Talk:Patterson-Gimlin film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Filming Speed section

What does the section of "Filming Speed" have to do with anything? It doesn't make much sense, wouldn't you just be able to watch the footage and determine its speed rather than the complicated method of figuring out how tall the camera man is? (though I still don't see what his height has to do with determining the film speed).

Apparently the camera shakes so much that it's not clear what speed it is. I've attempted to explain its importance, but I can't answer the latter point. The Singing Badger 19:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The thing I was wondering is, that... couldn't you just watch the movie and determine how many frames are in one second, thereby determining the speed of the film? ...What I mean is, just counting how many times the image changes per second (obviously on a frame-by-frame level) then... well, you'd have the filming speed right there. I don't know who thought about those walking steps thing but it seems a really complex method to determine a film speed.
No, the point is you don't know how long 'one second' is in the film. One second of 'real time' may not be the same as one second in the film, if it's filmed at 16 fps. You might have seen old silent footage from the early 1900s where everyone seems to be moving faster than normal; that's because they were filmed at 16fps but are being projected at 24fps. So in 'the world of the film' one second is shorter than a second in the 'real world'. Imagine you watch the Patterson-Gimlin film and count 16 frames, say. Was that one second of filming? Or is it only one second after 24 frames? In other words, the very question that is being asked is how long is one second in the film? Does that make sense? The Singing Badger 15:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes sense, and thats what I thought some confusion would arise over. But if you watch a film at the wrong speed its noticable. It's like listening to a record on the wrong speed.
Normally it would be, but in this one the camera is wildly moving around and shaking as the cameraman runs, so you can't tell. The Singing Badger 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also ... speed is determined by relationships and how we know things to move, because you don't know how TALL or even have an idea how big the object is its speed cannot be determined unless something else is moving. Because the horse moves, it can't be determined if the speed is correct.


__________

Who is Ray Wallace? It is not explained here.

__________


Most of the people listed here as having "confessed" to hoaxing the Patterson-Gimlin have fallen out of favor. Some rebuttals should be added.


I suggest this page be divided up into seperate articles because of its size. A difficult task considering how well refrenced it is. --The_stuart 14:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


I was just wondering why this page shows up under 'Probable Hoaxes', when the article itself gives no credible evidence at all of this probability. -Username forgotten

Beckjord: you people know nothing of this topic and ought to withdraw. The film speed relates to the creature's speed,gait and to sharpness and lack thereof in some frames. The film, which I own a top copy of, is not blurred and has only some sections where there is a smearing when Patterson fell.

The film was shot at 16 fps, which helped overexpose the fur of the creature and reveal many odd things in it. Embedded faces, for example. At 24 fps, the gait is akward. FOr more info, visit http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pgfilmframesinseries

BeckjordBeckjord 08:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)



How long is the film?

The film is only 59.5 seconds in length, less than 60 seconds MarcusTCicero 12:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more shakey

Here is a .gif version that has been edited to compensate for the shakey camera, it's 4mb in size abd I think it's definate proof that it is a man in a suit. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif

What are you talking about?!! A man couldn't possibly walk like that. He'd have to have his arms broken above his elbows and then welded back to get his arms to bend like that. This is clear evidence that Bigfoot is a transdimensional being. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, when that arm swings and starts to bend, it looks as if the guys arm ends at the suits elbow and it's just flailing around.
That is awesome!! Whoever did the work on this deserves a medal. MAN IN SUIT!! MAN IN SUIT!! 129.173.55.207 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is a man in a suit, then how did he make a stride of, between 51" to 61"? That part of the arguement if it is real or fake seems to lost in the debate. MarcusTCicero 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Stride was mostly 41 in, but still too long for a normal man.

I heard that the stride of the purported animal, in the film, differs from the tracks recovered. This suggests that either the video is faked to match mysterious tracks, or (less likely) tracks were faked in the location of the movie.

Also, close ups of frame 306 shows a female sex organ, so it is female, not male, also has a child on its breast. Dr Bernard Heuvelmans, founder of Cryptozoology, agrees. See http://www.bigfoot.org for his drawing.

Zaappy

[edit] Bottom of Feet

I like how you can see the soles of his shoes! LOL! --The_stuart 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Soles of bare feet. Not shoes. Go back to your comic books. - Brent

[edit] This article needs a complete rewrite

The previous version began

Few doubt the film is authentic, but despite study by biologists, anthropologists, photographers and others, both amateur and professional, opinions remain divided as to the identity of the ape-like creature.

