Jump to content

Daniel Perez PGF Presentation - BC 1995


Recommended Posts

Arvedis

I found these vids and thought it worth sharing. Rene Dahinden starts getting into it with Danny around 14:48 in Pt 1.

 

 

 

Edited by Arvedis
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

^^^

 

Thank you for posting this.   I have a few general points or Questions on things I had not heard before about the PGF story.  I understand this is Daniel Perez just making a devil's advocate case here and that is fine.   

 

1)   Daniel Perez claims "3 years to the day" Roger found more tracks at bluff creek.  I had never heard this before.   Did Perez get this wrong.  Was it someone else.  I ask because in this same presentation Perez states Roger Patterson never went back to Bluff Creek after the event.   It can't be both.  The Q is then if Tracks were later reported at bluff creek 3 years later by Patterson or anyone else for that matter.   Basically, he is saying Roger was never there again and then says Roger went back and found tracks 3 years later.   

 

2)  @23:20 in on part one Perez states the first part of the film- pre encounter- was very clear.  Then, he states it suddenly becomes blurry when the Patty encounter section starts.   Is there anyone out there who seriously has stated this?  I have never heard a skeptic make such a claim.   They might think it is a hoax but I have never heard or read a skeptic stating the blurriness of the film actually changes to a blurry state on the encounter part of the film.

 

3)  Perez claims the 14.5" tracks were only ever recorded that one time at Bluff Creek when they saw patty.  Otherwise he states the other tracks were 15" or 16" tracks at other areas.   I personally don't see this as a big deal as it could mean more than one animal or it could be the same animal and the substrate itself could make it difficult to give and accurate measure.  Finally depending on how far the foot sank in (hard s soft surface) this could account for differences if the tracks were all made by the same animal.

 

4)  Perez makes an excellent point on how one scientists could be fooled by giant fake penguin feet. (Ivan Anderson)    This is a great point for general consideration to skeptic and believer alike.

 

5)  Camera setting.  He reads some camera setting information indicating some uncertainty on what settings were even possible.   There was no way for it to click half way.   It is my understanding poster Bill Miller has confirmed these camera has a preset at a certain speed.  I don't get what Perez was really getting at here.

 

6) Perez incorrectly point out this sweet spot time of seeing bigfoot at least as it relates to John Green's book.  In Green's book Perez points out 3 months where they encounter numbers of Bigfoot reporting sightings goes up and that is July August and Sept from number in John Green's book.  Perez seem to indicate Roger having an October reported encounter based on this is very suspect.  Yet, Perez gets the numbers actually completely wrong.    

 

June    58       -----   July   11         Aug    103    Sept  89   -------   Oct 83        Nov 60          Dec 56.     

 

There is NO drop off of numbers until November as Oct has nearly the same numbers as Sept.  Yet, Perez makes only these 3 months (J, A, and S) the sweet spot.   This is all a small point but I don't understand what Perez was getting at here unless he is - in the role of playing devil's advocate- just showing his cherry picking to make the point of 1) how much cherry picking is going on to make a skeptic case on this or 2) playing the role of a skeptic who is willfully looking the other way.

 

Summary:

This 2 part video is obviously done as an attempt inspired by the OJ trail to play devil's advocate.   Even with a person as informed on the issues as Daniel Perez he really couldn't come up with much to play devil's advocate with.  That being said, I have to applaud spirit of what is seems to me he was doing here.  That is, he is saying consider all sides when you look at this issue.  Consider you could be wrong or less certain about what you think you think you know.    I'm very fine with that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
Posted (edited)

I didn't watch either part end to end, kind of skipped through the OJ part. It's funny to revisit that era. Everybody had an opinion. 

 

I'm thinking Danny has continued to churn on his ideas since '95, new realizations and so forth. That's why I have been curious about his next public presentation if/when that happens. 

 

(To Dahinden) "if you have questions, wait until the end of the presentation." :lol:

Edited by Arvedis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

John Green had THE film for several days.

 

Perez said John Green had the actual film directly from Roger Patterson for several days.    This is interesting.  Daniel Perez makes the point (in his devil's advocate role) saying it is strange Roger would loan  such a valuable film.   I will agree with Perez point made here where that seems like 100% opposite of what I would do.  I would loan a copy of the film to others but THE actual film would be locked away. Yes, I know that doesn't prove or disprove a thing but I am just thinking about my guess about human nature.

 

 

I have read on the BFF if we ever got to find and see THE actual first film it would have a leader on the film which should tell us valuable info as to telling us were it was developed.   

