Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

Yeah, well it's 1.3mm extrapolated from the NASI report.

7.6mm image height
1,912 pixels vertically
Patty was 327 pixels tall

1912/7.6=251.5 pixels per mm

327/251.5=1.3mm tall Patty

The NASI report also has Patty weighing 1,957lbs, and standing 7'3.5"

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Counting pixels is considerably easier than estimating weight.

Besides, I did the math, not NASI.

1.2 and 1.3 versus 1.66.

I'll go with the 2 that nearly agree.

 

[LTC8K6]

The point is, they are taking this tiny image of Patty, and blowing it up all to hell so they can see details that probably aren't on the original film.

I am still betting that Patty looks a lot less impressive on the original film.

 

[fsol]

A suit like that wasn't made in 1949, 1967, or last week. They didn't have the technology in 1967 to make the necessary prostheses.

Well according to a newspaper interview with a Gorrila suit user in 1966 they did. I really don't understand where this "they didn't have the technology" stuff comes from. It is simple engineering to make arm extensions with mobile fingers. You seem to be suggesting that in 1967 everybody inexplicably forgot simple engineering that was common knowledge only the year before.

And this discussion is only really relevent if you believe the IM figures given by the so called experts. I was struck by just how human the proportions of Patty actually were when put side by side with Gemorras 1949 gorilla suit.

Try a compliant gait and see how much your glutes clench.

Didn't you post a quote in the other thread from an expert who said he could clearly see the glutes contract and expand? Which is it to be? If the compliant gait means that there is no arse jiggle then this so called expert, who incidentally listed a fair few contracting and expanding muscles, is obviously seeing things that aren't actually there. If he misidentifies one lot of muscles why not the rest of them? One of you is wrong here. Is it you or him?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, the quote was from an orthopedist.

 

[Correa Neto]

People see Jesus on a toast, the Virgin at a smear mark. So, why wouldn´t they see muscles in a gorilla suit?

Its a matter of wanting to belive. I bet if someone belives and looks hard enough, will find find horns in horse´s heads.



Am I the only one who think it´s about time we get some funny bigfeet smileys?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I saw the film sometime between 1972 and 1974 in a theater on a big screen. I'd been told nothing about it. It looked totally real to me then; it looks totally real to me now. I was told nothing about it by anyone.

A real ' what ' Lu ?

This looks like a reaL unicorn to me Lu..

How do I know what a real unicorn looks like?


It is not because one has been found and studied ...


There is a clue in there somewhere...

 

[bruto]

So Lu saw the film way back when and was "told nothing about it." Under what possible conditions would this film have been shown without some indication that it was a purported bigfoot sighting? That, in case you hadn't figured it out, is telling you something about it.

If indeed, as is now suggested, some actual bigfoot footage was edited out of the part now seen, because it was considered unsuitable in some way, there are really only two conclusions we can make about why someone would remove such an important piece of such an important piece of evidence, or perhaps why they would have removed any footage from the film before submitting it for examination by scientific experts. Either the footage made the fraud obvious, or the people who did the editing were utter fools.

 

[LTC8K6]

I saw the film sometime between 1972 and 1974 in a theater on a big screen. I'd been told nothing about it. It looked totally real to me then; it looks totally real to me now. I was told nothing about it by anyone.

I call BS. You can't even remember what year you saw this momentous film?


Well, the 16mm film is 40 frames per foot according to Kodak. So, 100 feet of film would yield 4:10 / 3:42 / 2:46 min:sec of footage at 16/18/24 fps. The 100 foot roll would obviously have 4,000 frames total.

So Patterson had at most, 8:20 of film in total on him, of which we have seen about 1 minute's worth.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And the other thing we have to keep repeating; is that after almost 40 years it s supposed to be some of the best Bigfoot evidence we have, despite the fact that the scientific community at large does not see anything worth pursuing..


A museum has a $100,000 reward for a skeptic to produce fake footprints that ' appear ' genuine..

Makes you wonder why they don't spend the hundred thou on actual research..

How much would a couple of bloodhounds cost?

At minimum, they could demonstrate how the dogs refuse to track a bigfoot trail ..

 

[LTC8K6]

Here, 5 days after the event, Patterson claims Patty stood still for quite a while before walking away.

Just how many different accounts of this are there? Where is the film of Patty standing still for nearly 30 seconds?

So, not only did Patty nonchalantly stroll away from these two guys and the rearing horses, she deliberated about it for quite awhile before deciding to mosey along.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/province2.htm

"About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She
crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/pursuit68.htm

Patterson film reported to be 30 feet. That would of course be 1,200 frames. 247 frames more than what we know of today, or 10-15 seconds worth depending of the fps setting.

 

[Dr. DRE]

Nice little article that concludes:

Bigfoot proponents have long decried the undeniable fact that detailed scientific investigation of the Patterson-Gimlin film has been lacking. There are, however, intractable difficulties involved in obtaining reliable data from image analysis where conditions are far from ideal. The potential for calibration errors in analyses of the Patterson-Gimlin film has undermined attempts to attract quantitative data from it.

