Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Is There More To The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest

From what I understand on that fateful day so long ago when Patterson and Gimlin caught a Bigfoot on film, they were in the area to film a documentary. Whether that was or was not an actual Bigfoot is not the focus of this thread, but for the purposes of this thread let us assume that it was the genuine article.

My question is if they were there to film a documentary, where is the rest of it? Is the fifteen second clip of Patty featured on YouTube (and other places) just a fraction of it? If there is more, where can I view it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^ Roger quit working on his documentary after he filmed Patty, Leftfoot. :)Probably because he filmed 'the real thing'... ;)

Is the fifteen second clip of Patty featured on YouTube (and other places) just a fraction of it? If there is more, where can I view it?

The Film runs about 50-60 seconds long. Most of it can be seen in the documentary 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science'.

Edited by AaronD
to remove quote of the post directly above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

John Green has a lot of the stuff if not all that Roger shot for the doc. He told me it was a box full of reels. That is more the 30-60 seconds worth. Most of it was scenery type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Well, that day, Roger reportedly shot two rolls, at 100' each, that's 8 minutes of film. We have complete first reel copies but only partial footage of the second reel.

Aside from that, I've studied another 550 feet Roger filmed before Oct. 20. which runs about 22 minutes. How much of that was for the documentary, we don't know. Then there's the "Cow's Camp" material with six guys on horses, and I don't know how much footage that encompasses.

But it would be fair to say Roger had about a half hour of footage known, and maybe more unknown.

It was just never edited into presentation form.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Roger quit working on his documentary after he filmed Patty, Leftfoot. :)Probably because he filmed 'the real thing'... ;)

Just because you have icing for the cake, doesn't mean that you shouldn't make the actual cake. :)

The Film runs about 50-60 seconds long. Most of it can be seen in the documentary 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science'.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillMcD

Dr. Meldrum mentioned in a presentation in Reno last week of new technology that broke the PGF down into color spectra which reveals more detail. Has anyone seen the results of this technique? Quoting from the article:

"And new technology is reopening even commonly dismissed evidence like Patterson and Gimlin’s famous footage, he said. By breaking down the red-green-blue color spectrum making up the more than 50-year-old video, the most crisp of the images can be sequestered and viewed on its own. Bigfoot’s fur and body have been written off as poor costume work by debunkers, but this fresh level of detail, Meldrum said, puts those naysayers to rest."

Any links to what he is talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Roger quit working on his documentary after he filmed Patty, Leftfoot. Probably because he filmed 'the real thing'... ;)

Just because you have icing for the cake, doesn't mean that you shouldn't make the actual cake. :)

That's a pretty nice analogy, Leftfoot...but, just the same....it is not necessarily a 'red flag' that Roger stopped working on his documentary, after he filmed Patty.

As with the objection skeptics have raised regarding Roger not going back to Bluff Creek to try to find Patty again, or another Sasquatch....they are both simply a matter of personal choice.

If you know that the creatures exist, and that they live in the Bluff Creek area...then you also know they live in your 'neck of the woods'...in Washington State. And it's simply a matter of personal choice as to which area you'll go to, to try crossing paths with one of them, again.

Likewise...if you have one of the creatures on film...it's simply a matter of personal choice as to whether you would continue working on a documentary...or, spend your time trying to promote 'the real thing on Film'. :)

As another analogy....kitakaze claims that he has found a 'bucket-load of Proof' that the PGF is a hoax......"the Patty suit"..."a taped admission by Bob Gimlin"....and, "a complete copy of the 2nd-Reel footage, with incriminatiing evidence on it".....and, he dropped and walked away from...the entire thing.....the Cake and the Icing......and the Profits, from said Cake w/Icing.

Does that constitute a 'Red Flag'??? :)

Thank you.

You're welcome, LF... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's a pretty nice analogy, Leftfoot...but, just the same....it is not necessarily a 'red flag' that Roger stopped working on his documentary, after he filmed Patty.

I don't consider it a red flag, actually. It's just that were it me, I would have finished filming the documentary anyhow.

As with the objection skeptics have raised regarding Roger not going back to Bluff Creek to try to find Patty again, or another Sasquatch....they are both simply a matter of personal choice.

Why would he go back? Aren't the Bigfoot migratory?

