Patterson Film Stabilized

originally posted by: jaffo
Has anyone been watching Les Stroud Man v. Wild Bigfoot? I have to give hi credit for what he is doing and he has actually found and heard a few odd things. What he's doing? THAT is how you put this thing to the test.

Unfortunately (I guess), not many of us have the chance or the desire to spend hundreds of hours in relatively isolated areas of the forest looking for Bigfoot evidence. However, there are thousands of hunters and campers who actually do spend that amount of time in the forest. The fact that only a few of them claim to have encountered the animal and none of them have any decent solid evidence to prove its existence can't be ignored.

I'm a big fan of Bigfoot, and I love to watch the videos and read about the footprints. It's fun. However, the rational part of my brain recognizes the difficulty with the logistics of it all. I like Bill Munns' analysis of the PG film, but I also see the problems with it.

Somebody needs to hit one of these things with their truck or something to push it from speculation into reality, if that's even possible.

I watched a special on yutube using the enhanced/stabilized version of the footage. The Narrator actually took the footage and blew it up so you could really Patty's face and body in great detail . Considering the footage was shot in 1967 and that movie special effects were crude at best back then, I just cant see how a guy (i.e., Bob Hieronymus) in a gorilla costume would produce the same visual quality as that evidenced in the P-G film. I mean, the rippling leg and trapezius muscles, the simian-like gait, etc. , is VERY lifelike and convincing IMHO. Now, compare that to the Planet of the Apes movies that utilized, what was considered cutting-edge technology for that time, and which came out about the same time the P-G film was made, there is simply no comparison!! In the Planet of the Apes movies, the actors in the ape suits CLEARLY were simply just that: guys wearing ape suits. There was no evident body muscles visible because the costumes kind of just hung on the actors, especially when obeserving the legs, but thats NOT what you see when viewing the P-G film.

How can that be explained if not authentic?

originally posted by: Adirman
Now, compare that to the Planet of the Apes movies that utilized, what was considered cutting-edge technology for that time, and which came out about the same time the P-G film was made, there is simply no comparison!! In the Planet of the Apes movies, the actors in the ape suits CLEARLY were simply just that: guys wearing ape suits. There was no evident body muscles visible because the costumes kind of just hung on the actors, especially when obeserving the legs, but thats NOT what you see when viewing the P-G film.

How can that be explained if not authentic?

In the Planet of the Apes film I watched (didn't watch all of them), I don't remember them wearing ape suits (did they?). As I remember it they were a supposed evolved, intelligent and refined ape species that wore human clothes (which seemed to be the whole point) and only needed facial make up/wigs and perhaps some hand make up (when they weren't wearing gloves).

They also had to be able to express realistic facial movement/ emotions and speak under full colour cinematic close ups played on a very large movie screen. So comparing the PG film to this is comparing apples to oranges. Though I think such a closeup of Patty's physiognomy could have been very revealing! lol.

The PG film is just shaky, blurry and distant enough to be forever ambiguous. Which might be its real defining quality. Where one person sees rippling muscle, another sees costume joins.

I would urge you to view the enhanced stabilized version of the P-G film; you will see that it is no longer blurry and visually ambiguous- trust me.

Also, in the Planet of the Apes shower scene, you can clearly see most of the actors' bodies wearing the suits, especially their legs; to say the least, the suits were baggy there and, thus, clearly inauthentic. Based on this, it's hard to imagine a suit worn by an actor that would exhibit such discrete and extensive visible musculature in the limbs such as that evidenced by the P-G film.


a reply to: Quintilian

originally posted by: Adirman
I mean, the rippling leg and trapezius muscles, the simian-like gait

How can that be explained if not authentic?

Simian like gait..? Can you point me to another (non human) simian or primate that actually walks like that?

I think everything about Patty says "human" including its walk. Whether you believe it's some relic species of human (which isn't as silly as it sounds and there's no reason such a species shouldn't exist) or a modern human in a costume.

The slight "Charlie Chaplin" anomaly or "compliant gait" could be evidence of a different species, but it could just as easily be a necessity of walking in prosthetic feet (for an accentuated version of this look at someone trying to walk in flippers).

So once again it is ambiguous. That this seems to be the best evidence for bigfoot existing is what makes me doubtful.

You raise good points here, but Watch the stabilized version first, then we'll talk . Its available on yutube and was done a few yrs ago (I think) - check it!!

a reply to: Quintilian

originally posted by: Adirman
I would urge you to view the enhanced stabilized version of the P-G film; you will see that it is no longer blurry and visually ambiguous- trust me.

