Jump to content


Photo

Camera Stops And Starts


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#61 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:46 PM

I'm not the one declaring that every aspect of the film supports my opinion. Have you ever, even once, acknowledged that any aspect of this film may not support your view, or found anything that could be interpreted either way? No? Do you want to call that an astounding coincidence or an epic failure in objectivity?



Why do you continue to use those inapplicable prefixes? I drew my conclusions AFTER viewing the starts and stops. There's nothing "before" or "pre" involved here. And my conclusion doesn't support my view that it's a hoax, but neither does it support the opposing viewpoint. Claiming this view, which is CLEARLY NEUTRAL on the issue, is biased means that the only unbiased evidence to you is that which supports your opinion, which reinforces what I said above.

Yes the stops and starts come with the running in cowboy boots across a creek while filming with a pressure sensitive trigger. They don't support either side of the debate, in and of themselves. As such, the opinions expressed about them are a good marker for who is totally biased.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#62 OmegaWolf

OmegaWolf

    Booger

  • Readers
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:48 PM

Since your wording included future interpretations of any aspect of the 'Camera Stops' evidence....you are making a judgement BEFORE the evidence is presented, and assessed.


The evidence has already been presented. Future interpretations or speculations are still AFTER I have examined the evidence. Your future explanations may change, but the stops and starts aren't -- those are firmly established in the PAST. Are you confused about the difference between the evidence itself and the interpretation of it?
  • 0

#63 OmegaWolf

OmegaWolf

    Booger

  • Readers
  • 23 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:54 PM

Omega:

I have to agree with Sweaty that the statement: "Any explanation you can attribute to it being real can also be attributed to Patterson doing it to make his hoax appear more authentic..." just doesn't sound quite right. For instance (and, I know this isn't the specific topic; it's just an example):

If it is concluded that a Creature suit as realistic as Patty just simply cannot be made (the evidence seems to "self-conclude" that actually) then, could that fact be attributed to Patterson making his hoax appear more authentic?? Or, could it only be attributed to the Creature being a real Bigfoot? : B


I'm specifically referring to the stops and starts, which have already been identified, not new evidence, as suggested in your example. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
  • 0

#64 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:37 PM

The evidence has already been presented.


Future interpretations or speculations are still AFTER I have examined the evidence.
Your future explanations may change, but the stops and starts aren't -- those are firmly established in the PAST. Are you confused about the difference between the evidence itself and the interpretation of it?



No, it hasn't.....not by a long shot. There are still plenty of small details, relating to the 'camera stops', yet to be presented, and assessed.


But...it looks as though you already have your "OPEN" mind made-up, Omega... :) ...


Any explanation you can attribute to it being real can also be attributed to Patterson doing it to make his hoax..


  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#65 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:42 PM

parnassus wrote:

Yes the stops and starts come with the running in cowboy boots across a creek while filming with a pressure sensitive trigger.



Why, I reckon' you don't knowz exactly what all is happenin', in them thar camera stops....pardner.. ;)
  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#66 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:30 PM

Bill,

Cool ! Thanks ! You an SweatyYeti keep up the fine work, interestin' an good stuff.

Cheers !

Pat...



I sure will, Pat...thanks. :)

This is a very interesting topic, at the very least...and, it could turn out to be more than just 'interesting'.

Edited by SweatyYeti, 23 March 2011 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#67 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,832 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 04:21 PM

Since you presumably believe the film is genuine, I'd say they did bring enough film to get it right. A convincing hoax will, of course, include elements which make people view it and say, "They wouldn't have done this if it were a hoax."

So Patterson deliberately thought about camera starts/stops when he made the film? It's kind of rediculous to think that Patterson had thought of every single aspect in the rainbow that could possibly be conceived as elements of a "convincing hoax". 40 years of questions and Patterson had thought of it all beforehand? That's a pretty weak argument.

