Patterson Footage - What's wrong with it?

[Simon M]

Searcher, I didn't know that about Patterson's camera! Interesting fact.

[Black]

Man from glad, at what time or which frame, do you see patty kick a stick up? This is news to me.

Then, what distinguishes this stick from all the other sticks laying on the ground? You know, cause Patterson wouldn't have been dishonest enough to lie about a stick and it's length, now, would he?

Chances are, if you're gonna hoax the footage, you're definitely gonna hoax the footprints and all the other "evidence" you can come up with.

Like I said earlier, someone should have been able to marry up photos of the footprints to Patty's walking path in the video, but nobody has. In fact, Patterson knew where he filmed the figure from, so why didnt he arrange photos be taken from that spot with people positioned exactly where the footprints were, to accurately get a height of the figure?

[Searcher]

Simon M wrote:

Searcher, I didn't know that about Patterson's camera! Interesting fact.

G'day Simon,
A picture is said to be worth a thousand words, so not wanting to wear out my pinkies, here's some photos.
Firstly, my K-100 16mm movie camera with 25mm fixed lens and viewfinder. I also have 50mm and 100mm lenses and viewfinders.
Secondly, you will notice the turret version has separate viewfinders which rotate with each lens. I reckon this is the camera Patterson hired.
Finally, there was a rifle style camera mount for the K-100 which looked quite impressive! Always wanted that mount but never got around to getting one.

[Simon M]

Thanks, Searcher! I was only familiar with my Dad's old Super 8 camera and after that the old camcorders (with the handbag-sized VCR machine wired up to it...the ones where you had to check the white balance before you could use them, etc). I've never used a 16mm one, so that's all new info to me.

If Patterson wasn't using a zoom lens then Thinker Thunker's analysis is meaningless. I'm (clearly) no expert. I've no idea if the U.S. had different kinds of camera available at the time, etc. Might have a look online and see what I can find out.

[Simon M]

Well, I found this post by Bill Munns which is interesting...

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=39616

Also this, which refers to Bill Munns' forum post...

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2013/05 ... -1967.html

There's some doubt about which lens Patterson used on his K-100 (the standard 25mm lens or a 15mm one). So once again we've got something we can't be sure of. Either way, he wasn't using a zoom lens as far as I can find out...but who knows for sure?

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=19241

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodakk100.htm

https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Manuals/kodak_k-100.pdf

The 'finder lens' seems to be a telephoto lens...maybe this led to Thinker Thunker's confusion? These particular lenses seem to have been unique to this model of camera, so maybe he just used the wrong terminology?

I found this definition of the difference -

"Zoom" = focal length you can change, and "Telephoto" = long focal length. A lens can be one, or the other, or neither, or both.

Hopefully the links to the actual manual are helpful, and I can't find a specific reference to 'zooming' in there, but the manuals are extremely technically descriptive and I'm not familiar with the terminology so I could've blinked and missed it.

I'd say there's some confusion around the precise difference between a zoom and a telephoto lens.

[Searcher]

There’s a lot of info there, Simon…. Nice bit of research. I have read the highly detailed Munns report a number of times and have the original Kodak manual that came with my K-100 camera. I have glanced at the other links and will read them in detail when I find some precious time!

As I understand it, the confusion is whether a 20 or 25 mm lens was used. The 25mm Kodak Cine Ektar 11 25mm lens comes standard with the camera. It is said Patterson’s rented K-100 may have been fitted with a wider angle non standard 20mm lens. It does not look to me like a 15mm lens was used. Much wider than that soon brings in the ‘fish eye’ effect. I have little doubt that the frame rate was set at 16-18 fps or 'silent speed' as it was called then. The tell tale picture flicker gives it away. Also, the lower frame rate conserves expensive Kodachrome 11 film, thus keeping stock and processing costs down. Perhaps Patterson was mindful of this.

I can’t agree with the comments on the definition of a zoom lens. It’s clear to me that a fixed focal length lens, whether it be a wide angle 15mm or a 100mm telephoto is just that… a fixed lens that does not move. On the K-100, any fitted C Mount lens will require a viewfinder to suit the focal length of that lens.

On the other hand, a zoom lens will move through various focal lengths to achieve optimum framing for the camera operator. At least to me, that’s all very easy to understand. I think calling it anything else is just an exercise in semantics.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the fact the Kodak camera has a 40 foot spring wind. That means you could put 40 feet of 16mm film through the camera for one shot. That was a stand out back then as rival 16mm cameras from Paillard Bolex and Bell & Howell were limited to a run of around 15 feet. Perhaps a bit of forethought for a possible long take on a Squatch?

[Simon M]

As with everything connected to this film, there's so much we can never know for sure.

[Searcher]

As with everything connected to this film, there's so much we can never know for sure.

It's a really simple question... Does the PG film show a real Bigfoot or a man in a suit? It's one or the other.
Unfortunately, the answer to this highly complex conundrum is still proving elusive even after 51 years of hot debate.
I have not yet given up on the scientific approach where new digital technology may bring some enlightening results.
The excellent links posted above led me to the Bigfoot Forums pages on the PG film. Worth a look.
https://bigfootforums.com/forum/27-patt ... mlin-film/

[Black]

What if Patterson and his buddies were trolls before trolling became a phenomenon on the internet?

