Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[William Parcher]

(Rick) BTW, a bit of a knit-pick but Fahrenbach is no skeptic.

I was about to mention the same thing. Rick should probably be careful of how and where he uses the term skeptic in the context of Bigfoot-related internet threads.

Dr. Henner Fahrenbach is skeptical of anyone's ability to make declarative statements concerning minute details that are derived from 16mm Kodachrome II film stock. That is not the same as him being skeptical of Bigfoot, or more specifically of Patty.

As far as I can tell... Dr. Fahrenbach is a Bigfooter and a Pattycake.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

The two frames in this animation ( the 2nd moreso ) are relatively clear , but the subject is rarely the point of focus in the entire film..

The few seconds these 2 frames are pulled from, are shaky and one of the most blurry parts of the film, with ground and sky shots liberally mixed in.

The only clear, steady shots, are when the stand of trees are in focus, with no Patty in sight, for a few seconds..

Patty seems to have the effect of making the camera jump and /or lose focus.

 

[rgann]

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.

I agree with your final assessment that finger movement does not imply validity, there have been multiple explanations or alternate possibilities offered that are more likely to be true, since the initial premise that an unclassified bipedal primate walks North America lacks credibility and a body.

However just for clarity, my point which i hope is transparent is to call into question the use of animated GIF's as any type of proof of any anomaly seen on Patty. It just seems over used and under supported.

Rick

 

[kitakaze]

Rick, you are all the more welcome. It seems we are of a similar mind and experience in our participation on the subject. Many proponents often lose sight or never had it that many of those who find our selves skeptical towards bigfoot, while unable to let our enthusiasm to get the better of us, would very much like to be served a fine dish of crow where bigfoot is concerned. As you well know, we'd be best advised not to hope for that appetite to be satiated.

 

[kitakaze]

However just for clarity, my point which i hope is transparent is to call into question the use of animated GIF's as any type of proof of any anomaly seen on Patty. It just seems over used and under supported.

Rick

Transparent and quite true. Unfortunately for Pattycakes we don't have film of Patty engaging in a defecate and fling maneuver. That would have been some reliable evidence.

 

[rgann]

The two frames in this animation ( the 2nd moreso ) are relatively clear , but the subject is rarely the point of focus in the entire film..

The few seconds these 2 frames are pulled from, are shaky and one of the most blurry parts of the film, with ground and sky shots liberally mixed in.

The only clear, steady shots, are when the stand of trees are in focus, with no Patty in sight, for a few seconds..

Patty seems to have the effect of making the camera jump and /or lose focus.

Wow I am doubling my meager post count in one day; I may have to stop soon.

Its really great to see a normal size version of the film shown, just to have a point of reference on how minute the hand, calf, eye enlargements are.

I agree that the frames are relatively in focus, I was hoping to point out that “blur” comes in a range and even a slight tweak makes things at a small level difficult to determine combining that with the limits of film resolution it just seems clear that the image can’t be relied on for details. I use to do video work with a guy that was a real outdoorsman type and anytime he saw a deer or elk he would whistle extremely loud and it seemed 9 out of 10 times it would stop them in their tracks and I would get the shot, I can only wish…

I was about to mention the same thing. Rick should probably be careful of how and where he uses the term skeptic in the context of Bigfoot-related internet threads.

Thanks duly noted!

Rick

 

[William Parcher]

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.

You seem to be offering an alternative explanation that LTC did not give. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't specifically follow from what LTC said.

Flow of the conversation...

Parcher: BH's hand might be where we see the Patty wrist bulge.
Kitakaze: Right; and your (Parcher's) posted image seems to show that BH's hand would really be at about the position of Patty's wrist bulge.
LTC: "Right where his hand would curl as he pulled on the mechanism..."

As soon as LTC uses the words "his hand" after our specific conversation, he sort of locks himself into a specific statement about Bob Heironimus' hand. We could expect that a really short guy (not BH) inside of the Patty costume would have his hand located at a different point within the Patty costume arm.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

Bob's performance as Patty may not be the one Roger released.

If this is a hoax, it's unlikely there was only one try.

Roger may have needed Bob's walk as an example.

Maybe there's a reason BH was never paid.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I agree that the frames are relatively in focus, I was hoping to point out that “blur” comes in a range and even a slight tweak makes things at a small level difficult to determine combining that with the limits of film resolution it just seems clear that the image can’t be relied on for details. I use to do video work with a guy that was a real outdoorsman type and anytime he saw a deer or elk he would whistle extremely loud and it seemed 9 out of 10 times it would stop them in their tracks and I would get the shot, I can only wish…

Rick

Something else that people tend to ignore . The mind will attempt and succeed to fill in missing detail, whether it is actually what is there or not. .. Taking a closer/2nd look at anything, will often reveal a different picture..

Too often, we just run with the first look, and refuse to consider the 2nd, 3rd etc..

 

[William Parcher]

Bob's performance as Patty may not be the one Roger released.

I really appreciate the inspired imagination. No, I mean I really do, with no sarcasm attached. I have imagined and seized upon the idea (from known circumstances and testimony) that BH was Patty, and not really entertained variations on this.

If this is a hoax, it's unlikely there was only one try.

Then it cannot be BH in the PGF, because he certainly would have remembered more than one (filming) try. You once mentioned in this forum that you agreed with me that BH was Patty. Are you now having doubts?

Roger may have needed Bob's walk as an example.

An example for who? Wasn't Bob Heironimus the only one for Roger Patterson?

No, there is another...

Maybe there's a reason BH was never paid.

Was Bob Gimlin the man in the Patty suit in the final take? Did Gimlin sue Patty Patterson after Roger died because he wanted to rule the galaxy?

Good Lord I'm going insane, and my head is spinning from a loud guitar attached to an amplifier turned up to eleven. What would Jesus do if he saw Bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

How do we know Roger didn't try more than one suit and more than one actor? Maybe Roger didn't like the results of the suit that BH wore?

The demo would be how Roger wanted his sasquatch to walk.
BH could have been a rehearsal that Roger cut, but he liked the walk.

BH could simply have been making Patty tracks for Roger, unbeknownst to BH.

There were three sets of tracks out there, right? Junior, Momma, and Poppa. Maybe BH was just one of those sets of tracks.

I don't think I've ever agreed that BH was definitely Patty, or that Patty was definitely a man in a suit.

I'm about 99.9% sure that Patty is a man in a suit.

I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that Roger tried more than one suit and more than one actor.

 

[SweatyYeti]

rgann wrote:

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)

I'll respond more to your posts later tonight, Rick....I only have a few minutes available right now.

I'm not disputing the 4.2 mm number at all. I'm sure it's legitimate.
What I meant by it "not having any meaning" is that it's only a meaningful figure when it's applied to a certain size picture....and I haven't seen that size specified by anyone yet.

About the 'steady frames'.....there's no 'circular reasoning' involved in determining whether or not the camera was shaky during certain frames.
It's simply a matter of looking at the frames. If there is streaking in the image, then the camera was moving pretty fast during that 1/18th of a second that the film was exposed to light.
If there is no streaking, then the camera was steady, or moving so slowly that there was effectively no movement during that 1/18th of a second.

Camera movement doesn't cause the image to blur...as if it were out of focus...it causes streaks in the image.

 

[William Parcher]

What I meant by it "not having any meaning" is that it's only a meaningful figure when it's applied to a certain size picture....and I haven't seen that size specified by anyone yet.

Yes you did. I told you about the sizes of Cibachrome prints. In order for anyone to make a Cibachrome print they have to buy Cibachrome paper. That paper is sold in standard sizes of 4x5, 8x10 & 11x14. I can't find any reference which states the size which was used for the Dahinden PGF Cibachromes. Rene must have known, and his sons must now know... but that information seems to just not given anywhere that we can find.

It's what I was talking about when I said that a student of the PGF is left scratching their head. It's the same problem for Suitniks and Pattycakes. The "higher-ups" hold all of the information cards. For everyone else... it's turtles all the way down.

 

[rgann]

I'm not disputing the 4.2 mm number at all. I'm sure it's legitimate.

Great glad we agree on this.

What I meant by it "not having any meaning" is that it's only a meaningful figure when it's applied to a certain size picture....and I haven't seen that size specified by anyone yet.

In principle I think I understand your statement, I think you are saying that unless I produce for you the exact size (L x W) of the Dahinden Cibachromes you see this info as “not having any meaning”. Even though I cited two sources making the same claim that they have been enlarged 133X, and I have made the claim that the image you posted closely matches in size the Cibachromes.

Just out of curiosity did you get a chance to read either of the previous links on the capacity of 16mm film in regards to the PGF? (BFRO & Fahrenbach)

About the 'steady frames'.....there's no 'circular reasoning' involved in determining whether or not the camera was shaky during certain frames.
It's simply a matter of looking at the frames. If there is streaking in the image, then the camera was moving pretty fast during that 1/18th of a second that the film was exposed to light.
If there is no streaking, then the camera was steady, or moving so slowly that there was effectively no movement during that 1/18th of a second.

Camera movement doesn't cause the image to blur...as if it were out of focus...it causes streaks in the image.

Fair enough lets just call it even on this one, you see blurring as binary either it is blurry or its not, “streaking” seems to be the only tell tale sign, I see it as a range, very blurry to slightly blurry etc. So many other factors are involved, definitively knowing frame rate speed, definitively knowing the film stock, the speed capacity of the film. Conversion methods etc, and unfortunately we don’t know any of that

Reading at BFF I see that the image in the animated GIF you posted are not sequential, the GIF was put together as a comment on the feet, someone cropped the hand apparently they are frames 61 and 72.

Rick

 

[Spektator]

Have you seen this ?

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/buttcomp.gif[/qimg]

The pic on the left is a gorilla suit circa 1949 ...

Good gosh, no wonder believers in bigfoot don't want to comment on this pair of photos! Uncanny resemblance there.

 

[Hitch]

About the 'steady frames'.....there's no 'circular reasoning' involved in determining whether or not the camera was shaky during certain frames.
It's simply a matter of looking at the frames. If there is streaking in the image, then the camera was moving pretty fast during that 1/18th of a second that the film was exposed to light.
If there is no streaking, then the camera was steady, or moving so slowly that there was effectively no movement during that 1/18th of a second.

You can't see that one of those frames is considerably blurrier than the other?

Oh look... I can draw lines, too:

And look! The hand gets wider! Amazing!!!

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Yes you did. I told you about the sizes of Cibachrome prints. In order for anyone to make a Cibachrome print they have to buy Cibachrome paper. That paper is sold in standard sizes of 4x5, 8x10 & 11x14. I can't find any reference which states the size which was used for the Dahinden PGF Cibachromes. Rene must have known, and his sons must now know... but that information seems to just not given anywhere that we can find.

I did see your post, Will, but I didn't have time to coment on it earlier.

That gives us a range of picture sizes....but we still don't know which one it was.
Also, is cibachrome paper available in larger sizes...or is 11x14 the largest?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hitch wrote:

You can't see that one of those frames is considerably blurrier than the other?

I guess you can't see the horizontal streaking in the "blurred" frame, Hitch.

Inside the yellow box there are two white branches...one vertical and one horizontal.
Notice how the vertical branch stretches, or streaks, horizontally, but the horizontal branch doesn't stretch vertically.

The camera must have been moving horizontally...because the image has horizontal streaking in it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hitch wrote:

And look! The hand gets wider! Amazing!!!

And...as a bonus....it gets wider in the WRONG frame!!

In the "doll hand illusion" animated gif......the fingers look more bent in the frame where the hand appears wider.

Just the OPPOSITE happens with Patty's hand.....the hand appears wider in the frame where the fingers are straighter.
Reinforcing what I pointed out earlier......it's not an illusion caused by the hand turning.

 

[SweatyYeti]

rgann wrote:

In principle I think I understand your statement, I think you are saying that unless I produce for you the exact size (L x W) of the Dahinden Cibachromes you see this info as “not having any meaning”. Even though I cited two sources making the same claim that they have been enlarged 133X, and I have made the claim that the image you posted closely matches in size the Cibachromes.

The question is still....exactly what size picture does 133X magnification produce.

Just out of curiosity did you get a chance to read either of the previous links on the capacity of 16mm film in regards to the PGF? (BFRO & Fahrenbach)

Not yet.....possibly tomorrow.