Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[M.K.Davis]

Farhenbach vs. Bonney

On the contrary.. It can't be anything but an artifact


Quality is not resolution. But I'm sure you know that..




It is doubtfull that any resolved detail in frame 352 ( or any frames in which Patty is approximately the same distance from the camera as frame 352 ) can be smaller than 2 inches; and more likely half ( or less ) of that.



I'm confused about the ' 2 inches ', because 4.2 mm is short of 2 inches by a factor of 10 ..

So really M.K., you can call ' it ' ( what you think is a boil ) anything you want and not have to be concerned about anyone proving otherwise..

Again; any suggestion is as good as another.. If ' scar ' makes you feel good, have at it.. But I feel you are being disengenuous ( because you should know better ) by continuing to suggest this film contains the kind of detail you would have us believe.

This is what Bruce Bonney stated, having worked directly with the film that was running in Roger Patterson's camera. It's quite a bit different a conclusion than the paper of Farhenbach's. Who to believe? M.K.
Bonney's quote: In January 1980, I participated in the first program to produce high quality color photographs from the original Patterson-Gimlin film. The original 16mm Kodachrome II film was first enlarged and printed on 4x5 inch Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film 6121. These 4x5 inch color transparencies were then contact printed on Ilford Cibachrome A color print material, the sharpest color printing paper available. This printing sequence resulted in the sharpest and clearest color prints ever made of the best frames of the film, having the highest resolution and greatest color fidelity yet produced. For the first time, we have prints, which clearly show the creature’s face, with eyes, nostrils, and lips.
The maximum limit of anatomical resolution in the three sharpest Cibachrome prints is about one centimeter, meaning that details of the creature’s body larger than one square centimeter in area are visible in the prints and are capable of basic identification.

 

[M.K.Davis]

Scar?

Here is one of those linear things again, that looks like a ....... across the forehead. M.K.

 

[Hitch]

Here is one of those linear things again, that looks like a ....... across the forehead. M.K.

Is there any evidence of that (scar?) in the preceding or following frames?

 

[LTC8K6]

In January 1980, I participated in the first program to produce high quality color photographs from the original Patterson-Gimlin film.

The original was immediately locked away in a safe deposit box, and only copies were made public. How did the actual original get into anyone's hands? We know for sure that copies were already in use almost immediately.

 

[LTC8K6]

A light colored blob is all I see, and it's all anyone can see.

 

[Hitch]

A light colored blob is all I see, and it's all anyone can see.

True. But a light colored blob that stays on the same part of the figure is probably on the figure. A blob that only appears in one frame is probably an artifact from the film or printing process.

If you put any stock in the film having any value, you need to establish that before naming blobs.

 

[LTC8K6]

It could just be light on the fur, not a film defect or artifact.

The cheek is lit up, the hollow formed by the cheek and nose is dark, and the side of the bridge of the nose is also lit up.

But it's probably mostly enhancement garbage....

 

[LTC8K6]

NASI report. First gen copy made in Nov 68. Copy in storage until Oct 93.

A first generation copy of the film was made on Eastman 78 Safety film on November 8, 1968, a little more than one year after the original was shot. This first generation copy was first examined by the author in October, 1993 for shrinkage and brittleness to ensure it could withstand digitization. The film had been in storage for twenty-five years in the controlled environment of a bank safety-deposit box and was in excellent condition. The data in Table 6 was extracted from the film (as of October, 1993).

Argosy, Feb 68. Copy already made, original already locked up.

Well, these young men had the sense to get their film carefully processed, under guard, a copy made, and the original locked up in a vault so that it could not be scratched, stolen or destroyed.

From History of the Patterson Film. Patterson does not show the first 76 feet of the film. Suggesting that a copy is being used and it has been edited already at the first showing.

Patterson did not show the group the general movie footage he had taken (i.e., the first 76-feet of the first roll). Nor did he show the other footage on the second roll if he did, in fact, have the developed roll.

 

[LTC8K6]

You cannot get more resolution than the original film had, Primateer. The only resolution that matters is that of the film in Roger's camera. I would be highly critical of anyone in the film business suggesting that resolution can be increased in this manner.

 

[LTC8K6]

Does Fahrenbach mean that 4.2mm = ~2 inches on the Dahinden 133X cibachromes? The object has to be at least 4.2mm on the 133X print to be an actual object? 31.7 microns on the original 16mm frame?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This is what Bruce Bonney stated, having worked directly with the film that was running in Roger Patterson's camera. It's quite a bit different a conclusion than the paper of Farhenbach's. Who to believe? M.K.
Bonney's quote: In January 1980, I participated in the first program to produce high quality color photographs from the original Patterson-Gimlin film. The original 16mm Kodachrome II film was first enlarged and printed on 4x5 inch Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film 6121. These 4x5 inch color transparencies were then contact printed on Ilford Cibachrome A color print material, the sharpest color printing paper available. This printing sequence resulted in the sharpest and clearest color prints ever made of the best frames of the film, having the highest resolution and greatest color fidelity yet produced. For the first time, we have prints, which clearly show the creature’s face, with eyes, nostrils, and lips.
The maximum limit of anatomical resolution in the three sharpest Cibachrome prints is about one centimeter, meaning that details of the creature’s body larger than one square centimeter in area are visible in the prints and are capable of basic identification.

So there are high resolution prints of every frame of the PGF, and three have been chosen to make your point ?

