• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobbieshort said:
------------------------
I surely do NOT believe they "tracked Patty 3 miles,"
(not from a medical point of view) that is nonsense, she had already stumbled once and falter another time before the film runs out....but there is an interesting photo showing tractor treadmarks on that sandbar, a dugout hole with a birm around it that might lend itself to your question. Al Hodgson also is quoted as saying the owner of that front loader, or whatever it's called, was furious with them over the use of it. I'd rather upload those photos and let you make that determination.... but it will have to wait until later today.
Click to expand...

So you think they buried her. Why didn't they bring her carcass in? And even if they decided then to bury her, why didn't they come back and dig her up after the footage wasn't being accepted as proof?
 
bobbieshort said:
------------------------
I surely do NOT believe they "tracked Patty 3 miles,"
(not from a medical point of view) that is nonsense, she had already stumbled once and falter another time before the film runs out....but there is an interesting photo showing tractor treadmarks on that sandbar, a dugout hole with a birm around it that might lend itself to your question. Al Hodgson also is quoted as saying the owner of that front loader, or whatever it's called, was furious with them over the use of it. I'd rather upload those photos and let you make that determination.... but it will have to wait until later today.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud, isn't it OBVIOUS what they did with her?!
 
bobbieshort said:
------------------------
I surely do NOT believe they "tracked Patty 3 miles,"
(not from a medical point of view) that is nonsense, she had already stumbled once and falter another time before the film runs out....but there is an interesting photo showing tractor treadmarks on that sandbar, a dugout hole with a birm around it that might lend itself to your question. Al Hodgson also is quoted as saying the owner of that front loader, or whatever it's called, was furious with them over the use of it. I'd rather upload those photos and let you make that determination.... but it will have to wait until later today.
Click to expand...

So - what was the name of the person who owned the machine that was used?
Since the owner was supposed to be unhappy with the way the machine was used - why has he not come forward?

If one is thinking bribe $$$ to keep him quiet - where did it come from? When was it paid? By whom?
Bribes of the type "We will pay you when we hopefully get some $$$" are only applicable to movies.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Jack in the Box at MABRC.








[qimg]http://www.hmds.ws/Pics/overlay1.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.hmds.ws/Pics/overlay2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.hmds.ws/Pics/overlay3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

William Jim is a little stretched/elongated and Patty is a little squashed (not squatched BTW lol). The only way to compare height Jim vs Patty is by the better positioned with backround/objects that have already been presented.
 
Crowlogic said:
William Jim is a little stretched/elongated and Patty is a little squashed (not squatched BTW lol). The only way to compare height Jim vs Patty is by the better positioned with backround/objects that have already been presented.
Click to expand...


You talk as if Jack did not adjust (correct) the image of Jim. He did. Now you are proposing that the image of Patty also needs adjustment because she is "squashed"?

Are you paying attention?
 
For a valid photo comparison we need 3 things:

1) Same camera position
2) Same distance from the camera
3) Same aspect ratio

We have no control over 1 & 2, but 3 can be calibrated using a digital image of a full frame from the PGF. We know the aspect ratio of the film so we can adjust a full frame digital image accordingly. Then we can calibrate frames from the LMS and McClarin by registering them to the full frame image.

It turns out that the LMS needed to be stretched vertically 6% (files captured from the DVD were distorted vertically another 12%) and McClarin needed to be stretched horizontally 3%. McClarin also had to be rotated 3 degrees to register with the PGF. In the end what you get are images with the correct aspect ratio (maybe the only ones).

After both frames were successfully registered it seems that the camera positions were VERY close since the background and foreground objects could be matched up. So if the camera positions were in sync then the only unknown is whether they followed the exact same path. If they did then the following would be a valid comparison. (click to animate?)

 
Óðinn said:
For a valid photo comparison we need 3 things:

1) Same camera position
2) Same distance from the camera
3) Same aspect ratio

We have no control over 1 & 2, but 3 can be calibrated using a digital image of a full frame from the PGF. We know the aspect ratio of the film so we can adjust a full frame digital image accordingly. Then we can calibrate frames from the LMS and McClarin by registering them to the full frame image.

It turns out that the LMS needed to be stretched vertically 6% (files captured from the DVD were distorted vertically another 12%) and McClarin needed to be stretched horizontally 3%. McClarin also had to be rotated 3 degrees to register with the PGF. In the end what you get are images with the correct aspect ratio (maybe the only ones).

After both frames were successfully registered it seems that the camera positions were VERY close since the background and foreground objects could be matched up. So if the camera positions were in sync then the only unknown is whether they followed the exact same path. If they did then the following would be a valid comparison. (click to animate?)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1950349821dd7ac66f.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

WP cherry picked again. When crow and i posted a pic showing patty's towering size over mclarin, its dismissed as "angles". Yet when wp shows an ambigious pic he claims shows that jm is taller. What if that pic is an angle, and patty is much taller?
 
