Jump to content


Photo

Camera Stops And Starts


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#21 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,714 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:59 PM

Those older cameras were actually more capable than the digital ones today in terms of having a quick reaction , point and shoot response time. I could imagine that his finger could have inadvertently released the trigger while running , falling down, getting up to reaquire the subject.
  • 1
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#22 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:12 PM

Here is the part of my report that explains the camera operation in detail, and why segment three, the 2 frame segment, is a strong indicator of a spontanious filming, as opposed to a staged filmed done with calm deliberation:

The way some of these camera starts occur, and because of some odd frames suggesting a single frame exposure, it will help to explain a bit about the camera's operation and filming options.

The Kodak K-100 camera is a spring driven camera (not motor driven), and the operator must wind the spring for the camera to run. To film, the camera has an operational lever to run the camera, and this lever has several settings.

If pushed upward from it's stop position, the camera will take a single frame of film, and even if you hold the lever up longer, it will not take another frame until you first return the lever to the stop position. If pushed downward, the lever has two modes. The first step down is a mode wherein the camera will run as long as the operator's finger continues to hold the lever there, but if released by the operator, the lever will spring up to stop position. The second step down for the lever locks the camera running, so if the operator takes the hand away, the camera will continue to run, until the hand deliberately pushes the lever back upward to stop position.

So there are a total of four lever positions, listed from top to bottom:
top - Single frame
level - stop
down one - Camera runs as long as lever held here
down two - camera runs on it's own, until stopped or spring tension is too low.

The camera is described in greater detail in the Reference Section 3.2.4.5, PDF #2.

Roger was reportedly using a pistol grip, which would be held with the left hand, and the trigger lever to operate the camera is worked by the right hand. Given the camera is a rather heavy one, relative to magazine 16mm cameras, holding this heavy weight on a pistol grip can be awkward, and so keeping the right hand on the camera in the trigger position even when walking about preparing to film is a comfortable posture for a camera operator. So to envision that during the duration of the filming, Roger held the camera in both hands, with the right on the trigger, is a reasonable expectation.

Given he was moving on irregular ground, this posture would further help, by bracing the camera with right hand.


Implications of the Evidence

For the Segment #3, consisting of only two frames, we must first consider the the options to explain it.

Option 1. The segment is edited.

Option 2. The segment is an actual two frame filming segment, with several explanations as follows:

Option 2A - The actual filming was accidental, the finger on the trigger accidentally pulling down and slipping off.

Option 2B - The actual filming was intentional to start, but the finger accidentally slipped off the trigger lever to end.

Option 2C - The actual filming was an intentional act, to pull down the trigger lever and immediately release it, to achieve a two frame segment to look spontaneous.

We begin this deductive process of elimination with item #1 above, editing and splicing. Nothing in the frames themselves, or the frames immediately before or after, has any indication of a splice, by common processes. We must also consider a process rarely used but intended to hide the usual indications of the common splicing methods. This method is described in detail and illustrated in section 3.5.5.1. Using this method, even if the splice tape edge is hidden, one still must make a physical cut of the film in the line between frames, and that cut should leave some irregularity on close inspection.





There is also the argumentative question of why anyone would go to the extra effort of striving to make two splices invisible to simply include two frames of film which show nothing of the subject "creature". One splice, joining segment 2 and segment 4 (and just not using the two frames of segment 3 at all), would be easier than two splices to join segment 2 to segment 3 to segment 4, when the two frame segment 3 is seemingly worthless to any falsified film compilation. So there would be no apparent motive to make such a splicing, aside from no apparent indications or evidence of such.

So Option #1, editing and splicing, is eliminated by both a lack of evidence and lack of justification. The first frame camera start (verified by over-exposure) further negates the splicing option, because it explains the abrupt change of picture satisfactorily, placing more burden on proof to establish a splice.

Lacking any evidence of splicing, the two frame segment is indicated to occurred "in camera" (caused by camera operation, not film editing after filming). The action occurs "in camera" when the finger pulling down the trigger lever slips off the lever as soon as the drive mechanism engages and starts the shutter, and the brake mechanism acts as soon as the lever is released (Option #2). This could be an accidental pull down of the trigger lever, if the finger was held in place and the hand clinched to secure the camera while the operator walked on an unsteady footing (2A), or the operator deliberately started the camera, but the finger slipped off the lever accidentally (2B), or the operator deliberately started the camera and deliberately let the finger slip off (2C).

However, for the second option (2B - a deliberate intention to film, and an accidental slip of the finger off the lever), the operator would generally reset the finger more securely on the lever and restart the camera, if the intention was to film. But here, Start #4 does not occur until the operator has moved over the creek and far forward toward the "S" branch. In this case, the operator did not restart immediately to keep filming the subject in segment 3. That would indicate the segment 3 was not an intentional filming start, with an accidental stop.