Yeah, I've seen it. If you're convinced fair enough, after all, who knows?

Though I think enlarging and enhancing what was originally a poor quality distant figure that occupied a very small portion of a tiny 8mm film image and thinking it will bring out faithful detail not on the original is bordering on dishonesty. At a certain point I think the real word for that becomes editing.

There is also no original which is a problem (there is no way to know when it was developed or if it was edited) and I am unaware of anyone to see the early film who actually checked (and had the knowledge to know) whether it was original they saw.

The copies that exist are often claimed to be "x generation" but this seems to just be what people were told, I find it unlikely that anyone really knows. So apart from the other problems it is likely that what is being enhanced are copies of copies to begin with. Or worse (on the internet), digital copies of digitised copies of copies.

I have heard (I seem to remember the Dahinden cibachromes also indicating) that all sorts of things appear on the net that aren't on the film copies. I also heard that the library of Congress has a film copy (not sure what generation) that people can view.

At any rate I've seen too many discussions where people have shown all sorts of features via enhancement and enlargement, both for and against authenticity, to take it seriously. I remember one lot measuring Patty at over 7'2" based on pics of someone supposedly standing in Patty's supposed trackway, then another lot using the feet as a ruler (via the documented track measurements) measured the height in the 5'4"-5'10" range lol. For every rippling muscle there will be a diaper but or a costume join.

To me it's ambiguous and probably always will be. Which is probably why it hasn't attracted all that much scientific interest.

Also, in the Planet of the Apes shower scene, you can clearly see most of the actors' bodies wearing the suits, especially their legs; to say the least, the suits were baggy there and, thus, clearly inauthentic. Based on this, it's hard to imagine a suit worn by an actor that would exhibit such discrete and extensive visible musculature in the limbs such as that evidenced by the P-G film.

Fair enough, was unaware of that. So the apes were unclothed in that scene? Would be interesting, will have to see if I can find it (or stills of it) online.

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: Adirman
I would urge you to view the enhanced stabilized version of the P-G film; you will see that it is no longer blurry and visually ambiguous- trust me.

Yeah, I've seen it. If you're convinced fair enough, after all, who knows?

Though I think enlarging and enhancing what was originally a poor quality distant figure that occupied a very small portion of a tiny 8mm film image and thinking it will bring out faithful detail not on the original is bordering on dishonesty. At a certain point I think the real word for that becomes editing.

There is also no original which is a problem (there is no way to know when it was developed or if it was edited) and I am unaware of anyone to see the early film who actually checked (and had the knowledge to know) whether it was original they saw.

The copies that exist are often claimed to be "x generation" but this seems to just be what people were told, I find it unlikely that anyone really knows. So apart from the other problems it is likely that what is being enhanced are copies of copies to begin with. Or worse (on the internet), digital copies of digitised copies of copies.

I have heard (I seem to remember the Dahinden cibachromes also indicating) that all sorts of things appear on the net that aren't on the film copies. I also heard that the library of Congress has a film copy (not sure what generation) that people can view.

At any rate I've seen too many discussions where people have shown all sorts of features via enhancement and enlargement, both for and against authenticity, to take it seriously. I remember one lot measuring Patty at over 7'2" based on pics of someone supposedly standing in Patty's supposed trackway, then another lot using the feet as a ruler (via the documented track measurements) measured the height in the 5'4"-5'10" range lol. For every rippling muscle there will be a diaper but or a costume join.

To me it's ambiguous and probably always will be. Which is probably why it hasn't attracted all that much scientific interest.

Also, in the Planet of the Apes shower scene, you can clearly see most of the actors' bodies wearing the suits, especially their legs; to say the least, the suits were baggy there and, thus, clearly inauthentic. Based on this, it's hard to imagine a suit worn by an actor that would exhibit such discrete and extensive visible musculature in the limbs such as that evidenced by the P-G film.

Fair enough, was unaware of that. So the apes were unclothed in that scene? Would be interesting, will have to see if I can find it (or stills of it) online.

Well, film technology aint my forte' so I have to concede that you might be right about the enhancement, perhaps, functioning as sort of a "cleaning up of the footage" (i.e., editing to provide more detail/clarity to Pattys image and body structure). Totally could be the case; however, if not and all it did was provide more detail to an image that already had detail but the film quality was poor, than it is compelling- yes?

Let me say that, I ALWAYS approach supposed conspiracy-minded evidence such as this from a skeptical POV as im a science , facts driven guy through-and-through. Having said that, I, of course , have an open mind as well (otherwise, I guess I wouldnt even be here lol).


