ThinkerThunker – Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Massacre Theory – Update
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 16th, 2014
There’s a theory going around that a massacre was taking place there at Bluff Creek, back in1967. Here I’ll be taking a look at one piece of evidence.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Putting aside that the “massacre theory” is completely effing STUPID, Thinker Thunker’s knowledge of foliage is sadly lacking:
Leaves can and do turn bright, fiery red.
Yep.
It happened!
No, not the BF massacre but the proverbial Hell freezing over theory. I say that because I actually am in agreement with ThinkerThunker on his conclusion. So I know Hell froze over today.
Sure, ThinkerThunker got a few basic concepts wrong and he is about 3 years late to the party on the BF Massacre Theory. But his overall point is spot on.
The things he got wrong were that we do see fiery “reds” or deeply red colored subjects in nature. Mandors pointed this out perfectly in the above comments with photo.
Adding to that, there are red insects, red feathers, red fruits, and so on and so on. In the Amazon Jungle where there is nothing but green plants, parts of the actual river and it’s tributaries are red. I have witnessed that personally. It is due to tannins from plant matter leaching out into the water and staining it red. Although the water is clear, it has a red tinge, similar to tea but red in color.
The other thing that ThinkerThunker was partially correct and partially incorrect on was when he was talking about the photo labs. Back in the day, some labs did enhance color to make the photos pop. But those labs were in the minority. Typically, labs tried to get the correct color balance on photos. The majority of labs wanted correct color calibration. The problem was that most people are lazy and will not continually calibrate. So opposed to intentional color enhancement, the result was unintentional lack of calibration. That is why most professional photographers would take their film to professional labs. The professional labs intentionally calibrated their equipment on a daily basis.
This is why in the 1960’s most professional photographers sent their film to Kodak directly where color calibration of their processing units took place on a daily basis. Professional photographers or at least I always carried a grey card with me in the 1970s and 1980s. At the beginning of each roll of film, we would take a photo of the gray card. This ensured, that even the less experienced labs could balance their processing machines to ensure it was as close to the actual color rendition as humanly possible. In the late 1980s, professional labs were able to send a color sample of any local lab’s color calibration attempts to Kodak directly. Kodak would then approve that test and give them a thumbs up. If the local lab could not get it correct, they would not give them the OK and they could not take in any processing until the local lab got it right and received Kodak’s approval. This is how it was done.
I believe the still in question was taken from the PG footage. And that the original film was processed by Kodak. So we know that was done at the highest standards. But any still taken from the PG footage was probably processed at the local lab of the photographer taking the still. And that accounts for the incorrect color balance pushing towards the “reds”.
Bottom Line: ThinkerThunker called this one correctly. Even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Have a great weekend everyone!
If the PG Film was shot with Kodachrome movie film the colors would be a bit saturated. Kodak marketed it as better than “life” because it did make pictures look better with the increased saturation.
The processing of Kodachrome was too complicated for most independent labs. The problem with trying to judge the photo is not knowing how it was created. Was it made from the original film, a copy of the film, or a frame grab from computer? Is it a photographic print or computer printer print? Each variable can add another layer crap to the story.
So I guess what I’m saying is that Patty may have been a bit dingier.
PhotoExpert: Unless it’s a digital clock in Zulu Time, in which case it’s only right once!