The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[WallFlowerActive]

Who cares about your Bobcat fetish!?! This thread is about the Patty film.

I'll leave this here for you....

If there is no physical specimen, there is nothing to valid the film.  I know deer are real and Smurfs are a story because I can hunt, capture, study a flesh and bone deer.  I can’t do the same with a Smurf.  Video with no flesh and bone specimen is a story with no real evidence.  It’s just something presented the way somebody else wanted you to see it where they are the gatekeeper to the context and authenticity.

[Kurokage]

If there is no physical specimen, there is nothing to valid the film.  I know deer are real and Smurfs are a story because I can hunt, capture, study a flesh and bone deer.  I can’t do the same with a Smurf.  Video with no flesh and bone specimen is a story with no real evidence.  It’s just something presented the way somebody else wanted you to see it where they are the gatekeeper to the context and authenticity.

I give up with you, You not able to have a open discussion about the possibilities, a dead body or not. You seem to lack the imagination to think 'what if'

All you seem to want to do is measure certain body parts against others or piss further than someone else, to try and prove something?? Such a shame.

As someone else has pointed out. The Patterson-Gimlin Footage is in the same territory as the Roswell incident, or the JFK Zapruder footage. Being so closed minded to even talking about the possibilities seems odd, even stupid, especially on a conspiracy website??

[WallFlowerActive]

I give up with you, You not able to have a open discussion about the possibilities, a dead body or not. You seem to lack the imagination to think 'what if'

All you seem to want to do is measure certain body parts against others or piss further than someone else, to try and prove something?? Such a shame.

As someone else has pointed out. The Patterson-Gimlin Footage is in the same territory as the Roswell incident, or the JFK Zapruder footage. Being so closed minded to even talking about the possibilities seems odd, even stupid, especially on a conspiracy website??

Yeas of reveal after reveal of Bigfoot community fraud and incompetence at providing physical specimens.

Seems there is only evidence when a select few control the narrative.  

Lots of documented proof of con, zero proof of providing a flesh and blood Bigfoot specimen.  But there were those two guys that bought a gorilla suit in ice as proof of Bigfoot.

[Kurokage]

Yeas of reveal after reveal of Bigfoot community fraud and incompetence at providing physical specimens.

Seems there is only evidence when a select few control the narrative.  

Lots of documented proof of con, zero proof of providing a flesh and blood Bigfoot specimen.  But there were those two guys that bought a gorilla suit in ice as proof of Bigfoot.

Then go made your own thread about it, like I've said several times already, this is about the Patterson-Gimlin Footage. All you've done is derail the thread and rant about Bobcats and no dead body of bigfoot.

How are a select view controlling all the reports of sightings, and other circumstantial evidence?? You just seem to want to argue for arguments sake.

[putnam6]

Who cares about your Bobcat fetish!?! This thread is about the Patty film.

I'll leave this here for you....

Im just entertaining the possibility, I couldn't care less about how another thinks or feels about the topic.

All Im suggesting I'm open to the possibility and give some credence to the footprints and thousands of eyewitness accounts, and especially the serious researchers, historical or otherwise. 

It's funny on the Bigfoot forums, I come off as skeptical AF, but here on uptight and highstrung DI Im considered a knower, just because I entertain the possibilty.

All the while, elsewhere on DI, we have loads of threads about all kinds of shit that is highly unlikely to ever occur.

Yet it's discussed as if its occurrence is imminent if we don't stop A, B, C from doing X, Y, Z

It reminds me of FAE and fairies, which Im skeptical AF about, so when I stumble upon a believer, I can listen but rarely comment because my default is skeptical AF  

But I can listen to and contemplate the stories without feeling the need to run roughshod over thier thoughts and beliefs.

I don't know thier life experiences.

[ArMaP]

 (photo archivist and PGF historian Todd Gatewood, whose frame-by-frame restoration of the original 1967 film reveals stunning detail hidden for decades.) Comments taken from the Youtube video.

This Todd Gatewood claims to have the original footage??

https://mysterylores.com/news/lost-media...m-footage/

[Video: https://youtu.be/dPMvaVk7Mzw?si=u2onpNa7cVMZ4_qW]

Great, another video.
(I hate videos)

[ArMaP]

Yeah, it's meant to show the bending of the foot across the center/middle, which humans don't have.

Did you read my post or did you read something else?

I said we don't see the foot touch the ground (on that clip), how can we know if it bends or not when doing it?

[Maxmars]

Great, another video.
(I hate videos)

It's now worse than ever...
Monetized "meta" productions are often not worth the time...

I wish other members would give us a synopsis and breakdown of points covered in the video itself.
I hate watching some production for 20 minutes only to discover the point coverage I was specifically interested in was only for 15 seconds somewhere towards the end...

[Bush Master]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[ArMaP]

I posted a new(ish) video from 'Cabin in the Woods' back on page 4, who's a Youtuber. His video features insights from photo archivist and PGF historian Todd Gatewood, whose frame-by-frame restoration of the original 1967 film is revealing detail hidden for decades. I hope that this can bring some new insight into the film and thus Patty.

Here's another one from him about the restoration progect.
[Video: https://youtu.be/9ulPTDmqZjc?si=bX8HZ3I1F45QJWtc]

I stopped watching that video on page 4 (it's the same you posted above) when I saw the supposed image that shows the individual hairs and even eyelashes!

Reality is not like a CSI episode, in which you can zoom infinitely and always get the same level of detail.

He says that film is not like digital, that digital cannot be zoomed in, while film can, but he fails to mention that film also has limits.

I found a couple of days ago a report about the technical aspects of the film, and in it they talk about the limitations of the camera and film. The numbers for the resolution of the film used, Kodachrome II, change according to the source, but if we use the highest value, 65 line pairs per mm, a frame that is 7.62 mm high can only have 495 line pairs (or 990 lines).
Now, if the image of bigfoot takes approximately 1/7 of the frame, that would translate to 495/7=70 line pairs (or 170 lines). If we consider an height of 6 feet (1829 mm) then the smallest detail we could see on bigfoot would be 1829mm/70 line pairs = 26.13 mm, slightly above one inch.

From the numbers above we can see that the smallest detail is around the size of bigfoot's eyes, not their eyelashes.

PS: I watched part of another video in which that supposed photo archivist talked about the TIFF images he uses and talked only about image size, not colour depth, which makes me think he may not know what he should be doing.