Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • 1 year later...
DaleyWoodbeater

I'm new here.

 

I'm fascinated by the Patterson footage and find it really intriguing and impressive.

 

One little quibble I have with it is the apparent white fluffy soles of her feet, which seems odd, but upon scanning this thread I saw a possible explanation for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 7/6/2020 at 11:49 AM, DaleyWoodbeater said:

I'm new here.

 

I'm fascinated by the Patterson footage and find it really intriguing and impressive.

 

One little quibble I have with it is the apparent white fluffy soles of her feet, which seems odd, but upon scanning this thread I saw a possible explanation for this.


 

welcome.    
 

yes various explanations.   Let’s hear your thoughts, glad to have you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DaleyWoodbeater
2 hours ago, Backdoc said:


 

welcome.    
 

yes various explanations.   Let’s hear your thoughts, glad to have you.

 

Thanks.

 

The creature has a 'real' look to me - the fur, the body structure, the muscularity. It's clear enough for it all to be on show for scrutiny.

 

I don't have a particular explanation for the bottoms of the feet and a small part of me wonders if it's a fault with a suit.

 

But overall, 80% convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The bottoms of the feet are likely picking up dust from the ground she's walking on, and the film copies usually seen are a higher contrast than the actual tones that were photographed. The Kodachrome camera film is designed to be realistically contrasty, and wasn't intended for copying. Kodak assumed the camera original would be shown by users. So when you copy it, the contrast increases on the first gen copy. If you copy a first, the second gen copy is even more contrasted, light tones becoming lighter, dark tone becoming darker. And just about every video shown from the film is derived from a second gen copy. So we w are seeing the feet lighter than they actually were in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
13 hours ago, DaleyWoodbeater said:

 

Thanks.

 

The creature has a 'real' look to me - the fur, the body structure, the muscularity. It's clear enough for it all to be on show for scrutiny.

 

I don't have a particular explanation for the bottoms of the feet and a small part of me wonders if it's a fault with a suit.

 

But overall, 80% convinced.

 

Hi Daley...welcome to the forum. :) 

 

Here is a frame from one of the highest quality versions/copies of the film...it's taken from the documentary "Sasquatch Odyssey". The bottom of Patty's left foot appears more natural, in color.....and variations in shading can be seen, in accordance with the contour of the foot, and toes...

 

Middle-Sequence-F10-Resize1.jpg

 

The simple reason why the subject looks real to you, and not 'laughably obvious' as a suit....is simply because it is real. ;) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for sharing SY. Even I am forced to admit that foot bottom looks a lot more convincing than the ones I have seen more frequently.

Is that from Mrs.Pattersons first generation copy?

 

Thanks Bill once again for the lesson on why the foot bottoms appear unnatural in most of the film versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
On 7/15/2020 at 4:55 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing SY. Even I am forced to admit that foot bottom looks a lot more convincing than the ones I have seen more frequently.

Is that from Mrs.Pattersons first generation copy?

 

Thanks Bill once again for the lesson on why the foot bottoms appear unnatural in most of the film versions.

 

You're welcome, PG. :) 

 

I don't know which copy of the PGF it was, that was used in 'Sasquatch Odyssey'....but, from the near-perfect coloring, and shading, of that copy....I would think that it is a 1st-generation copy....(made from the original reel). 

 

And, my guess is that it is Mrs. Patterson's copy.  Bill can probably provide more info, on that...since he has made a digital scan of her copy.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Based on the low contrast, it is likely from a first gen, yes. Pity it's only available on standard TV form (640x480 frame resolution), as we need a much higher resolution for proper analysis. It was not made from the copy of the film Patricia Patterson currently has, but the one she currently has is not a first gen. We still have no really reliable inventory of how many first gen copies Roger made back in 1967, who got them, or where they are today. So far, not a single one has surfaced and is positively identified.

 

So the first gen issue is still being investigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
Backdoc

Can anyone tell me what Bob Gimlin means here in this older interview about "getting an impression gauge" regarding the footprints.  

 

This is at the 1:99 min mark esp at 2:06.

 

He seems to indicate someone was using some sort of method to determine Patty's weight from some footprints.   What is he talking about?  When or did this even occur?   Who are "They" who he claims did this?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Good questions BD.

 

It certainly is frustrating that Gimlin is always so vague in his statements.

 

I have no idea what an "impression gauge" is.

 

Perhaps its a fancy name for a ruler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, OldMort said:

Good questions BD.

 

It certainly is frustrating that Gimlin is always so vague in his statements.

 

I have no idea what an "impression gauge" is.

 

Perhaps its a fancy name for a ruler.


 

I am guessing someone told him something was done to determine the weight in a more accurate way then his initial guess.  Maybe he just assumes it was done by instrumentation when I doubt such a thing exists or existed at the time but it’s not my area of expertise.

 

 

His knowledge of it seems to come from someone telling him a determination was made somehow.  Who knows?

 

Who was this who told him?   What did they tell him?   How was this determined?     
 

maybe someone can tell us.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
9 hours ago, Backdoc said:


 

I am guessing someone told him something was done to determine the weight in a more accurate way then his initial guess.  Maybe he just assumes it was done by instrumentation when I doubt such a thing exists or existed at the time but it’s not my area of expertise.

 

 

His knowledge of it seems to come from someone telling him a determination was made somehow.  Who knows?

 

Who was this who told him?   What did they tell him?   How was this determined?     
 

maybe someone can tell us.  

 

 

I wonder if these other people were trying to use scientific calculations to determine weight. I'm not sure how else you would do it if you were trying to get a more accurate weight. This may be out in left field (I always resented that expression because I played left field in Little League ;) ) but to try and determine the weight of Patty, wouldn't you need the depth of the tracks as part of the equation? Along with other measurements, such size of the track, plus other factors. 

It seems like the plaster casts would tell us all this. It's common knowledge the tracks were from one and one quarter in. to one and a half in. deep. So maybe they were using a different method. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...