Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the error that didn't copy earlier, Diogenes.

"This last bit is just my 2 cents, There are only 952 frames in the PG film. It has been documented that he only had 2 minutes of film left and shot until he ran out on that fateful day, Oct 20th 1967. He can't film himself doing the casts because he is out of film."

That was the first roll, Diogenes. Patterson had film of the prints on the second roll and shots of himself with the casts.
 
Diogenes said:
Whatever makes you feel better Lu...
Click to expand...

I feel fine, thanks. I'm not emotionally involved in this.

What was that in reference to?

I'm trying to find a post I saw earlier that seemed worth commenting on. I hope you won't mind if I ignore you for awhile while I look for it.
 
LAL said:
This is the error that didn't copy earlier, Diogenes.

"This last bit is just my 2 cents, There are only 952 frames in the PG film. It has been documented that he only had 2 minutes of film left and shot until he ran out on that fateful day, Oct 20th 1967. He can't film himself doing the casts because he is out of film."

That was the first roll, Diogenes. Patterson had film of the prints on the second roll and shots of himself with the casts.
Click to expand...
So, he shot for two minutes, where's the other minute ?


What's to talk about a second roll, that no one can see ?
 
mayday said:
*snip*
I was sure it was ghosts in the woods chopping wood, as that was about the only explanation for the noise. But several years later I read that bigfoot communicates by knocking on trees! I would not doubt one bit that is what I heard in the woods that night.
*snip*
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No other possible explanation. Gotta be a ghost. Or a Tennessee Bigfeets.

Could not possibly be an animal - say a Pileated Woodpecker (which is known for making just that sort of noise) or a bear or a raccoon (animals are so rarely found in the woods). or even something blowing in the breeze.

Or, say, a person?

Nope, gotta be a ghost (cutting wood?) or a bigfoot.

Lost my cupcake, agin, dammit!
 
LAL said:
Average human IM index is 72.
Click to expand...

Yes, but casebro brought up a good point --

I wonder what the RANGE of human IM is?
Click to expand...

The AVERAGE might be 72, but what's the RANGE we're talking about? Is 80 so impossible?

The human IM averages 72.
Click to expand...

Krantz, pg.118,
Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence, on a similar issue:

"The only alternative is that the man in the fur suit had his elbows sticking straight out to the sides into the shoulders of the costume. This means that his hands were at the "elbows" where he held onto sticks that supported the forearms."
Click to expand...

I wonder if Krantz was aware of this photo when he made that statement:

butt%20copy.jpg


I'll take the word of anthropologists who have actually studied the film over that of furniture designers, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer those who have studied the actual bones.

RayG
 
I'll_buy_that said:
The stride at 6' 9"? is this correct? Is this a common belief or documented? holy crap! I am 6' 3" and my stride is about 3'. A stride more than twice that would require the beast to have legs that are about 1.5 to 2 feet longer than mine, never mind the extra length in the torso for proportion. (not scientific and probably grossly underestimated) is she supposed to be 9' tall?
Click to expand...

The stride measured at the site was typically 81.5", as measured left heel to left heel. It got longer. Krantz gave her a walking height of 6' (calculating from the foot-to-height ratio) and the standing height, allowing for the feet being sunk 1" into the sand, at 6'6". See page 97, Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence.
 
LAL said:
I feel fine, thanks. I'm not emotionally involved in this.

What was that in reference to?
Click to expand...
You ignore the striking similiarity between the butt of a gorilla suit made in 1949 and the butt of Patty, which " couldn't conceivably have been made in 1967 " ...

Niether of which look anything like the butt of any documented primate...

Patty doesn't walk funny. The knees don't fail to lock, there are no visible complicated wrist or finger movements that couldn't be duplicated with a fake hand that was simply attached below the hand of the wearer of the suit..

You are seeing what you have been told to see.
 
Diogenes said:
So, he shot for two minutes, where's the other minute ?

The film of the creature is only, at most, a minute.
What's to talk about a second roll, that no one can see ?
Click to expand...

We've been over this before. 10' of the second roll was given to Dahinden.

The film of the creature is only about 1 minute. The encounter was about 2 minutes. Patterson had to pull the camera from the spooked horse's saddlebag and run and aim. There's your other minute. He didn't shoot for 2 minutes.

Krantz thought Patterson only had 24.3' of unexposed film in the camera when the action began.
 
Diogenes said:
You ignore the striking similiarity between the butt of a gorilla suit made in 1949 and the butt of Patty, which " couldn't conceivably have been made in 1967 " ...
Click to expand...


It's striking on one frame. The rest is hardly a match.

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.

Niether of which look anything like the butt of any documented primate...
Click to expand...


