Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

Let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that Baker's Kong suit and prosthetics are deeply flawed. I mean, they aren't; it's one of the most convincing ape suits ever filmed -- but let's say they are. And...?

Let's concede that Patty bends over, even stumbles at some point. And...?

Let's say Bob H. isn't the person in the suit. And...?

What do these rhetorical concessions demonstrate about the reality of bigfoot?

Nothing. So what, In a thread whose topic is, and I quote, “Heironimus”?

 

[Vortigern99]

That’s what Vortigern99 has been suggesting happened with Heironimus’s false statement. But Patterson did so knowingly, whereas Vortigern99 claims that Heironimus unconsciously created a false memory. (And claims, moreover, that I’m incompetent or dishonest not to have taken that as the default excplanation for his untrue claim.)

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not claiming any such thing. I've reminded you that people forget things. I have no stake in the claim that Bob H. is in the suit. He might be; he might not be. If he was, it's reasonable to reconcile his lack of memory of stumbling/bending with the known and studied fact that human memory is impermanent. There's no need to create an event in which he "creates a false memory" of not bending; it suffices simply to say "he forgot that he bent over" -- if indeed he did bend over.

 

[Roger Knights]

Jerry, Patty doesn't stop. Davis makes her stop by halting the film clip.

Nonsense: he stopped because the succeeding frames are too blurry, until the brown-tinted one about a second later (based on how far Patty has traveled from the white tree). If you can post clear frames following the one Davis stopped at, please do so.

Why isn’t there an archive of every frame of the film, where one could search for a frame by number? (Copyright violation?) It’s too bad such a resource is lacking.

 

[Roger Knights]

I don't know why anyone would think that the sand berm we are talking about is only 3 feet high. It is quite obviously much taller than that. You can see it.

I was talking about the height of the embankment, not the berm, 20 or so feet farther away from the creek. I personally thought the embankment looked higher than the estimated 3 feet McClarin gave me, especially because if Patterson had been shooting over it, it wouldn’t have cut off the camera’s view if it was that low. But I declined to venture a guess, figuring he knew better than I.

There are probably multiple sand berms out there in the big open area. The creek probably altered its course over history leaving behind various berms here and there. There may very well be 3 foot berms out there, but this isn't one of them.

Visitors to the site have described it as flat, with a slight descent right after the creek, although being roiled with small ripples here and there. Supporting this, the berms out there seem only a foot or so high, in this view:

Roger, I have no confidence or respect whatsoever for your evaluation of visual evidence which is right in front of your eyes.

Tu quoque.

Hitching your wagon to Davis' horse is not a feature for enhancement of your arguments - it is a symptom.

Strawman.

 

[Roger Knights]

Laverty was uncooperative and now he won't respond to you at all. You think it's because of his political career and his concern about being appointed? You think his people actually read Bigfoot stuff and would then give him heat because of what they read? Do you think that the government reads what you post about Bigfoot on the web? Do you have a fantasy of your name being mentioned in a US Senate meeting?

Roger, I think you have missed another reason why Laverty would not want to play email with you.

Quality stuff, Parcher–your quality.

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger K.,

Here is your response to Skeptical Greg's statement that BH walks like Patty:

http://s7.photobucket.com/user/RogerKni/library/BF Pattys Shank Stride and Sole?sort=3&page=1

You use the iconic single frame of the film showing Patterson's subject's leg follow through, placing knee to ankle at virtually horizontally to the ground.

Look at this clip of the actual film. Is the photo you used really representative of "Patty's" walk?

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...ames-added-enhanced-deblurred-and-stabilized/

First, my claim wasn’t “virtually horizontal” (although I said so in the past, before I had looked more closely); it was a 73-degree rise measured along the shin. Second, I think that amount of rise is consistent in all her steps, because AFAIK people who have studied the film frame by frame have said that this degree of lower leg rise (73 degrees along the shin) is, or seems to be, standard, including in the 1st and 3rd walk phases.

(I can’t remember where I read this though—I’ve been out of Bigfooting for five years, so my memory isn’t green on matters like this. As I posted a few comments upthread, it’s a pity there isn’t an online archive of every frame of the film, to quickly resolve matters like this.)