This is a common sense issue with making any film- nothing to do with beliefs. They wouldn't have left in obvious mistakes and edits, especially ones that would jeopardize their objective. They also would have started over again if things went wrong- not left them in the final cut.

Edited by roguefooter, 23 March 2011 - 04:27 PM.

  • 0

#68 masterbarber

masterbarber

    BFF Director

  • FMT
  • 4,741 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 08:31 PM

This thread is being re-opened. Let's dispense with the bickering, name calling and unnecessary comments. Several posts have been removed because they violated forum rules and/or no longer made sense as stand alone comments.
Please continue your on-topic discussion, in a respectful manner.
  • 0
BFF Director
Forum Management Team





JOIN the Premium Forums
!


"LIKE" Bigfoot Forums on Facebook!


#69 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 03:11 AM

I sure will, Pat...thanks. :)

This is a very interesting topic, at the very least...and, it could turn out to be more than just 'interesting'.



I've never really thought the film was real, but obviously I have no proof. Most things that I read don't sway my personal decision too much. This stopping and starting has me wondering a bit. Since I have no proof, I make a mental checklist of things that could make it a hoax and things that could make it real. Most of the checks are in the hoax column for me. This topic may be different. As it is now, that checkmark is still in the hoax column by default lol. But it still makes me wonder why he would stop and start again.

He was an amateur and could make such mistakes either way, real or hoax. If there was a reason for it, and that action differs from the rest of his footage like Bill says, it might be an avenue to explore. It's definitely an interesting aspect.
  • 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.


#70 LAL

LAL

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 04:58 AM

Just for the record, there was no "pressure sensitive trigger" on the camera. I hope Bill will be able to explain that again so that people aren't left with the wrong impression about how the camera operated.
  • 0

#71 bipedalist

bipedalist

    Sasquatch

  • Researcher 1
  • 12,053 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 05:17 AM

If a forced click makes the camera move between settings then it definitely plays into the hand of a thoughtful action. Could have very easily been to conserve film for the length of the anticipated escape by the Bigfoot. I sort of liked Bill's explanation for what the switch was and how it operated and hope he will reconstruct how that switch worked for us at some future time.
  • 0

#72 OmegaWolf

OmegaWolf

    Booger

  • Readers
  • 23 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 05:52 AM

So Patterson deliberately thought about camera starts/stops when he made the film? It's kind of rediculous to think that Patterson had thought of every single aspect in the rainbow that could possibly be conceived as elements of a "convincing hoax". 40 years of questions and Patterson had thought of it all beforehand? That's a pretty weak argument.


It's a weaker argument to assume that whatever caused him to stop filming a real creature (finger slipping off the lever while running, etc.) wouldn't also apply while filming a hoax. Whether the creature is real or not, the other elements (terrain, boots, camera) and actions remain the same. If the film is a hoax, then all of his chaotic, caught-off guard, drama is staged. But, that still doesn't determine whether his finger was removed from the lever intentionally or unintentionally, so it's not useful.

This is a common sense issue with making any film- nothing to do with beliefs. They wouldn't have left in obvious mistakes and edits, especially ones that would jeopardize their objective. They also would have started over again if things went wrong- not left them in the final cut.


You're claiming that the very elements that give it credibility should have been edited out if it were a hoax. If only all hoaxers were so accommodating! Patterson would have been an idiot to remove the very evidence you claim proves it's authentic. That's illogical, to say the least.
  • 0

#73 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,935 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 06:30 AM

I think if the camera stops are deliberate then this argues for the authenticity of the film because it says that Patterson is uncertain where the creature is going and that he has to preserve film when he loses sight of the subject so he will have the opportunity to get better footage as the event plays out. If it were a hoax, then Roger would know where the subject was going and where he could head the subject off for clear footage. He would have complete control of the situation an thus could plan to have enough film in the camera for the scene he was shooting and not have to worry about stopping. It might have been a developed habit for most people experienced with those cameras in those days to stop filming for the slightest change in position but thats a toss up for me.