This is absurdly misleading. In fact, the mainstream view is clear: the film was a (rather transparent) hoax perpetrated by Patterson, Gimlin, and Hieronimus, as extensively documented in the book by Greg Long. The man who wore the monkey suit, Bob Hieronimus, actually confessed his role to Long and provided details of how the hoax film was made.

The entire article is absurdly biased in favor of the crank view that a nonhuman primate native to the West coast of North America actually exists. Sheesh, no wonder people criticize the Wikipedia for factual inaccuracies! Read the book by Long, folks, and rewrite accordingly, please. ---CH 20:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Wikipedia urgently needs to raise standards of accuracy and verifiabilty to prevent its reputation from consolidating into a joke - chain is only as strong as weakest link. Tags at the top of an article such as {{dispute}} mean little to those pushing crank/conspiracy POVs. However, if every unlikely/dubious claim in every paranormal/pseudoscientific type article had "[this source's credibility needs verifying]" tags inserted after them - for all to see - some articles would be smothered in them. It wouldn't be long before some of the more seasoned Wiki editors accepted there is a serious threat to our reputation, and would help take action. (I'm not suggesting they are not concerned now, just busy elsewhere). Can't see a problem with this action, because no-one could reasonably argue against seeking accuracy. What do you think? Moriori 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, anyone tempted to respond by saying "simply be bold and remove the offending claims" is living in dreamland.
I agree. Some time ago I listed it under the "proven hoax" section at List of hoaxes, but that wasn't allowed to stand. It is under "probable hoaxes", though. Since they confessed to the hoax, and there was other evidence of it being a hoax, I considered it a proven hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Many people still refuse to believe that the film is a hoax (or, at least, they refuse to believe that it was hoaxed in the manner that Long describes). Check out some of the lengthy rebuttals at amazon.com (I know, it's not an encyclopedic source, but it might give you some food for thought). As you can see, most of the Bigfoot believers remain unconvinced; almost all of the praise for the book comes from people who had already thought the film was a hoax.Zagalejo 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
See True-believer syndrome. Bubba73 (talk), 03:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure that's a factor for some people. However, the issue is not whether Bigfoot is real or not, but whether Long's book provides convincing evidence that the Patterson film was hoaxed in the manner that he says it was hoaxed. Many of the reviews suggest that it doesn't, and I think that some of their objections (eg, Long's evidence is mostly anecdotal and sometimes self-contradictory) warrant some consideration. (I'll admit that I haven't read the book myself, but even some self-described skeptics have offered similar objections, which makes it difficult for me to dismiss all of the believers' critiques as blind fanboyism.) Furthermore, we should keep in mind that this isn't the first "exposé" of the Patterson film -- different people have been taking or assigning credit for the film for years (see [1]; [2]). But the general public tends to forget about all of that. (Frankly, I'll bet that another book or tv special will come out within the next ten years that credits the Patterson film to an entirely different person, and that the media will pounce all over that without remembering Long or any of his predecessors.)
Again, I'm not trying to argue that the film is genuine, or that Bigfoot, as a whole, exists. I'm just suggesting that you should look at Long's work more critically. The film may indeed have been hoaxed by someone, but Long's specific claims about how it was hoaxed should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just trying to start a friendly discussion here, Zagalejo 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a highly recommended article from Skeptical Inquirer: [3] Zagalejo 05:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed the tags because I'm confident that I'm justified in doing so. Nothing has been proven yet. We should demand the same level of evidence from Long, Hieronimus, etc as we would from someone who said he saw a Bigfoot. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Zagalejo 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've since replaced the tags with an overall NPOV tag and an original research tag in the Hoax Allegations section. The NPOV tag is pretty self-explanatory: the article still needs a more neutral tone. As for the original research tag, I thought that the subsection on Hieronimus reads too much like a personal analysis of Greg Long's book. The section would be strengthened by citing published criticism of the book (which does exist -- Daniel Perez would be a good source to use).
I hope this satisfies everyone. Zagalejo 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Further questions:

  • Has any analysis been done on the movement of the breasts? Could it be faked with weighted padding?
  • What are the body sizes of various people who claim to have used a suit, and do they match up with someone of that height/width? (the keeping sticks in the arms comment could allow for swinging the end of the arms like "sleeves")

