Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

...Swap the still camera for a digital videocamera. This will create more convincing evidence.....

How can this be?

Digital provides many hoax opportunities that chemical film does not.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, cropped and enlarged.

I didn't mean cropped and enlarged, I meant that when the film was copied, they zoomed in on the original to make the copies. This would give Patty a larger appearance in the frame on these "original" copies, than on the original "original". This would make the film (and Patty) look bigger and better than it ever really was, if you never saw Patterson's original 16mm footage.

The frames I have seen where you can see the edges of the film and the sprocket holes, looked pretty crappy to me. Certainly nothing like the stills that have been seen all over.

I remember being confused about Patty's seemingly variable distance from the camera and looking a bit like an idiot....until Diogenes mentioned the bit about what might have been done when making the copies of the film.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How can this be?

Digital provides many hoax opportunities that chemical film does not.

But it also provides the opportunity to capture the real thing..

Nevertheless, bring us either, so we can take a look ...

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe it is either a drawn in hand or a film defect in 352.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is a cropped and color-removed image of the hand by MK Davis (primateer on BFF) that is posted on Rense.com. It is so obviously a curled hand that Davis has even created an argument that it appears as if Patty is clutching a stone. I don't think the retoucher intended that. Again, the best close-ups and comparisons of this hand are images posted on the old BFF. RayG might have copies of these comparison images on his hard drive, as he was involved in the discussion of this on BFF.

 

[William Parcher]

How can this be?

Digital provides many hoax opportunities that chemical film does not.

In spite of their superiority, film cameras are just not practical for everyday folks to carry and use in the field. Correa is a cool dude, but he is still an everyday folk in that respect.

Digital video is excellent because it has high resolution and is easy to use. One could do some hoaxing with digital (CGI), but then it still allows forensic inquiry and examination that could easily reveal that hoaxing was involved. But even that would be putting aside a reality. What is supposed to be important is that a Bigfoot is repeatedly findable and filmable in the vicinity of Correa's berry patch.

1) Correa sees Bigfoot, but can't get a still photo.
2) Correa sees Bigfoot again and captures it on digital video.

Does 3) involve Correa seeing it again and then dropping Squatch with a rifle?

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Yep, but I am leaving aside some "minor details". I could use the regular excuses "the terrain is too rough", "I need a research grant", "their territory is too big", "they are too elusive and shy", etc.

What I was trying to state is: The evidence presented to back the claim is too weak. The evidence is inconclusive at best. All that one can honestly say, taking in to account the presented evidence is: Bigfeet may be real, but this is highly unlikely taking in to account what is presently known. Pseudonihilistc rants are useless, to demand science to accept substandard evidence is not only a waste of time, its also dangerous.

A parable:
An executive from a company that builds jet engines approaches his VP:
"Sir, I belive we can decrease the specs of alloy used to build fan blades and thus cut costs."
The VP says:
"That's interesting. The research have you done regarding the effects of the reduction of the alloy's specs in the mechanical resistence of the blades... Can I see the study?"
Executive:
"We made a couple of tests... Here they are..."
VP:
"I see you have not followed the standards for this type of test... A lot of experimental errors may have seeped in..."
Executive:
"Well, that dude from the lab said it would work. He's an engineer, he has no reason to lie..."
VP:
"We would be placing our butts at a very dangerous situation here... A study that has not followed the propper procediments, a decision based on very thin data...
Executive:
"Sir, we must be more open-minded, we must belive and dare!"

The scene ends here.

Now I question:

Would you fly in a plane using their jet engines?

 

[William Parcher]

I didn't mean cropped and enlarged, I meant that when the film was copied, they zoomed in on the original to make the copies. This would give Patty a larger appearance in the frame on these "original" copies, than on the original "original". This would make the film (and Patty) look bigger and better than it ever really was, if you never saw Patterson's original 16mm footage.