Emulating that degree of rise smoothly is tough (as a subject who tries it in the video “21 degrees between you and Bigfoot” illustrates), although my bud Matt Crowley is a contender, as he domo-d to me in front of my house. (I’m trying to get his walk on film, but my grant request to the National Instititute for the Humanoids hasn’t been green-lighted yet.)

Sometimes, as in the clip you linked to, that lift isn’t always visible to the eye or the camera, because the lower leg sort of flicks to its highest rise and rapidly changes into forward motion. Indirect evidence that this is so is how regular her gait seems to be; so if her shin lifts 73 degrees from the vertical in most of the frames (and the camera doesn’t capture the rise in others), it’s likely that the higher height was attained in all. Patterson was running the camera at its slowest speed, 16 frames per second, so it's possible that it wouldn't catch all the highest shin-rises.

May we conclude that Heironimus's walk now ought not exactly match his walk at the Bluff Creek site (if he was Patterson's subject), given the time and age difference? I would say yes.

I would say No, at least not as of nine years ago, based on this:

Greg Long—He [Heironimus] had possible rotator cuff tear in his shoulders from years of labor. Beyond the pain in his shoulders, he felt fine.

—The Making of Bigfoot, p. 418
Heironimus—I still have, I think, the old walk. I could do it again, yes.
—Third XZone radio interview, section 14-G, 8/23/2007

But there is something else to consider. The film subject is walking somewhat in the fashion of the famous walk of Groucho Marx's. Here is a brief article on the benefits of "the Groucho:"

http://painlesstechnology.blogspot.mx/2008/08/groucho-walk.html

I couldn’t get the video to play, thanks to my obsolescent browser. But I’m old enough to remember his TV show, in which he often did his weird walk. This idea of a Groucho walk has been presented before. It’s obvious that what’s called, in science, a “compliant gait,” is similar to Patty’s bent-kneed gait.

Bigfooters have presented rebuttals. I forget most of them, but one of them was that it would be difficult for a human to maintain stability and gait-regularity during the lookback. The one I’ve come up with is that Heironimus claimed that his ordinary walk was virtually identical to his Bigfoot walk, which he demonstrated in street clothes in at least two videos. In those videos, “Heironimus's forward leg is straighter than Patty's, suggesting he's barely employing her "compliant" gait”; see the PhotoBucket image:

It's very possible that Patterson coached his subject to walk a little different than his normal walk; the idea that an apish walk would entail bent knees and a stooped posture would suggest itself, not to mention the utilitarian benefit of such a walk on unfamiliar terrain.

But:
When interviewed, Heironimus said that on his first suit try-on he had no difficulty doing the Bigfoot walk that Patterson wanted. There was no mention of having to master an unusual gait:

Long—How long did it take you to master the gait and mannerisms of the Bigfoot?
Heironimus—Not very long.
—The Making of Bigfoot, p. 346

But this claim is implausible, as the reader can verify for himself if he attempts to walk like the video’d 73° subject who raised his shank to the degree Patty did. He will find that he feels on the verge of losing his balance at the height of his leg-lift, and that it’s difficult to avoid lurching forward as he swings his leg forward, and then catching himself immediately afterwards, creating a jerky motion. In other words, it’s a difficult and complicated maneuver. But not according to Heironimus—indicating he’s never done it:

Long—I knew from studying Patterson’s film that the “Bigfoot” walked smoothly. “Did you feel comfortable and natural walking in the suit?”
Heironimus—Oh, yeah, it was easy, it was simple, yeah.
—The Making of Bigfoot, p. 346

Sure it was easy, because in his street-clothes’ videos his shin lifted only the normal human 52 degrees.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

By “moving under an unseen tree limb or brush” I assume you mean "ducking under an unseen tree limb or brush.” That could explain the bending if Patty were near the treeline in the background, but in fact it’s far away—it just looks close. The only obstruction on the sandbar is the S-branch, which is on the near side of her.