How about an undocumented primate?

Patty doesn't walk funny.
Click to expand...


Nope. Her gait is quite fluid and normal for a non-human bipedal primate.

The knees don't fail to lock, there are no visible complicated wrist or finger movements that couldn't be duplicated with a fake hand that was simply attached below the hand of the wearer of the suit..
Click to expand...


The hands would have had to be where the elbows are.

And where did Patterson get the money for a suit that even Disney Studios couldn't duplicate, according to Ken Peterson?

The knees don't lock. See the film.

You are seeing what you have been told to see.
Click to expand...

Just ignore the measurements and all the evidence that that's no guy in a suit.

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.

Don't assume; ask.
 
Couple more interesting points concerning the film.

"Bob Titmus, who studied the tracks nine days later, told me that the initial confrontation was at a distance of less than 25 feet (perhaps 7 m)... The film begins when Patterson is at a distance of 112 feet (34 m) behind the creature..."(1)

"It was interesting to discover that the first frame was shot from just 112 feet away (34 m), as deduced from the image size of the subject. Since that first frame shows a fairly clear picture, it might be guessed that any earlier footage was all of poor quality and was simply discarded as being of no value. If Byrne was correct in reporting that Patterson had 28 feet of film in the camera when the action began, as many as 185 frames could be missing... I can only conclude that this theoretical footage never existed, and Patterson actually had only 23.4 feet of unexposed film in his camera when the action began."(2)

Too bad Krantz didn't get to examine the original film in its entirety.

RayG

(1) Krantz, Grover. Big Footprints. Johnson Books. page 87.

(2) Ibid. pages 104-105.
 
RayG said:
Couple more interesting points concerning the film.

"Bob Titmus, who studied the tracks nine days later, told me that the initial confrontation was at a distance of less than 25 feet (perhaps 7 m)... The film begins when Patterson is at a distance of 112 feet (34 m) behind the creature..."(1)

"It was interesting to discover that the first frame was shot from just 112 feet away (34 m), as deduced from the image size of the subject. Since that first frame shows a fairly clear picture, it might be guessed that any earlier footage was all of poor quality and was simply discarded as being of no value. If Byrne was correct in reporting that Patterson had 28 feet of film in the camera when the action began, as many as 185 frames could be missing... I can only conclude that this theoretical footage never existed, and Patterson actually had only 23.4 feet of unexposed film in his camera when the action began."(2)

Too bad Krantz didn't get to examine the original film in its entirety.

RayG

(1) Krantz, Grover. Big Footprints. Johnson Books. page 87.

(2) Ibid. pages 104-105.
Click to expand...

If he had a copy with some of the smeary beginning edited out, that could explain why he got 52 seconds and I get 60, assuming LMS has the film at the same speed. He also mentions only a handful of frames could be missing based on Titmus' map of the site.

The part you left out says, "However, based on the Titmus map of the site there was no space available for more than a handful of missing frames. Only if Patterson had stayed at the beginning point for a little over 10 seconds could those 185 frames been exposed. But if he had held his position for that portion, the film should have been of fairly good quality and we would have seen it."
 
Green also states:

"There is no way to establish for certain if any of the dimensions estimated for the creature in the film are accurate, but what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another. From that ratio, which anatomists call the "intermembral index," it is simple to calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit. In my own case the answer turns out to be about 10 inches.

But in order for the arms to bend at the elbow, which they plainly do in the movie, all of that extra length has to be added to the lower arm. The result, in my case, is about 12 inches of arm above the elbow and 29 inches below it — almost as much of a monstrosity as Edward Scissorhands. The creature in the movie has normal-looking arms. It cannot be a man in a suit."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/thoughts.html
 
but what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mr. Green, but a suit is specifically designed to fool you in this respect. You can't establish this with much accuracy at all for a guy in a suit.
 
LAL said:
The part you left out says, "However, based on the Titmus map of the site there was no space available for more than a handful of missing frames. Only if Patterson had stayed at the beginning point for a little over 10 seconds could those 185 frames been exposed. But if he had held his position for that portion, the film should have been of fairly good quality and we would have seen it."
Click to expand...

How can he be certain what was being filmed for those 10 seconds, and how can he make proclamations about film he HASN'T seen? Unless he studied the original film for its entire length, he's only speculating.

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
 
LAL said:
Green also states:

"...what can be established with reasonably accuracy is the length of the creature's legs and arms in relation to one another.
Click to expand...

But what if we only THINK we're measuring the correct length of arms/legs. It's been argued that it CAN'T be a man in a suit because of the IM index, yet this man in a suit proves otherwise.

butt%20copy.jpg


RayG
 
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