Nevermind, several sites are arguing over "Bob Heironimus in a suit"

http://images.google.com/images?q=Bob+Heironimus&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

Here's a direct link to the relevant info from that page: [4]
BTW, be sure to sign your name to every post. Otherwise, people will just dismiss what you have to say. Zagalejo 16:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes this article could use some improvements...it's on my mental list to do so as soon as I complete a few other chores.--MONGO 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This film has had big impact on popular culture.The standard hoax conspirators would make a much more overt film.The poor quality of the film especially the shakiness actually made it more believable and mysterious at the same time.I would think it wouldn't be hard to find references to this film by Hollywood directors or cinematographers,etc..

[edit] Comment moved from User_talk:Hillman

[personal attack removed] Watcher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.198 (talk • contribs). (cache-ntc-ad04.proxy.aol.com)

Please review WP:CIV ---CH 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I put a NPA (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) warning on the user's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What About the Walk?

Many of this film's supporters argue that the creature doesn't walk like a human being. First off, every human has a different stride. Second, film, a two-dimensional medium, distorts our view. Great comedians like Charlie Chaplin have used this to create distinctive "funny walks".

Personally, I don't know if Bigfoot exists. I have my doubts, but I can't prove that they don't exist. For all I know, one may walk out of the woods tomorrow. I do know that this film has been compellingly debunked. File it with the Cottingley Fairies, the Loch Ness Monster and every UFO photo ever taken. Like all other human inventions, the camera can be made to lie.


I think people need to stop posting their personal opinions as evidence.
"I do know that this film has been compellingly debunked."
No you don't! There is equal evidence supporting this film that is also debunking it. Just as many claim it as real and show their proof as there are people who show their proof that it's fake. I personally don't swing either way on the subject. I want to believe that it's genuine, and I think that it would be cool if it were real, but there is a lot of evidence that shows that it's fake. There is a lot of evidence, however, that proves that same evidence as fake. The Bob Heironimus (or however it's spelled) confession is nowhere near convincing, especially since many have confessed to being the one in the suit. The book by Long has many holes that have been pointed out. No one right now can say that they know that it's fake... or genuine. That's what element needs to be applied to the article.
As for the probable hoax debate, I think that's a load of crap. Again, no one knows right now if it's a fake other than the two who shot the film. Until they actually confess that it's fake, it's anyone's guess. Like I said, there's ample and equal evidence "proving" that the film is fake or genuine. Helltopay27 (August 17th, 2006)


[edit] Not neutral at all

No, this family of sasquatch-related articles is anything but neutral. Mind you, it is factual to state, "The majority of scientists doubt the existence of sasquatch," but to make only such statements and steadily disparage every contrary expression does, indeed, ring clarion of anything but neutrality. What's more disturbing is that the articles are not open to editing by the public. Perhaps if the articles were more neutral there wouldn't be any need to protect the articles against (presumably angry) editing. User:bdwilner20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three men in a suit

At the last count, three men (not including myself) have now come forward/been identified as "the man" in the suit. Two of them must be wrong. sonofDavkal 11:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Only three? Geez. Mind you, that's three more than the number of Biggies that have actually been identified. Moriori 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed my opinion

After viewing the stabilized version it I have noticed indications of a suit. However, the discriptions of the suit by Bob Heironimus and Phillip Morris do not match the suit in the film. There are two very distinct joints or seams visible. The most obvious one is around the waist. The upper torso section can be seen rotating independant of the lower body section when the creature turns. Frame # 72 shows the "fur line" down the back misaligned where the two pieces overlap. Midway down the thigh another joint is visible running diagonally. It has the appearance of a diaper covering the buttocks and does not move with the leg. You can see this diaper-like covering on the famous frame # 352. Bob H. said that the lower section was one piece , not three. He also said that the head was a football helmet covered with a mask. The creatures head is more narrow than a standard football helmet when viewed face on.67.62.23.202 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)GCottrell

Yeah, I have noticed that myself. There is a definite appearance of a seam at the waistline. For what it's worth, it is a really good fake and I still question Morris's statement that he made the suit used in the film.--MONGO 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The film is authentic