Here’s the final frame of the Davis sequence you linked to, with my annotations again. I think you’re right that the bend isn’t as severe as Davis (and I) inferred—I guess now that it’s only 35 degrees. I’ve conceded that the subject is moving downhill (a bit) and that there’s an intermediary berm. But now tell me again that “The butt crack that Davis argues (and apparently Roger K. accepts uncritically) is probably the ("spinal") line running down the back.” Look at the arm and its elbow on the right. It would be out of proportion for the butt to be part of the back. More important, the location I labeled the butt is clearly the hinge where the torso bends forward.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/MKD%20End%20walk%201%20big%20w%20notes_zps7sn2wqol.png[/qimg]



My case is stronger, because of the brown-tinted image that follows the one above, after an intermediary second or more of blurred frames. It shows a blurred Patty, but with landmark body parts identifiable, with an apparent 75-degree bend.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/Pattysbuttzoomout_zps50bbaf94.jpg[/qimg]



I think it was. I think he said that Patterson’s camera shook after he heard a shot, producing the blurry frames.

Once again you produce a vague mess of an image that could literally be interpreted in any way. That might as well be a picture of Gimlin choosing the right wig to wear.

If anyone else sees what Roger sees here, then I must be losing my marbles and developing cataracts.

Why does it always come down to ignoring blatant errors and reaching with blurry images? The life and times of a modern Bigfoot believer...

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

In conjunction with the later, brown-tinted frame, following many (over 16 I guess) completely blurred frames, in which Patty seems to be bending about 75 degrees, it is evidence of the start of a stumble. I estimate 75 degrees because her head seems to be only about a foot above her butt.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Nonsense: he stopped because the succeeding frames are too blurry, until the brown-tinted one about a second later (based on how far Patty has traveled from the white tree). If you can post clear frames following the one Davis stopped at, please do so.

Why isn’t there an archive of every frame of the film, where one could search for a frame by number? (Copyright violation?) It’s too bad such a resource is lacking.

The better question should be: why aren't there any actual images of Patty bending? Why are you desperately attempting to convince people that Patty does bend when there's literally no evidence on this earth to suggest that it does?

lol.

You'd be better sticking with your Tulpa story, tbh, mate... It's still embarrassingly stupid, but not as ridiculous as this "Patty Bending" material that you're unashamedly trying to mooch off MK Davis.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It's sad when people come here and claim to have some kind of nail-in-the-coffin type evidence, only to then reveal their true agenda, before whipping out the most blurred and out-of-focus image ever seen since the says of dial-up internet.

If this disingenuous bollocks is considered a decent use of a 70-year-old mans time, then I'll opt for model-building instead

 

[William Parcher]

The arrow labeled "eye" is pointing to the back of the right shoulder. The arrow labeled "elbow" is pointing to the back of the bicep.

She didn't bend at all.

 

[William Parcher]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

Here is the clip again. Watch the right shoulder through the entire clip. Fix your eyes only on the right shoulder and track it through the clip looking at nothing else.

This shoulder actually looks like a somewhat triangular white area because it is sunlight reflected off the ultra-glossy black fur.

If Patty bends, that right white shoulder should suddenly dive downwards. That white shoulder should also appear to drastically change shape because its angle to the sun would greatly change if she really did bend.

 

[William Parcher]

Also note how the frames which compose the clip change significantly. There is a sudden change in tint, saturation and contrast. This is because Davis has manipulated these frames with a photo editing program (PhotoShop?). That shouldn't be necessary at all. What's wrong with using unmodified frames to make the clip? Well, see, that's how MK Davis rolls. He even goes as far as converting color to black-and-white. Thanks, Davis. WTF?

 

[jerrywayne]

First, my claim wasn’t “virtually horizontal” (although I said so in the past, before I had looked more closely); it was a 73-degree rise measured along the shin. Second, I think that amount of rise is consistent in all her steps, because AFAIK people who have studied the film frame by frame have said that this degree of lower leg rise (73 degrees along the shin) is, or seems to be, standard, including in the 1st and 3rd walk phases.

(I can’t remember where I read this though—I’ve been out of Bigfooting for five years, so my memory isn’t green on matters like this. As I posted a few comments upthread, it’s a pity there isn’t an online archive of every frame of the film, to quickly resolve matters like this.)

Emulating that degree of rise smoothly is tough (as a subject who tries it in the video “21 degrees between you and Bigfoot” illustrates), although my bud Matt Crowley is a contender, as he domo-d to me in front of my house. (I’m trying to get his walk on film, but my grant request to the National Instititute for the Humanoids hasn’t been green-lighted yet.)