The frames I have seen where you can see the edges of the film and the sprocket holes, looked pretty crappy to me. Certainly nothing like the stills that have been seen all over.

I remember being confused about Patty's seemingly variable distance from the camera and looking a bit like an idiot....until Diogenes mentioned the bit about what might have been done when making the copies of the film.

First generation copies should not be zoomed-in and would be on 16mm film. Details about the nature of early copies are somewhat vague and incomplete. We know that Patterson immediately started showing it to invited gatherings and this was projected from 16mm. He then began showing it to large audiences in cinema theaters. I don't know if it was copied to 35 or 70mm for this (or if it remained at 16mm). Then it was franchised out as a "movie short" shown before a feature film in cinemas.

I don't think that any of these copies were zoomed. Projecting this film onto a cinema screen might have made Patty the size of a big kid without any manipulation of the frames themselves.

But there seems to still be open questions with various issues about the early copies of the PGF. The people that are holding these copies are not sharing them.

 

[Correa Neto]

In spite of their superiority, film cameras are just not practical for everyday folks to carry and use in the field. Correa is a cool dude, but he is still an everyday folk in that respect.

Can I nominate this post to the language awards just because the "cool guy" line?

Digital video is excellent because it has high resolution and is easy to use. One could do some hoaxing with digital (CGI), but then it still allows forensic inquiry and examination that could easily reveal that hoaxing was involved. But even that would be putting aside a reality.

Important point.

Can the person who presented the film create a fake? I can make a rather poor 3D CGI of a bigfoot, but I can not make it look anywhere near from being convincing. I can make a bigfoot suit that would look more convincing - depending on the quality of the footage. Another blurry video that "can not be proven" to be a fakery. The easiest solution: I can make a small scale model for a still photography. With no refference point, there would be no way of knowing the real size of the thing.

What is supposed to be important is that a Bigfoot is repeatedly findable and filmable in the vicinity of Correa's berry patch.

1) Correa sees Bigfoot, but can't get a still photo.
2) Correa sees Bigfoot again and captures it on digital video.

Does 3) involve Correa seeing it again and then dropping Squatch with a rifle?

What brings us to the point of why they never are able to take a second shot (double sense intended) at a bigfoot. Even in the areas where they are supposed to roam. Where their territory is supposed to be. Why trere's no reproductbility?

Another point. Footers always complain about the caliber of the weaponry that would be needed to kill a bigfoot. So, the rifle that can kill moose and bear can't kill a 3m-high ape?

 

[William Parcher]

I believe it is either a drawn in hand or a film defect in 352.

A large film defect that is in the exact location and shape of a curled hand?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

A large film defect that is in the exact location and shape of a curled hand?

The level of resolution does not rule out a background object..


The finger is not persistant in preceding and trailing frames, while the background clutter is..

Unfortunately we don't have cibachromes of those frame either..


I don't see how it matters if it is a finger or not.. If it is a finger, I'm confident it's made of rubber..

 

[William Parcher]

What I was trying to state is: The evidence presented to back the claim is too weak. The evidence is inconclusive at best. All that one can honestly say, taking in to account the presented evidence is: Bigfeet may be real, but this is highly unlikely taking in to account what is presently known. Pseudonihilistc rants are useless, to demand science to accept substandard evidence is not only a waste of time, its also dangerous.

I know what you meant. I don't disagree. My response was based on your hypothetical encounter. You are a firm Bigfoot skeptic that happened upon a real Bigfoot that was not mistaken identity. It is true that you would sound just like any other witness. But then your own knowledge and abilities propel you towards step 2. You then catch BF on digital video because you go back to where BF lives and eats!

 

[William Parcher]

The level of resolution does not rule out a background object..


The finger is not persistant in preceding and trailing frames, while the background clutter is..

Unfortunately we don't have cibachromes of those frame either..


I don't see how it matters if it is a finger or not.. If it is a finger, I'm confident it's made of rubber..

Bad graphic!

