Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

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.

Pareidolia. Looky here:

If the eye is the back of the right shoulder, then where’s the head above and to its left? It’s not there. (What’s above what I marked as the head is a black area of the background that extends far to the right, beyond a sapling. It's similar to the black background area on both sides of the right arm.)

As for the elbow, it is an elbow because of the way it fits with all the other landmarks I marked—i.e., it’s where it should be. (And, if you look at the inner edge of the right arm, you can see about a ten-degree bend opposite the elbow, which is again where it should be. The dark area between the arm and the torso forms a tall diamond shape; the elbow is opposite its right corner. The dark area also appears to the right of the arm.)

She didn't bend at all.

It’s apparent in the image that her butt forms a hinge from which her torso bends forward. My guess is the bend is at least 35 degrees.

Some sites have a polling feature, and it’s too bad ISF apparently lacks one. I’d love to poll the audience on whether they agree with Parcher’s interpretation or mine.

 

[Roger Knights]

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

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com...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.

I wasn’t able to track the shoulder—the clip moved too rapidly. To make a stronger argument, each frame leading up to the one I showed above (in the prior comment) should be posted as a still. (Again I bemoan the absence of an archive where all frames could be accessed.)

In the meantime, I think my interpretation of the image I posted above is unwobbled by Parcher’s interpretation of the Davis video clip.

 

[Roger Knights]

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/ST-Munns%20Water%20in%20BC001_zpsfn7aw2bx.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Hmm. Odd. Maybe she was slowing preparatory to making a turn or looking back?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Pareidolia. Looky here:

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


If the eye is the back of the right shoulder, then where’s the head above and to its left? It’s not there. (What’s above what I marked as the head is a black area of the background that extends far to the right, beyond a sapling. It's similar to the black background area on both sides of the right arm.)

As for the elbow, it is an elbow because of the way it fits with all the other landmarks I marked—i.e., it’s where it should be. (And, if you look at the inner edge of the right arm, you can see about a ten-degree bend opposite the elbow, which is again where it should be. The dark area between the arm and the torso forms a tall diamond shape; the elbow is opposite its right corner. The dark area also appears to the right of the arm.)



It’s apparent in the image that her butt forms a hinge from which her torso bends forward. My guess is the bend is at least 35 degrees.

Some sites have a polling feature, and it’s too bad ISF apparently lacks one. I’d love to poll the audience on whether they agree with Parcher’s interpretation or mine.

Pffffffffffffft.



sigh.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Hmm. Odd. Maybe she was slowing preparatory to making a turn or looking back?

The comment of a man who claims to be on the fence regarding the PGF being real or not...



Maybe Tulpas have to slow down before they vanish into thin air... Like, who knows, maaaan?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

In the meantime, I think my interpretation of the image I posted above is unwobbled by Parcher’s interpretation of the Davis video clip.

Your interpretation of that vague mess of a blurry picture is nothing short of hilarious.

Do you wear any kind of contact lenses or glasses? Cataracts or something?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is a few frames earlier with your ( Roger's ) bloborific overlayed.. ( not to scale )

In my frame you can see Patty is pretty much standing tall.

If she is bending over in the blob version, why is her head pretty much at the
same height relative to the branch in the background, as well as her butt ( in the blob )
being higher than the horizontal branch/log in the background?

 

[William Parcher]

In the final frame used by Davis & Knights the butt is completely hidden by the sand berm.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I was just keying on what they claimed was the butt..

It is clear in my frame, that as she walks to the right, the butt is going behind the berm...

 

[William Parcher]

Davis could have easily created the same overlay that you did Greg, but that is not how he rolls.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Davis could have easily created the same overlay that you did Greg, but that is not how he rolls.

And nor is that how Roger Knights rolls.

Mr. Disingenuous

 

[Roger Knights]

. . . as well as her butt ( in the blob ) being higher than the horizontal branch/log in the background?

In the final frame used by Davis & Knights the butt is completely hidden by the sand berm.

I assume you (SG) mean the “log” that sits below the branch to the left of the white tree you initially mentioned, in the first half of your comment. (I’ll reply to that tomorrow.) A “find” (maybe)! (I remember from BFF days you used to come up with these, or something else new, every five posts, so I was bracing myself for it.)

I was just keying on what they claimed was the butt.. It is clear in my frame, that as she walks to the right, the butt is going behind the berm...

But let’s look at some frames in which the butt is nevertheless still visible after your standing frame, and in which no butt-disappearance occurs. In the one below, Patty is directly in front of the white tree and her butt is above the log. There is no trickery here in her butt rising relatively, right? There’s no butt-disappearance, right? This is what her normal progress, before any bending, has caused to shift.

The edge of the embankment is just below her butt. (I consider that it’s the embankment, not the berm, judging by the pair of B&W photos posted a few times upthread, in which the embankment has a rippled edge similar to the one in this image, and in which no high berm (i.e., more than a foot) is apparent (to me)):

Now here are two blurrier images, in which the head has moved (I guess) by only about 18 inches and 30 inches, respectively, to the right. (Patty is beginning to bend.) The first is at most (I guess) six frames (3/8 second) after the preceding one (above) and four frames before the succeeding one (1/4 second). (Patty regularly uses 11 frames to take one step.)

