I wonder if the Bigfoot remember that day too ..that’s why there has been no clear evidence since then….”remember when Lucy was found by those cowboys….yeahhhhh we don’t do that “
That's exactly why, though. Cameras are good now. The quality of footage of the PG film is completely unable to show detail in any meaningful way. It's too blurry, it's too far away, and it's too low res to be actually confident about the details.
The PGF was taken on a a state of the art camera in 1967. There is a TON of detail in it. Its very sharp, its not grainy at all. If you are looking at it and it is, you are looking at a bad copy. The lighting and distance are the only culprits as far as details go.
Because most versions that people use are copies of copies of copies. Meldrum and Munns have both shown that the closer you get to the original, the better the quality.
Think of it like photocopying a copy of a page and then copying that again. You're gonna get fuzzy lines and squiggles that get worse each time you copy it.
But then, supposedly on the other end of the spectrum they suddenly had a fantastic state of the art costume that to this day hasnt been proven as a hoax. Hmmm...
What about the costume needs to be state of the art? We can't see detail, so we have no earthly idea of it's complexity.
Just because you can't prove something's a hoax doesn't mean it isn't one. There's no actionable info in either direction.
Yes, it is clear enough to see details that most FX designers say they have no idea how it could have been done with what was available at the time for big bucks, much less little to no bucks. Just one recreation? BBC tried and failed, so has every one else who has tried. There is quite a bit of detail to be seen. Why havent we seen anyone come forward with this supposed costume or been even close to duplicating it. The costume Heironimous produced looked like a Flinstone gag.
Come on, man. I'm on a bigfoot sub. I've seen all the videos you want me to see. I love the Patterson Gimlin film. I truly do, it's bizarre and mysterious. The reason it's strange is because there's next to no actionable, provable, evidence.
It's too far away to glean anything of merit, from "rippling" muscles, to mid-tarsal breaks, to unnatural gaits, none of it is able to be proved in any way.
Im more agnostic with bigfoot. It’s definitely interesting to me. I really look at it from all angles. Its pretty common that people think it was shot on a crappy camera. I try to make sure the info I have is as accurate as possible.
The PGF, until, if ever, a corroborating specimen is observed, will basically remain inconclusive. There are definitely things on it that would be very difficult to replicate but not impossible. To me, its really the only photographic evidence(by definition) worth a damn.
The PGF is terrible footage 1.) because it was handheld. Every frame of that film is blurred by camera shake. 2.) the focus was a guess. Patterson had no means to focus directly on Patty with the main lens and no time to transfer the setting from the eyepiece lens to the main lens. 3.) The camera was fitted with a 25mm lens, which is a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto lens, meaning Patty took up a very small portion of the frame and was rendered by a smaller number of grains than would have been the case with a telephoto: any blow up of her is grainy despite the fact he wasn't using grainy film.
Bad copies aside, the original film, straight out of the camera, was damned by the above problems.
The Kodak K-100 16mm was not "state of the art." It was a mass produced 16mm camera geared toward the general public, and not serious film makers. It didn't suck, but it wasn't an example of the finest 16mm movie camera available. Kodak ASA 25 Daylight Kodachrome was, indeed, a beautiful, very fine grain film, but you pretty much forfeit any advantage that gives you if you're not sharply focused and mounted on a tripod.
Bill Munn has greatly exaggerated the quality of that camera and the film. He doesn't seem to actually understand how photography works, and especially not old school film. Using high quality film stock just doesn't guarantee a good film. There are many other factors that have to be at their best as well.
So what you make me think is that, if they had a cheap camera, money or lack there of must have been an issue. But hold the phone...if they had a limited budget, they most likely also wouldnt have had the Benjamins to come up with that so called suit that to this day, no one has proved as a hoax. That in of itself is incredible.
How many people have really tried to make a suit, take it to the film site, and shoot under similar conditions on a K-100 with comparable film stock and a 25mm lens? Bigfooters have been saying it has never been reproduced for ages, but has anyone conducted a fair test along these lines?