I do understand that the Patterson-Gimlin film is still in dispute to this day. I saw a Bigfoot back in June of 1991 and that kind of opened the door to me to the whole Bigfoot phenomena. When I was a small child I saw the film and was scared of it. After my sighting I watched the Patterson-Gimlin film several dozen times and I concluded Bigfoot I saw that day in 1991 looked VERY CLOSE to the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin film. The creature in the film was just under 7' and was a female due to the fact that it had breasts. The one I saw was about 8' and a male I believe. In the last few years the film has undergone digital analysis and examination and those that did the analysis COULD NOT determine that the film was faked. Bigfoot researcher John Green back in 1967 shortly after the film was made went back to the site and filmed a stand-in model-Jim McClarin- walking the same path that the creature took as a reference to determine the height and weight of the creature in the film. The two films were superimposed to show the difference between the two. McClarin stood 6'.5". The creature in the film was taller and much more bulkier. The arms on the creature are longer than a normal man's arms. I recently viewed the film digitally enhanced at a meeting of the International Bigfoot Society. I could see the muscles moving underneath the hair of the creature. The creature walks with an unusual bent-knee gait that is almost impossible to imitate. The late Dr. Grover Krantz tried once to imitate it but was unsuccessful. Several anatomists have recently discovered some sort of injury on the creature's knee as it flexes its knee when it's walking. I can see no seams on the creature that would indicate a costume. Apes have a natural hair seam running down the length of their spines. As to the feet in the film- the area that the creature walked in the film was on sand and very soft soil which stuck to the creature's feet, as it would to any animal or human for that matter that would be walking in soil like that with bare feet. When the creature turns to look at the camera, it just doesn't move its head- it moves its entire upper torso in the direction of the cameraman- just as an ape would do. The creature turned to look at the camera because Bob Gimlin had crossed the creek and trained his rifle on it after Patterson told him to cover him in case the creature was agressive. That's why the creature turned to look at the camera. If this creature was a man in a costume, why would he risk his life with Gimlin having a loaded rifle aimed at him? That doesn't make sense. Patterson ran out of film because the rest of the film in his camera had been used filming scenery for a documentary he wanted to do. Before he could change the film in his rented camera the creature had disappeared into the woods. Patterson and Gimlin did trail it but couldn't go any further because the creature's trail went into the mountains and they couldn't follow with their horses and they weren't logistically equipped to go up the mountain after the creature. The film is shaky because Patterson was running after the creature while he was filming it and finally stabilized himself on a tree stump. Patterson did not know anything about cameras or film speeds. I have personally met Bob Gimlin and heard what he had to say about what Patterson filmed that day. He sticks to his story that what he saw that day was a flesh and blood creature and not some guy in a fur suit. Gimlin never made any money whatsoever on the film. I am not trying to say that what everyone else believes is wrong; I'm just saying what I know about the film and I believe it to be authentic. This was suppossed to have been faked by an ex-rodeo cowboy? Hardly. DarinDRR75 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC

[edit] Suggested change to first paragraph

In the first paragraph of the Patterson-Gimlin film entry, the last sentence reads:

However the film has been widely critiqued and debunked by various experts since it was released.

To me, the wording in that sentence seems to imply that the film has actually been successfully “debunked by experts,” when in fact the film’s authenticity remains completely inconclusive to date.

To remedy this, I would like to suggest that the sentence be reworded as follows:

However, since the film’s release, it has been widely critiqued and subjected to many attempts at debunking by various experts.

Your thoughts on this proposed revision would be appreciated. Labyrinth13 19:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Subjected to many attempts at debunking" . ???? Huh! Make sure you insert "subjected to many attempts to authenticate it" as well. The film has been debunked, just as it has been declared genuine as well. Moriori 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I think that your suggestion is a good one. I have rewritten the sentence to include the line, "subjected to many attempts to both debunk and authenticate." The line now has a much more NPOV, in my opinion. Your thoughts? Labyrinth13 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlay Map

Can some one insert an overlay map or a google earth image as to the approximate or even the precise location of where the October 1967 Bigfoot sighting took place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 20:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Several of the investigators I have been in contact with, including Bob Gimlin himself, can not find the exact location of the film site, only the general area that the film was made. The terrain of the area has changed alot in 40 years due to loging and earth changes. Bob Gimlin went back in 2003 to where the film was made and he couldn't recognize anything, the area had changed that much. I do believe that Patterson and Gimlin were in the Six Rivers National Forest when they got their film. DRR75 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/t/Talk%7EPatterson-Gimlin_film_a815.html"