• 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.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Astrophotographer said:
Once again, identify the points you are using to draw your lines so we can figure out what you are doing. I am not afraid of anything



but..... ( ;) )



because you aren't explaining your methodology, we have no idea how to answer the question. ( :D )


Repeating the same statement over and over again is meaningless. I want you to demonstrate exactly how you drew your lines and then show me how you did the same thing with the Bob image. So far, you have only demonstrated that you appear to have used two different standards.

Stop stalling. Answer the questions.
Click to expand...



Also....from my earlier post...a little something you're a little afraid of...:)...


Astro wrote:



At first it is above the ear but then it is at the back of the head.

Now it has to be above the ear again.


Which is it?
Click to expand...






Is it possible that the line I drew on Patty starts at a point which is BOTH...

1) On the 'back edge of Patty's head'

AND...

2) At a point located 'just above the ear'?


Is that possible, Astro?
 
Astro wrote:
"Attempting" is a good word for it.
Click to expand...


:)


Astro wrote:


Yes. It is one of several things.

One is a bright area on the film and the other is over-processing of the image that has affected that part of the head.

Remember the original image was probably only a few pixel across and it has been enlarged/processed and converted...........
Click to expand...




patterson_bigfoot.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
Is that possible, Astro?
Click to expand...

I can draw lines connecting any two points on Bunny's head and that will make it possible. It does not make it right and since you keep refusing to answer how you arrived at your data points it is a meaningless point.

So stop running away and answer my question. What are you actual data points for drawing the lines and why are the lines on Bunny drawn differently than the lines on Bob?

Additionally, why aren't you answering the question about the link I posted where it showed the shape of the head being different than the one you are using? Why can't you understand how images are affected by processing that introduces artifacts?

As far as I can tell, and I am sure others in here will agree, you have done absolutely nothing to prove your case. You do not even know what the lines mean! We all know your little game of promising answers and then never delivering. This, once again, proves you can not or will not answer bigfoot questions.
 
Astro wrote:
This, once again, proves you can not or will not answer bigfoot questions.
Click to expand...


Actually, Astro....you are the one dancing around my question....trying very hard not to answer it.


This statement of yours seems to be an answer to the question..


I can draw lines connecting any two points on Bunny's head and that will make it possible.
Click to expand...


..but, just to be 100% sure.....is your answer "Yes"???
 
SweatyYeti said:
GeorgeJefferson1.gif
GeorgeJefferson1.gif
GeorgeJefferson1.gif
GeorgeJefferson1.gif
GeorgeJefferson1.gif



Did you hear that, Wheezie??....Sweaty said 'BOTH'!! I heard it....but I sure don't get it!

I heard him, too, George....I got ears of my own, you know! I can dig what the dude is saying, though.....he's placing a point on a two-dimensional image, using 2 coordinates....one on a Y axis, and one on an X axis......it's simple geometry, George!

HUH??? What the hell you talkin' about Wheezie???......just dance, will ya?!
Click to expand...

Sweaty, I... I really don't know how to break this to you so I'll just come straight out with it. That's not Weezie and your Louise Jefferson impression is terrible. It's like you've never watched the Jeffersons or are very bad at seeing what's in your own images. It's like you assume that because she's a black woman next to George that it must be Weezie and that because Weezie is a black woman she is going to talk with the inflections that you gave her. Louise's character was very eloquent and didn't jive talk. She would never say "dude" or that she could "dig" something. The woman dancing next to George is Louise Jefferson's best friend, Helen Willis. She was played by Roxie Roker, the mother of Lenny Kravitz. Helen is quite a bit taller and thinner than Louise.

Check 4:00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubwm4KN_KGc&feature=related
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
..but, just to be 100% sure.....is your answer "Yes"???
Click to expand...

As I expected, Sweaty's "later" is a ploy used to avoid difficult bigfoot questions.
Are you trying to validate your work by me admitting that there is a point on a photograph where the edge of the head is above the ear? Yes, there is always a point on a subjects head above the ear. However, this is not what you said in post 1674:

the back edge of the visible head, approx. half-way up the head...

There is no mention of the ear in this post. Now you are saying that there is a point where the "Back" of the head is above the ear. Most people call that the "top" of the head but in Sweaty land, back and top can be interchangable I guess.

