Re: Bigfoot found???
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
When was the Patterson film debunked? What the heck? This is the same film that was just put through the ringer on an A&E Bigfoot special. the man in the suit theory was thrown out because of the unusual way the creature walked. THROUGH THE RINGER!!
|
Problem with the Patterson film is that Patterson couldn't tell you WHAT SPEED THE CAMERA WAS SET TO WHEN BIGFOOT WAS FILMED. If it's played at one speed, you get an amazing mythical creature captured live, at another, clearly a human in a suit. *
A&E stands for "Arts & Entertainment", and also features some dub show about psychic kids or some other garbage. The miss-information fed out on these type of shows (See NBC and PRIMETIME LIVE's top 10 unexplaned UFO encounters and the PHOENIX LIGHTS) for rating and advertising dollars.If they failed to comment on the filming speed, then they did a piss poor job. And if they did comment on the filming speed, and still say it's authentic, then they came to (IMO) a poor conclusion.
*
Filming speed
One fact which complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His
Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. The speed of the film is important because, as Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike
man's gait."
[19] Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct.
Krantz argues, based on an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known, a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. Based on this analysis, Krantz argues that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[w]e may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."
Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."
[20] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."
[21]
Others (including primatologist John Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz
[22]) have expressed a different opinion, contending it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."
[23] More recently, skeptic and
University of Florida anthropologist David Daegling has asserted that even at 16 frame/s the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"]."
[24]David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt
When anthropologists David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt examined the film, they concluded it was impossible to conclusively determine if the subject in the film is nonhuman, and additionally argued the flaws in the studies by Krantz and others. They noted problems of uncertainties in subject and camera positions, camera movement, poor image quality, and artifacts of subject. They concluded: ”Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence.”
[29]