Eliminating option #2B (intentional start, accidental end), two possible interpretations remain (2A and 2C):

2A. Accidental start and stop, which gives support for a spontaneous filming of something real and unpredictable.

2C. Deliberate start and stop, suggesting deliberate camera filming oddities to confound future researchers, as part of a hoax.
Problems with this interpretation are:
1. During normal projection, the 2 frame segment would be subliminal, and thus undetectable
( 2 frames is 1/8th or 1/12th of a second, depending on projection speed. Either case is
to fast for analysis).
2. Single frame projection (freeze-frame mode on a projector) wouldn't allow for analysis
comparing multiple frames side by side, to detect result.
3. No multiple frame side by side projection could be done unless you had two copies of
the film and two projectors, side by side, projecting to separate screens, a situation
not commonly available.
4. Only paper print of frames might allow convenient side by side comparisons,
but paper prints of each frame would still not allow for overlay comparisons.
5. Common darkrooms are not set up for prints from a continuous 16mm film, more equipped
for cut film segments. Commercial darkroom facilities may do paper prints, but fees
would be substantial. In 42 years, no one has been known to do paper prints of every
film frame for study.
6. The technology of today, digital imaging and computer graphics, did not exist then,
and could not even have been envisioned to be invented in the future.

These above problems leaves us with no reasonable way a researcher could detect the anomaly at the time, so there would be no deliberate reason to fake a 2 frame film segment (which might lend credibility to a spontaneous filming) when that segment could not be analyzed by any research method of the time, in any common analytical process. In other words, why fake something on the film no one can reasonably detect, at the time? Considering that the film has been analyzed for 42 years by many researchers (both people advocating the film to be real, and researchers advocating the film to be a hoax), and this segment was not identified as what it truly is until now, is a reasonable indication of how hard it was to detect, and thus, how unlikely that it was planned as part of a staged hoax event.

This discounts option 2C, leaving Option 2A alone. But this option must still be validated by factual criteria. 2A is satisfied by:

A. The camera start mechanism is conducive to such an action.
B. There is no indication of editing or splicing.
C. The first frame of the segment has indications of a camera start (over-exposure).
D. The circumstances, crossing a creekbed, provide a situation where the operator, while walking across the creek, may make sudden body movements to maintain balance while walking on the stone-covered creek bottom, and adjusting his balance for any water flow he may be standing in or walking through.
E. The operator did not immediately restart the camera to continue filming. He moved a very substantial distance to the next filming position.
F. A deliberate two frame segment to look like an accidental one would be pointless at the time, because analysis methods would not have been able to detect it (then, or anticipated in the future), and making a deliberate action to produce a false clue nobody could find is illogical.

So all the elements for an accidental two frame start-stop (2A) are satisfied, while all other options are discounted.

Conclusion - Camera Start #3, causing a 2 frame segment of film, with the camera pointed forward but not showing the subject of obvious concern (the "creature"), is more likely or reasonably an accidental camera start, the operator holding the camera with finger on the trigger lever, and a slip of the right hand or clinching of the fingers pulled down the lever momentarily, before the finger slipped off the lever.

This would be the behavior of a person holding the camera ever ready to spontaneously film the moment the subject of interest was visible, while trying to walk near or across a creekbed with flowing water, an unstable terrain to walk upon.

Further supportive of this conclusion is the analogy of comparing a camera to a firearm, and how the operator of the device may behave in a situation with calm intentional activity, as compared to a situation of spontaneous and unpredictable activity.

In a situation of calm and predictable activity, a firearm is generally held with finger off the trigger, the firearm pointing up or down, but never forward, the safety on (if the firearm has one), thus holding the device in a deliberate manner to avoid an accidental triggering of the device.

In a situation of spontaneous and unpredictable activity where a target has already been sighted, but is currently out of sight, the firearm is held with its safety off, the firearm pointed forward, the finger on the trigger. Here, the operator of the firearm, like the camera operator, is holding the device ready to use at a moment's notice in a spontaneous and unpredictable situation, should the target suddenly re-appear.

An accidental triggering is likely to occur in the spontaneous instance, and not the deliberate activity instance. The spontaneity factor is a strong argument for a real incident, an unstaged, uncontrolled, unpredictable encounter, and argues against a filming activity which would be done with calm deliberation and preparation (as a hoaxed filming would be done).

