This is something that I'd like to get a few opinions on, given the fact that we now have several controversial videos out there to mull over.

No one, it seems, uses film anymore because video is much less expensive overall and has pretty much replaced film cameras as the medium of choice. The only reason the Patterson footage has been so thoroughly examined (even after over 30 years) is that it was captured on 16mm film (a relatively large format) with at least a decent lens and therefore offers pretty high resolution. None of the videos that have surfaced, including the Freeman footage (which was at fairly close range) have even marginal res. More the deficiency of the video process, I would think, than the operator. Blowing up tape frames and trying to digitize them is an exercise in futility - at least to date.

My question is: Will any video, save one taken at EXTREMELY close range and with a very steady hand, ever be good enough in quality to convince the objective investigator. I know that there has been a lot of talk here about the notion that photography alone, whether video or still, can never prove Biggie's existence because graphic manipulation has become so sophisticated. But in the case of video footage, so far nothing has been clear enough to be worth progressing beyond idle speculation.

I plan to spend several weeks this summer on my own little jaunt (with my 27-year-old son, who is also an avid BF fan) and I will be taking along 2 fairly expensive digital camcorders. I am prepared to come back with nothing, of course, but it'd KILL me to come back with 10 minutes of video that I knew myself to be absolutely authentic and then have it summarily tossed out because video cannot stack up to a film image.

I'm not sure of the advantages of using film vs. magnetic video tape, but here is a thread discussing the merits of film over digital.
Although I think that stills may be easier to manipulate than a moving image, any digital image is going to raise suspicions, IMO.

But, if you get that money shot I'll sign up for a screening!!

If you are serious about trying to capture an image of a Sasquatch and you want people to believe you when you tell them it's authentic then I suggest you forget any type of newer camera, especially anything digital. If you want your film to stand up under the microscope, my advise would be to shoot it using the oldest camera and using the oldest type film you can find, providing both the film and camera are in perfect working order.

Anyone with a computer and photo software can alter digital images and even the images captured with newer video cameras are able to be faked without too much difficulty. On the other hand, the images captured using older types of still and motion film cameras shooting with older film stocks are much more difficult to alter and usually leave behind signs that they have been altered.

Even after 35 plus years, skeptical film experts who claim that the PG film is a fake still haven't been able to prove their claim. Maybe it's real (I think it is) and maybe it's not but the fact remains that people still have to take it seriously. I think it would give the film more credibility if you used a camera from the 60's because experts know how hard it would be to alter it and just what signs to look for to verify if the film had been altered or not.

This is just my advise but you will have to decide for yourself exactly what type of cameras to bring with you. Seek out advise from other people too and weigh your options before leaving on your trip.

Good luck!!!

It can't be THAT easy or we'd be seeing lots of Patty imitations. Heck, doing one would be a class assignment for student video editors.

And aren't there clues in the clumps of pixels left after an artificial video has been created? Paul?

Thanks for the replies -- trying to figure out what to take with me this summer!

Not sure I understand why an older camera and older film stock would make any difference. Film itself hasn't changed much in the last fifty years, other than improvements in graininess and latitude. Film cameras work the same now as they did way back when, too, other than more bells and whistles usually designed to make it easier for point-and-shoot types. I once made my living with cameras (13 years as a portrait/wedding photog), back before anyone had ever dreamed of digital photography.

That's not to say I'm an expert in this day and age.

I'm afraid I'm stuck with video, when it comes to moving pictures. Can't afford to mess with a 16mm camera and film. I think if I was like some of you out there (able to spend weeks and months every year in search of our Friends) I'd get one, though.

I just thought that if you shot it on film with an older motion picture camera it would be less likely to be viewed as a possible hoax. Just about everyone today uses video cameras that record in VHSC or 8mm formats or the newer digital format. Since just about everybody seems to be using these formats exclusively most people in the film duplication and editing business probably have equipment specially designed for these formats only. It probably would be hard to find someone who would have an older machine capable of editing the older "reel type" films of the 60's and 70's since there is no demand anymore for film in this format. Therefore it would be much less likely, for this older film stock shot on an older camera, to be considered a hoax.