Could their plan have been to troll the academic community in particular, into devoting thousands of hours trying to either prove or debunk the footage, enhancing his social standing, all the while the footage was lining his pocket from the believers?

Take a good look at yourselves. Fifty one years later, still being trolled by Patterson and the gang, wasting time on that inconclusive footage.

This is why I declared earlier, it's a cold case and move on.

[Searcher]

What if Patterson and his buddies were trolls before trolling became a phenomenon on the internet?

Could their plan have been to troll the academic community in particular, into devoting thousands of hours trying to either prove or debunk the footage, enhancing his social standing, all the while the footage was lining his pocket from the believers?

Take a good look at yourselves. Fifty one years later, still being trolled by Patterson and the gang, wasting time on that inconclusive footage.

This is why I declared earlier, it's a cold case and move on.

G'day Black,

Despite your declaration, the world is unlikely to ‘move on’ from the PG film. With new digital enhancements on the way using the multiple copies that were made from the lost 16mm original, there is new hope for previously unresolved detail. I still enjoy discussing this case and a bonus for me has been finding out more about my trusty old K-100 camera.

The ‘what ifs’ mentioned are purely speculation. There is little doubt that Roger Patterson’s character was on the shady side, but that does not in itself prove we are watching a man in a suit walk through the forest. I’ll bet even hardened crims get lucky sometimes…

From what online information I can gather and despite his claims, Bob ‘Hoaxer’ Heironimus was not on site wearing a Bigfoot suit on that fateful day in 1967. This alone takes this mystery back to square one.

Personally, my preference is to keep an open mind, at least for the time being. It’s just too easy to write the whole thing off with the wave of a skeptical hand. There are a number of scientific studies in favour of the PG film being genuine. They are listed on wiki along with those who take the opposite view.
Check out the Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson ... imlin_film

[Simon M]

What if Patterson and his buddies were trolls before trolling became a phenomenon on the internet?

What if you're mistaken? Can you prove that this assertion is incontrovertible?

Could their plan have been to troll the academic community in particular, into devoting thousands of hours trying to either prove or debunk the footage, enhancing his social standing, all the while the footage was lining his pocket from the believers?

You're making an assertion, not offering any proof of what you assert.

Take a good look at yourselves. Fifty one years later, still being trolled by Patterson and the gang, wasting time on that inconclusive footage.

We're not the only ones. This footage is still one of the most frequently debated pieces of potential evidence in the history of Cryptozoology. Qualified and experienced scientists have disagreed about what it shows. I don't need to name them, I'm sure you're well aware of the people who've debated this topic. If not, you can always google it.

This is why I declared earlier, it's a cold case and move on.

You can declare whatever you wish, and others are free to ignore your declarations. You have your opinions - and that's fine. You can state them - also fine. So can everyone else.

If this topic is such a waste of time, why do you continue to comment on it?

What if you don't care about this topic at all and are simply posting here - in a sock-puppet account - to irritate certain people whom you dislike? That's just an opinion I have, naturally. I can't prove that assertion. I think there's anecdotal evidence to support it, though. My evidence is the contents of your posts in this thread. I think people can read this thread - or look at the Patterson/Gimlin film - and draw their own conclusions. I know I have.

[Simon M]

double post (for some reason)

[Black]

Simon M, I don't dislike any person on this forum.

I continue to post on this topic, because I still have an interest in the yowie, and I started this thread. I also had an interest in the PG film, and researched it.

I can't prove Patterson and his buddies were trolls. That most certainly is an assertion, and yes I might be wrong. I can prove the Patterson film remains inconclusive after 51 years. I can prove Roger Patterson was a dubious fellow who also swanned around with at least one known bigfoot footprint hoaxer. I can prove that film made him a decent amount of money at the time, and with a sick family member, he may have extra incentive to make money fast. I can prove Patterson butted heads with academics at the time and there was likely animosity.

It's like Brett Green trying to palm off Walking with Beasts still images of CGI Australopithecus as actual yowie photos in a book titled, "Yowie Tales." Patterson palmed off film footage of a bigfoot in a place named, "Bluff Creek." Tales means a fictitious account, while bluff means to fool.

People can feel free to ignore my declaration for sure. I'm not telling anybody what to think. I've heard promises for years of new analysis techniques to finally prove the footage one way or another, so naturally I wont be holding my breath.

Like you said, Simon, I have an opinion, and I've shared it.

[TheBlackStump]

This Footage Was Shot Weeks Before Patterson-Gimlin Filmed Bigfoot In 1967.
Film was allegedly shot in same area.
The foot prints have been debunked as fake . If fake then IMO this casts doubts re the Patterson-Gimlim film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRfWOnRSA8g

[Simon M]

There's the whole 'where there's smoke there's fire' argument to be considered. As has been pointed out by others Patterson was already planning on making a fictional movie about Bigfoot when the famous film was shot. That alone creates doubt (in my mind, anyway). If he was making a movie about Bigfoot surely he was going to need a guy in a furry suit to show up at some point, right? So the idea that it was just someone in a suit is a valid one in this context.

Taken on its own it's a matter of opinion as to what the film really shows us. People far more highly qualified than me have disagreed about what's in it.

Looked at in the context of who Patterson was it's reasonable to conclude that the film's a fake. When discussing the film on its own merits even the experts can't agree.

That inability to completely dismiss it or endorse it as the real thing is the reason it continues to be so interesting.