum, let me get back to you on the overexposure, I'm presently talking to some 16mm film/camera people. At present the general consensus seems to be camera turning off and on/or splice. That frame is kind of perplexing because in theory there should be a bit of bleed over from one scene to the other. Don't quote me on any of this yet because I'm personally uncertain of how the shutter on this camera reacts when the camera is shutdown. As stated by LTC8K6 the spring drive may be affected by age but I'm not certain how or if it would effect the shutter upon shutdown.
m
Lum, let me get back to you on the overexposure, I'm presently talking to some 16mm film/camera people. At present the general consensus seems to be camera turning off and on/or splice. That frame is kind of perplexing because in theory there should be a bit of bleed over from one scene to the other. Don't quote me on any of this yet because I'm personally uncertain of how the shutter on this camera reacts when the camera is shutdown. As stated by LTC8K6 the spring drive may be affected by age but I'm not certain how or if it would effect the shutter upon shutdown.
m
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I never could get Noll to confirm whether Greens copy was zoomed and cropped. He did hint that the aspect ratio was skewed horizontally .. ( Makes Patty look more massive )
It also seems Green's copy is only the the ~25 feet of Patty footage.
Beckjord confirmed to me in an e-mail that his copy is the ~25 feet also .
I gotta' believe the rest of that film tells us more about when it was taken, and if the Patty footage is indeed the end of the reel..
It also seems Green's copy is only the the ~25 feet of Patty footage.
Beckjord confirmed to me in an e-mail that his copy is the ~25 feet also .
I gotta' believe the rest of that film tells us more about when it was taken, and if the Patty footage is indeed the end of the reel..
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Hey man, WTF? That's pretty slick. It's so typical of the mental fortitude of you footie 'researchers'. You made the most utterly boffo claim based on nothing but your over-active imagination, your pareidolia run amok. You then had your silly claim deflated. Deflated by people that don't play the goofy bigfoot game.
Here is where you first (as far as I know) claimed the thumb wackiness. Did you post again to admit your dubious claim? Did you explain how, where, and by whom you were shown to be wrong? No, you pulled a total weasel. You quietly had the graphic you made and your boffo claim removed from that post. No admission, explanation, or anything. You just yoinked it and hoped none of your believer buddies would notice. Can you even do that yourself or did you get LAL to help you? It's so typical of you footers to do that crap. You get all worked up in pareidolia play and call it research. Is it really such a big deal to face up to having been really wrong? Heaven forbid that you admit you were corrected by dirty skeptics who knew more than you did about your Holy Grail. So predictable.
Last edited:
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Say what you want, but I didn't "Pull" anything. You're reading malicious or nefarious intent into this and it's not there. I seem to recall reading somewhere about the thumb being in the shot. I'm not sure where I first saw that. I thought in was in the text of the U-tube version, but obviously it's not there. I'm still searching for it. You don't have to tear my head off over this. You're acting pompous and judgmental and you ought not be acting that way. It's not as though you have never gotten your information screwed up. Your hostility is unwelcome and unhelpful here. You're laying it on awful thick.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Laying it on thick? Nice try. Dude, it's as simple as this:
"Whoa, what a stinker! Man, did I pull a rabbit out of my butt. Yeah, that thing I told you was Patterson's thumb... heh heh... turns out it's kinda a tree. This guy mangler at the JREF pointed it out for me. Man do I feel silly. Disregard the whole thumb thing. My bad."
Yeah, that's a start. What you realy should do is have a little think about the other rabbits you're pulling out. Instead what you do is get your stinker removed without explanation. What you're doing is Sweaty-style shuckin' n' jivin'. You make these really boffo claims and don't take responsibility for them. You are a bigfoot BS perpetuator. 'Yeah, I, I, I read it somewhere. I'm just the messenger.'
Dude, your words (bolding mine):
It's there, no doubt about it? Your observation is skewed, man. It's messed, faulty, out of order. You call pareidolia play 'research'. You see a piece of dead wood and call it the mysterious footprint of another bigfoot. Dude, it's a piece of dead wood. Snap out of the fantasy.
We've all gotten our information screwed up. When we do there's not one of us here that doesn't say 'man, I messed up'. This isn't 'oops, bad source' it's your screwy observations and the poorly thought, hastey claims. Think about it. I'm not trying to tear your head off, I'm trying to get you to put it back on.
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Okay Kit, you tell me what I should be saying. It's obvious you believe that you know how I should handle this.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Nice side step. How do you think you should handle it? You're calling trees thumbs and sticks bigfoot prints and not taking responsibility when your claim gets pantsed. That's pretty lame. Why don't you tell your footer buddies your thumb claim was out to lunch?
ETA: Hey, look! Dead wood.
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Even if someone claimed it was a thumb, and you could show that it is a thumb, WTF does that have to do with whether or not the subject in the film is a Bigfoot ?
Luminous
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 296
Side step? What are you talking about? I have nothing to hide. I obviously read into something and somehow got the impression we were looking at his thumb. If you look at the still from the U-Tube footage, it looks very much like his thumb. I didn't put the info out of a hat! Someone said it, or I read it somewhere and I ran with it.
You expect me to say I made it up? Well, I can't, cause I didn't. I have no problems sharing this blunder either. You're hypocritical standing over me in judgment like that. You're not my judge or my jury. No crime was committed here. Just a mistake or a misunderstanding.
At least I have the guts to admit when I've been wrong. Do you? The way you're accusing me over this is wrong. It would be nice if you'd admit that you're attitude wreaks of self-righteousness.
By the way, this does not mean I'm changing my view of the possible print that is shown in this clip.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Nothing. Nothing at all, of course. However, when reliable evidence continues to be so non-existent pareidolia frolick under the imaginative title of 'research' is wicked fun, I guess.
- Status