Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
bigx.jpg
Click to expand...

Love that bit about umbrellas.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Hitch, it's only a midtarsal break on an authentic squatch print....
Click to expand...
But can you "prove" the figure in the distance in that picture is NOT a bigfoot.

We have to accept that it is until it can conculsively be proven to be a hoax.

Edited to add: The raised leg appears to be bent nearly 90 degrees. I think we have a compliant gait.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Those straight line tracks aren't really any deeper than the boot prints, either.

Maybe foots can alter their ground pressure with those magical bendy feet?
Click to expand...


They look like they were ' stamped ' by a rigid foot.. This is contrary to the flexible foot that Squatch is supposed to have..
Actual walking by anyone/anything, except maybe hooved animals, doesn't make prints like that.. Even hooved animals will show some evidence of ' push off '.. At least in loose soil, as shown..

Same for the casts in the picture you posted.. The only print that looks real, is the small one that looks human.. Looks like it has a midtarsal break also..


I don't know what is sadder .. That someone like green, who is obviously not stupid, wastes time on stuff like that, or that he and others think we should consider for a moment that it was made by an unknown North American Primate.. ( UNAP )
 
Just popping in to take a peek and see if this attachment thing works.

(And daring you to prove this isn't a photo of a real bigfoot eyeball)

take care,

Dfoot:eye-poppi
 

Attachments

  • PAT_JR_LITTLE EYE.gif
    PAT_JR_LITTLE EYE.gif
    37.7 KB · Views: 61
I'm hoping Mr. Davis will return to defend his claims, I'm still not clear on several of his points. He claims the original film and/or the Cibachromes will allow detail to show as fine as one centimeter on the film subject, if I understand him correctly. What confuses me is that the images he displayed at the Hillsborough conference that I saw, and the images he has posted on the Internet don't seem to me to be anywhere near that sharp.

As I've said before, I used to make "direct stock" films back in high school by physically manipulating 16mm film stock, so I claim to have a hands-on understanding what 16mm film grain looks like. I'm not yet convinced that features claimed to be scars, boils, eye infections, and whatnot are not simply random fluctuations in film grain.

The world of the paranormal is filled with amateurs making all sorts of claims about exotic images like the "face on Mars", the shroud of Turin, and puffs of smoke allegedly seen on the "grassy knoll" in Dallas where interpretations are made at the very limits of image resolution.

I saw a video of Greg Long speaking at a meeting of Ray Crowe's Western Bigfoot Society last year. He compares the interpretations of "Patty" with the descriptions of Moby Dick, in that both are claimed to have suffered the Wounds of Man in their long and hard life. In "Patty's" case, this would be "buckshot wounds". I found this rather amusing...
 
Last edited:
Not my claim.

tube said:
I'm hoping Mr. Davis will return to defend his claims, I'm still not clear on several of his points. He claims the original film and/or the Cibachromes will allow detail to show as fine as one centimeter on the film subject, if I understand him correctly. What confuses me is that the images he displayed at the Hillsborough conference that I saw, and the images he has posted on the Internet don't seem to me to be anywhere near that sharp.

Those were not my claims Matt. Those were the claims of Bruce Bonney. Mr. Bonney was working with the actual film that was running in the camera of Roger Patterson the day of the filming. To my knowlege, he is the only one to take images from that reel for analysis. The red filtered image, which is the clearest of them all, was produced from Mr. Bonney's prints by a Mr. Jeff Glickman. Mr. Glickman was commissioned to do this by the North American Science Institute, or NASI. He is considered to be an expert in photography. I believe that his fee for his analysis was $75,000, if I remember correctly. I concurr with Mr. Bonney on what can be seen from this copy of the film. My interpretations are just opinions and do not require defending. M.K.

]
Click to expand...
 
Hey Marlon, I'm glad you are back. So, do the finely detailed features like boils and scars appear on successive frames? Can you post some successive frames to demonstrate this?

Why is the technical information from Kodak quoted by Fahrenbach incorrect?

Can you post a frame where "Patty" is in mid-scamper down to all fours?

If this is not a matter of your interpretation then these things should be clear to everyone, right?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Reading that again, it's clear that Bonney's cibachrome prints are actually copies of enlarged copies of the film. Thus rendering the idea of greater resolution even less likely than I already thought it was.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Reading that again, it's clear that Bonney's cibachrome prints are actually copies of enlarged copies of the film. Thus rendering the idea of greater resolution even less likely than I already thought it was.
Click to expand...
Unless they have some sort of inverse homeopathic enlargment process. The more times they blow up and reprocess the image the more detail appears. Like when you take a hard to read fax and sucessively photocopy it to make it clearer.
 
primateer said:
My interpretations are just opinions and do not require defending. M.K.
Click to expand...

Your interpretations are claims about a physical reality. While you are by no means required to defend your claims, it does not place them above scrutiny by others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom