PDA

View Full Version : "controversial" kinematic analysis



Jeff Meldrum
03-10-2003, 05:34 AM
A number of you have very politely pointed out the recent media coverage of the death of Mr.Ray Wallace and the claims made by his family that he was responsible for the creation of "Bigfoot" and the insinuation that the Patterson-Gimlin footage was hoaxed. Mrs. Wallace admitted to donning a fur suit in order to be filmed by her husband, but rather than show the ridiculously transparent films and photos that resulted from that exploit, the media routinely cut to the more compelling clip of the Patterson footage, leaving the viewer with the impression that this was the footage of Mrs. Wallace. In addition, Ray had claimed to have told Roger Patterson where to go to look for Bigfoot, taken by some as a sign that Ray pulled one over on Roger. On questioning Ray, it was clear to investigators early on that he was actually unfamiliar with the site or the general area. His own family has very frankly and openly acknowledged that Ray had nothing to do with the Patterson film and th
ey do not know who or "what" it depicts.

I don't wish to belabor this issue further. Those who are interested in the facts about the Wallace stody can read further about it and see the carved feet that are supposed to be responsible for the hundreds of documented footprints from across the western US and Canada, at www.BFRO.net.

The proliferation of disinformation is one of the reasons I was motivated to broach this subject on this list. My point is simply, rumors of "Bigfoot's" death have been greatly exaggerated. The question of the nature of the subject of the Patterson film remains very much alive after 35 years and it seems odd that with our current state of knowledge and instrumentation an informed concensus has not been arrived at.

One member of this list was involved in an analysis of the film early on in its history. His final conclusions were hampered by uncertainty about the frame speed. Roger was using a rented camera at the time and thought it was set at 24 fps, but when taking the film out of the camera noted the dial set at 16 fps. He was uncertain when or if it was moved from one setting to another. Through subsequent analysis, several things point to the slower frame speed: 1) footage of his partner on horseback, taken just prior to the encounter was clearly taken at 16 fps, 2)the nature of the motion blurring by the hand-held camera indicates 16 fps, and 3) the correlation of walking and running speeds of the cameraman with the vertical oscillations of the camera frame indicate 16 fps.
The analyst concluded that "The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the film speed was 16 or 18 fps."

I can make a video copy of the film available to interested researchers with the expectation that a serious analysis will be undertaken and the conclusions reported. Contact me directly and we can make arrangements.

Sincerely,

Jeff Meldrum

---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------