I doubt Patty could have taken, lets say five steps, during a time period where the trigger of the camera was released for a fraction of a second while simply jostling the camera. If the film shows that Patterson was stationary prior to a stop and has changed position on restart with no movement then this shows deliberate stops to gain a better film position.
  • 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

#74 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 07:32 AM

I've never really thought the film was real, but obviously I have no proof. Most things that I read don't sway my personal decision too much. This stopping and starting has me wondering a bit. Since I have no proof, I make a mental checklist of things that could make it a hoax and things that could make it real. Most of the checks are in the hoax column for me. This topic may be different. As it is now, that checkmark is still in the hoax column by default lol. But it still makes me wonder why he would stop and start again.

He was an amateur and could make such mistakes either way, real or hoax. If there was a reason for it, and that action differs from the rest of his footage like Bill says, it might be an avenue to explore. It's definitely an interesting aspect.



I'm glad to hear that you're at least considering the implications of the Stops, Furious, as being on the 'pro' side, for the film. I'll be posting some more short animated-gifs, and images later tonight, and tomorrow...showing some interesting details about Roger's movements, and actions.



I make a mental checklist of things that could make it a hoax and things that could make it real. Most of the checks are in the hoax column for me.



That's the way the situation is, regarding this unique Film....there are plenty of 'realistic' aspects to the film/Patty...and, one or two :rolleyes: 'questionable' aspects to it...(not much movement in the butt, for example)...and, it's a matter of weighing those aspects against each other, in determining which scenario has the higher 'likelihood' of being the truth.
  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#75 Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Sasquatch

  • Steering Committee
  • 6,451 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 08:11 AM

Once again we're treated to that rascally, evil, conniving genius that was ole' Rog Patterson! What didn't he think of? Cleverly stopping/starting the film so forty + years later he continues to fool those naive believers.

I think ole' Rog's dad probably concocted the Piltdown Man.
  • 0

In his life, he spoke but rarely
In his mind he cried for light
Painting perceptions trying to capture
That which he saw in his questioning strife


#76 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 08:54 AM

Once again we're treated to that rascally, evil, conniving genius that was ole' Rog Patterson! What didn't he think of? Cleverly stopping/starting the film so forty + years later he continues to fool those naive believers.

I think ole' Rog's dad probably concocted the Piltdown Man.



Oh yeah, Inc...there's nothing that Roger didn't think of, to fool (some) of us....a well-placed 'stoppage' of the camera, here and there, while he repositioned himself....even ones that aren't noticeable, when watching the film.

I'm sure he just figured that at some point....maybe 50 years down the road...the film would be 'under the microscope', and it would be noticed, and used to support the film's legitimacy.

Make no mistake about it....Roger was sharp! ;)
  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#77 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,079 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 09:01 AM

OmegaWolf wrote:

If the film is a hoax, then all of his chaotic, caught-off guard, drama is staged.



Even a short camera stoppage, 5 seconds into the filming, which isn't noticeable...(granted, it has been found 42 years after the fact)...while he moves closer to Patty.....was 'staged'??
  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#78 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 12:57 PM

Here's a couple more thoughts on Sweaty's work:

The stops and starts tell us that ,if the film is fake, Pattterson produced one of the best examples of cinema verite from the whole sixties.

You just can't produce that sort of 'authentic fabrication of reality' without masses of experience and a native genius with the camera.
Watch and read about the sixties French ground- breaking film 'Bout de Souffle' if you are interested in the complexities of rough-edged authenticy in fictional filming.

Look at Roger's other filmic efforts. Wooden stuff. Cinema cliches. He didn't have the where-with-all to fabricate such impressions of urgent, spontaneous filming.

I'm with Sweaty and Bill on this.

Patient examination of this aspect of the film will most likely help confirm that we have an unpremeditated rough edged filming of a real creature shot by an amateur cameraman doing his shakey best for all he's worth.