Bottom line is, I dont really believe in the existence of Bigfoot as it stand right now, BUT the optically enhanced P-G is, nonetheless, compelling. Maybe someday, a hunter will shoot one of those suckers and produce a body, then we'll have concrete undeniable proof!!

Just for the hell of it, Ill see if I can find the Planet of the Apes shower scene footage and post later so you can check it

originally posted by: Adirman

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: Adirman
I would urge you to view the enhanced stabilized version of the P-G film; you will see that it is no longer blurry and visually ambiguous- trust me.

Yeah, I've seen it. If you're convinced fair enough, after all, who knows?

Though I think enlarging and enhancing what was originally a poor quality distant figure that occupied a very small portion of a tiny 8mm film image and thinking it will bring out faithful detail not on the original is bordering on dishonesty. At a certain point I think the real word for that becomes editing.

There is also no original which is a problem (there is no way to know when it was developed or if it was edited) and I am unaware of anyone to see the early film who actually checked (and had the knowledge to know) whether it was original they saw.

The copies that exist are often claimed to be "x generation" but this seems to just be what people were told, I find it unlikely that anyone really knows. So apart from the other problems it is likely that what is being enhanced are copies of copies to begin with. Or worse (on the internet), digital copies of digitised copies of copies.

I have heard (I seem to remember the Dahinden cibachromes also indicating) that all sorts of things appear on the net that aren't on the film copies. I also heard that the library of Congress has a film copy (not sure what generation) that people can view.

At any rate I've seen too many discussions where people have shown all sorts of features via enhancement and enlargement, both for and against authenticity, to take it seriously. I remember one lot measuring Patty at over 7'2" based on pics of someone supposedly standing in Patty's supposed trackway, then another lot using the feet as a ruler (via the documented track measurements) measured the height in the 5'4"-5'10" range lol. For every rippling muscle there will be a diaper but or a costume join.

To me it's ambiguous and probably always will be. Which is probably why it hasn't attracted all that much scientific interest.

Also, in the Planet of the Apes shower scene, you can clearly see most of the actors' bodies wearing the suits, especially their legs; to say the least, the suits were baggy there and, thus, clearly inauthentic. Based on this, it's hard to imagine a suit worn by an actor that would exhibit such discrete and extensive visible musculature in the limbs such as that evidenced by the P-G film.

Fair enough, was unaware of that. So the apes were unclothed in that scene? Would be interesting, will have to see if I can find it (or stills of it) online.

... Maybe someday, a hunter will shoot one of those suckers and produce a body, then we'll have concrete undeniable proof!!

Not a vid, but an interesting hunter who claims to have accidentally shot one in 1941 illegally moose hunting in Manitoba. His description seems quite consistent with all of the later accounts. OF course he could just be an attention whoring old man. Worth the short read though.

www.bfro.net...

originally posted by: Adirman

originally posted by: Quintilian

originally posted by: Adirman
I would urge you to view the enhanced stabilized version of the P-G film; you will see that it is no longer blurry and visually ambiguous- trust me.

Yeah, I've seen it. If you're convinced fair enough, after all, who knows?

Though I think enlarging and enhancing what was originally a poor quality distant figure that occupied a very small portion of a tiny 8mm film image and thinking it will bring out faithful detail not on the original is bordering on dishonesty. At a certain point I think the real word for that becomes editing.

There is also no original which is a problem (there is no way to know when it was developed or if it was edited) and I am unaware of anyone to see the early film who actually checked (and had the knowledge to know) whether it was original they saw.

The copies that exist are often claimed to be "x generation" but this seems to just be what people were told, I find it unlikely that anyone really knows. So apart from the other problems it is likely that what is being enhanced are copies of copies to begin with. Or worse (on the internet), digital copies of digitised copies of copies.

I have heard (I seem to remember the Dahinden cibachromes also indicating) that all sorts of things appear on the net that aren't on the film copies. I also heard that the library of Congress has a film copy (not sure what generation) that people can view.

At any rate I've seen too many discussions where people have shown all sorts of features via enhancement and enlargement, both for and against authenticity, to take it seriously. I remember one lot measuring Patty at over 7'2" based on pics of someone supposedly standing in Patty's supposed trackway, then another lot using the feet as a ruler (via the documented track measurements) measured the height in the 5'4"-5'10" range lol. For every rippling muscle there will be a diaper but or a costume join.

To me it's ambiguous and probably always will be. Which is probably why it hasn't attracted all that much scientific interest.

Also, in the Planet of the Apes shower scene, you can clearly see most of the actors' bodies wearing the suits, especially their legs; to say the least, the suits were baggy there and, thus, clearly inauthentic. Based on this, it's hard to imagine a suit worn by an actor that would exhibit such discrete and extensive visible musculature in the limbs such as that evidenced by the P-G film.

