Sasquatch hand print.

[norseman]

28 minutes ago, DarkEyes said:

The one I saw during the day? It had a really round head, short brown/light brown hair, and all black eyes. The Darkest eyes you’d ever seen. That’s how I know it wasn’t a bear.  

Here is a recreation of Patty. Which looks dark to me compared to Patty. Thoughts? Thanks!

[DarkEyes]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Here is a recreation of Patty. Which looks dark to me compared to Patty. Thoughts? Thanks!

My heart dropped seeing that. I have never seen that bust before. But that is nearly exactly what I saw. I added a photo with markings. The brown was the shape of the head, it was more round. And the teal was the huge tree it was peeking out from behind. Mind you, I was this through binoculars. And after, I stood there and took a picture of me in its location. It’s head was at least twice as big as mine.0

[Catmandoo]

23 hours ago, norseman said:

Here is a recreation of Patty. Which looks dark to me compared to Patty. Thoughts? Thanks!

 

Norseman, how we forget. The PGF images that we see are an Ektachrome copy film of a Kodachrome film. The exposure for the Ektachrome copies was lightened up since Patty was a black hairy animal.  The exposure change was an attempt to show more detail.

I get dizzy trying to keep track of the PGF copies. There is one person who knows the copies.

The most abused frame is VFC frame 354, a.k.a. frame 252---- the look back frame. The look back frame is from American National Enterprises PGF copy 8, with 4 times zoom of the film frame. I am uncertain if the ANE copy was a contact or optical print. We can't use the 4X image to determine the color of Patty's hair.  The non zoomed copies show black hair and the images are over exposed. Considering the over exposure, we can successfully speculate that Patty had very black hair.

 

I tried to keep the PGF copy details straight and if I erred, some one will jump in with corrections.

 

And Norseman, if you want to stir things up, jump into the resolution  conundrum of the Ektachrome copy film resolution on top of Kodachrome daylight film resolution. Can of worms.

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 

Norseman, how we forget. The PGF images that we see are an Ektachrome copy film of a Kodachrome film. The exposure for the Ektachrome copies was lightened up since Patty was a black hairy animal.  The exposure change was an attempt to show more detail.

I get dizzy trying to keep track of the PGF copies. There is one person who knows the copies.

The most abused frame is VFC frame 354, a.k.a. frame 252---- the look back frame. The look back frame is from American National Enterprises PGF copy 8, with 4 times zoom of the film frame. I am uncertain if the ANE copy was a contact or optical print. We can't use the 4X image to determine the color of Patty's hair.  The non zoomed copies show black hair and the images are over exposed. Considering the over exposure, we can successfully speculate that Patty had very black hair.

 

I tried to keep the PGF copy details straight and if I erred, some one will jump in with corrections.

 

And Norseman, if you want to stir things up, jump into the resolution  conundrum of the Ektachrome copy film resolution on top of Kodachrome daylight film resolution. Can of worms.

My only reservation? Is the rest of the film. A sorrel horse is a sorrel horse. A green tree is a green tree. A deadfall is gray. I can even see fall colors in the understory. I mean are the color perfect? No. Is everything fuzzy? Yes. But I can make out colors. I would argue that like when Bob is watering the horses in the shade? Everything is very dark. Darker than it should be. But I will admit? I am not a Kodak expert circa 1969.

 

 

[Catmandoo]

^^^^^ "Rare Unedited Version"    I doubt it.  I have never seen this version.  Looks like they had a tripod for some of the footage.  I have Kodachrome home movies from the 60's and they make this Youtube presentation look like garbage. I would guess a poorly stored Ektachrome that has had a huge color shift over time which is normal for Ektachrome films.

 

I have not read any details about an exposure meter that was on site for the PGF. 

 

 

[Catmandoo]

This thread has derailed, which is the norm for this forum. Back on track.

Finger prints / hand prints are found on motor vehicles, glass, campers etc. What to do? Have some fun.

Anyone can take latent print images. You just need to know where to shop to get supplies for your grime scene investigations. I am not in LE but am aware of several vendors. They may not sell to you if you are not in LE and there is probably a hefty minimum order amount.

Arrowhead Forensics

Sirchie

Forensics Source

Many colors of latent print powders are available to contrast with the target substrate. Good contrast = good photographic image. Flat surfaces are easier to work with in the way of getting the imaging chip plane-parallel to the target surface. Use a good tripod. Remote release / wireless shutter release to minimize vibrations. Curved surfaces of a motor vehicle require several steps. Tripod. Good guess at a planar position to overall target size and a sequence of images planned out for an image stacking procedure.

Taping a scale adjacent to the image is important.

Acquiring prints would be fun to compare your own  prints to our cousin in the genus homo.

The forensic equipment vendors have an interesting and expensive selection of DNA sampling items.

Keep in mind that getting a urine sample for DNA testing would be a really good bad idea.

[Chim Chim]

On 8/16/2023 at 7:24 PM, DarkEyes said:

…The brown was the shape of the head, it was more round…

No pronounced saggital crest, a juvenile then?  I remember reading that’s more a function of size than anything else.

[Huntster]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:07 PM, norseman said:

Here is a recreation of Patty. Which looks dark to me compared to Patty. Thoughts? Thanks!

 

Pretty impressive. Who's the ugly guy on the right?

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Pretty impressive. Who's the ugly guy on the right?

[DarkEyes]

1 hour ago, Chim Chim said:

No pronounced saggital crest, a juvenile then?  I remember reading that’s more a function of size than anything else.

Funny you say that. We(the bfro leader and others) were thinking a juvenile was visiting our camp. I did see small feet impression on the ground the night after we had walking around our tent and the kitchen stove nail clicking sounds.

[Chim Chim]

Makes sense, the juveniles sense of curiosity would override it’s better judgment.  The adults know we’re bad news and stay away.

[xspider1]

Asking if the subject seen by the OP resembled the Patty recreation doesn’t seem like a derail at all to me.  I don’t recall Munns, or anyone else ever saying that the film copies are ‘lightened up’ to the extent that a black furred animal appears now to be brown.  I may be wrong, but like Norseman pointed out, I see plenty of natural color in the various copies that makes me doubt that is the case.