What is on all those other prints that the owners do not want us to see ?

Are you interested in science or the truth ? Or do you just enjoy catering to the credulous ?


Fahrenbach's numbers have me a little confused, but 31.7 microns per line, for the original resolution sounds reasonable. And it is a simple matter to convert that to actual objects in the film. ( I'll be working on that with some graphics to present later, if no one beats me to it. )

Does Bonney dispute the 31.7m figure ?

For the first time, we have prints, which clearly show the creature’s face, with eyes, nostrils, and lips.

Where are these prints ? Any good reason why we can't decide if they are ' clear ' or not ?


Nothing we have been presented in these discussions or those at BFF could be considered ' clear ', unless you want to comment on how what we have seen, is cleary blurry and out of focus..


The Cibachromes only look clear when compared to crappier stills garnered from sources like LMS ..

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

I think it also significant that beyond the completely inconclusive film and track evidence all that people have to go on is other peoples analysies and opinions. We are meant to be impressed by the number of experts giving opinions (who have never seen the creature), and to value their ideas over others who have never seen the creature either. What we have here is 47 page game of opinion trumps, nothing more. Rather disheartening really.

I would ask that people either go find one of these many thousands of 10-foot tool massive apes and show us (still the best evidence), or just get on with real life.

 

[Huntster]

I think it also significant that beyond the completely inconclusive film and track evidence all that people have to go on is other peoples analysies and opinions.....

At least the pro-possibility side has an inconclusive film, inconclusive footprints, inconclusive hair, inconclusive scat, and thousands of inconclusive eyewitness reports.

The only thing closed minds have is opinion.

We are meant to be impressed by the number of experts giving opinions (who have never seen the creature), and to value their ideas over others who have never seen the creature either....

And we are to be impressed by your qualifications as a.............what?

Yet another opinionated person?

Rather disheartening really......

Indeed.

 

[LTC8K6]

At least the skeptical side has a conclusive film, conclusive footprints, conclusive hair, conclusive scat, and thousands of conclusive eyewitness reports.

The facts are all in the skeptic's favor.

The believer's "evidence" always boils down to nothing much when you peel off all of the hype surrounding it.

 

[LTC8K6]

When a scientist takes an obvious bear track, calls it a sasquatch track, and then formulates all sorts of ideas and data from it, what else can an observer do but wonder about the rest of the bigfoot community?

When a scientist takes a copy of a copy of a footprint, and proceeds to tell the world how that foot is constructed, again I have to wonder.....

I have gone from believing the P/G film was real, to believing it was fake, to somewhere in the middle, and then to believing it is fake again, but for a different reason.

I have decided not to worry about the actual film itself. It is not good enough to say much one way or the other, imo. Maybe it is bigfoot, maybe it is a guy in a suit. I can't tell.

It is the story of the filming of Patty that now has me firmly in the fake camp. It doesn't add up no matter how I look at it.

 

[Z]

ATM, I'm with LTC here... I used to think the film was conclusively pro-Bigfoot; then I thought it was conclusively anti-bigfoot... at this point, I have to say it's inconclusive, all the way around.

But the story around its filming... egad.

 

[Hitch]

So Roger Patterson, in the course of fabricating an elaborate fraud, just might have accidentally filmed the genuine article?

And I thought the woos had some pretty out-there theories.

 

[LTC8K6]

I can't even say for sure that we are looking at Roger's original film, and neither can anyone else apparently.

I don't know if I am looking at the same film DeAtley showed originally.

I don't even know if Roger is the one who shot the film.

The only thing I think I know for sure is that the film was indeed shot in the area claimed.

One other thing I am now sure of is that Patty's tracks could not have survived the rain. I am now certain that it began raining that night, and that Roger did not cover the tracks until after 5:30 the next morning, and that covering the tracks with bark would not have saved them anyway.

 

[Hitch]

I can't even say for sure that we are looking at Roger's original film, and neither can anyone else apparently.

I don't know if I am looking at the same film DeAtley showed originally.

We don't even know if Roger is the one who shot the film.

The only thing I think I know for sure is that the film was indeed shot in the area claimed.

One other thing I am now sure of is that Patty's tracks could not have survived the rain. I am now certain that it began raining that night, and that Roger did not cover the tracks until after 5:30 the next morning, and that covering the tracks with bark would not have saved them anyway.

Roger Patterson got hold of authentic bigfoot footage somehow, then created a completely bogus story of how and when it was shot?

I'm having a real hard time with that theory, too.

 

[LTC8K6]

How did the footage become authentic? I have never said it was. Well, it's authentic footage of something, I guess.

Roger and Bob may have shot the film earlier. They may have bought the film. Roger may have had the film made on contract. Roger may have hoaxed Bob. Who knows?

Unless we are finally allowed a look at exactly what film Roger shot, I don't see that we can get very far with the film.

They would certainly need a story to back them up, in any case.

Heck, it's possible that someone hoaxed Roger and Bob. Many folks knew what Roger was doing. They knew that Roger and Bob were going to Bluff Creek with a camera to look for bigfoot. They knew about the firm plan not to shoot at one. This could be why the person in the suit acts the way they do towards P/G.

Roger and Bob may have had no idea that they filmed a man in a suit.

Maybe Roger actually filmed Sasquatch that day and the problems with the story are just the result of time, poor reporting, and bad memories....