Interview with: Rick Noll

Who is Rick Noll?

I find that, while many people may read Rick Noll’s comments on various message boards, many do not really know much about this veteran Bigfoot researcher. By his own account, he has been in this field of research since 1969. Rick Noll has worked with the likes of Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, John Green, Bob Gimlin - you name the person and he has probably met him or her.

Mr. Noll’s interest in this began shortly after some nearly tragic events in his life as a child. In order to take his mind off what had happened, a cousin started telling him Bigfoot stories; thus began a lifelong fascination with an animal that, to this day, he has yet to see.

If I had to guess, I would say Rick Noll’s first love is photography, which is apparent if you look at the pictures he has taken over the years. However, his interest in the field of Bigfoot research is something he takes very seriously. He is always looking for new ideas to apply in the field, examining what hasn't previously been tried that might be successful.

Something else many do not know about Mr. Noll is that he is very encouraging of new researchers in this field. I probably wouldn't be as active as I am if it were not for his encouragement. He took my interest seriously and has always been supportive, and I find he is that way with many of the researchers I know. Mr. Noll is always available to those with questions or concerns, or those who just want to talk about the animal. He will be the first to tell you that he does not have all the answers, and sometimes he will have you look for those answers yourself, but shouldn't we be willing to do a little work on our own? I appreciate the support and advice and the push to "do it myself" given by Mr. Noll, as I am not afraid to do a little work.

I would say that, in this field of research, precious few know as much about photography as Mr. Noll, and only a handful of investigators have been as involved in as many "high profile" sightings. Rick Noll has done work on films such as the Patterson/Gimlin film (copy supplied by John Green) and the Memorial Day footage, among others. I'm not sure how many researchers are out there who have the kind of information Rick Noll has and comparable experience and background to support their conclusions.

Mr. Noll prefers to work behind the scene most of the time. He likes to encourage and help - but he is a very humble man and is uncomfortable with speaking publicly about or engaging in controversies. If Rick Noll is going to talk about anything in the field of Bigfoot research, he would rather it be about the species itself or photography issues, not the periodic drama that inevitably ensues.

Unfortunately, recent events have put Mr. Noll in the spotlight.

Recently I posted about M.K. Davis and his work "stabilizing" the Patterson/Gimlin film, and now that news has broken via Cryptomundo. However, had it not been for previous work done by Rick Noll, the odds are that we wouldn't have the celebrated gif file provided by M.K. Davis. I think the commentary provided by Mr. Noll in this regard is very important.

The simple truth on this issue is this: Mr. Davis took images painstakingly acquired by Rick Noll and (after making his gif file) passed them off as his own. Such behavior is wrong. I won’t help perpetuate such a myth and would defend anyone who had their work taken from them. I believe it is the right thing to do, but as I’ve observed, it’s funny what some will defend and what they won’t. It seems to me this should be a "no brainer."

I often wonder, how much of this research is really about documenting the animal?

This field is really no different than most, I guess. Sometimes it seems like the level of backstabbing and drama is something "Days of Our Lives" writers couldn't come up with. When hurtful or wrong things happen, they should be made right. With regard to the current situation, I don't see this happening, as M.K. Davis has dropped out of sight since his comments about the Mewuk people of California (in relation to his “Patty” theory) and the leak of bad research on M.K.'s part (pertaining to his "cradle boarding" discussions).

Now this.

Please click THIS link to see what a "Stabilized" video looks like (scroll down the page and click on the pictures of the cars). Click THIS link, and compare the work done by M.K. Davis - do you see the difference?

I'm sure M.K. Davis supporters will not appreciate this article, and that is well within their rights. But, it’s also within my rights, and especially Rick Noll's, to get the truth of the issue out so that everyone can read the WHOLE STORY.

I will post responses in a later blog by some who are named in this article. First, however, I want the readers to understand that Rick Noll has forgiven Chris Murphy for his role in this matter. Time sometimes heals wounds, but first you must be big enough to apologize. Chris Murphy did exactly that. M.K. Davis has not.

Again, let’s be clear on the central issue being discussed here: there would be NO gif (or what M.K. Davis calls a "stabilization") had it not been for the work done by Rick Noll. PERIOD. Is Mr. Noll going to shout this from the mountains of Washington State? No. He isn't that kind of person.

Quote by M.K. Davis:

"I would like to state emphatically that I have never worked with any stabilizations other than my own.”M.K. Davis."

Posted on Nov 27, 2006, 9:42 PM

Well, then, I have some questions, since a certain message board will not allow dissenting opinion. (Yes, they very quickly stopped allowing my posts after I questioned the people on that board who were, yet again, not giving out factual information as to this issue).

