Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Kell]

And therefore, there is no bigfoot!

And thus, materialism is refuted?

 

[Correa Neto]

That was Peter Byrne. He was commenting on the difficulty of tracking in them. You can't see through them. The PNW has forests that range from very open to very dense, and, thanks to logging, some are 3' high.

Can't see trhough them, har to track, but still, people do hunt and find prey there, don´t they? Including small prey, that must be harder to track...

Old Growth forests don't support the variety of foods need by omnivores, but they certainly are dense and incredibly beautiful. The Vine Maple in the understory of more open forest, such as mature second growth, is extremely entangled. but deer, elk and bear move through it with ease.

Well, LAL, again I disagree. But that´s not a surprise, is it?

Old forests (the ones loggers preffer) are open at ground level for a number of reasons:

- The elevated and dense tree canopy hinders light penetration, thus making life harder for small plants (its also a competition for light, big trees are at an advantage);
- Herbivores (deer, elk, etc.) eat the smaller plants;
- In some temperate forests, natural wildfires help keep the ground clean of smaller plants.

Mature forests are much more luxuriant and diverse -healthy, if you preffer- than the young ones. They are full-fledged well-stabilished environments. The last two reasons show why the populations of bigger animals will be lerger and healthier than in those with too much underbrush.

But we've discussed both items already... Am I the only one who is repeating arguments?

 

[William Parcher]

William, do we know if those first gen copies of the P/G film were zoomed? That is, are they really identical to the original?

They are non-zoomed, film copies of the "original" film that Patterson presented to the world. There are also numerous early Cibachrome enlargements of selected frames from the original film, which are not being shared. The most famous one is "Frame 352". This image has almost certainly been retouched with a detailed right hand added.

 

[Correa Neto]

And thus, materialism is refuted?

ROFLMAOL!!!!

 

[William Parcher]

I believe that "Frame 352" is public domain. I believe that Rene Dahinden possessed and copyrighted the original Cibachrome created from this film frame. His estate may be retaining that copyright. Nearly all images you will find of this frame are derived from Dahinden's Cibachrome print. You can clearly see the detailed right hand (it is more pronounced in some Internet images as compared to others).

Here is a copy of Dahinden's Cibrachrome that I believe shows the entire print...

It is my contention that the original Cibachrome print was retouched. At the minimum, it had a detailed right hand drawn in. I also am seeing what appears to be a reworked left hand. Unfortunately, some of the best examples for comparison are posted on the non-functional BFF.

 

[Huntster]

Not to mention that nowdays Gigantopithecus are seen as being relative to orang-utangs, that AFAIK are not hominiids...

So...

Are seen as?

So there have been sightings, or is that just another way of saying "believe"?

 

[Huntster]

I don't know about you, but I'm "obtuse" and have a "mental disorder". And I'm a "woo".....

What did you do wrong?

Apparently I'm all that, and much, much more.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by LAL :
Funny, I was going to make a comment about the strawmen around here, but decided to rise above it and deleted it.

Yes, yes, you're a saint......

Sainthood now!

LAL, I always knew you were special!

 

[LTC8K6]

William, this is the entire frame 352, apparently.

 

[LTC8K6]

So if we see any film or frames where Patty appears closer to the camera than in the full frame 352, they are likely zoomed.

 

[Correa Neto]

Are seen as?

So there have been sightings, or is that just another way of saying "believe"?

No, its just another way of saying concluded based on reliable evidence.

But you knew that, don't you?

 

[William Parcher]

William, this is the entire frame 352, apparently.

Agreed. I was apparently wrong about the image I just posted, as being the complete Dahinden Cibachrome.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/gps.htm

Some newer gif animations there. You'll have to read around the puff pastries regarding the PGF....

Where did this crappy version of frame 352 come from? Why use such a rotten version of the frame for this comparison anyway, when there are apparently much better versions available.

 

[LTC8K6]

If the film that Patterson presented to the world in 1967 looked like the right half of the above, I can certainly understand the immediate rejection of it....

 

[William Parcher]

So if we see any film or frames where Patty appears closer to the camera than in the full frame 352, they are likely zoomed.

Yes, cropped and enlarged.

Since the true original frame 352 is 16mm film, it would be the size of your thumbnail. Dahinden's Cibachrome is an enlarged print made from the actual film frame 352. It is probably 8x10 or 11x14. As I said, nearly all book and Internet "Frame 352s" are derived from Dahinden's Ciba...which served as the "master copy".

 

[William Parcher]

LTC, the original film is not as crappy as the comparison you posted. There is no telling where that image was derived from.

 

[Correa Neto]

A quick remmark regarding skeptics' position on reliable data.

Lets suppose I am walking at PNW and suddenly I see a bigfoot. I can watch it say, from a 10m distance for two minutes while it eats berries -no pareidolia here. I'm close enough to see that its not a bloke in a suit. I grab my camera from my backpack, point at it, it looks at me and disappears before I manage to get a shot. I run after it but it outpaces me. The ground is too hard for any footprints to be produced, I can find no fur or bigshit around.

Suppose that I also happen to be somehow sure it was not daydreaming or a false memory. Neither I am making any hoax to annoy footers, please skeptics, make money, etc.

What would be my reaction? Would I repent and confess PGF is real, all footprint casts are real, the evidence is enough to deem the creature real?

No. I would say- Dudes and dudesses, I saw a bigfoot. I concluded, given the conditions of the sighting, they are real. However, I admit I have no reliable evidence that I am telling the truth. I saw it, it looked like a primate, but that's as far as I can go, based on the evidence - it looked like a primate, but I can´t prove it was one. I know the avaliable evidence are not enough to prove the animal truly exists. And I am confortable with the way scientists approach the subject, given the lack of reliable evidence. What convinced me was good enough to convince me. And that's all. I would still think PGF stinks, footprints can be hoaxed or misinterpreted, etc.

 

[William Parcher]

Lets suppose I am walking at PNW and suddenly I see a bigfoot. I can watch it say, from a 10m distance for two minutes while it eats berries -no pareidolia here.

You found the territory of at least one Bigfoot. You should be able to become world-famous and very rich by returning to this area. Swap the still camera for a digital videocamera. This will create more convincing evidence. That same berry patch would be a prime location to return to, but you would want to expand outwards from it. Bigfoot(s) live in that vicinity. You should get your monkey and your millions of bucks.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe that "Frame 352" is public domain. I believe that Rene Dahinden possessed and copyrighted the original Cibachrome created from this film frame. His estate may be retaining that copyright. Nearly all images you will find of this frame are derived from Dahinden's Cibachrome print. You can clearly see the detailed right hand (it is more pronounced in some Internet images as compared to others).

Here is a copy of Dahinden's Cibrachrome that I believe shows the entire print...

It is my contention that the original Cibachrome print was retouched. At the minimum, it had a detailed right hand drawn in. I also am seeing what appears to be a reworked left hand. Unfortunately, some of the best examples for comparison are posted on the non-functional BFF.

I believe it has been shown that what appears to be curled fingers on the right hand is actually background material. Part of the wood debris. Once you apply this knowledge when looking at the picture, it becomes pretty apparent.

That is not to say, no retouching has been done; but retouching is not necessary to explain away some of the anomolous details.

 

[William Parcher]

I believe it has been shown that what appears to be curled fingers on the right hand is actually background material. Part of the wood debris. Once you apply this knowledge when looking at the picture, it becomes pretty apparent.

No. When you see zoomed-in enlargements of this hand it is quite obviously not wood debris in the background. It is a drawn hand.