Uncertainties in subject and camera positions doom quantitative analysis of this centerpiece of Bigfoot lore, as do the additional problems posed by poor image quality and artifacts of subject and camera movement. Just as measurement of film parameters and qualitative assessment of kinematics cannot demonstrate that the film subject is nonhuman, there are probably no means by which to demonstrate conclusively that the film subject represents a human agent either. Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence. Consequently, the Patterson-Gimlin film does not provide unequivocal proof of Bigfoot's existence, nor can the film be used to substantiate other putative images of Bigfoot (e.g. the Redwoods "playmate" video).

Which is probably why the film gets argued about so much. But it "looks" good so it must be proof that BF exists.

(edited to correct my horrible grammar)

 

[LAL]

I call BS. You can't even remember what year you saw this momentous film?

I remember seeing someone I knew in it (re the trackway found north of Carson I've already mentioned several times) and wondering why anyone would be using jet boats on an expedition (must've been in Florida). I know who I saw it with and that puts it between 1972 and 1974 in Portland, Oregon, but, no, I don't remember exactly when that was. Obviously it wasn't the most important thing in my life; I'm not even going to go into what was going on with me in those years.

I may call Ed and try to at least get the name of the film. I haven't had any luck trying to find it online. I'm wondering if the film of the trackway still exists.

Well, the 16mm film is 40 frames per foot according to Kodak. So, 100 feet of film would yield 4:10 / 3:42 / 2:46 min:sec of footage at 16/18/24 fps. The 100 foot roll would obviously have 4,000 frames total.

So Patterson had at most, 8:20 of film in total on him, of which we have seen about 1 minute's worth.

Scenery, shots of himself and Gimlin and the horses, ten feet to Dahinden......sorry, no Bob Heironimus. Seems he didn't get a copy. How strange.

 

[LAL]

Here, 5 days after the event, Patterson claims Patty stood still for quite a while before walking away.

Just how many different accounts of this are there? Where is the film of Patty standing still for nearly 30 seconds?

So, not only did Patty nonchalantly stroll away from these two guys and the rearing horses, she deliberated about it for quite awhile before deciding to mosey along.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/province2.htm

Half a minute is quite a while?

He was trying to get the camera, control the horse and run toward her and you want film of her standing still before he started shooting. Geez.

 

[LAL]

Nice little article that concludes:

David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt. Have you read Daegling's book?

 

[LAL]

And the other thing we have to keep repeating; is that after almost 40 years it s supposed to be some of the best Bigfoot evidence we have, despite the fact that the scientific community at large does not see anything worth pursuing..


A museum has a $100,000 reward for a skeptic to produce fake footprints that ' appear ' genuine..

Makes you wonder why they don't spend the hundred thou on actual research..

How much would a couple of bloodhounds cost?

At minimum, they could demonstrate how the dogs refuse to track a bigfoot trail ..

Kinda like James Randi's challenge, isn't it? Why doesn't he spend the money on research?

The dog thing has been covered. "Ambulance chasing", as Noll puts it, has been non-productive.

The challenge was to show how false the Wallace family's claims were and:

"The offer also is not a prize for technological achievement, such as being the first to build an effective footprint-stamping machine. It relates entirely to the question of whether the real tracks which brought the “Bigfoot” phenomenon to public attention could have been made by humans under the real conditions of the times and the places in which they appeared."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/reward.htm

 

[LAL]

So Lu saw the film way back when and was "told nothing about it." Under what possible conditions would this film have been shown without some indication that it was a purported bigfoot sighting? That, in case you hadn't figured it out, is telling you something about it.

I'd already read Green in 1968, read articles in Argosy and Saga and that sort of thing and reached my own conclusions after a sighting and tracks in Skamania County in 1969. I was already convinced, but I don't recall reading anything about the film back then. Nobody told me I was supposed to see shoulder joints a foot father apart than on a 6'5" man or the IM index, or how long lower arm extensions would have to be or what a compliant gait is. I read all that years later.

Diogenes claimed I saw what I was told to see and I'm trying to answer that without resorting to swearing and mud slinging. I suppose under the rules of this board, if there are any, if I respond in kind to the baiting, it's an automatic loss.

If indeed, as is now suggested, some actual bigfoot footage was edited out of the part now seen, because it was considered unsuitable in some way, there are really only two conclusions we can make about why someone would remove such an important piece of such an important piece of evidence, or perhaps why they would have removed any footage from the film before submitting it for examination by scientific experts. Either the footage made the fraud obvious, or the people who did the editing were utter fools.

In some shows the smeary beginning is edited out and only the "good" center is shown. The smeary beginning can be seen on LMS in the extras.

What evidence do you have that anything was edited out before the film was shown in 1967?

 

[LAL]

Well according to a newspaper interview with a Gorrila suit user in 1966 they did. I really don't understand where this "they didn't have the technology" stuff comes from. It is simple engineering to make arm extensions with mobile fingers. You seem to be suggesting that in 1967 everybody inexplicably forgot simple engineering that was common knowledge only the year before.