1. What exact process did you use to create this "stabilization"?

2. Did you use a copy of the film (or the original)? If so, from whom did you get it?

3. How long did it take you to complete your work?

4. Did you have Mrs. Patterson's express consent prior to publishing your "stabilization” on the Internet?

5. Did you have a conversation with Rick Noll prior to posting your gif file on the Internet? If so, what did he say?

6. What are your thoughts on the controversy over your use of Rick Noll's work?

It was interesting to see that M.K. apparently chose his words in the above quote very carefully. While M.K. Davis did create a "moving" rendition of these Patterson film frames, he worked with images that belonged to someone else. And, as of last week (noted by the date on that comment), M.K. Davis is still not giving due credit to Rick Noll.

Frankly, I do not expect to be hearing from M.K. Davis, even though this is something I am sure he knew would come out eventually. Since he refuses to even admit he may have misspoken about other issues, why would he want to defend himself in this? He probably won’t. At this point, I'm not even sure there is a defense for him.

Please read this article with an open mind and put yourself in the position of Mr. Noll. Think hard about this issue. Would you want your work to be taken without permission and to have others see such behavior as acceptable? This is an issue that potentially affects us all, regardless of whether you’re an independent researcher or part of an organized group.

I was always taught to "Treat others as you wish to be treated.” Therefore I cannot condone this type of behavior by anyone. If I had stolen an article from Cryptomundo and posted it on this blog, taking full credit for it, would the owners of Cryptomundo have every right to be angry with me? Absolutely, and I would expect nothing less. This is no different. Just because M.K. expanded on Rick Noll's work does not make using the images acceptable.

Read the following interview and make up your own mind. Just remember, this kind of thing could affect you someday.

Interview with Rick Noll.

Melissa: Please tell the readers about yourself.

Rick Noll: I was born in Bremerton, Washington and have lived here in western Washington most of my life, though I did live in California, Georgia, Florida and Switzerland for a while.

I have traveled quite a bit around the world for things other than Sasquatch research, but I did just get back from peninsular Malaysia investigating claims there of having new pictures of Bigfoot-like creatures.

Melissa: Are you a member of any organized group(s) or are you an independent researcher? Or both?

Rick Noll: I have mostly been on my own in this research, teaming up with just a few individuals. I did join an organization once but it didn’t really work out for me or them.

Melissa: How long have you been active in the field of Bigfoot research?

Rick Noll: I have been active in Bigfoot research since about 1971. I was introduced to the subject in 1969, near Bluff Creek, California. I was so enthralled with the subject that I just had to meet with the people who were really active in the subject: Rene Dahinden, Grover Krantz, John Green and Peter Byrne.

Melissa: Have you noticed any changes in this field of research over the years?

Rick Noll: Yes… there are so many people now claiming to be looking for this animal that it begs the question even more so now, “Why we haven’t found one?”

Melissa: What has been your primary focus in this field of study? Please explain.

Rick Noll: My focus has always been photography. I would love to get excellent images of these creatures. Indisputable images. I would like to be able to develop a method whereby I could take almost anybody in reasonable health out and let them do so as well.

Melissa: What keeps you asking questions?

Rick Noll: Getting into the woods. Getting out and seeing wilderness. It makes one ask just how wild is wilderness?

Melissa: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

Rick Noll: It adds a new perspective that has been sadly lacking. I think it is great.

Melissa: Have you had a sighting? If so, please explain.

Rick Noll: I have seen some strange things, but nothing I want to say was a definite Sasquatch.

Melissa: What one piece of equipment do you think is the most important?

Rick Noll: Other than a well-trained, observant, and memory-stocked brain, I would have to say a good camera and the knowledge to use it properly.

Melissa: Most researchers have one report that "Stands Out" in their minds; is there a report that still stands out for you?

Rick Noll: I recently had the opportunity to revisit a case that I investigated in 1976. It was interesting. The man seemed to have become obsessed with what he encountered. He made a series of dioramas of the creature that stood in the moonlight at his ranch. Talking with him now I found it fascinating that he wanted to tell the creature that he was sorry he shot it.

Yes, I would say this one stands out in my mind.

Melissa: What questions would you like researchers to ask witnesses?

Rick Noll: I usually just like to listen to eyewitness testimony. My type of interviewing goes on for the life of our relationship. I cannot think of everything to ask right then and there. I also like to let other people ask the questions so I can be more of an observer than someone involved. I am mostly interested in the area and what the person was doing there.

Melissa: Could you please explain the process by which you digitized the Patterson/Gimlin frames you received from John Green?

Rick Noll: John Green gave me a copy he had of the Patterson Gimlin film, with the permission of Mrs. Patterson, to take microscopic pictures of each frame. I went there in person to pick it up. Drove to Canada. John was interested in finding those frames where he could get a reasonable estimate of the IM index of the creature. I had to build a transport stage for the film, which was on a reel. I used a 6-megapixel camera to shoot RAW formatted images through a microscope. Since the camera operator (Roger Patterson) was moving through the scene, as was the subject, the film stage had to be moved many many times through the process. It took about two months to get the images.