At least that is what I was thinking when I made my post.

Gotcha. I agree with that premise now that I'm clear that you were talking about motion picture cameras. Besides that, film -- as mentioned before -- would actually be a better medium both for quality and also for being less easily "played with".

I might just start looking for an affordable 16mm on eBay (don't think using good old super 8mm would be wise: frames just too stinking tiny).

It can be done using digital, you just have to think in advance about the chain of evidence - having two cameras is perfect, since you can use the second camera to film the first camera (after you have finished filming bigfoot of course).

About a year ago I typed up a guide on the ideal way to film a bigfoot using digital cameras - i'll see if I can find the post and reproduce it here.

In a nutshell, you need to be able to demonstrate that no manipulation has taken place.

Okay, here is my original post.

I was thinking about this recently, whilst putting together plans for my field trip - just suppose I did get lucky, and film a bigfoot just like Patterson did - with todays editing facilities, how would I prove that I hadn't edited the video or made it using clever special effects.

Since I work in the criminal investigation field, I started thinking about the best way to prove that I had taken a video on a particular day, regardless of its content.

There will be two accusations - one will be that I staged it with a man in a monkey suit, the second will be that I edited the video.

There are a number of problems with this, because it will be recorded onto DV, so the image *could* be manipulated later, and therefore I would have to prove that it wasn't.

lets deal with the man in the monkey suit accusation first.

The only way I can see to help with this is to immediately repeat the sequence with a known target - ie. get your companion of a known height to retrace the movements that the BF took, so that a good size comparison can be made.

Take good measurements at the scene, and good footprint casts (if there are any).


As for proving that the tape could not have been altered - this is actually easier to deal with provided you think about it in advance.

You need two camcorders - bear with me, because the method sounds a little complicated

Firstly, use only brand new tapes.

Film your bigfoot. (this is the easy part - ha ha!)

Do not stop the tape recording !!!

Whilst the tape is still rolling, start videoing your companion, whilst he is videoing you, so that the two tapes can be syncronised at a later date.

Turn on a portable radio, preferably a news station, and record the news for the day onto both camcorders.

Take the front page of a current newspaper, and tear it in half (on camera)

Take the tape out of the first camera, making sure that your companion is videoing you, and place the tape into a clear plastic bag along with one half of the front page of a current newspaper (must have a date on it).

Seal the bag with a tamper evident seal (these are the numbered evidence seals that the police use - if anyone wants some, I can supply a handful)

Stop filming with the second camera, and place the tape into a second bag with the second half of the newspaper - again, seal this tape with a tamper evident seal.


Hotfoot into town, and find a sheriff or judge - explain that you need to provide evidence that these tapes were sealed when they saw them in order to confirm the date - get them to write a statement, and get *them* to seal the bags again.

The same could be done by posting the tapes to yourself, making sure they are sent by some recorded method to prove the date. Do not open the envelope when it arrives. (mind you, I wouldnt entrust my tape to the postal service)


Whilst it is complicated, what you have in effect done is..

1) recorded the date and time that the event took place (radio)
2) confirmed by way of the newspaper that it could not have happened any earlier than you said it did.
3) proven by way of the second tape that the first tape was taken straight out of the camera and sealed,
4) by way of the sherrif/judge/notorary public figure, that the bag was sealed on the day they saw it.



This should disprove any accusations that you edited the tape afterward etc.

What do you do with the tape now ? I would recommend taking it to a digital forensics lab - your local police might be prepared to handle it for you - failing that, email me and I will put you in touch with your nearest reputable digital forensics company.

Didn't see this - yes - in most cases there will be telltale signs that the image has been manipulated.

Use the instructions above and you can circumvent any suggestion of digital evidence.

Take along a cheap Polaroid too, you can't manipulate the original there. It will add authenticity to what you show on Digital. Film cameras still produce negatives which can be altered, then re-exposed on a new piece of blank film, making them appear to be original negatives, complete with the alteration.