Don't you see what you did with your red line? You broke it off from the continued curve (which forms the hand) and sent it up onto a very diffuse background object. Bad!

Notice that the black outline of the hand is more pronounced and resolved than anything else in the image. It is the most distinct thing (in its detailed completeness) in the entire image. You know why? Because the artist's ink created something with more detail and resolution than anything else in the image.

 

[William Parcher]

Now in black & white, from the Cibachrome...

Anyone else think that that hand looks like a retouching of a still image? Now look at the foot in this still image...

 

[Huntster]

...Would you fly in a plane using their jet engines?

Nope.

But accepting the existing evidence of sasquatch enough to justify the expenditure of funds to perform a hunt isn't going to result in the possible deaths of unknowing airplane passengers, either.

 

[Huntster]

....Footers always complain about the caliber of the weaponry that would be needed to kill a bigfoot. So, the rifle that can kill moose and bear can't kill a 3m-high ape?

I believe it can.

 

[William Parcher]

But accepting the existing evidence of sasquatch enough to justify the expenditure of funds to perform a hunt isn't going to result in the possible deaths of unknowing airplane passengers, either.

The funded hunt is to establish existence, right? Or, is that already a given before the hunt starts?

How much money are you talking about? Coming from where? What would this hunt be like? Would it be time-limited? Would it be an ongoing subscription search like SETI? If Bigfoot isn't found, do you just keep shoveling money, human capacity and time into the search until it is found?

 

[Starrman]

This very thread demonstrates that science thinks it already has the truth with regard to sasquatchery, and will not change until somebody else provides a carcass.

How sadly wrong - science takes the default negative position until evidence is provided that shows otherwise, then it adapts. There is a big difference between saying, 'there is credible evidence for the existence of bigfoot' and 'there is definitely no such thing as bigfoot'. The door of science is always open.

 

[Huntster]

The funded hunt is to establish existence, right?.....

Correct.

...Or, is that already a given before the hunt starts?...

No, it's not.

...How much money are you talking about?...

I don't know.

...Coming from where?...

I don't know.

...What would this hunt be like?...

My suggestion would be to fund a fast reacting team, that would deploy when a credible sighting or group of sightings occurred, and within days of those sightings. The team should be equipped with dogs and handler that has had experience running bears.

That way, until the team deploys, money is not being burned up.

...Would it be time-limited?...

If a team was on a standby status until deployed, the time limit wouldn't be as much of a problem. Intitial gear expenditures (night-vision and night photography gear, for example) would be stored and unused until deployment.

Deployment would occur after a remarkable sighting or sightings in a particular location occurred, a phone interview occurred, a team leader deployed and conducted an initial survey, then he/she gave the heads up for full deployment.

That is when air taxi operators, transportation outfitters, etc in the area could be contracted.

...Would it be an ongoing subscription search like SETI?...

I would think that would be too expensive, and too liable to be unsuccessful.

...If Bigfoot isn't found, do you just keep shoveling money, human capacity and time into the search until it is found?...

I would say that, if a rapid deployment team approach didn't work after 3 to 5 full scale attempts, I'd be ready to call it quits.

You probably wouldn't find money to fund any more attempts, anyway.

Hell, you can't find money to fund any attempts even now.

 

[Huntster]

How sadly wrong - science takes the default negative position until evidence is provided that shows otherwise, then it adapts.....

Incorrect.

Science is taking the default negative position until proof is provided.

The evidence is there. It has been deemed "insufficient", "inconclusive", "poor", "shoddy", etc.

...There is a big difference between saying, 'there is credible evidence for the existence of bigfoot' and 'there is definitely no such thing as bigfoot'....

Well, there are thirty-some pages of debate here at your fingertips.

Would you mail me a nickel for each comment made on this thread to the effect that "there is definately no such thing as bigfoot"?

...The door of science is always open....

I disagree, at least in this case. The door is shut and locked.

You'd have to kick it in to even present a carcass.