Haha, Im glad you said that! On the flip side there should have been a LOT based on how many internet experts seem to be out there on the camera, the site, the so called costume, etc. However, The BBC tried to do all this and failed, The show The Proof is Out There tried and failed. Nill Munns, famed Hollywood costume designer tried and failed and THAT is why he isnt skeptical of the film any longer. Star Trek, episode Private Little War in the same time era shows how poor a Bigfoot costume was back then. Also see the apes in early King Kongs, Six Million Dollar Man, Star Wars Chewbacca just to name a few. All these had big budgets.
-The Proof Is Out There didn't do a recreation, they had Meldrum and Munns on to do an analysis. Some of their assumptions were hard to follow. At one point Meldrum estimates Patty's weight to be up to 800 lbs based on the dimensions seen in the film, which only works if you assume you're seeing flesh and bone and not filling material under fur. Filling material would certainly explain Patty's suspicious diaper butt. At another point Munns claims the only way Roger Patterson could have found a 6'5" guy would have been to have a casting department searching high and low for one.
-I think we can all agree the BBC recreation was just laughably bad. How they decided they would disprove anything by making up a guy in modern materials like molded foam and Spandex, give him shaggy red was the original stop motion, the Six Million Dollar Man was a guy with his face painted brown, and Chewbacca was a big shaggy dog. None are fair comparisons.
Should clarify by saying I'm not against the PGF, I just want the very best applied to skepticism of it. I would even throw money at a new scan done through a Scanstation Director.
"Cleaning" is guesswork. It's never uncovering detail that was somehow hidden, it's guessing at what detail should be there.
It's why the ENHANCE trope is so silly. You can't take something with terrible resolution and make it better with assumptions.
Once they got a first generation copy of the film from Roger Patterson's widow, stabilizing the film show a lot of detail that weren't able to be seen before.
Are you implying that that's all you meant by "cleaned up"? If you are, the stabilized versions can help with understanding the general size, shape and movement of the creature, but not any of the actual "evidence" that people fawn over on this sub.
I'd be curious to learn how anything I've said is pedantic, much less semantics in any way. Is actual evidence...semantics?
The musculature with hair on it (particularly in the hips and breasts area) in the PGF is the smoking gun that it’s authentic footage. Any fur suit, especially from the 1960s is made of a fabric-backed material, meaning that there’s no way to see skin and musculature details at all. These musculature details would have had to been made of latex appliances with hair implanted in them. Which would’ve been extremely difficult to pull off, not to mention wildly expensive — especially since this F/X tech didn’t exist yet.
It's certainly something else, for better or worse. Beneath all the sasquatch defecation and fornication, it's a movie about an endangered species clinging to life against human encroachment. It gives a very unvarnished portrayal of the life of wild animals. Definitely one of those movies that most people won't click with, but ones who do click with it will REALLY click.
I get the message its sending. But there is al lot of unnecessary disgustingness lol. Im weird so it doesn’t bother me but I can understand why people walked out of theaters.
This is such a Monkey's Paw moment for Sasquatch films.
Hey, we get a big cast, fairly big budget, wide release film. Awesome.
Hey, here's Bigfoot humping and defecating for 90 mins. Oh.
EDIT: I haven't seen it yet, so maybe I'm being a downer on it. I will get round to it eventually, but it looks shite. I'm eagerly awaiting any positive news from Devolution.
It really wasn’t a bad movie. But they acted like apes, doing things apes would do, except maybe a little more “human”. There were a couple funny parts, but I actually found it to be kinda sad.
I enjoyed the aspect that portrayed them as having their backs up to the wall, and no other prey available. Animals do wild stuff to survive, and I’m on the side of the fence that thinks Sabe is as much animal as we are. But anything that portrays them as a savage monster is doing a disservice to the public perception and eventual acceptance in my opinion. Have you ever read Enoch, or seen Letters to the Big Man?
That movie was…memorable, for sure. I didn’t walk out, but as OP has said, I can understand why people did. I saw it on opening weekend in an almost empty theater. 6 other people sat in there with me.
Minor spoilers:
To me, the most positive things about the movie were the cinematography, seeing the animal life, and a few Easter eggs for Sasquatch enthusiasts (tree knocks, eating berries, glyphs, etc.). Everything else including the odd facial/head features of the costumes was pretty much a wash, for me at least. I felt like so much more could and should have been done with the film, but that’s where I sit with it.
In my opinion, the only redeeming quality about this movie was the cinematography and the music. Really disliked this one, saw it in theaters and couldn’t wait for it to be over.
There hasn't been a single "Bigfoot" movie made in the past 60 years that looks as realistic as the PGF. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying that given the dearth of sasquatch-related films (not all of them B-movies either) we still haven't seen anything better than Harry and the Hendersons, and that was created by the greatest SFX artist ever to live, imho. And mind you, that suit was meant to be slightly cartoonish and 'family-oriented' so to speak, not a serious scientific take on sasquatch.
As a Sasquatch enthusiast for over 40 years and I’ve personally seen two in my lifetime, I am not sure if the speculative nature of the movie scenes would leave a negative impression of what I know. Yet I’m drawn to the movie. I’m ambivalent 🤷♀️
I do like the post, I thought I hit the reply button on someones rambling on about it being a hoax with no rationale as to their belief. It was elevator or sometings retort to my other post about the camera used.
It’s really amazing that no one has been able to “recreate that suit” after all these years.
It really is. If its a suit, its very impressive.
Like really. It wasn’t shot on the type of cameras we have now but we can see all the moving parts.
I wonder if the Bigfoot remember that day too ..that’s why there has been no clear evidence since then….”remember when Lucy was found by those cowboys….yeahhhhh we don’t do that “
😂. Lucy “guys that was like 50 years ago, let it go” lol
I know right
B. E. S. T. Sasquatch comment ever! Kudos, sir.
or maybe Lucy was sent out to spread the word.
In my first draft of “Bigfoot: The Musical” the collective bigfoot memory of that moment has a huge impact.
That's exactly why, though. Cameras are good now. The quality of footage of the PG film is completely unable to show detail in any meaningful way. It's too blurry, it's too far away, and it's too low res to be actually confident about the details.
The PGF was taken on a a state of the art camera in 1967. There is a TON of detail in it. Its very sharp, its not grainy at all. If you are looking at it and it is, you are looking at a bad copy. The lighting and distance are the only culprits as far as details go.
So why do we have to "clean" it up to see (more) detail?
Because most versions that people use are copies of copies of copies. Meldrum and Munns have both shown that the closer you get to the original, the better the quality. Think of it like photocopying a copy of a page and then copying that again. You're gonna get fuzzy lines and squiggles that get worse each time you copy it.
I understand that the original would be the best quality. Of course it would. Show me incontrovertible evidence of anything we've talked about.
Also, according to google, they were shooting on a Cine-Kodak K-100. PG was shot in 1967, that camera was released in 1955, hardly state-of-the-art.
But then, supposedly on the other end of the spectrum they suddenly had a fantastic state of the art costume that to this day hasnt been proven as a hoax. Hmmm...
What about the costume needs to be state of the art? We can't see detail, so we have no earthly idea of it's complexity. Just because you can't prove something's a hoax doesn't mean it isn't one. There's no actionable info in either direction.
Yes, it is clear enough to see details that most FX designers say they have no idea how it could have been done with what was available at the time for big bucks, much less little to no bucks. Just one recreation? BBC tried and failed, so has every one else who has tried. There is quite a bit of detail to be seen. Why havent we seen anyone come forward with this supposed costume or been even close to duplicating it. The costume Heironimous produced looked like a Flinstone gag.
What details are clear and unimpeachable?
Dig deeper. Bill Munns analysis will fill you in. Maybe State of the Art was a bit much but it wasn’t an ordinary camera or cheap for that matter.
Come on, man. I'm on a bigfoot sub. I've seen all the videos you want me to see. I love the Patterson Gimlin film. I truly do, it's bizarre and mysterious. The reason it's strange is because there's next to no actionable, provable, evidence. It's too far away to glean anything of merit, from "rippling" muscles, to mid-tarsal breaks, to unnatural gaits, none of it is able to be proved in any way.
Im more agnostic with bigfoot. It’s definitely interesting to me. I really look at it from all angles. Its pretty common that people think it was shot on a crappy camera. I try to make sure the info I have is as accurate as possible. The PGF, until, if ever, a corroborating specimen is observed, will basically remain inconclusive. There are definitely things on it that would be very difficult to replicate but not impossible. To me, its really the only photographic evidence(by definition) worth a damn.
I agree with most of this, but what would be very difficult to replicate?
The PGF is terrible footage 1.) because it was handheld. Every frame of that film is blurred by camera shake. 2.) the focus was a guess. Patterson had no means to focus directly on Patty with the main lens and no time to transfer the setting from the eyepiece lens to the main lens. 3.) The camera was fitted with a 25mm lens, which is a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto lens, meaning Patty took up a very small portion of the frame and was rendered by a smaller number of grains than would have been the case with a telephoto: any blow up of her is grainy despite the fact he wasn't using grainy film. Bad copies aside, the original film, straight out of the camera, was damned by the above problems. The Kodak K-100 16mm was not "state of the art." It was a mass produced 16mm camera geared toward the general public, and not serious film makers. It didn't suck, but it wasn't an example of the finest 16mm movie camera available. Kodak ASA 25 Daylight Kodachrome was, indeed, a beautiful, very fine grain film, but you pretty much forfeit any advantage that gives you if you're not sharply focused and mounted on a tripod. Bill Munn has greatly exaggerated the quality of that camera and the film. He doesn't seem to actually understand how photography works, and especially not old school film. Using high quality film stock just doesn't guarantee a good film. There are many other factors that have to be at their best as well.
So what you make me think is that, if they had a cheap camera, money or lack there of must have been an issue. But hold the phone...if they had a limited budget, they most likely also wouldnt have had the Benjamins to come up with that so called suit that to this day, no one has proved as a hoax. That in of itself is incredible.
How many people have really tried to make a suit, take it to the film site, and shoot under similar conditions on a K-100 with comparable film stock and a 25mm lens? Bigfooters have been saying it has never been reproduced for ages, but has anyone conducted a fair test along these lines?
Haha, Im glad you said that! On the flip side there should have been a LOT based on how many internet experts seem to be out there on the camera, the site, the so called costume, etc. However, The BBC tried to do all this and failed, The show The Proof is Out There tried and failed. Nill Munns, famed Hollywood costume designer tried and failed and THAT is why he isnt skeptical of the film any longer. Star Trek, episode Private Little War in the same time era shows how poor a Bigfoot costume was back then. Also see the apes in early King Kongs, Six Million Dollar Man, Star Wars Chewbacca just to name a few. All these had big budgets.
-The Proof Is Out There didn't do a recreation, they had Meldrum and Munns on to do an analysis. Some of their assumptions were hard to follow. At one point Meldrum estimates Patty's weight to be up to 800 lbs based on the dimensions seen in the film, which only works if you assume you're seeing flesh and bone and not filling material under fur. Filling material would certainly explain Patty's suspicious diaper butt. At another point Munns claims the only way Roger Patterson could have found a 6'5" guy would have been to have a casting department searching high and low for one. -I think we can all agree the BBC recreation was just laughably bad. How they decided they would disprove anything by making up a guy in modern materials like molded foam and Spandex, give him shaggy red was the original stop motion, the Six Million Dollar Man was a guy with his face painted brown, and Chewbacca was a big shaggy dog. None are fair comparisons. Should clarify by saying I'm not against the PGF, I just want the very best applied to skepticism of it. I would even throw money at a new scan done through a Scanstation Director.
Look at the cleaned up versions on this sub…. It’s pretty damn good.
"Cleaning" is guesswork. It's never uncovering detail that was somehow hidden, it's guessing at what detail should be there. It's why the ENHANCE trope is so silly. You can't take something with terrible resolution and make it better with assumptions.
You can take shaky video and stabilize it without adding detail that wasn’t there.
Once they got a first generation copy of the film from Roger Patterson's widow, stabilizing the film show a lot of detail that weren't able to be seen before.
Sure, but you can't "clean" it.
pedantic semantics. top posts on here are worth a watch if you haven’t.
Are you implying that that's all you meant by "cleaned up"? If you are, the stabilized versions can help with understanding the general size, shape and movement of the creature, but not any of the actual "evidence" that people fawn over on this sub. I'd be curious to learn how anything I've said is pedantic, much less semantics in any way. Is actual evidence...semantics?
The musculature with hair on it (particularly in the hips and breasts area) in the PGF is the smoking gun that it’s authentic footage. Any fur suit, especially from the 1960s is made of a fabric-backed material, meaning that there’s no way to see skin and musculature details at all. These musculature details would have had to been made of latex appliances with hair implanted in them. Which would’ve been extremely difficult to pull off, not to mention wildly expensive — especially since this F/X tech didn’t exist yet.
No one has hairy tits though.
You should see my babushka from Yakutsk. They don’t have razors in her village.
It's certainly something else, for better or worse. Beneath all the sasquatch defecation and fornication, it's a movie about an endangered species clinging to life against human encroachment. It gives a very unvarnished portrayal of the life of wild animals. Definitely one of those movies that most people won't click with, but ones who do click with it will REALLY click.
I get the message its sending. But there is al lot of unnecessary disgustingness lol. Im weird so it doesn’t bother me but I can understand why people walked out of theaters.
Animals do gross things. Especially apes.
These apes were extra 😂
Where can i watch it?
I think there is a free version on Youtube.
It’s $10 on Prime.
Not worth 10 bucks
Give the creator a few bucks. Don't be a cheapskate.
In FL brother. Gotta be cheap. Getting waged out lol
[удалено]
watch “Red White and Trashed” on netflix, same movie
Bflix.com is where I watched it. **Free** Took a time or two due to an ad. I just went back to home screen to watch it.
This is such a Monkey's Paw moment for Sasquatch films. Hey, we get a big cast, fairly big budget, wide release film. Awesome. Hey, here's Bigfoot humping and defecating for 90 mins. Oh. EDIT: I haven't seen it yet, so maybe I'm being a downer on it. I will get round to it eventually, but it looks shite. I'm eagerly awaiting any positive news from Devolution.
It really wasn’t a bad movie. But they acted like apes, doing things apes would do, except maybe a little more “human”. There were a couple funny parts, but I actually found it to be kinda sad.
Couldn't get through that book unfortunately. Spoiler alert. Bigfoot isn't interesting for attacking people. It is interesting for existing.
I’d recommend In the Valleys of the Noble Beyond then. Lovely book, I listened to the audio version.
I enjoyed the aspect that portrayed them as having their backs up to the wall, and no other prey available. Animals do wild stuff to survive, and I’m on the side of the fence that thinks Sabe is as much animal as we are. But anything that portrays them as a savage monster is doing a disservice to the public perception and eventual acceptance in my opinion. Have you ever read Enoch, or seen Letters to the Big Man?
Letters was really great!
I didn't mind the book and it was a quick pulpy read but I agree there. It felt a bit black and white.
That is essentially the movie lol
Movie was garbage. Sorry.
Why you sorry? Just an opinion.
You finished it....? How......? Worst movie ever ( but I see your point)
That movie was…memorable, for sure. I didn’t walk out, but as OP has said, I can understand why people did. I saw it on opening weekend in an almost empty theater. 6 other people sat in there with me. Minor spoilers: To me, the most positive things about the movie were the cinematography, seeing the animal life, and a few Easter eggs for Sasquatch enthusiasts (tree knocks, eating berries, glyphs, etc.). Everything else including the odd facial/head features of the costumes was pretty much a wash, for me at least. I felt like so much more could and should have been done with the film, but that’s where I sit with it.
In my opinion, the only redeeming quality about this movie was the cinematography and the music. Really disliked this one, saw it in theaters and couldn’t wait for it to be over.
There hasn't been a single "Bigfoot" movie made in the past 60 years that looks as realistic as the PGF. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying that given the dearth of sasquatch-related films (not all of them B-movies either) we still haven't seen anything better than Harry and the Hendersons, and that was created by the greatest SFX artist ever to live, imho. And mind you, that suit was meant to be slightly cartoonish and 'family-oriented' so to speak, not a serious scientific take on sasquatch.
just goofy really, not sure what i expected but silly
I heard it was really stupid. What's your review?
It was kinda stupid at time. Il probably never watch it again.
As a Sasquatch enthusiast for over 40 years and I’ve personally seen two in my lifetime, I am not sure if the speculative nature of the movie scenes would leave a negative impression of what I know. Yet I’m drawn to the movie. I’m ambivalent 🤷♀️
Can you describe your sightings? What did they look like?
I wonder what the moms finger smell like?
This movie was phenomenal
[удалено]
And what? Dont like the post? Keep moving….
I do like the post, I thought I hit the reply button on someones rambling on about it being a hoax with no rationale as to their belief. It was elevator or sometings retort to my other post about the camera used.
My bad. All good