As another analogy....kitakaze claims that he has found a 'bucket-load of Proof' that the PGF is a hoax......"the Patty suit"..."a taped admission by Bob Gimlin"....and, "a complete copy of the 2nd-Reel footage, with incriminatiing evidence on it".....and, he dropped and walked away from...the entire thing.....the Cake and the Icing......and the Profits, from said Cake w/Icing.

Does that constitute a 'Red Flag'??? :)

Exposing the PGF as a fraud with irrefutable evidence would make kit's (real) name a household name, just like the people who he would have exposed as frauds. So yeah, I do find that to be curious at the very least. I'm not sure I would walk away from exposing such a huge fraud (anonymously, I care neither for riches nor fame).

Edited by Leftfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Dr. Meldrum mentioned in a presentation in Reno last week of new technology that broke the PGF down into color spectra which reveals more detail. Has anyone seen the results of this technique? Quoting from the article:

"And new technology is reopening even commonly dismissed evidence like Patterson and Gimlin’s famous footage, he said. By breaking down the red-green-blue color spectrum making up the more than 50-year-old video, the most crisp of the images can be sequestered and viewed on its own. Bigfoot’s fur and body have been written off as poor costume work by debunkers, but this fresh level of detail, Meldrum said, puts those naysayers to rest."

Any links to what he is talking about?

Very interesting, I would like to second the inquiry - does anyone know anything else about this? Perhaps a new thread would be in order.

Not to hijack - but...http://www.rgj.com/article/20130323/NEWS/303230043/-1/news51/Bigfoot-specialist-Meldrum-offers-case-creature-s-existence-Reno-visit-see-video-from-related-Creatures-exhibit-

Edited by Cotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I watched legends meet science on TV the other night but they didn't show the entire film. I've been looking for a copy of the DVD as I'm sure it contains more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Any color imaage taken into Photoshop can be switched to "channel" mode and the Red, Green, and Blue channels can be switched on or off, and the blue layer in particular usually has the largest grain structure and poor detail. So using either the red or green channel can, in some circumstances, give the scanned image a bit more sharpness and detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I watched legends meet science on TV the other night but they didn't show the entire film. I've been looking for a copy of the DVD as I'm sure it contains more.

The Show itself doesn't show much of the Film, tarheel....it's the 'Extras' Section of the dvd that contains the Film in it's entirety...(or, near-entirety). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
"And new technology is reopening even commonly dismissed evidence like Patterson and Gimlin’s famous footage, he said. By breaking down the red-green-blue color spectrum making up the more than 50-year-old video, the most crisp of the images can be sequestered and viewed on its own. Bigfoot’s fur and body have been written off as poor costume work by debunkers, but this fresh level of detail, Meldrum said, puts those naysayers to rest."

That is pretty exciting to me. Dr. Meldrum doesn't often seem overly definitive in his statements, so I like the way the last part is worded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was told in another thread that the film's current low quality is do to how there were many copies made of it and the fact that it was transmitted on TV or something to that effect. I'm in training to be a mechanic, not a communication/cinematography specialist, so it went right over my head.

Is this true and would it be at all possible to restore it to it's original or even better than new condition?

Edited by Leftfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Leftfoot:

Many people today are so used to digital technology that they may not realize how different old technology is. Digital images, for example, have a specific number of dots (called pixels) in a specific position and each having a specific color defined by a numerical code. So to copy that data, you got a copy digital image equal to the original, a loss-less copy.

Film, on the other hand, creates it's image with a random mix of light sensetive particles (the grain) which are microscopic in size. But the key problem is their arrangement is randon. So the grain pattern of one film isn't exactly the same as the grain pattern of a copy film stock. That slight mismatch of grain patterns causes the copy to lose some sharpness of the image. With each copy generation, the sharpness gets worse. That's why film loses image detail and clarity with each copy.

The key to understanding how to get the best analysis images from all the multitude of copies made from the PGF original is to understand the copy process and the ways different copies were made, and look for the best copies. There are a few that approach the quality of the camera original, but finding them, after all these years, is a challenge we are trying to overcome. But it is a challenge.

We may get to a point of seeing a PGF version far closer to the original than ever seen before, if our search ends up with finding one of those great versions.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...