The edge of the embankment is still below the butt, as is the horizontal log on the left (just visible in the corner), right? That stands to reason, because it wouldn’t have been possible, I estimate, for the body to have dropped the 1.5 feet needed to hide the butt and thigh-tops in 3/8 second—the ground doesn’t drop off that sharply. If it did, the top of the head (the white spot on the left side of the head, not the black background above it) would be noticeably lower relative to the branch (or leaning log) on the left and than the bulging yellowish band around the tree (N and later NW of the head) than it is in the first image above.

A couple of frames later, my blurrier-still, annotated “bending” image appears. (BTW, what I marked as the "left arm" actually isn't—it's background blur, because it rises straight up and ends far from Patty's body. The left arm is invisible, except for the elbow.)

Its butt location is consistent with the ones in the two images just above (higher than the log), and their butt location is consistent with the butt location in the preceding image, and its butt location is consistent with the one in your standing image. Additionally, so are the locations of the other salient body parts. This continuity is hard to argue against, IMO.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Oh dear, MK's little mate is at it again!

The butt location is consistent...

blah blah blah.

Mate, the butt is diapered-up to the cheeks in Gemora-wear. Have a nap.

 

[Cervelo]

Oh dear, MK's little mate is at it again!

The butt location is consistent...

blah blah blah.

Mate, the butt is diapered-up to the cheeks in Gemora-wear. Have a nap.

Nap!?!....how about having point LOL!

Hey Roger...what do you see in the pic below?
Let me channel MK for ya, I see a juvi Bigfoot facing you smashing a squirrel with a stick, can you see it?

 

[jerrywayne]

Roger K.,

Perhaps it would be advantageous for us for you to post the frames you are using with identical sizing. To my eyes, your image of a fallen subject shows the butt (in my interpretation, the back) actually a little higher than that seen in the two preceding images, not what you would expect if the subject has pitched forward. Also, look at the right arm. Shouldn't it be noticeably shorter than it appears in the two preceding frames you posted, if, again, the subject has pitched forward?

 

[ArchSas]

Roger K.,

Perhaps it would be advantageous for us for you to post the frames you are using with identical sizing. To my eyes, your image of a fallen subject shows the butt (in my interpretation, the back) actually a little higher than that seen in the two preceding images, not what you would expect if the subject has pitched forward. Also, look at the right arm. Shouldn't it be noticeably shorter than it appears in the two preceding frames you posted, if, again, the subject has pitched forward?

I was having trouble seeing what Roger was talking about, too, then I unfocused my eyes a couple of times and let some different pareidolia kick in. I think Roger is seeing a completely different image than the people (like me) who don't see a fallen subject are seeing. In short, I (and I'm sure most other people) are seeing an upright, sideways Patty viewed from the waist up (her legs and butt being obscured by a sand berm), while Roger is seeing a relatively complete backwards-facing patty on her knees, with her butt facing directly towards the camera. If you squint you can kind of see it. Since I couldn't figure out a good way of describing the images, here are some modifications I made in five minutes using paint to (hopefully) what I'm talking about. The image on the left (green lines) is what I see and the image on the right (blue lines) is what I think Roger is seeing). If you look at these and then look at Roger's original, maybe you'll be able to see both.

To me, it seems like Roger might be seeing a different image than the rest of us. And really, what he's seeing doesn't seem likely to be the correct version. The rest of the film, including leading up to and directly after his "fall" show patty walking from a sideways-ish angle. It makes more sense for her to be in the same sort of position. I guess this is just another example of people seeing weird things in the shadow and grain of the film.

 

[William Parcher]

Arch, your interpretation is wrong. The white triangular shape that you are calling the head is actually the sunlight reflection off the right shoulder. She is still facing away from the camera. We do not see her from the side at any time during the bend-over clip.

 

[ArchSas]

Arch, your interpretation is wrong. The white triangular shape that you are calling the head is actually the sunlight reflection off the right shoulder. She is still facing away from the camera. We do not see her from the side at any time during the bend-over clip.

Sure, I'll go with that. Honestly, there's just too much grain and blurriness for me to see much of anything (even what I originally saw at this point). I've always been bad at magic eye-type images, and that picture is no exception. I was just staring at it wondering why Roger seemed to be describing seeing something completely different than what everyone else was describing, and I thought I might have had it for a second.

 

[William Parcher]

What will confound anyone is locating the head in the final frame. It's there, upright and viewed from behind. But it's a pixel mess and not defined. The bright white tree is causing what is known as bloom which makes the tree seem thicker than it should be. It's a phenomenon that occurs during the exposure of celluloid film. That bloom is obliterating the left part of the head and making it look wrong - but it is there.

I can't tell if Davis has messed with this frame and it might help if we had a different good copy.

 

[Cervelo]

Roger maybe this will help.....see even a skeptic can see Bigfeets if he tries really hard!