RAW images are not sharp or color corrected like consumer jpg files are. John Green could not use RAW images, so I just gave him unprocessed jpg files. These are highly compressed images and can contain artifacts from the process.

This was the first part of the job John asked of me. We were then going to select the very best and make film negatives of those images. I stopped short though.

The film I worked with was the same one used in “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” It had been optically blown up at some point by John Green. In order to do better work and stabilize the photographs, I told John that we needed a better copy. I needed more of the background to align between frames.

I went to Mrs. Patterson and asked about this as well. She said that she would look into it but she was also dealing with a new book soon to come out on Roger Patterson and the film, so she had her hands filled right then.

She does have a master copy and was willing to make another, but she would have had to come to Seattle with it and stay until it was made.

Melissa: To your knowledge, has anyone ever worked directly with the actual film itself?

Rick Noll: There is a rumor that Bruce Bonney used the original film to make the 12 Cibachromes that Rene Dahinden wanted made. But that is about it that I know of. I remember that Rene told me that he had to go to California and pick up the film right before the UBC conference in 1978. The book that came out of the conference, “Manlike Monsters on Trial,” used the Cibachromes as plates in it.

I suspect that Bruce Bonney used a product called Scratch-All to hide the scratches in whatever film he used before printing onto the Cibachrome paper. Unfortunately, this also degrades the image clarity. The Cibachromes do not have, or they are highly reduced, the scratches that the film has.

I have also seen some stills taken from the film that have to have been altered by hand, details drawn in artistic interpretation.

Melissa: Please tell us your background and experience with Film and Video.

Rick Noll: I use to own a camera shop and professional photofinishing lab in California and know quite a bit about the process. I had to take Kodak classes in processing and slide duplication. I know all of the pros and cons... what is and is not possible.

Melissa: What is the difference between "stabilization" and a ".gif"?

Rick Noll: Stabilization usually refers to arresting subject or camera movement through a sequence of contiguous image frames in video or film works. A gif file is a format that can simulate video like movement over the Internet without the tremendous file size and resources needed to show an actual video stream.

My understanding is that the prints M.K. originally worked with were actually photographs of the Cibachromes. There was only one set of prints made. Chris Murphy took pictures of those Cibachromes using a light setup at Hancock House. Trying to string together 12 widely spaced or disjointed images on this film is nearly impossible, the best that he could do is morph one image into another or do a slow blend slide show... but I suppose one could also find the missing frames on other products than the Cibachromes, such as a video, and lift those to fill in the gaps.

M.K. used Rene Dahinden's Cibachrome prints for his initial work, but the more recent work with "stabilization" was with the digitized work I did for John Green. Cibachromes are one of a kind. You take a positive transparency and project it onto paper enlarged and then process it. If you don’t have the transparency any longer then you can’t make another Cibachrome from it.

Now if Bruce Bonney has a second set of the prints then he is violating copyright. Bruce was a photographer and I don’t think he did that. I went in the woods with the man in 1978 and he didn’t seem the type to do something like that.

The odd thing about Bruce Bonney is that he dropped out of all of this. He was going to make a book about the film with Rene, but they had a falling out of some sort. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think something happened like Bruce did use the original film to make the Cibachromes and found the leader with a date on it that didn’t match up with the story. But that isn’t me.

Follow up question: In your professional opinion, would you call the work done by M.K. Davis "stabilization"? If so, why? If not, why not?

Rick Noll: I would not call a moving or animated gif file stabilization of a film. When I stabilize a film or video I move, rotate and scale the main subject so as to overlay a continuous image sequence that can be played back as if having been shot on a tripod and panned along the action route. You do not normally enhance each individual frame before reinserting it back into the sequence.

If I were to enhance the images and then reassemble the film it would be called “rotoscoping.” Enhancing the images means further disassembling them through their color layers. Film has different color layers in it, red being closest to the actual focused image on the platen. Blue is the furthest away from that spot and so the blurriest. Separating out that blurry layer leaves you with a B&W image. The red and green layers I would also put through a black point and white halo routine while sharpening. It could take 15 to 30 minutes to enhance just one of the frames.

Anyone who can get themselves a copy of Adobe’s Photoshop Elements can make an animated gif fairly easy. The program sometimes even comes with a camera when purchased new.

The animated gif made by M.K. streams across the computer screen, trailing behind it the background landscape. It is one picture laid down on top of another, but if you use a dry erase marker on your computer screen and mark the top of the head of the creature in the first image and then do the same with the last one you will see that your eyes will have to move across the screen to keep up with the image. This is because the points of reference used were not the creature but the background in trying to arrest movement. This tries to stop the camera motion, not stabilize the creature’s motion.

