Jump to content
Guest Theagenes

Did The Stablized Pgf Change Your Thinking?

Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

It gave more detail of the gait,muscles ,feet and hair. It legitimized what I already knew. It is either an outstanding hoax or a real animal. I subscribe to the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Has anyone asked Bob to weigh in, to the best of his ability, on the subject's speed? It's certainly been a while, but I think he'd still have a sense of how quickly he was walking while wearing the suit.

I'll save Bob H. the trouble, hunt...and "answer" for him... :lol:

"Well, in the morning, when we shot the Film...(it was filmed in the afternoon).....well away from any roads....(a road is visible underneath Roger's feet).....with Roger sittin' on his horsey....(he was standing on the ground/road).....I started walking slowly, swinging my arms, ya' know....(Patty only swung her right arm, in the opening segment of the film)......and, I walked across the dry creek....(it was flowing, actually)......and then across the 'white as snow' creekbed.....(the ground was gray, actually)......and, I suppose I walked at about an 'average pace' for a 'stratled Bigfoot', I reckon'.....ya' know.

And then I drove straight home....and....stayed overnight in a Motel!"

Does that answer your question satisfactorily, hunt?! :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The picture is much simpler than what you described, St. George....the Film was shot at 18fps....or slower.

For a couple of reasons....I'm thinking it was filmed somewhere between 16 - 14fps.

if you can get the PGf into an editing program, play it back at each speed, 14, 16, 18, 10, 22, 24, 30

If it was shot at 16-18fps and projected at 16-18fps then we would see it at basically its real life speed. Going below 24fps simply makes something look "choppy" because persistence of vision is affected.

At one of the above rates you will get the right speed matched.

St. G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

RobZenor's gif post #9, I could watch all day. What a fascinatin' animal.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

stabilized version (and discovering the bfro database) both poked holes in my otherwise completely skeptical mindset concerning bigfoot. i always dismissed the PGF outright as a guy in a suit. the stabilized version has made me think, "well, if it is a suit, that's some suit, but i can't really tell ..."

i worked several years as wilderness canoeing guide, treeplanted all over northern ontario, have lived rurally for several years in the PNW, still actively hike and run in remote areas - zero encounters, but always an open mind ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

if you can get the PGf into an editing program, play it back at each speed, 14, 16, 18, 10, 22, 24, 30

If it was shot at 16-18fps and projected at 16-18fps then we would see it at basically its real life speed. Going below 24fps simply makes something look "choppy" because persistence of vision is affected.

At one of the above rates you will get the right speed matched.

St. G-

I agree with what you wrote, St. George....but, there really isn't any way to know, simply by watching Patty's walk, when you do have the 'recording' and 'playback' speeds matched-up.

We would need some specific detail/s which would indicate whether the walk is being seen at it's 'proper speed', or not.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

I misstated something in my post. I didn't mean that she moved with the camera. My mental impairment from being poisoned is pretty serious at times. I was thinking that she moved so steadily across the sand bar that it stabilized her. People probably knew what I meant but I didn't even see the logical error until I read it again. I was thinking of it as a camera panning. Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A second speed.

Looks like the actual speed would be between the two.

Patty.gifphoto-4311.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I appreciate the comments everyone. Given that this is a BF forum I expected that for most posters here the stabilized version would not have changed their view of the film's legitimacy or would have strengthened it, and that seems to be the case. But I am a little surprised that no one that has commented so far shared my opposite reaction---i.e. originally thinking it could be real, but then having the stabilized version change that view.

When I mentioned earlier that the "turn" looked less real for me, what I mean specifically is that the upper torso, the hips and "diaper" butt, and the legs all appear to be moving independently of each other as though it was a tripartite suit. In all the years of seeing the PGF, from seeing it on In Search Of as a kid up until to just a few years ago I never noticed this. Only when the stabilized version came out did these apparent features jump out at me (and to be honest it was real letdown).

Now I've spent the last week or so reading through some of the old threads here and I see that all of these apparent features have been addressed numerous times with good arguments being made on both sides. As noted here, seeing it at the proper speed would be crucial to making any kind of determination and I'm not sure that I have ever seen it at the proper speed (has the correct speed ever been conclusively established? I remember hearing there were two possible speeds). So my impressions could certainly be wrong and all of these could be natural features on a real creature, but they were the impressions that I did get when seeing the stabilized version for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The first time I took a close look at PGF was a look at the stabilized version. My impression was "maybe there is something to this". I was suprised the muscles in the leg and back. The muscles that run parallel to the spine look awful realistic to me and I thought "is that a real animal". I have seen a comparison of a photo of a Gorilla from the back and Patti from the back and they look almost identical. The breasts also suprised me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Does anyone else think that the faster speed makes it look more real in a way? When shooting something "smaller" than what the apparent size is supposed to be on screen, you are supposed to "slow it down" to make it seem bulkier, etc, etc. There is a formula for the rate you are supposed to slow something down for each apparent size/real size (size of model). I don't remember it off the top of my head though.

In a way, to me, Patty moving faster, takes away this slow motion shooting that would make her look ponderous, or whatever, because it takes away this "fakeness" that I am used to seeing. The faster motion makes it look to me like she is a strong creature that moves rapidly- I don't have a problem with the speed.

St, G-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

St. George, I would agree with that completely. The faster the speed, the more real it looks. In the gifs that Romano posted above the left one definitely looks more realistic to me, but is probably a little too fast, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

It could be a little faster than what BobG describes

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The first time I took a close look at PGF was a look at the stabilized version. My impression was "maybe there is something to this". I was suprised the muscles in the leg and back. The muscles that run parallel to the spine look awful realistic to me and I thought "is that a real animal". I have seen a comparison of a photo of a Gorilla from the back and Patti from the back and they look almost identical. The breasts also suprised me.

The erector muscles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

St. George, I would agree with that completely. The faster the speed, the more real it looks. In the gifs that Romano posted above the left one definitely looks more realistic to me, but is probably a little too fast, correct?

No not necessarily. It all comes down to the rate that the film was shot at. All playback rates are either too slow, just right, or too fast relative to that. If it was shot at 18fps and played back at 18fps we would see the right "apparent" speed. To me, the ones that look a little faster have the more correct look to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...