Sometimes, as in the clip you linked to, that lift isn’t always visible to the eye or the camera, because the lower leg sort of flicks to its highest rise and rapidly changes into forward motion. Indirect evidence that this is so is how regular her gait seems to be; so if her shin lifts 73 degrees from the vertical in most of the frames (and the camera doesn’t capture the rise in others), it’s likely that the higher height was attained in all. Patterson was running the camera at its slowest speed, 16 frames per second, so it's possible that it wouldn't catch all the highest shin-rises.



I would say No, at least not as of nine years ago, based on this:





I couldn’t get the video to play, thanks to my obsolescent browser. But I’m old enough to remember his TV show, in which he often did his weird walk. This idea of a Groucho walk has been presented before. It’s obvious that what’s called, in science, a “compliant gait,” is similar to Patty’s bent-kneed gait.

Bigfooters have presented rebuttals. I forget most of them, but one of them was that it would be difficult for a human to maintain stability and gait-regularity during the lookback. The one I’ve come up with is that Heironimus claimed that his ordinary walk was virtually identical to his Bigfoot walk, which he demonstrated in street clothes in at least two videos. In those videos, “Heironimus's forward leg is straighter than Patty's, suggesting he's barely employing her "compliant" gait”; see the PhotoBucket image:

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Pattys%20%20Shank%20%20Stride%20%20and%20Sole/ef313719.jpg[/qimg]



But:
When interviewed, Heironimus said that on his first suit try-on he had no difficulty doing the Bigfoot walk that Patterson wanted. There was no mention of having to master an unusual gait:



But this claim is implausible, as the reader can verify for himself if he attempts to walk like the video’d 73° subject who raised his shank to the degree Patty did. He will find that he feels on the verge of losing his balance at the height of his leg-lift, and that it’s difficult to avoid lurching forward as he swings his leg forward, and then catching himself immediately afterwards, creating a jerky motion. In other words, it’s a difficult and complicated maneuver. But not according to Heironimus—indicating he’s never done it:



Sure it was easy, because in his street-clothes’ videos his shin lifted only the normal human 52 degrees.

I stated the frame you used shows a horizontal to ground knee to ankle lift; I did not mean to imply that that was your description.

Again, I really don't see that high a lift in the film. Really. The still you have used I think was originally extracted by proponents because it showed the entire foot, an iconic "Sasquatch" foot. Later the idea arose that this single frame represented the entirety of the walk discernible and implied on film, thus cementing the idea that the walk was too radical to be a human in a costume. Looking at the film, though, doesn't really verify that assumption.

You say it is a 73 degree lift in this one frame and argue, wrongly to my eyes, that it is representative of the entire walk we see, but since the film only shows the subject in various degrees from behind, is it even possible to calibrate the degree of leg lift at any point of the walk with any amount of confidence? Most of the leg lifts in the walk are not even viewable, and the small sequence we do see appears somewhat erratic and not uniform in lift height.

I would not expect to find Heironimus' filmed strolls in recent years matching exactly that we see in the film. Age, and indifference to the filming and the film itself over the decades, would, to my mind, have precluded BH from a perfect reenactment.

 

[ArchSas]

Visitors to the site have described it as flat, with a slight descent right after the creek, although being roiled with small ripples here and there.

Which has absolutely no bearing on what the creekbed looked like at the time of filming. The kinds of creekbeds the PGF were filmed on frequently change their topography due to flooding and other hydrological activities. This would especially be true of the PGF film site because the creek had just experienced a major flood, and was subsequently hit by several other shortly after filming. Pictures of it today look nothing like what Patterson filmed (which is probably part of why it took people so long to rediscover the site).

Short of the video itself, there's absolutely no way to tell what the exact topography of the site is. Most of those banks and berms look pretty tall to me (at least, in scale to everything else), and could have served as fairly big obstructions because of how short Patterson was.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights

Visitors to the site have described it as flat, with a slight descent right after the creek, although being roiled with small ripples here and there.

Which has absolutely no bearing on what the creekbed looked like at the time of filming.

I meant visitors to the site a nine days later (Titmus) and the next summer (Green and a party), and a couple of years after that (Dahinden and party). Green and Dahinden did extensive site surveys and shot films of tall people walking along the trackway.

