Jump to content
Backdoc

Attempts To Make A Patty Suit

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Giganto wrote:

 

Yeah, it could be slower than 18fps. Especially near the end of the reel when the spring's tension is at its weakest. 

 

 

Here is a quick look at what I was talking about earlier, Giganto. These 2 Film Frames mark the beginning and end of 4 steps...(of about 11 Frames per step)...

 

MKD-F45-F90-SBS2_zps546ca0f9.jpg

 

 

Within those four steps....Patty spins to her right...takes two steps while her body is seen in direct side view, observing Roger....and then spins back to her left, to a 45-degree 'angle-of-view'......in only 2.5 seconds, if the filming speed was 18fps.

 

I doubt that that sequence actually occurred in 2 1/2 seconds. That is the main reason why I think the filming speed was 16fps...or maybe even slower. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Orygun

A slower film speed would… make something appear more massive that it actually was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

I don't know how much more or less it matters with Patty.  She's stout no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

A slower film speed would… make something appear more massive that it actually was.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean, Orygun. The subject will look the same whatever speed it's filmed at...as long as it's played back at the same speed that it was filmed at. :)

 

 

According to John Napier...one implication of a slower filming speed relates to the ability of a human to replicate Patty's walk...

 

"One fact complicates discussion of the Patterson film: Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera’s setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range.

 

The speed of the film is important because as Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 fps then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 fps, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait" (Napier, 94 (2nd printing)). Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

John Napier missed something though, which is the shin rise. That is not the gait of a human unless the human is running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have to wonder during the time many of these big names in Bigfoot lore gave an opinion of the film, what were they viewing. If they were seeing a film being played with a lot of reverse and forward, the view would be limited.  Today skeptics and believers alike can go to the internet and view the PGF in some pretty great detail.  Focus on the feet, movements and so on.

 

I would think many of those who gave an opinion at the time might not have lived long enough to see a better version of the PGF we can see today. Not trying to discount those opinions. I would think the opinions of those today mean more both for an against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Backdoc:

 

You are correct in wondering what version older researchers and analysts may have seen. In my work assembling a full geneaology of film copies and still frame images, I've found that what copy family and what version of the PGF one looks at has a significant impact on their potential analysis, and looking at the wrong version for a specific analysis topic can mislead more than enlighten.

 

So any proper analysis needs disclosure of what version of the film was viewed, and how it was viewed. Lacking that, we will see some discrepancies in older analysis which do not rightfully question the film or Patty, but question the analysis method and image source.

 

Even now, many people are using the wrong material and arriving at false conclusions (like the massacre thing and supposed proof of guns being fired at Bluff Creek, or claims of more than one hominid in the footage of the PGF) are the result of using poor versions with image anomalies.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

John Napier missed something though, which is the shin rise. That is not the gait of a human unless the human is running.

 

Tom-Pate.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think he was talking about the natural shine rise Kit, not about someone imitating it years later.

 

 

"Hey Bob"

 

"Yes Roger?"

 

" Make sure you pick your feet up real high, I have been studying humans normal shine rise and we really want to fool them, because I am just that academically inclined", "BTW, how did you like my mid tarsal break ploy?"

 

"Whats a mid tarsal break?"

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

JohnC,

  

+'d    :)

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

There are way too many details in Patty's walk to pin as premeditated differences.  If a person tries hard enough to duplicate the walk they can to a certain extant.  But can they do it looking normal across the board?  Does not seem to be the case.  Since I've been looking into the Bigfoot phenom these past few years I've come to watch people as they walk.  No matter who and where I always see locked knees a never such a high back step where the shin is horizontal with the ground.  IMO if you're going to walk that way as a human being you're going to have to premeditate the walk.  If you're going to walk that way and look comfortable and natural you'll have to be Patty.  It's pretty simple.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Kit- a gait consists of actual motion, not just a posed photo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

I saw a great Beatles tribute band once. They had the look, the voices, the comedy, the swagger, everything. I never realised that because those guys were, 30 years later, able to replicate the original guys so well that it actually meant the Fab Four were in all probability a clever hoax. Is that how it works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

I saw a great Beatles tribute band once. They had the look, the voices, the comedy, the swagger, everything. I never realised that because those guys were, 30 years later, able to replicate the original guys so well that it actually meant the Fab Four were in all probability a clever hoax. Is that how it works?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Tom-Pate.jpg

 

 

This photo on the right might come from an actual video of the person in the right walking.  Could anyone with access to this photo please post the entire moving video for all of us to see. I mean, if the photo is supposed to make such a smoking gun point I can imagine the video itself would, heck i don't know, melt my face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...