Frames 232 and 233 may be single frame exposures, created by accidental action where the camera operator pushes the trigger lever up, while holding the camera with right hand bracing the camera in the trigger operation position, finger on the lever. The sudden shift of blur direction is the factor raising this question. However, nothing in Roger's filming archives of other documentary footage shows camera motion blurs as extensive and varied as we see in the PGF, and no filming tests have yet been done to specifically study motion blur caused by shaking the hands or body during hand held filming, so we cannot yet make a conclusive determination about these two frames.

But if (and please note, this is a speculative consideration at present) these two frames are determined to be single frame exposures, when further tests and analysis are done, then they will indicate a spontaneous and probable accidental move of the finger on the trigger lever, not a splice or a deliberate filming action, by the same reasoning applied to the two frame segment.

And if so, this would further strengthen the conclusion the filming was spontaneous, not staged.



Bill
  • 1
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#23 Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Sasquatch

  • Steering Committee
  • 5,678 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:23 PM

The Kodak K-100 camera is a spring driven camera (not motor driven), and the operator must wind the spring for the camera to run. To film, the camera has an operational lever to run the camera, and this lever has several settings.


Wow, and yikes. Hasn't the world changed? I was 13 in October, 1967. My family has 8mm film footage of me and my cousins, at a tender young age, now transferred onto video, and more lately, onto dvd.

Even at my advanced age, I did not realize the Kodak K-100 was spring driven. It makes sense to me, now, as I realize battery technology of the time, 1967, was fairly pitiful, compared to these days.

Thanks, Bill, for this small glimpse back into the limitations of fairly recent technology.
  • 0

Who is John Galt?


#24 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:32 PM

incorrigible1:

They did have battery belts back then, for 24fps constant motors, but the belt was about 20 or more "D" cell ni-cads, and was considered a high end pro device. So most consumer oriented cameras were spring wound, with occasional motors as luxury extra accessories.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#25 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,078 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:17 PM

IMO the film is such a dreadful mess of just about everything a film can be a dreadful mess about that faking such a mess is and even bigger achievement than faking the object it was attempting to film.
  • 0

#26 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,728 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:35 PM

Sweaty, What You have posted goes a long way towards proving Patty was the real deal. Thank you! :wub: & hugs...


...and...

Thepattywagon wrote:

Sorry for the potential derail, SweatyYeti. Just couldn't help but notice it. As to the starts and stops, I always felt that was one of the strongest pieces of evidence pointing to a spontaneous filming episode. And according to Bill, at least one of the start/stops was probably not intentional, as I remember.
Thanks for this thread, Sweaty!



You're welcome, Susi...and pattywagon.. :) This finding of Bill's is something very significant, and meaningful...and I just thought it should be given some special attention...and, some additional analysis.

It's meaningful because most of the 'camera stops' by Roger were deliberate. He had some definite reason behind doing it...so the 'stops' should give us a clue as to what was going through Roger's mind, as he was filming Patty.

And from what I've seen, so far...I'm with you two.. ;) ..I think it goes a long way towards proving Patty was the real deal!
  • 0

#27 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:46 PM

Has anyone ever scanned the beginning or other parts of the 100' roll and noticed this starting and stopping? It would be cool to have a test control for comparison. It might show if he always slipped off the trigger or if it was due to a reaction.
  • 0

Please consider joining the forum's Premium Membership Plan if you are 18 years of age, have made 75 or more posts and have a warning status of 2 strikes or less.

You'll find much more content and forums available for you as a Premium Member. For more info please contact an Administrator who will be more specific about the additional content afforded and walk you through the registration process.


#28 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:15 PM

FG:

John Green has some of the other 100 roll footage, and I scanned a few frames of it, but not the whole sequence.His copy is the only one i know does still exist.

Wish I could get up there and scan it, but haven't worked out the logistics yet.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#29 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:30 AM

That would be ideal, Bill. I know you mentioned comparisons with his archival footage (and that's good) but it would be good to know if the mechanisms of the K-100 were in order from that reel. Those spring cameras can go a little wonky. Especially if he was spinning with no film loaded at any point between his other footage and that reel. If he did that, it could ruin the speed and possibly cause a trigger malfunction. <---stretch. But footage from the same reel would be the best set control.
  • 0

Please consider joining the forum's Premium Membership Plan if you are 18 years of age, have made 75 or more posts and have a warning status of 2 strikes or less.

You'll find much more content and forums available for you as a Premium Member. For more info please contact an Administrator who will be more specific about the additional content afforded and walk you through the registration process.


#30 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:01 AM

FG:

Agreed. Looking at footage from the same roll would be the best indicator of how the camera operated, so hopefully, the scans can be done in the near future.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#31 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,014 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 11:04 AM

Could just the shakin' or motion to the camera itself as Roger was runnin' cause somethin' similar to stops an starts ?

