Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LTC8K6]

Hmmm....the first frame is quite blurry yet we have perfectfoot with perfect toes.

The second frame is much clearer, yet we have blockfoot with no toes.

 

[kitakaze]

Not one skeptic could figure this out on their own.

Probably because they're either all idiots....or victims of "wishful thinking".

Who's the idiot? The one who says there is no reliable evidence to support the existence of bigfoot or the one who carries on about an insignificant feature of a 40 year old film made by a questionable person under questionable circumstances of a questionable subject at a significant distance? This is the best you can do? Pretty lame, Spanky

."If the fingers bend.....you MUST pretend."

Tissue for your woogasm? If the fingers bend what exactly must I pretend?

 

[Belz...]

"Seems" that way....doesn't it?

Yes, constantly.

 

[Belz...]

The reason why I can tell Patty's hand isn't turning, thereby creating the illusion of 'fingers bending'....is because, as anyone can plainly SEE....though apparantly not on their own....when the hand turns from an edge-on view towards a more face-on view.....the hand becomes wider.....

No, no, no, Slippery. The reason why you can tell is PRECISELY because oyu can painly see -- in other words, the picture is far, far clearer than the PGF frames; so it's easy to measure the thing. Still, it wouldn't be conclusive that the fingers DON'T bend unless you KNOW it's a doll, which you do.

Patty's hand does NOT become wider in the frame in which her fingers are more curled-up............not in the least.

What about in this picture ?

Not one skeptic could figure this out on their own.

Well, I'm sure we all did. The problem is that the hand's width is not conclusive. But then, believers have always had a problem with evaluating evidence.

Probably because they're either all idiots....or victims of "wishful thinking".

Who's doing the wishful thinking, mister no-one's-ever-produced-physical-evidence-of-a-bigfoot ?

"If the fingers bend.....you MUST pretend."

And if they don't, so you won't.

 

[kitakaze]

So given the distance and resolution of the film can we confidently say the appearance of the hand bending is not the result of an illusion? I don't think so. Is there any significant point if the fingers do in fact bend? No. Not for Pattycakes. Slippery will no doubt continue to avoid that, though.

 

[William Parcher]

Hmmm....the first frame is quite blurry yet we have perfectfoot with perfect toes. The second frame is much clearer, yet we have blockfoot with no toes.

I see you are using my terms for the appearance of the feet in different frames (i.e. "perfectfoot" and "blockfoot"). You saw another one I named "paddlefoot".

Let's stand by for what I hope Greg will present after my requested favor. Come whatever may come. A storm may or may not be brewing. I think you are possibly thinking what I am thinking.

 

[SweatyYeti]

rgann wrote:

What I have tried to do is to lay out in front of you the information that I found, the calculations that where used and allow you to double check my work and then agree or disagree on the conclusion based on the math.

Do you know what the size of the Dahinden cibachrome pictures was?
Without knowing that, the '4mm resolution' number doesn't have any meaning.

Although given that you are admitting that the frames come from a “shakier” part of the film, I would ask you to consider the two factors (confounding?) one being 16mm resolution range and two being the “blur” caused by camera movement as being reasons why one should question the ability to discern detail in these frames

As for the camera shaking.....Roger steadied the camera for a very short time during this early, shaky part of the film.....so a small number of frames don't show streaks from camera movement.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

First of all, you cannot talk about width being the same until you show that the two frames are the same scale. You claiming they are, is worthless.

it is clear they are not being viewed at the same angle, the same lighting conditions or the same distance from the camera.

You are like a little kid, playing in the sand box with your Tonka trucks and claiming you are going to build the Superdome.

You don't have a clue about photography or image manipulation .
Your ignorance is laughable ..

 

[kitakaze]

Do you know what the size of the Dahinden cibachrome pictures was?
Without knowing that, the '4mm resolution' number doesn't have any meaning.

Oh my, that's rich. Exactly what observations in support of Patty as a live sasquatch as opposed to a man in suit have you offered? Certainly nothing to do with fingers or foreheads. Sparky, you are the maestro of meaningless.

 

[William Parcher]

Do you know what the size of the Dahinden cibachrome pictures was? Without knowing that, the '4mm resolution' number doesn't have any meaning.

Cibachrome is a patented and trademarked group of products produced by Ilford. These are also called Ilfochrome. We are now specifically talking about the contact sheets, but Ilford also produces chemicals and processing equipment that are associated with the "Cibachrome process". The Dahinden PGF Cibachromes seem to suddenly appear in print around 1986 (Manlike Monsters on Trial), and these have a R. Dahinden copyright stamp dated 1986. We might assume that these Cibachromes were truly produced for the first time in 1986, but that is only an assumption because we are not presented with the actual time/provenance of these images. We can't even confidently assume that Dahinden himself created the Cibachromes in a darkroom. This is just more of the vague and frustratingly incomplete legacy of the PGF that confounds any attempt to truly research the issue from a student position.

Anyway, Cibachrome contact sheets have always been marketed in the standard photo print sizes. These are 4"x5", 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20. There may have been larger sizes (or even sheets) available as special order.

The Dahinden PGF Cibachromes are probably 8x10 and/or 11x14. I think we can't really know, because nobody has specified or referenced their size. Certain Pattycakes may have information about this. I believe the Dahinden Cibachromes are still in the physical possession of Rene's sons, who now hold the copyrights. It would be fascinating and informative if these were presented as actual artifacts for research. They are the closest thing anyone can get to the original PGF, which is now said to be missing and no longer accounted for by provenance. Who had physical possession of the PGF before it went missing?

 

[William Parcher]

If there really is a bulge in Patty's wrist, it could have been Heironimus' hand showing itself beneath the costume skin. His own hand would not have fully reached into the costume hand.

 

[kitakaze]

If there really is a bulge in Patty's wrist, it could have been Heironimus' hand showing itself beneath the costume skin. His own hand would not have fully reached into the costume hand.

WP, I thought it was interesting to note that on the topic of the apparent bulge that in the Heironimus/Patty comparison you showed in this post that Bob's hand is right where the bulge seems to be.

 

[LTC8K6]

Right where his hand would curl as he pulled on the mechanism to move the prop fingers...

 

[kitakaze]

Right where his hand would curl as he pulled on the mechanism to move the prop fingers...

Yup. This line of speculation is of course rather provocative for Slurpy and his ilk, though. Do the fingers bend or don't they? Is it an illusion or no? Is finger bending an obvious enough feature to necessitate in-depth speculation? Did Roger go to the effort to design a moving hand apparatus with confidence that it would be a point of focus for those examining the film? Does Patty just naturally have ridiculous T&A?

Questions, questions. So many ho-hum questions. Like, where are the independant sightings matching silly T&A Patty's description? Or the independant track finds matching Patty's? I must admit a sense of admiration for skeptics who are far more educated on the provenance of the PGF than I and at the same time a consignment to a rather 'yeah, so?' type of apathy towards the film. Slurpy looks to the PGF, MMD, and collective sightings claims as the basis for his beliefs and I can ultimately only smile and nod. A creature reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida and that's the best you can come up with to support your fuzzy feelings? Just take the whole tissue box and come back when you've tuckered yourself out, thanks.

 

[rgann]

As for the film resolution limit of 4mm....that applies to the Dahinden cibachromes.

If that's magnified 133 times...the image would be roughly 93 inches wide, by 46 inches high.
That's about 8' wide by 4' high.

Sweaty:

Looking online I don’t see any references to the size of the Cibachromes, however two sources one being Fahrenbach a skeptic and the other a proponent BFRO both refer to the Dahinden cibachromes as being enlarged 133x that being the case I am going to accept the number to be accurate.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/closure.asp

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fahrenbach.htm

I double checked your numbers 93 inches by 46 inches and came up with something different. Here is how I arrived at my numbers:

The gate of a 16mm camera is 9.35 mm x 7.0 mm, essentially the gate is the rectangular opening that is between the film and the lens. This gives the film its aspect ratio of 1:33/4:3, given that the gate restricts what can be exposed this is the number I used.

9.35 mm x 133= 1243.55 mm converted to inches is 4.0799 feet
7.0 mm x 133= 931 mm converted to inches is 3.054 ft

This is roughly what you would expect from film that has a 1:33 aspect ratio

The process of enlarging doesn’t include the enlargement of the entire frame, what some on does is isolate a section, crop it and then enlarge, so there probably never was a 4’x 3’ print made, however I would guess that if someone took the ratio of Patty in the frame to the frame size itself it probably would come to a standard photo paper size, my guess is the person making the prints was going by the largest paper available to them not the desire to enlarge 133X’s, anyone with photo experience might recognize the number as being a standard I don’t know.

That doesn't seem right. Do you know what the size of the cibachromes were?