Fister
  • 1
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)

#79 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,565 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 01:35 PM

In so far as my personal appraisal of the starts and stops, I have already described how a filming with deliberation is different from a filming of a spontanious and unpredictable event, and compared such to use of a firearm (like a service revolver) in an instance of calm deliberation, as compared to a situation of spontanious and unpredictable (potentially dangerous) nature. I feel the analogy strongly supports the spontanious and unpredictable instance, for the PGF (especially when the finger is ever ready on the trigger, and when it is not).

But another issue I'm currently looking at is continuity of the event. In a deliberate staged filming, where there is planning and people are coordinating their efforts, the amount of thinking and discussion between all concerned, plus the starts and pauses before the next start, tends to result in lapses of continuity. No doubt you all have seen such in even the best Hollywood movies, where they have a professional crew member who's sole job is watching over continuity, and still, they make errors.

In the PGF, let us assume for a moment that the film was staged. Roger chooses his first camera position and tells Bob H where to start his walk. Roger gives the cue for Bob to start, and then Roger starts moving and turns the camera on (the camera and operator are in forward motion even as the first frames are taken). Then Roger stops after about 4-5 seconds, changes his position (more forward) and gets ready to shoot segment 2. Where is Bob? When the camera restarts, will he be in the right place a subject would have been if the filming were spontaneous and the gap between segments 1 and 2 were a few seconds? Then what if Bob H just kept walking, oblivious to Roger pausing in filming. Then he's be out of sight as the creek bank rises up to block him.

If Roger told him to stop, go back, and take a position where Roger can see him, could Roger's new position and Bob H's position put Bob back behind where he was when segment 1 stopped? If so, it would be detectable that Bob H stopped, went backwards and started walking forward again, repeating some of the path.

This is what I'm looking for now, and discontinuity in the subject's path as compared to each camera position, and while it's not yet ready for publication (more work to do on the supporting graphics), it shows that the filmed subject's path was one remarkably continuous walk, with no apparent lapses of continuity of position. The work of a masterful hoaxer? maybe, but as somebody who worked on movies for many years, and dealt with continuity constantly, I know how easy it is to overlook something and get resulting errors of continuity when the processed film is evaluated. So I feel this lends even more support to the conclusion the filming realy was a single event, spontaineously filmed with a cameraman truly chasing a subject who made one walk away and never stopped for a second, leaving the cameraman to desperately try to chase, cover very irregular ground, seek out the subject amid debris, film while moving, so he could only half see the terrain and half see in the camera viewer to know he was even pointing the camera at the subject, and the results were not edited in any way.

Still want to call this a hoax? Fine. I am in awe of the hoaxer's remarkable accomplishment. I've been a cameraman, used 16mm cameras, hand held, filmed things with calm deliberation and spontaneous uncertainty, so I do look at this with some hands on experience. If it's a hoax, it's truly remarkable.

Bill
  • 3
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#80 Fister Crunchman

Fister Crunchman

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 403 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 02:06 PM

Bill,
Great post , number 79 above. I think the challenge you postulate there will soon emerge as the real challenge to hoax-proponents---

i.e how the hell do you produce a stop-tart fake which has such strong underlying continuity in the events being filmed? ( you can't).

But a couple of questions you might clear up if you would---

M K Davis has produced an account of Patty's walk which has her walk first twards the trees ( at a tangent) and then suddenly shift ( with a hiatus in the filming) to be walking more parallel to the trees along the sandbar. He also has an account of splices in the film which points to overlaps of images and etc.

The idea of two seperate walk-paths is re-iterated too, with diagrams, by Blevins ( I know, I'll go wash my mouth out).

Can you kill these two ideas-- sorry if this is tiresome because you have done it before.

Fister
  • 0
'In addition, Bob had told his little story of the right eye with such spontaneity and naturalness, with such unadorned simplicity and the innocence of direct personal experience, that I instantly knew he was telling the truth. I looked at Pat, whose mouth had dropped open.' (Long on Hieronimous)