Pat...
  • 0

#32 OmegaWolf

OmegaWolf

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 23 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 12:12 PM

While I'm convinced the film is a hoax, I don't see the stops and starts as evidence for or against. Regardless of his cause for jostling the camera, the motion could have caused Patterson's finger to slip whether he intended it or not. In fact, it seems a bit odd that it didn't slip off the trigger at the beginning when the camera dips down and around in a rather turbulent, circular motion.
  • 0

#33 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Bigfoot

  • Sésquac
  • 4,728 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 01:47 PM

Could just the shakin' or motion to the camera itself as Roger was runnin' cause somethin' similar to stops an starts ?

Pat...



Most of the 'camera stops' co-incided with Roger repositioning himself, Pat....so the stops weren't random slips of the finger...they were deliberate stops. :)
  • 0

#34 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,714 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:15 PM

Bill, I don't know if this would be the appropriate thread but since we are on the topic of starts and stops and that some have claimed in the past that the film had been cut or spliced and in fact that some frames of the original film are / were missing from what is generally shown to the public, I was wondering if you had any comment on this.

Edited by southernyahoo, 22 March 2011 - 02:17 PM.

  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#35 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:39 PM

southernyahoo:

There's no evidence of any splicing in the 23.8' Bluff Creek film as we know it.And there are multiple indicators one can look for to try and find evidence of splicing. None of those indicators can be found. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that some PGF copies have been spliced, but that does not show the original was, unless the same splice marks are on all copies, and no such splice indication is. So if a person wants to argue that the PGF is spliced, they have the burden of proof to show where the splice is and how they determined it was spliced, and so far, everyone who thinks the film is spliced has failed completely to present a credible argument for the film being spliced.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#36 comncents

comncents

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 321 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:01 PM

I agree that the starts and stops seem to be part of one continuous event and not splices, but I'm not sure how it really adds weight for or against a hoax. The event entails a cameraman running after a moving object, trying not to fall and trying to keep the subject in frame at the same time. In either case, the trigger could be released either by accident or by habit when changing positions or looking away from the view finder.

I believe I'm correct with my "red circle" being the K-100 trigger in this photo. Looks to me as if it would be easy to start and stop by accident any time you are running and trying to film.

Attached File  K-100.jpg   14.08KB   3 downloads
  • 0

#37 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,714 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 03:56 PM

Thanks Bill, I don't know which frame it is, but for some reason David Paulides was stating that the public had not seen this frame from the film before at the 2009 Conference in Honobia OK.. Perhaps because some cut up copy is what is usually shown on TV.

Attached File  PGF frame.JPG   1.58MB   11 downloads
  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#38 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,513 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 04:12 PM

southernyahoo:

Many copies start at frame #3, not frame #1, so he could be referring to frame #1, not seen on the other copies. It looks like frame 1 as far as I can tell.

comncents:

Yes, you circled the trigger correctly.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#39 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:08 PM

southernyahoo:

There's no evidence of any splicing in the 23.8' Bluff Creek film as we know it.And there are multiple indicators one can look for to try and find evidence of splicing. None of those indicators can be found. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that some PGF copies have been spliced, but that does not show the original was, unless the same splice marks are on all copies, and no such splice indication is. So if a person wants to argue that the PGF is spliced, they have the burden of proof to show where the splice is and how they determined it was spliced, and so far, everyone who thinks the film is spliced has failed completely to present a credible argument for the film being spliced.

Bill


Not only can I not see a splice, is the one of the other main indicators you speak of, the presstape covering the keycode? Which doesn't happen here. I agree that there appears to be no edits.
  • 0

Please consider joining the forum's Premium Membership Plan if you are 18 years of age, have made 75 or more posts and have a warning status of 2 strikes or less.

You'll find much more content and forums available for you as a Premium Member. For more info please contact an Administrator who will be more specific about the additional content afforded and walk you through the registration process.


#40 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 392 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 05:41 PM

Sweati- If I get the gist.. if it appears that there is an apparent stop, then start and at this new start position it is clear he has moved, either closer or simply changed position, this would lend credence to a "real" scenario. Am I correct in this? In other words.. RP needs to reposition, so he stops filming so not to waste film, he runs to his new position, starts filming again..his view now is quite different than it was, obviously, closer or to the right/left.. thus it would be evident in the footage, or is evident in the footage, so therefore it seems less likely staged.

If a hoax the need for starts and stops seems so much less likely vs. a real scenario. If it is clear that RP was stopping/starting the camera I do believe it helps the "real" case.

Unfotunately many people have tied their proverbial wagon to the hoax theory so tightly that it does not matter much what comes down the pike in terms of arguement or testimony to the real theory it is not going to sway those attitudes.

Thsi is very interesting stuff and again I thank both you and Bill for your efforts.
  • 0