So for clarity (1) it seems that you disagreed with the results based on the thought that the cibachrome might not be enlarged to 133X, citing opposing sources it appears to be an accepted fact. Also consider finding a digital version of frame 352 and superimpose your image onto it to determine if the size is the same.

(2)You also disagreed with the assessment because your calculations came up with 8ft by 4ft, check my numbers to make sure I have done it correctly coupled with the explanation on how enlargements are made (not the entire frame) let me know if you still stand by the belief that details from a cibachrome of a 16mm film enlarged 133x could show details under 4.2mm.

Rick

 

[rgann]

rgann wrote:
Do you know what the size of the Dahinden cibachrome pictures was?
Without knowing that, the '4mm resolution' number doesn't have any meaning.

As for the camera shaking.....Roger steadied the camera for a very short time during this early, shaky part of the film.....so a small number of frames don't show streaks from camera movement.

SY:

Hopefully my previous post answers how and why 4.2 mm is a valid number.

In regards to the camera shake explanation, if I understand correctly you are stating that

1. The camera was shaking
2. RP steadied it occasionally
3. These frames are from this section

I am going to make an assumption and correct me if I am wrong but are you making the determination that RP steadied these frames by viewing the film in motion and discerning on the fly that a specific frame is clear or are you looking at the frame you presented and determining by the naked eye that its not blurred therefore RP must have steadied himself? Seems circular or at least self fulfilling something like the bible is true because the bible says so.

Consider this, blurring has a range or spectrum from very blurry nothing discernable to moments before the camera comes to a stop, both cause distortion one is what we all easily see as “blurry” the other a bit more subtle and can still produce artifacts, double exposures etc. (I really would like to know what type of film was used and its speed)

Rick

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty:

Looking online I don’t see any references to the size of the Cibachromes, however two sources one being Fahrenbach a skeptic...

Rick, great posts and welcome to the board. Your knowledge is greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to Squeaky's forthcoming reaction to actual analysis. BTW, a bit of a knit-pick but Fahrenbach is no skeptic.

 

[William Parcher]

Right where his hand would curl as he pulled on the mechanism to move the prop fingers...

Bob Heironimus gives recollective testimony on certain details of the Bigfoot costume and his experience wearing it at Bluff Creek for the filming by Roger Patterson. His testimony does not include manipulating any kind of mechanism within the costume arms or hands.

Philip Morris states that he did tell Roger Patterson that he could use "sticks" inside the costume arms to provide the illusion of active hands. Morris said this to Patterson in a telephone conversation he had with him when PM sold a gorilla suit to RP in May 1967.

If Heironimus' recollection is correct - then Patterson did not incorporate any sort of internal mechanism associated with the costume hands.

Therefore, you cannot meaningfully postulate that BH "pulled on the mechanism" that he himself has not spoken of. IOW, Bob Heironimus is saying that there was no mechanism at all that was involved with the hands.

 

[rgann]

Rick, great posts and welcome to the board. Your knowledge is greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to Squeaky's forthcoming reaction to actual analysis. BTW, a bit of a knit-pick but Fahrenbach is no skeptic.

kitakaze
Thanks very much for the welcome and thanks for pointing out the Fahrenbach info, an assumption on my part I should have checked my sources, though it seems even better having two proponents agreeing on the number.

I have been reading this thread and any of the BF related threads for a long time including all your posts, I actually joined JREF in 2001 but a few years back a database glitch erased me and the few things I might have said, I typically don’t post much, because you guys seem to always beat me to the punch usually in a much more succinct way, I am usually composing a manifesto, I hit reload and William or you in 25 words or less make the point. So strangely I feel like I know many of the posters, and I felt it was about time to step out of the shadows.

This particular part of the "body of evidence" has always interested me it seems to get trotted out all the time, one odd animated GIF after another and I want to see where the search leads, in the end if BF was the real thing I would be overjoyed. (Unfortunately I am doubtful)

Rick

 

[kitakaze]

Therefore, you cannot meaningfully postulate that BH "pulled on the mechanism" that he himself has not spoken of. IOW, Bob Heironimus is saying that there was no mechanism at all that was involved with the hands.

True, unless LTC was not bearing in mind that specific testimony by BH and simply offering a possible mundane explanation to account for the possibility of finger movement. This is a matter of course in such circumstances, IMO. Nevertheless, as I will continue to assert, the whole line of pursuit of validation of the PGF as sasquatch in relation to finger movement is utterly meaningless.