 

Here are my Q's with all that being said:

 

1)  Did John Green see this leader (or any info possible for any label which might have been on the box the film came in)?

2)  Did Green have the kind of understanding to even know about this leader on the film issue that info was availble?

3)  Was Green of a mindset at the time he would even care about such a small thing when his focus was the film?

4)  Had any controversy arose about the development location 'mystery' by the time Green borrowed THE film to even make Green or anyone else even pay attention?

5)  Why didn't any of the copies copy have this leader information (as I assume it was something which would normally be copied but was not on the copies as an the intent to hide or remove it.)

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

John Green and Rene Dahinden borrowed the camera original so they could get enhanced copies made on an optical printer, allowing for freeze frame printing, slow motion printing, and zoom in printing, which a contact print can't do.  While it's not unusual for a contact print to print any leader on the source film, the optical printer process ignores the leader and sets the print start at specific frames of the footage. Leader codes are just numbers made of many small circular punches, so they are ignored by just about everyone. No one considers them important enough to document or remember. So it's reasonable that Green saw no significance to the leader.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bill said:

John Green and Rene Dahinden borrowed the camera original so they could get enhanced copies made on an optical printer, allowing for freeze frame printing, slow motion printing, and zoom in printing, which a contact print can't do.

 

Were the two successful in producing such renditions from the original film? 

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I have read on the BFF if we ever got to find and see THE actual first film it would have a leader on the film which should tell us valuable info as to telling us were it was developed.   

 

It seems unlikely to me that the original film, having been copied, handled, and threaded so many times by so many different individuals over the years, would still have its original leader. But who knows? Certainly it would have to be proved as the original before any conclusions can be made one way or another. 

 

On the other hand, If the original can be examined for "the almost invisible proprietary latent images" on the edge of the film as prescribed by Frank Ishihara of Technicolor PNW in Seattle Wa, we could confirm if it was indeed processed at his facility or not. That would go a long way towards solving the development issue for those who have interest in that particular area of research.

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Hiflier:

 

Yes, they were successful. The Canawest labs made an Ektachrome master of about 340 feet, with a full copy of the reel, zoom in segments, freeze frame segments, and slow motion segments. From that Ektachrome master, multiple copies were struck, and help by both Green and Dahinden.  Several of these copies have been scanned and are in the master copy archives. The Legend Meets Science dvd uses one of these copies as it's source for the video on the dvd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)

Thank you, Bill. Somehow I figured you of anyone would have the answer. Is the original Ektachrome master still in existence? Would the Green family currently have  ownership of the work? I say that because I think at the time John Green may have been in a better financial situation to make the investment than Dahinden.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

It's my understanding that when Green and Dahinden set up the work order with Canawest labs, they agreed Canawest would keep the Ektachrome master in its vault, ready in case they wanted to order more copies. And I vaguely recall there was an agreement that the master could only be released by mutual consent of both Green and Dahinden. But while this is  reasonable arrangement, I can't say for certain if it's correct (in that I don't have any corroborating evidence to verify it). 

 

Canawest labs closed years ago, but there's no info on what they did with film masters in their vault. There's no record of either Green or Dahinden receiving it. So it's currently unaccounted for. If found, it would be a very valuable film to have, closer to the original than any copies we do know of. Especially the zoomed in segment, which has less copy grain loss than full frame copies.

 

So we can hope it turns up one day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Added to above:

 

In my film school days (1966 to 1969), when we shot film and took it to the lab (usually a big lab like CFI or Technicolor), they delivered a work print copy for us to edit or view, but the lab kept the camera original in their vault, unless we asks for it. So the lab keeping the original was common practice back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
8 hours ago, Bill said:

John Green and Rene Dahinden borrowed the camera original so they could get enhanced copies made on an optical printer, allowing for freeze frame printing, slow motion printing, and zoom in printing, which a contact print can't do.  While it's not unusual for a contact print to print any leader on the source film, the optical printer process ignores the leader and sets the print start at specific frames of the footage. Leader codes are just numbers made of many small circular punches, so they are ignored by just about everyone. No one considers them important enough to document or remember. So it's reasonable that Green saw no significance to the leader.


Excellent information to answer my Q. Thanks Bill.  That clarifies some things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

How ironic that 1967 was the same year that the PGF was shot AND the year that Canawest Film Productions became incorporated as an independent company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
Posted (edited)

There is a recent @Daniel Perez podcast appearance that I have not yet watched end to end. 

 

 

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