And this discussion is only really relevent if you believe the IM figures given by the so called experts. I was struck by just how human the proportions of Patty actually were when put side by side with Gemorras 1949 gorilla suit.

From that same thread from an expert:

"Chris,

I understand what you are saying. But I promise you that this is not what I'm talking about.

I will make a comp showing the back of a young chimp in motion and compare it to Patty's back. The muscle attachments are the same. It's the same in gorillas. But it is not what you are showing us with these gorilla suits.

It wasn't until I started zooming in on the clear DVD footage and comparing it to the flexing backs and buttocks of real apes that I realized there was much more to this than I had first noticed. I was very surprised.

Believe me, I've worked with real apes and creature suits from all over the planet. This is not the same thing that Gemora had.

While someone could create such a suit today, I still have not found anything like it from 1967 and earlier.

I'll post a comp when I have time to make one. I can only promise you that it's not what you are thinking at the moment.

I certainly understand why you would think this. I did too at first.

- Dfoot"

And:

"Let me add one more thing to this about Gemora, Chambers and Paramount...

Prior to his death in 1961 Gemora was a make up guy at Paramount. He was responsible for the Martian in WAR OF THE WORLDS. Another fairly stiff suit.

During the time of the PG film Chambers had worked on STAR TREK and other shows at Paramount and NBC. They created creatures that we've all seen. The GORN for example. These creature suits have one thing in common: stiff heads and muscles that don't move.

In 1967 they did some great suit fx for the time. Yet we never got the kind of movement in the upper pec, buttocks, etc that we see in the PG film. All the "Bigfoot" creatures that followed the film never looked like Patty either.

I will make that list and show photos to relay what I'm talking about when I have time, but the bottom line is that shows like STAR TREK had decent budgets and they did the best they could for the time. This much we do know.

When I did POWER RANGERS we got those suits from Japan that were already half destroyed. We didn't care. It was supposed to look like a bad GODZILLA movie. But on BUFFY everyone cared. Just like with STAR TREK. No one wanted to see a zipper. The audience was meant to buy into the creatures for an hour.

If what we see on the old STAR TREK was the work of the Paramount make up people working with a decent budget and was the "Buffy" of the day when it came to make up fx - then why is it that they would create such an excellent creature for a poor rodeo cowboy from Yakima (who had to borrow money from his brother-in-law for gas) just to pull a prank that paid them nothing?

Roger even four-walled the film prior to his death. He made no huge income from any of this and was lucky to break even. He still kept going out looking for Sasquatch even when no one would back him financially. There must be a reason for that above and beyond "fame" or "riches."

Vulich said he didn't create a "Patty" from scratch for the BBC because they didn't have the money to pay for it. And today he has access to much more than the old guys did. It would be a lot less effort today. But we are supposed to think that Roger Patterson from Yakima who couldn't pay his phone bill pays to have the best suit made to his exact specifications from an old pre-1961 gorilla suit?

Did someone at Paramount top everything that they ever did on shows like STAR TREK just to play a prank for a cowboy and never showed the same skill on one of their televison episodes?

That just does not seem very likely at all.

There may be an answer other than the one Patterson-Gimlin gives - but that's really not it.

- Dfoot "
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=180

Didn't you post a quote in the other thread from an expert who said he could clearly see the glutes contract and expand? Which is it to be? If the compliant gait means that there is no arse jiggle then this so called expert, who incidentally listed a fair few contracting and expanding muscles, is obviously seeing things that aren't actually there. If he misidentifies one lot of muscles why not the rest of them? One of you is wrong here. Is it you or him?

The "so-called expert" is an orthopaedist.

Did I say they don't? Check it out. There's contraction, but not nearly as much as in a fully upright gait. The legs act as shock absorbers in the compliant gait so the "jiggle" is greatly reduced.

 

[fsol]

If you look at the second picture of the Gemorra suit, you can clearly see musculature in its right arm, exactly where you would see it if it were a real gorrila and we know that is a suit, and we know it was made in 1949. You can even see where it the suit bunches up, erm...I mean where the gorrila has ruptured the quad on its right leg. Spooky.

The second quoted part makes the assumption that the patty suit would have to have been something special, completely ignoring the fact that Walas states that "it's nothing special."

How do we get to the conclusion that it had to be a special suit? Why from the visible musculature of course. impossible to produce in 1967, but seemingly possible to produce in 1949. I really like the way that Walas is meant to be mistaken about his line, but everyone else can see muscles clear as day. A clear double standard, if you see something that doesn't tie in with the "gospel" truth then you are mistaken or seeing things that aren't there. If you go along with the story you are patted on the back, right down to diagnosing a ruptured quad.

Your third point...I didn't call him a "so-called expert" I called him an expert. In responce to being asked why the arse of the creature didn't show the glutes clenching you brought up the compliant gait and implyed that that accounted for the lack of clench. Now of course when faced with the testimony of an expert you have to bring your story into line so you say there is some jiggle but not very much. Please, I am sure you can do better than that.