The kinds of creekbeds the PGF were filmed on frequently change their topography due to flooding and other hydrological activities. This would especially be true of the PGF film site because the creek had just experienced a major flood, and was subsequently hit by several other shortly after filming. Pictures of it today look nothing like what Patterson filmed (which is probably part of why it took people so long to rediscover the site).

The flood of 1964 was a hundred-year flood that diverted the course of one of the creeks into another (I forget the details) and cleared the sandbar Patty walked on of most small foliage and many trees. Subsequent spring flooding wasn’t nearly as important—“i.e., the “several other” weren’t comparable. The site got lost because it became overgrown with scrub and saplings, and (I presume) because it was farther away than many searchers wanted to walk. If they were cut down the site’s topography would probably be roughly similar. (Steven Streufert, a member of the team that rediscovered the site, told me that the creek had eroded one of its banks and shifted it slightly. And that a small loop in it that was there in 1967 had disappeared.) But it’s still mostly the same.

Short of the video itself, there's absolutely no way to tell what the exact topography of the site is.

But if there’d been substantial berms, 1) visitors following the filming would have reported them. And 2) they’d have shown up in the third walk phase (the last 15 or so seconds), with Patty’s legs gradually vanishing at some point. And 3) Dahinden’s 1971 photo of the site from a hillside above it would have revealed them, which it doesn’t:

Most of those banks and berms look pretty tall to me (at least, in scale to everything else), and could have served as fairly big obstructions because of how short Patterson was.

I see one embankment and one berm, maybe 20+ feet from it, maybe 12 to 18 inches high, and I agree that they cut off Patty almost to the top of her thighs, given Patterson’s height and his position in the creek.

 

[Roger Knights]

Again, I really don't see that high a lift in the film. Really. The still you have used I think was originally extracted by proponents because it showed the entire foot, an iconic "Sasquatch" foot. Later the idea arose that this single frame represented the entirety of the walk discernible and implied on film, thus cementing the idea that the walk was too radical to be a human in a costume. Looking at the film, though, doesn't really verify that assumption.

The film was subjected to several frame-by-frame computerized analyses by experts over the years. I seem to recall that they endorsed the high-shin-lift claim, or at least that their images apparently confirmed it. In addition, look at this video, which shows Patty’s 73-degree shin lift in three consecutive steps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLBxtZc

You say it is a 73 degree lift in this one frame and argue, wrongly to my eyes, that it is representative of the entire walk we see, but since the film only shows the subject in various degrees from behind, is it even possible to calibrate the degree of leg lift at any point of the walk with any amount of confidence? Most of the leg lifts in the walk are not even viewable, and the small sequence we do see appears somewhat erratic and not uniform in lift height.

Patty is usually, in the first half of the PGF, viewed obliquely, which provides enough “angle” to reveal if the foot is vertical (or nearly so) at the height of the leg lift. If vertical (as it also seems to be from a directly behind view), it would strongly imply a significantly higher-than-human leg-lift.

I would not expect to find Heironimus' filmed strolls in recent years matching exactly that we see in the film. Age, and indifference to the filming and the film itself over the decades, . . .

The street-clothing video of Heironimus were taken in 2005 in conjunction with the National Geographic special and the Cow Camp recreation attempt. Some members of the NG crew camped out in his house. He was likely hoping the special might lead to a more remunerative TV splecial. “Indifference”?!?!

. . . would, to my mind, have precluded BH from a perfect reenactment.

So your mind overrides Heironimus’s own testimony (that he “could still do the old walk”)? Shades of Vortigern99! And no-one’s asking for a perfect reeneactment. The only way Heironimus was perfect was in his perfect agreement with the normal-human 52-degree shin lift.

PS: Note in comment #3308 how Heironimus is neither slouching with his torso nor crouching with his legs. There's no resemblance to a Groucho walk at all, or to Patty, who normally leans forward more from the butt and even more with her head.

 

[LTC8K6]

You implied it was absurd, therefore impossible.



I can’t help you there.



He was. It’s widely known that when he showed up at Al Hodgson’s store, he was limping, claiming his horse fell on him, and displaying a bent stirrup as evidence. It was also noted that Gimlin was strangely silent, probably (IMO) from disgust at this sexing up.



