Patterson track...

Patterson track...

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 1st, 2010, 7:31 pm #1

I guess this must be patty's track but what is interesting are the boot prints from the person casting the track...the boot tracks are as deeply embedded in the substrate as the creatures track...more then likely the person casting the track jumped off a nearby stump to leave these deep boot impressions...just another lie coming from Bluff Creek...are you surprised?...

Quote
Like
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

October 1st, 2010, 8:03 pm #2

Assuming it's legit:
Considering the size of the BF foot, wouldn't it distribute weight over a greater area, thereby not necessarily sinking as deeply as one might think?

As the creature is in motion, its weight is not resting in one spot for a great deal of time.

In the meantime you have a person wearing thin, hard, boots - standing/squatting at one spot (and perhaps shifting feet/weight as he twists left and right) as he moves soil around the print, and pours plaster into the print.....thereby creating a deeper impression in the soil (note the deeper impression on the right whereas the other prints are much more shallow).

Also, how deep is the print? If the shoe prints at the left are....say 1/2 to 3/4" deep.....and the BF print is 1.5-2.00" deep - that'd take a pretty big jump to recreate considering that - even with a jump off a stump - you'd still only have a human's weight....distributed over the greater surface area of a fake BF foot.


Assuming it's fake:
On The Other Hand - the soil around the print looks almost like a bad movie special effect of mud flying up under the weight of something heavy. Don't know if a legit large creature would cause that effect unless the soil/mud was much wetter when the print was made? Or, was soil moved, by human hands, around a fake print for the purpose of pouring the plaster?

Another observation - there seems to be a shadow at the toes of the cast. Was soil removed and the cast tested for rigidity prior to lifting? Or, has the cast been placed into the ground? (which - if one wanted to claim hoaxing - one could say the dirt around the cast was dug up and placed around the hole....and the cast placed into that hole).


So what's the deal:
Without seeing a few moments of film before/after, it's difficult to offer any additional thoughts/observations.

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 1st, 2010, 8:27 pm #3

According to reports:...Gimlin's 1500 hundred pound horse didn't leave as deep an impression as the creature...Gimlin jumped off a stump making little to no impressions with his boots...the creature left huge deep impressions where a horse and man jumping from a stump left scuff marks...

From these casts, possibly and more then likely hoaxed, gives the impression that these creatures walked flat footed without a heel to toe gait...see MK's YouTube on Patty's walk...clearly heel to toe...if it's heel to toe there will be a heel strike and toe/ball push and not a simple hole in the ground where the creature stepped...looking at these possible hoaxed tracks Meldrum claims these creatures when stepping their entire foot strikes the ground at the same time...Meldrum uses his education in an attempt to convince and misrepresent...he's not fooling any of us old timers...we know what he's full of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUXKcgvxFo
Quote
Like
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

October 2nd, 2010, 12:32 pm #4

I guess this must be patty's track but what is interesting are the boot prints from the person casting the track...the boot tracks are as deeply embedded in the substrate as the creatures track...more then likely the person casting the track jumped off a nearby stump to leave these deep boot impressions...just another lie coming from Bluff Creek...are you surprised?...

Looks like a fabricated 'pour' to me.
Wet sand doesn't splatter up and out of the hole of the track like that.

This could be the kneeling photo of Roger, clean shaven or other.

Notice that it has been sepia toned? If not sepia toned, then it's a late night flash camera job.

Good eye to catch the pony track, Monster Hunter. Good eye.

This is a still from the "alleged" second roll, the one they said mysteriously disappeared.
Quote
Share

Saskfoot
Saskfoot

October 2nd, 2010, 12:50 pm #5

According to reports:...Gimlin's 1500 hundred pound horse didn't leave as deep an impression as the creature...Gimlin jumped off a stump making little to no impressions with his boots...the creature left huge deep impressions where a horse and man jumping from a stump left scuff marks...

From these casts, possibly and more then likely hoaxed, gives the impression that these creatures walked flat footed without a heel to toe gait...see MK's YouTube on Patty's walk...clearly heel to toe...if it's heel to toe there will be a heel strike and toe/ball push and not a simple hole in the ground where the creature stepped...looking at these possible hoaxed tracks Meldrum claims these creatures when stepping their entire foot strikes the ground at the same time...Meldrum uses his education in an attempt to convince and misrepresent...he's not fooling any of us old timers...we know what he's full of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUXKcgvxFo
A horse's weight is distributed over four legs. Their tracks will not be as deep
as a two legged person carrying the same weight.

Another point, Gimlin was riding Heironimus' horse, Patterson was riding a 500 lb Welsh pony named appropriately, "Peanut" so small that 2 of them fit in his Volkswagen van.

To me, these tracks have the earmark of a small pony not a 15hh horse which should weigh 1000 lbs
not 1500 lbs; that would be the weight of a 16hh horse.

The pack horse was also a pony.
Quote
Share

J
J

October 2nd, 2010, 11:06 pm #6

Looks like a fabricated 'pour' to me.
Wet sand doesn't splatter up and out of the hole of the track like that.

This could be the kneeling photo of Roger, clean shaven or other.

Notice that it has been sepia toned? If not sepia toned, then it's a late night flash camera job.

Good eye to catch the pony track, Monster Hunter. Good eye.

This is a still from the "alleged" second roll, the one they said mysteriously disappeared.
About the second roll of film.

According to the story Patterson rode up to bluff creek on a horse. The camera was in his saddle bag. I assume the film was loaded in the camera? If so then there should be slippage between each take because that camera had a rough ride bouncing around in a saddle bag up a mountain.

But,that is not my question...

My question is did Roger Patterson have the proficiency to change film in a 16mm camera in the field?

Today's camcorders are easy, you just pop out a cassette and put another in. However, in 1967 film came on reels and you would never pop it out in the daylight, you would overexpose the film.

To change film in the field you would have to have a "changing bag". This is a little black bag with gloves sewn into it so you can put the camera inside, zip it up, change the film, then take it out so the film isn't exposed to light.

While the camera and film is in the bag you have to load the film "by touch." You cannot see it.
You reach in and by touch alone you remove the reel, put it in it's canister, open a new canister of film, insert it and feel your way around the camera to thread the film properly.

It takes some practice to do this. Roger rented this camera. Did he know how to change the film in the field? Did he have a changing bag? Has a changing bag ever been mentioned?

If he could not load film, and had no changing bag then how did they shoot another roll of film?

A pro can change film in their sleep. But it is one of the most difficult things for an amateur to master, especially if they have not shot much on location film. It takes practice. Anyone can do it if they have practice and take the time to learn the procedure.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2131644_change- ... e-bag.html

I'm just having difficulty believing a rodeo cowboy who rented a camera for the weekend and apparently had never shot 16mm before was proficient enough to change the camera film without screwing it up or exposing the film accidentally.

If you look at the PG film, the very beginning has a few seconds of non-exposed film. Indicating the film was threaded properly. This is the length of film that went from the exposure area to the take-up reel. Images appear after this point.

So, how good was RP? Had he had any training? Was there a pro there to change the film for him? Not Gimlin, he said he never touched the camera.

Just wondering...
J.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 3rd, 2010, 1:27 pm #7

Patterson crawled under a poncho changing the film...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 3rd, 2010, 4:30 pm #8

How difficult would it be for Patterson to change film underneath a poncho?...
Quote
Like
Share

J
J

October 3rd, 2010, 8:22 pm #9

The difficulty is you can't see the film or the magazine to load it in. You have to do it by touch. You also need complete darkness, which is why film shooters use the bag. Could you do it under a poncho? Sure, if you can get into it and keep it dark inside. The least little light on the film will expose it. The PG film does not show any areas that may have been exposed to light, unless it was edited out.

I doubt a pro would trust a poncho or any cloth that may let in some light. An amateur may not care and take the chance. However, If I just shot the first real clear footage of a Bigfoot in the wild, I wouldn't trust screwing it up by diving under a poncho to change the film.

Also in a bag if you drop it there isn't a chance it may spill out and get exposed to light. Remember you are fumbling with it in the dark. It takes skill.

In my opinion you would be crazy to change the film in anything that could possibly cause it to be ruined. But that's me. If Roger rented a camera and had no real clue how to properly use and handle a camera like this then yeah, he may have been crazy enough to risk it. Or ignorant.

Again, I'll go back to the point that he was shooting a documentary. He intended to make money from his show. I assume he had to have some basic training before attempting such a project? I have to assume he, at the very least knew how to handle a camera, and changing film would be a major "Film 101" topic.
Keeping in mind he was not up there shooting a home movie. If this was the case than a little 8mm would have been easier to handle, the film is in a cassette. 16MM was considered a lower end pro system. You had to have some skills to use it.

So that is my question, how dumb was he? Or did he have any training. Or did he have help?

If he did change the film under a poncho he is one lucky fellow, a multitude of things could have gone wrong that would have resulted in us never seeing that film. What if he dropped it? What if the wind blew the poncho up? What if he jammed it and needed to take it out, lay the film down, and fix the camera? What if the film got stuck and had to be re-threaded? You need to be able to carefully change the film. Plus you need a clean environment to work in, a bag is usually clean. A poncho?

Not to keep driving this point, but they are in the woods on a sand bar. Sand gets into everything.
Grime and dirt or fibers from the poncho may concern me even more than light leakage.

I will say this. If John Green was a semi-pro or a pro, and had entered film festivals with his projects, I seriously doubt he would change film under a poncho. Especially a film of this importance. You just wouldn't do it unless you are so familiar with the specific camera you use that you feel you can get it changed with no issues. IF John Green was there I don't think he would chance it. However, he would likely have the skill to pull it off.

There are pros that are very confident with their equipment and can change film quickly and under difficult situations. I cannot fathom that Roger, with a rental camera, and little to no field experience would be so confident.

Ask any wildlife photographer from the period and they will all tell you a changing bag was standard equipment.

Personally, i just don't see Roger being able to. But that's just me.
J.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

October 3rd, 2010, 10:34 pm #10

Patterson rented the camera in May of 1967 so he did have time to become familar with loading and removing film...IMO...the second roll or the roll of film showing the track line was done at a complete different date...I can't imagine filming the creature, chasing and catching horses, reloading the camera, trailing the creature 3 1/2 miles, making the 3 1/2 miles back to the film site, riding another 2 miles back to camp for plaster, returning and casting the tracks and still have enough day light to take a film of the track line...

Depending on how thick the plaster and wet determines drying time of the casts...as deep as these tracks appear a minimum of more then several hours needed for drying time...then we have Patterson posing with the tracks...not one picture but several pictures and what's kind of funny...he's clean shaven when he is casting the tracks but has a growth of beard during his pose for the pictures...BTW...the poured casts appear to have quite a bit of water being more or less poured instead of plaster being placed inside the track and spread by hand...

I can understand why a few would simply take their word for what's reported simply because of lack of experience in the field...



Quote
Like
Share