Fair enough, was unaware of that. So the apes were unclothed in that scene? Would be interesting, will have to see if I can find it (or stills of it) online.

Well, film technology aint my forte' so I have to concede that you might be right about the enhancement, perhaps, functioning as sort of a "cleaning up of the footage" (i.e., editing to provide more detail/clarity to Pattys image and body structure). Totally could be the case; however, if not and all it did was provide more detail to an image that already had detail but the film quality was poor, than it is compelling- yes?

Let me say that, I ALWAYS approach supposed conspiracy-minded evidence such as this from a skeptical POV as im a science , facts driven guy through-and-through. Having said that, I, of course , have an open mind as well (otherwise, I guess I wouldnt even be here lol).


Bottom line is, I dont really believe in the existence of Bigfoot as it stand right now, BUT the optically enhanced P-G is, nonetheless, compelling. Maybe someday, a hunter will shoot one of those suckers and produce a body, then we'll have concrete undeniable proof!!

I'm not convinced by the evidence so far either. But I have little doubt that some of the claims are from honest people who genuinely think they have encountered bigfoot. Which is intriguing.

I'm sceptical not just of conspiracy type claims, although I also accept some of them (the Zapruder film was probably edited for instance). But there are also certain well known and widely accepted principles of mainstream science that I'm very sceptical of lol.

Just for the hell of it, Ill see if I can find the Planet of the Apes shower scene footage and post later so you can check it

Thanks.

I remember quite a few years back on a forum (can't remember whether a bigfoot forum or the Randi/sceptics forum) where someone went to the trouble of finding all of the pre 1970 movie apes they could (not all of them from US movies). I was surprised at the quality of some of them. I think if taken from a distance in similar fashion I think they would seem remarkable.

Really- that, I would like to see!! There's some good footage posted earlier in this thread from several years ago, actually, that looks worthy of a second look; when I get a chance, Im gonna dig a little deeper here, as well as other souces. a reply to: Quintilian

Found this on Twitter:

x.com...

This is a repost by www.abovetopsecret.com... earlier in this thread:

Thought it was VERY compelling ....

youtu.be...

a reply to: Adirman





Embedded the video for you.

originally posted by: muse7
If this is indeed a human in an ape suit, he must have a huge wingspan since those arms almost reach his knees

Extended arms in the suit? All it does is swing them.

originally posted by: Quintilian

How far up does one raise their foot if they are in a big heavy suit?

originally posted by: Adirman
This is a repost by www.abovetopsecret.com... earlier in this thread:

Thought it was VERY compelling ....

Have seen thinker thunker's stuff before. The gait is most definitely unusual (though I have some doubts about tt's specific claims and methods).

It still doesn't remove ambiguity (for me at least). It could indicate another species with an unusual gait, but if it was a costume and the feet were too large for the person wearing it (especially lengthwise) this could change the subjects gait substantially, out of necessity. When you consider it was also on soft-ish river sand (Patty was filmed crossing a sandbar) this could also exacerbate the effect.

dissolve.com...

Unless Patty was one of the last and bigfoot has since gone extinct, there will be a breeding population of bigfoot in the Pacific NW. To sustain a breeding population there will be hundreds of bigfoot at the very minimum (possibly a higher number than that). I realise it's a big area, but nothing (physically) definitive has been found since to indicate that. While it could be a real bigfoot, without this I think it's a matter of what people choose to believe.

At least that's my take on it. The film alone isn't convincing enough for me, it's full of ambiguity.

a reply to: Adirman


What do you think of this Adirman? We know from the "claimed" Patty tracks found some weeks after the film was taken that the foot length was 14.5". So according to this method she has a walking height in the 5'-5'6" range lol.

Firstly, I don't accept it as valid, but not for the usual reasons (such as the foot is "closer to the camera", "pixel bloom", "motion blur" etc.). There are more specific reasons why I wouldn't accept this, but I don't find any analysis of the PG convincing (so far at least). But I still see no reasons to think it is some hulking giant.

We have no original. We don't know when it was developed or who developed it (Patterson refused to divulge this). We don't know if anyone (other than Patterson and presumably the developer) has ever seen the original to know what was really on it. We don't even know what lens was used, or what speed it was taken at. or what distance it was taken from. Thus any angles and distance measurement are all guesstimations at best.

The quality isn't great either, all in all it doesn't really lend itself to conclusive analysis IMO. Could be a man in a costume, could be a bigfoot.