The horse wasn't bolting initially, it was rearing and jumping around, held in check by the reins. Even while Patterson had his foot jerked while dismounting, he held onto the reins. Once his foot came free, he was still holding the reins and was able to get his horse under control enough to get his camera out of the saddlebag and start shooting. Then, when the reins were no longer held, the horse bolted.



Patterson’s limp wasn’t a modification; it was just new to you. Patterson’s horse not falling on him wasn’t a modification; Gimlin claimed that all along, and Bigfooters were split on what really happened. My discovery of what really caused the limp, from my interview of John Ballard, is not silly. It ties up a loose end and makes the story less contested.



Is this what you mean by my treating a witness more leniently? But I already conceded, in a reply to you, that this is a possibility for BH, albeit unconsciously:



That’s what Vortigern99 has been suggesting happened with Heironimus’s false statement. But Patterson did so knowingly, whereas Vortigern99 claims that Heironimus unconsciously created a false memory. (And claims, moreover, that I’m incompetent or dishonest not to have taken that as the default excplanation for his untrue claim.)



You should have been more specific. I now realize that you were alluding (in an earlier comment) to my paper, “Heironimus vs. Heironimus,” in which I listed that 45 of his self-contraditions, and wondering why I wasn’t as harsh on the contradicitions between Patterson and Gimlin as I was on Heironimus there (on page 5—elsewhere I was rarely judgmental). Well, one reason for being harsher on Heironimus is that he’s committed many more self-contradictions than P&G together.

Futher, if two witnesses disagree, one of them may be telling the truth, so disagreement between them doesn’t necessarily mean that both are impugned. Patterson had many bad characteristics and had a reason to lie: to sex up his story to make an exciting and thereby profitable Hollywood movie, starring himself.

And I am more lenient generally on P&G than on Heironimus, because they have film evidence to back up their story, which is almost independent of any flubs they might make about it.

Heironimus, OTOH, had opportunities to secure evidence for his claim in the early years (beyond the anecdotal suit-witness endorsement of his relatives and barroom buddies), such as work-attendance records from his employer or a photocopy of the logbook of the Eureka motel he stayed at, but failed to do so. If he paid the motel by check or credit card, a cancelled check or a monthly credit card statement would have sufficed.

The main reason I’m not paying attention here to P&G’s flubs is that we’re not arguing in this thread about the authenticity of the PGF, but about whether Heironimus was the one in the suit or not. So P&G’s flubs are moot.

Roger, stop sexing up RP's story. You tell it in such detail, it's as if you were there.

In the 1967 radio interview, it's pretty clear that Bob Gimlin has no problem with the story of Roger's horse falling on Roger. Bob even points out that he was able to stay in the saddle, implying that Roger was not able to stay in the saddle. Bob does not correct Roger's story.

In the same interview, Roger says nothing about a bad ankle or a limp, even though he tells the story about the horse falling on him.

AFAIK, I have never read any papers written by you.

You think I just now heard of Patterson's bent stirrup and limp story? Are you serious?

 

[Roger Knights]

Also note how the frames which compose the clip change significantly. There is a sudden change in tint, saturation and contrast. This is because Davis has manipulated these frames with a photo editing program (PhotoShop?). That shouldn't be necessary at all. What's wrong with using unmodified frames to make the clip?

it’s not necessarily nefarious. Contrast enhancement, color filtering, edge sharpening, etc. can be used to make apparent things that are there but the eye can’t see. For instance, Patty’s body has a uniform overall color, whose slight hue differences the eye can’t distinguish, but that upping the contrast level might make visible, such as hamstrings and whatnot.

The question is, was the enhancing done reasonably? To answer that question, an enhancer should document the settings on his software tool so others can check it out for reasonableness. It may well be that Davis has exceeded the speed limit in some of these images. But that shouldn’t mean that all should be tossed out. (Maybe he can recreate them and provide the settings.)

Well, see, that's how MK Davis rolls. He even goes as far as converting color to black-and-white. Thanks, Davis. WTF?

I can’t speak to the rest of it, but I know that converting the film to B&W (actually, filtering out other colors) has the effect of sharpening it. That’s because the four colors used in the film are refracted differently by the lens and land on slightly different spots on the film, creating a fuzzy impression. This conversion is commonly used in photo analysis, I believe.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have often referred to 006 as Patty's sobriety test due to her apparent very short stride, resembling a person taking a roadside DUI test by heel and toeing a line.