Kitz, are you blind? How in the hell can you fit bob h's skeleton on patty? I realize that you dismissed someones attempt to but a squatch skeleton on patty, yet your being hypocritical
 
Óðinn said:
For a valid photo comparison we need 3 things:

1) Same camera position
2) Same distance from the camera
3) Same aspect ratio

We have no control over 1 & 2, but 3 can be calibrated using a digital image of a full frame from the PGF. We know the aspect ratio of the film so we can adjust a full frame digital image accordingly. Then we can calibrate frames from the LMS and McClarin by registering them to the full frame image.

It turns out that the LMS needed to be stretched vertically 6% (files captured from the DVD were distorted vertically another 12%) and McClarin needed to be stretched horizontally 3%. McClarin also had to be rotated 3 degrees to register with the PGF. In the end what you get are images with the correct aspect ratio (maybe the only ones).

After both frames were successfully registered it seems that the camera positions were VERY close since the background and foreground objects could be matched up. So if the camera positions were in sync then the only unknown is whether they followed the exact same path. If they did then the following would be a valid comparison. (click to animate?)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1950349821dd7ac66f.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Dude, Phlueeze
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
Dude, Phlueeze
Click to expand...
I know you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about so I am REALLY interested for you to point out the phuleeze points. This is pretty basic stuff so this should demonstrate your lack of comprehension. But prepare to be wrong unless you think that I am pushing some sort of an agenda.
 
Óðinn said:
I know you are going to pretend to know what you are talking about so I am REALLY interested for you to point out the phuleeze points. This is pretty basic stuff so this should demonstrate your lack of comprehension. But prepare to be wrong unless you think that I am pushing some sort of an agenda.
Click to expand...

Listen GF, you can cut the crap here. This isnt the BFF and you dont have moderators running coverfire for you to protect you and your BS.

You are right, this is pretty basic but like your "expertise" in photogrammetery- you are wrong once again.

I know you are pushing your BS agenda just like you did there- the only difference here is that I can unload on you and show all how wrong you are without mods threatening me for being "caustic" and for "chronic disobedience" ( whatever those are since my inquiries went unanswered) You dont have that cover here.

You want to get in the Octagon with your Master- pack a lunch and lock the door behind you. I'll handle the rest.
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
Listen GF, you can cut the crap here. This isnt the BFF and you dont have moderators running coverfire for you to protect you and your BS.

You are right, this is pretty basic but like your "expertise" in photogrammetery- you are wrong once again.

I know you are pushing your BS agenda just like you did there- the only difference here is that I can unload on you and show all how wrong you are without mods threatening me for being "caustic" and for "chronic disobedience" ( whatever those are since my inquiries went unanswered) You dont have that cover here.

You want to get in the Octagon with your Master- pack a lunch and lock the door behind you. I'll handle the rest.
Click to expand...
Waiting....Longblabber :D
 
makaya325 said:
Kitz, are you blind? How in the hell can you fit bob h's skeleton on patty?
Click to expand...

Whatever are you talking about? Go have a look at mangler's images in my post #359.

I realize that you dismissed someones attempt to but a squatch skeleton on patty, yet your being hypocritical[/QUOTE]

Whatever are you talking about? Care to point that out?
 
Óðinn said:
After both frames were successfully registered it seems that the camera positions were VERY close since the background and foreground objects could be matched up.
Click to expand...

GF, I thought that was quite interesting. It is amazing how close those images are. So Patty seems to be quite a bit shorter than Jim.
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
Listen GF, you can cut the crap here. This isnt the BFF and you dont have moderators running coverfire for you to protect you and your BS.

You are right, this is pretty basic but like your "expertise" in photogrammetery- you are wrong once again.

I know you are pushing your BS agenda just like you did there- the only difference here is that I can unload on you and show all how wrong you are without mods threatening me for being "caustic" and for "chronic disobedience" ( whatever those are since my inquiries went unanswered) You dont have that cover here.

You want to get in the Octagon with your Master- pack a lunch and lock the door behind you. I'll handle the rest.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything in Gigantofootecus' post that looked quite wrong. That's JMO. I would like to see how it's wrong if that's the case.
 
LTC8K6 said:
bobbie, the first part is from the 67 and 92 interview transcripts, and from Murphy's PGF history.

The second part about McLarin is from Pursuit 1968.
Click to expand...
-----------------------------
Except for Murphy's stuff, most of that is uploaded on Bigfootencounters dot com....and no matter how many times I reread that stuff, it's amazing how some points stand out and others dont. Thanks for that, I appreciate the time you took to remind me....I went back and reread those this evening plus listened to some of the audio tapes on YouTube again where BG is the guest speaker. The discrepancies are numerous....and every time I take time to compare, I come away with this increasing sense that the whole story was never told to general research. The film tells a different story, doesn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom