The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

[hopkarma]

Plus, I'm not sure how DeAtley would have felt if the pair had released it in Hollywood rather than in his basement.[/QUOTE]
I am doing my best to get read all the fascinating information/theories/opinions here to get up to speed with where y'all are at, without commenting, as my questions/notions may well be addressed if I just keep reading. Besides, if I then have to respond to my responses I will never get caught up; but sometimes I can't help meself. So: for all this talk about the PGF being a fake because P was making a "dramatic doc" (something I have only read here, and npt even all here seem to argee on this) about Bigfoot; the PGF was shot on basically a home movie camera. A 16mm film would never be released in Hollywood, where 70mm at least as the norm, even if it had to be projected at 35mm. If he was actually shooting a film, and not just scouting locations (the story as I know it), he would have had a professional movie camera...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Patterson had undertaken a documentary project to follow up on his book. There's no question about this, and he had solicited financial support for this very purpose.

Patterson was using a 'professional movie camera'.

The 16mm format was the standard professional field filming format at the time for journalists, specialty / educational films, and student / art films. This was the pro format for films anyone intended to lease out or offer for showings in venues other than movie theaters.

The home movie format was 8mm.

 

[hopkarma]

Reading around there seems to be yet another issue in this. Patterson's beard.


All I can say is that in both Patterson appears to be wearing identical clothing, the jeans are obviously not very distinctive, and the shirt isn't especially either, but it appears to be the same. Also the white t-shirt appears in both.

I disagree about the pants - they look very different. One is blue jeans/denim, while the other appears much smoother and darker...

 

[hopkarma]

Patterson had undertaken a documentary project to follow up on his book. There's no question about this, and he had solicited financial support for this very purpose.

Patterson was using a 'professional movie camera'.

The 16mm format was the standard professional field filming format at the time for journalists, specialty / educational films, and student / art films. This was the pro format for films anyone intended to lease out or offer for showings in venues other than movie theaters.

The home movie format was 8mm.

I realize/have known that Patterson was making a doc, just not that it was a "dramatic" one. As for the film format, I was replying to a mention of releasing the film "in Hollywood". That would be in a movie theater, would it not? Student/art films are amature by their very nature, are they not? If you are shooting a scene for a professional, Hollywood, film, you would not shoot in 16mm. If you were scouting locations for such a film, you would shoot in 16mm...

 

[hopkarma]

Inconsistencies aside you should focus on the actual footage.
I have alluded to the reason for the inconsistancies in my previous post but you are not ready for that kind of information apparently. As such you should stick to the film.
Is it real or not?[/QUOTE]
As per your theory - are you aware of the color changes that occur with old film stock? Things are nowhere near as "bloody" as you think...

 

[EnolaGaia]

I realize/have known that Patterson was making a doc, just not that it was a "dramatic" one. As for the film format, I was replying to a mention of releasing the film "in Hollywood". That would be in a movie theater, would it not? Student/art films are amature by their very nature, are they not? If you are shooting a scene for a professional, Hollywood, film, you would not shoot in 16mm. If you were scouting locations for such a film, you would shoot in 16mm...

The film format was determined by the projection venue. Mass market entertainment movies were released in 35mm to suit the larger format projection systems in big theaters. The 16mm format was every bit as 'pro' a format as 35mm. A number of Hollywood releases were originally filmed, or included footage filmed, in 16mm. For example, Clerks, Leaving Las Vegas, and the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker were all filmed in 16mm.

If you were merely scouting locations, it could have been done more cheaply with an 8mm camera. Only the 8mm and 16mm formats supported the use of a handheld camera one could pack into the backwoods.

The Hollywood film industry and its affiliated businesses was a center for all sorts of film productions - including the educational, technical, and smaller venue films dominated by 16mm production at the time.

 

[hopkarma]

You could definitely leave it in the camera if you were planning on shooting something else in the next few days - if you unloaded it completely you'd lose footage on either end just in the process of moving it. You could also risk exposing the last few feet of film you exposed if you try to take it out before it's finished if it's magazine loaded. If it was in camera on metal spools, I wouldn't take that out until it was finished.

Doubtless there is no answer that will satisfy all concerned short of Bigfoot writing a tell-all: "It Wuz Me All Along, Guv'nor: Patty Tells All". I'd love for it to be real, but if it's fake I'd still tip my hat to the suitmaker.

You could open the camera in a dark room, but most likely you would shoot the entire reel before opening the camera. The important footage was on the first reel, so there was really no harm done/difference if reel 2 took another few days to be developed...

 

[hopkarma]

It seems I don't quite have this response thing down yet - sorry! What am I doing wrong that my response is not separating from what I am replying to?

 

[EnolaGaia]

It seems I don't quite have this response thing down yet - sorry! What am I doing wrong that my response is not separating from what I am replying to?

If you want to quote and reply to a post, hit the 'Reply' link in its lower right. This will automatically embed the entire text of the post within QUOTE tags (within brackets).

If you wish to trim down the quoted text, just edit it - but don't remove the QUOTE tags at either end.

If you remove the leading or the closing QUOTE tag (which is what you're apparently doing ... ) the quoted text won't be separated from your own.

 

[hopkarma]

The film format was determined by the projection venue. Mass market entertainment movies were released in 35mm to suit the larger format projection systems in big theaters. The 16mm format was every bit as 'pro' a format as 35mm. A number of Hollywood releases were originally filmed, or included footage filmed, in 16mm. For example, Clerks, Leaving Las Vegas, and the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker were all filmed in 16mm.

If you were merely scouting locations, it could have been done more cheaply with an 8mm camera. Only the 8mm and 16mm formats supported the use of a handheld camera one could pack into the backwoods.

The Hollywood film industry and its affiliated businesses was a center for all sorts of film productions - including the educational, technical, and smaller venue films dominated by 16mm production at the time.

Those movies were filmed in 16mm for a reason - to give it the film that gritty, amature look that only 16mm gives you...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Those movies were filmed in 16mm for a reason - to give it the film that gritty, amature look that only 16mm gives you...

... And 30 - 40 years earlier movies were filmed in 16mm for another reason - it was the format that allowed for low budget filmmakers (e.g., a retired rodeo rider from Yakima) to generate footage of suitable quality for commercial presentation.

 

[oldrover]

Plus, I'm not sure how DeAtley would have felt if the pair had released it in Hollywood rather than in his basement.

I am doing my best to get read all the fascinating information/theories/opinions here to get up to speed with where y'all are at, without commenting, as my questions/notions may well be addressed if I just keep reading. Besides, if I then have to respond to my responses I will never get caught up; but sometimes I can't help meself. So: for all this talk about the PGF being a fake because P was making a "dramatic doc" (something I have only read here, and npt even all here seem to argee on this) about Bigfoot; the PGF was shot on basically a home movie camera. A 16mm film would never be released in Hollywood, where 70mm at least as the norm, even if it had to be projected at 35mm. If he was actually shooting a film, and not just scouting locations (the story as I know it), he would have had a professional movie camera...[/QUOTE]

Hopkarma, the trouble is this thread moved very fast back in the summer and about doubled in size, so I don't know the context for what I wrote there. Put the reply number in, so it'll be easy the to go back and check. As it goes I haven't a clue what I was trying to say in that instance.

 

[Swifty]

Those movies were filmed in 16mm for a reason - to give it the film that gritty, amature look that only 16mm gives you...

.. and joking aside, a previous poster has already mentioned that back in those days (and I agree with the previous poster because the previous poster is correct), 16mm was the dogs bollocks in "the best I can afford unless someone wants to give me rolls of 35mm!" category .. the first stuff I ever filmed was in 1978 (I was under 10 years old) and that was in 8mm and only because Steven's Dad owned an 8mm camera and knew how to use it ..

Sam Raimi used a couple of 16mm's to film The Evil Dead, when it became 'something' they paid extra to have it blown up to 35mm.

 

[oldrover]

I realize/have known that Patterson was making a doc, just not that it was a "dramatic" one. As for the film format, I was replying to a mention of releasing the film "in Hollywood". That would be in a movie theater, would it not? Student/art films are amature by their very nature, are they not? If you are shooting a scene for a professional, Hollywood, film, you would not shoot in 16mm. If you were scouting locations for such a film, you would shoot in 16mm...

Patterson's film was as I recall, to take the form of a journey with three or four men (one of whom was Gimlin as a Native American guide [see photo, second from right])

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011_03_07_archive.html

During the course of which, the conversation between them would lead to dramatic reconstructions of the then most recounted bigfoot encounters.

That definitely qualifies as a drama documentary, probably more edging toward drama than documentary. But I'm struggling to get a source for this at the moment.

 

[hopkarma]

The film format was determined by the projection venue. Mass market entertainment movies were released in 35mm to suit the larger format projection systems in big theaters. The 16mm format was every bit as 'pro' a format as 35mm. A number of Hollywood releases were originally filmed, or included footage filmed, in 16mm. For example, Clerks, Leaving Las Vegas, and the Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker were all filmed in 16mm.

If you were merely scouting locations, it could have been done more cheaply with an 8mm camera. Only the 8mm and 16mm formats supported the use of a handheld camera one could pack into the backwoods.

The Hollywood film industry and its affiliated businesses was a center for all sorts of film productions - including the educational, technical, and smaller venue films dominated by 16mm production at the time.

Also note that the PGF was not even shot with sound; this was not filmed for Hollywood screening...

 

[hopkarma]

Patterson's film was as I recall, to take the form of a journey with three or four men (one of whom was Gimlin as a Native American guide [see photo, second from right])

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011_03_07_archive.html

During the course of which, the conversation between them would lead to dramatic reconstructions of the then most recounted bigfoot encounters.

That definitely qualifies as a drama documentary, probably more edging toward drama than documentary. But I'm struggling to get a source for this at the moment.

I cannot just believe anything that people throw out there, or misconstrue out of an interview with an old man about something that happened decades ago. I have been following the story of the PGF for decades myself, so if there is no source and I've never heard/read it before? Under consideration, but that is all...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Also note that the PGF was not even shot with sound; this was not filmed for Hollywood screening...

Documentaries are voiced over in post-production. There were such things as 16mm cameras with sound tracks (but not the specific model Patterson was using).

More generally ...

You seem to be wrapped around the mistaken impression that any commercial film of that era had to be a big-budget Hollywood production intended for movie houses and therefore limited to 35mm filming.

 

[dr wu]

Two questions for those who are well read on this mystery.....
-What do most animal experts think of the film?
-How did Patterson and Gimlin have a camera with them..what was their original intention in being out there?

 

[oldrover]

Two questions for those who are well read on this mystery.....
-What do most animal experts think of the film?
-How did Patterson and Gimlin have a camera with them..what was their original intention in being out there?

he film was viewed shortly after it was taken bu a group of academics, there was no interest. But some, such as Groover krantz, took it seriously.

As to why they had a camera, they were hoping to film bigfoot, if you believe their version, or staging a hoax if you take the other view.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... As to why they had a camera, they were hoping to film bigfoot, if you believe their version, or staging a hoax if you take the other view.

There's a third variant ...

They were carrying the camera for the purpose of:

- Filming tracks and / or scenes of tracks discovered in late August in that same area

... and / or ...

- Filming Patterson's segment about making plaster casts for the documentary project.

- Collecting scouting shots of locales where they might do further filming

 

[EnolaGaia]

The pre-arranged scenario just does not make sense. There were no cell phones then; someone would have to have gotten to the site, put on the costume, and then waited - maybe for hours - for Patterson and Gimlin to show up. I think this theory can be crossed off the list...

They had plenty of time to set up a pre-arranged encounter. At the very least, they'd been in the area for 6 days as of the Friday (October 20) incident, as explicitly stated by the local newspaper article (which Patterson himself phoned in to the newspaper).

As discussed earlier in this thread, there are inconsistencies and / or ambiguities in Gimlin's subsequent recollections which leave open the possibility they'd either (a) been in the area for longer than the claimed 6 days as of October 20 or (b) made an earlier trip in response to the discovery of tracks in late August.

 

[dr wu]

Oldrover,
Thanks for the reply.....
This was in 1968 right...?
I was not aware there was much interest in Bigfoot that early in time.
It seems like a huge stroke of luck that Bigfoot actually walked by.

 

[oldrover]

Oldrover,
Thanks for the reply.....
This was in 1968 right...?
I was not aware there was much interest in Bigfoot that early in time.
It seems like a huge stroke of luck that Bigfoot actually walked by.

1967 I think. And no bigfoot was still in its infancy. Patterson's book was entitled 'Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?' Pubished in 1966 I think. Showing that in those days the abominable snowman or yeti was more widely known in the U.S. And it's also worth recalling that oil magnate Tom Slick brought Peter Byrne over from the Himalayas, where he'd employed him to hunt yetis, to the States to start hunting bigfoot for him. Early 'bigfoot' was overseen by Byrne, and he employed many of the 'lead' researchers in their early days.

 

[Krepostnoi]

oil magnate Tom Slick brought Peter Byrne over from the Himalayas, where he'd employed him to hunt yetis, to the States to start hunting bigfoot for him.

Do we know what prompted Slick's interest in BHM?

 

[oldrover]

Do we know what prompted Slick's interest in BHM?

A very interesting question, and one I'd not considered before. There's a book by Loren Coleman on this subject.

Slick seems to have been a bit of a good egg, funding medical research etc, and very intelligent too, as well as being it seems something of a Fortean. He went after Nessie, as well as he Yeti, and others. Here's a brief article,

https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily...om-slick-san-antonios-original-monster-hunter

I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest him as the (largely overlooked) father of bigfoot. It was his expeditions/backing that gave those who'd go on to become the 'grand old men of bigfoot' their start.

Of course even them, the likes of Rene Dahinden, and Peter Byrne are long forgotten by most footers today.

 

[dr wu]

I still think it's an amazing 'coincidence' that a group went out to film bigfoot to get evidence and actually came across one .....and got the best film footage known to date.

 

[oldrover]

I still think it's an amazing 'coincidence' that a group went out to film bigfoot to get evidence and actually came across one .....and got the best film footage known to date.

Yeah, a tiny bit of luck. But to me, it's dreadful, it's good for what they had to hand but really? It's a guy in a crap suit.

 

[dr wu]

Yeah, a tiny bit of luck. But to me, it's dreadful, it's good for what they had to hand but really? It's a guy in a crap suit.

So then.....were they all in on the hoax...if not how did the guy in the suit get home without the others knowing what went down..? Did he also have a horse on which he rode home..? And why didn't they chase down the Bigfoot to begin with since they had horses...and presumably rifles..?
What's wrong with this picture...?

 

[lordmongrove]

I don't think the human forehead can fit into the outline of Patty's head with it's sloping brow.

 

[oldrover]

So then.....were they all in on the hoax...if not how did the guy in the suit get home without the others knowing what went down..? Did he also have a horse on which he rode home..? And why didn't they chase down the Bigfoot to begin with since they had horses...and presumably rifles..?
What's wrong with this picture...?

Depends on who you mean by all. If you mean both Patterson and Gimlin, I'd say certainly they were. A question I'd ask is how tall is Patty really? We can't answer that really, but we might get a reasonable estimation range if someone with the right no know and objectivity examined the film. And how tall is Gimlin? Besides which there could have been another man with them, no one saw them leave Bluff Creek, and even if they called in on Al Hodgson on their arrival, it'd be no big problem to see how someone could have been hidden or snuck in then or later. But all that's speculation.

Their version is they didn't chase it straight away because Patterson's horse, and also the pack horse which had the rest of the film on it, had both bolted, and it took them sometime to recover them. After that they did track it for a varying length of time, before loosing it on harder ground/thicker bush.

Again with the rifles, I think the versions differ there a bit too, but as I recall neither men were willing to harm it unless it threatened them.

All of which (bigfoot aside) sounds plausible, but then the real issues start of getting the film back in time.

I don't think the human forehead can fit into the outline of Patty's head with it's sloping brow.

Yeah, but you think thylacines like Joy Division. When everyone knows it's Ian Dury they're mad about.