Jump to content

Patty And Gim, Is There Another Squatch In The Pgf?


Guest tracker

Recommended Posts

Guest tracker

Okay i always wondered but the vid bounces a lot, worse then mine. Anyways watch at the very beginning(left). Is there a second Squatch that runs left and into the trees as Patty goes right and into history?

Yea I know film section but threads become lost in there HRP :(

If this can be confirmed then I it should be rightfully named after Bob. Gim, Gimli ?

If so then I guess it's two very large actors in perfectly made expensive suits in 67?

JMO, T :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can pretty much verify anything in the frame and any frame of the film, and I haven't seen any evidence of a second subject.

But I can check, if you can give me some clues where you think you may see such.

Bill

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy's, sorry but this thread really belongs in the PGF section.... by definition, the "General" discussion area is for topics that dont have a place in a specific area....

I am moving it, but I will leave a link here in the General Discussion area, so its actually will appear in both places...

I think that's fair...

Art

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tracker

thanks Art.

For the record I was asked to take a look. I've always thought there was movement past Patty near the trees before Roger trips. But Mr Martini below mentions the other can be seen crossing an open area later on? So i am in review mode trying to nail it down.

Here's what David Martini's comment on the PGF vid above.

Patterson did not know he had filmed two creatures on that day. It's hard to understand how this part of the film was discounted or cut from the original by researchers. The opening shot shows one of the creatures about 50 yards away, heading for a treeline that is heavily shaded. The first creature disappears into the tree-line. He is gone. At this point Patterson begins to move towards the treeline, when he suddenly pans to the right, Completely changing the terrain perspective, and showing creature #2 (The most famous of the two) about 30 yards away, heading in the OPPOSITE direction, toward a treeline that is in full sun.

The creature would have had to leave the safety of the treeline and make a fantastic leap of about 100 yards, in two seconds or less, to be in both spots and be filmed in the continuous camera shot.

There were two creatures socializing in the open and Patterson disrupted the meeting. Because the camera is bouncing around, it can be confusing to watch and the viewer easily loses his sense of direction. But as you slow it down and watch the background, shadows, and perspective change, it becomes clear.

Over the years, the documentary that Patterson made has been edited down for various reasons, and the first part is always cut because the subject is getting away with it's back towards the camera. This is not a reason to discount the shot. It's not about production values at this point: It's about content. This portion is usually cut, and I thank National Geographic for maintaining this clip in it's entirety.

In my opinion, Patterson did not completely understand his shot, or what had actually happened on that day.

For those who know better let's take another look.

JMO, T

Edited by tracker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JiggyPotamus

Holy cow! I must be looking at this incorrectly...That or the video was manipulated, which doesn't look to be the case. At around the 20 second mark, when Roger pans to the right, Patty is a good distance away from where the other animal went into the treeline. I thought it was Patty before and after the pan, but despite the shaking this doesn't seem to be the case.

I am going to look at it some more, but it seemed very strange. It's hard to keep your focus throughout the turmoil of the camera view, but it sure does look like two animals. What does everyone think? I have heard of another creature possibly being in the woodline, but I have never heard this particular shot brought up in this context.

Edit to add that this could possibly just be an illusion due to the shaking combined with the darkness of the treeline. Still looking for stabilized versions.

Edited by JiggyPotamus
Link to post
Share on other sites

That particular copy has the first few frames flipped, and that results in an apparent creature walking to the left, and Roger appearing to pan right to show Patty as we call her.

The person who made the remarks about seeing a second creature didn't have a full frame inventory and couldn't verify that the first few frames are just reversed.. It's what happened to a few copies, that things got cut and occasionally flipped left/right. It gets confusing but under analysis, it falls apart.

There's just one live subject walking in the PGF.

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That particular copy has the first few frames flipped, and that results in an apparent creature walking to the left, and Roger appearing to pan right to show Patty as we call her.

The person who made the remarks about seeing a second creature didn't have a full frame inventory and couldn't verify that the first few frames are just reversed.. It's what happened to a few copies, that things got cut and occasionally flipped left/right. It gets confusing but under analysis, it falls apart.

There's just one live subject walking in the PGF.

Bill

That's.....'One small step...for a Sasquatch'.......one giant leap...for 'Suit-kind'. :bow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill you never cease to deliver.

We would also do well to keep inflammatory remarks to ourselves. If your post doesn't further the discussion or add something too it and instead detracts from it you probably shouldn't post it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tracker

That particular copy has the first few frames flipped, and that results in an apparent creature walking to the left, and Roger appearing to pan right to show Patty as we call her.

The person who made the remarks about seeing a second creature didn't have a full frame inventory and couldn't verify that the first few frames are just reversed.. It's what happened to a few copies, that things got cut and occasionally flipped left/right. It gets confusing but under analysis, it falls apart.

There's just one live subject walking in the PGF.

Bill

That may be Bill with the reversed frames, thanks. But where there's one there's usually others that may not move (Peekers). So I'll be taking a closer look at that tree line in the better version when my main PC is back up and running.

T

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very high resolution comparison, frame by frame, of the video sequence and the 15 flipped frames, can be downloaded at:

http://www.themunnsr..._design_005.htm

go to the page bottom, and there you'll see "Discovery Channel Video with flipped frames"

That shows, frame by frame, how the issue was studied and resolved.

Bill, here is the video where they analyze about a minute of the footage where the supposed creature is being seen. While I do think that it's nothing more than blur and trees, etc, I'd like to hear your take on the actual video, as you seem to be better at this kind of subject when it comes to the Patterson analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M0mlUykA_Q

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with that claim of a second creature,. It was part of the "massacre theory" silliness.

I've image stabilized the footage anchoring on both places where the arrow points to, and it's nothing. One's just a shadow on the side of a tree, and one's just shadows through brush and branches closer, which gives a false perception of some motion when the camera shifts position during filming.

Bill

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...