Melissa: How do you know the images used by M.K. Davis are the digitized strips you originally worked on?

Rick Noll: You can look at images through RAW editors such as Aperture, Adobe Bridge, and the like and it can show you the metadata contained in the image. Owen identified them as coming from my camera and date.

Melissa: Have you ever had a conversation with M.K Davis about all this?

Rick Noll: Only by email. I also had Chris Murphy apologize to me for releasing them to him. At the 2005 Seattle Conference he asked people, who got back with me, how mad I was at him. I told him I wasn't, it was OK.

Melissa: Can you discuss what you told M.K. and what his reaction was?

Rick Noll: I told him that it was wrong for him to have those images. That they should not be made public without the express permission obtained from all parties who have rights to them. They should not be released on the Internet. He didn’t really care about all of that it seems.

You can look at this like some one out in the alley at a Playboy magazine shoot getting a hold of the CDs containing the first photo spread of Angelina Jolie. Of course they want to show the public, make a name for themselves if nothing else.

These images were not mine or Chris Murphy’s to hand out to people. I even held back from letting Owen Caddy, someone I have been working with a lot, have them until I checked with John Green and Mrs. Patterson. I felt that was the right way to do things and still feel that way. I would have no problem with M.K. using the images if he went through that process.

I would caution all who would seek his help for such imaging work in the future. Bigfoot research officially now has its first paparazzi participant.

Melissa: Why have you stayed silent about this for so long?

Rick Noll: I haven’t. I have told people. It is like everything though. Some people rush to release what they have in order to get the scoop on someone else. It usually results in sloppy work and misinformation.

Follow up question: How do you feel about M.K. Davis using these digitized images you created for his latest release of information?

Rick Noll: From what I have read and what others have said about the whole thing, people think it was all his work. I feel kind of slighted and not real sure, maybe uncomfortable, about talking on it with those who would praise such tactics. The dog bit once, do you really want to try and pet it or another one again?

Follow up question: You looked at a copy of the film through a microscope. Did you see anything that resembled a stick or any of the other things M.K. Davis is currently discussing?

Rick Noll: I did not analyze the film in that manner. That is premature, at least on my part. I believe you do each job as well as you can and [do] not leapfrog over things when you get impatient or excited.

When news came out that M.K. had identified this creature as a “digger Indian” and not an Ape I was flabbergasted! Did I miss something? And what the heck is a “digger Indian”? Didn’t sound good, whatever it was. And to be carrying a stick? Now this started to sound like something I just came across, the Malaysia Bigfoot pictures and the metamorphic rocks. I have to really shake my head and laugh about that. I stood face to face with both Chow and Ang in their country and interviewed them on video the night before they released those images to the world and created the mess they are still climbing out from underneath.

It wasn’t until I visited John Green this past weekend that I got to see this animated gif that M.K. made from the images I was contracted to make. It seems that M.K. only sent this gif to a select few people… and I wasn’t one of them. (Remember me saying something about being slighted in all of this by M.K. and his supporters?) I saw what M.K. was referring to but, sorry to say, it looks more to me to be the dark edge of the left hand as it swings back and forth during the walk. It actually blocks out a good size area in back of the creature as it swings.

So to be honest, I haven’t looked at everything, but the email containing what he sent to John is not a stick. It is the edge of the left hand. The images I collected are interesting in this spot because it shows the palms to be as white as the bottoms of the feet. Didn’t someone in his camp also say something to the effect that the creature appears to have white skin? I don’t know, and truthfully don’t care anymore; this episode is about over in my mind.

Melissa: Other than yourself, who else has done work to enhance this film?

Rick Noll: Well, Bruce Bonney and Owen Caddy. I don’t know who else could be considered as really enhancing the images. The NASI work was done in such a format that no one can read them. Mrs. Patterson has a copy of those images on disc and they just sit in storage because she can’t do anything with them.

Follow up question: Did you eventually finish digitizing the copy of the Patterson film? If not, do you think it should be finished or ever will be completed? If not, why?

Rick Noll: No, I stopped around the 500 frame mark. I will start the process over if and when I get a better copy to do so. I think it really needs to be done though. This process maintains the color layers as they were shot. Copying from a print of any type has only half of the density of the original and the layers have been merged, compressed and altered from the original. If film has 11 zones of density, paper has but 5 zones… see what you’re missing here?

Melissa: Approximately how many videos have you been involved with since you became active in the field of Bigfoot research?

Rick Noll: About a dozen or so, mostly as what is called talent or appearing on camera. Recently though I have been trying to get to the other side of the camera.

Melissa: What you would like people to know about you?

Rick Noll: On Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday I have bad hair days. The rest of the weekdays I look for Bigfoot.

Melissa: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

Rick Noll: Think about what you can add to all of this, see what has been done before and learn from the mistakes made, equipment up - then get your ass out there.