Explain why you chose not to select that point (at the top of the head above the ear) on Bob? Why do you keep shifting your standards of work? Your work is invalid for several very obvious reasons:

1) You can't explain what it means
2) You apply the first data point differently on the two subjects in question.
3) You can not define the second data point for which you created your line.
4) You have difficulty in understanding how images are distorted through photo manipulation and resizing (add to this the number of generations this is from the original scan).
5) You have difficulty in understanding that the resolution in these images is too poor to make determinations of the magnitude you desire.

Now go back to the corner where you can play make believe and color with crayons. When you have something coherent to say, then the adults may recognize it as potentially valid.
 
kitakaze said:
Sweaty, I... I really don't know how to break this to you so I'll just come straight out with it. That's not Weezie and your Louise Jefferson impression is terrible.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that info, kitty.....I never looked at the lady close enough to realize it wasn't Wheezie. I just assumed it was, when I found the gif....and then 'ran with it'.


But, I think 'Wheezie' sounds better...more humorous...than 'Helen', so I think I'll stay with that!
Call it.....'artistic license'. :)




It's like you've never watched the Jeffersons or are very bad at seeing what's in your own images. It's like you assume that because she's a black woman next to George that it must be Weezie and that because Weezie is a black woman she is going to talk with the inflections that you gave her. Louise's character was very eloquent and didn't jive talk. She would never say "dude" or that she could "dig" something. The woman dancing next to George is Louise Jefferson's best friend, Helen Willis. She was played by Roxie Roker, the mother of Lenny Kravitz. Helen is quite a bit taller and thinner than Louise.

Check 4:00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubwm4KN_KGc&feature=related
Click to expand...



Thanks for the video link, too. Actually...I may download the video, and try making a larger animated-gif of George.....and 'Wheezie' ;) ....dancing.


I'll admit....you could be right, about 'W's" lines....but I think George's character came through, loud and clear, with his lines. :rolleyes:
 
Astrophotographer said:
As I expected, Sweaty's "later" is a ploy used to avoid difficult bigfoot questions.
Are you trying to validate your work by me admitting that there is a point on a photograph where the edge of the head is above the ear? Yes, there is always a point on a subjects head above the ear. However, this is not what you said in post 1674:

the back edge of the visible head, approx. half-way up the head...

There is no mention of the ear in this post. Now you are saying that there is a point where the "Back" of the head is above the ear. Most people call that the "top" of the head but in Sweaty land, back and top can be interchangable I guess.

Explain why you chose not to select that point (at the top of the head above the ear) on Bob? Why do you keep shifting your standards of work? Your work is invalid for several very obvious reasons:

1) You can't explain what it means
2) You apply the first data point differently on the two subjects in question.
3) You can not define the second data point for which you created your line.
4) You have difficulty in understanding how images are distorted through photo manipulation and resizing (add to this the number of generations this is from the original scan).
5) You have difficulty in understanding that the resolution in these images is too poor to make determinations of the magnitude you desire.

Now go back to the corner where you can play make believe and color with crayons. When you have something coherent to say, then the adults may recognize it as potentially valid.
Click to expand...



I should have time later tonight to respond to your post, Astro.


So, I guess your answer to my question is 'Yes'.....even though the meaning of your explanation...(after the 'Yes')...is slightly different than the meaning of my question...

Yes, there is always a point on a subjects head above the ear.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sweaty, Astro had no problem answering your question. What the easy one's he asked you two days ago...

Astrophotographer said:
Now, how about answering these questions:

1. What are your comparison drawings trying to demonstrate?
2. What is the standard for placing the upper point of your line? Is it the back of the head or the ear?
3. What is the standard for placing the lower point of your line? Is it the butt or the thigh?
Click to expand...

Astrophotographer said:
You still are avoiding my questions. Can you explain what you are doing and what it demonstrates? When you draw a line, you need two data points. You have given a vague standard for the first point. What is the second point by which you drew your lines?

Finally, why is the line for Bob in a suit's head not intersecting the ear? Why did your line parallel the back of his head? Why was it wrong for me to do that with "Bunny's" head?

Remember, this is your evidence and theory. I would think you could explain it clearly (i.e. identifying your data points for the lines) so everyone could follow and see if your work is valid. I also would think you could clearly explain what this is supposed to show.

Finally, unless the two figures are identically posed (i.e. head position, head tilt, etc.) then this kind of comparison based on a small scale is probably going to be severely flawed.
Click to expand...

Are those answers somewhere in your dreamposts?
 
kitakaze said:
Are those answers somewhere in your dreamposts?
Click to expand...

Not that I can see. IMO, he won't answer them because he really can not or will not. He was just scribbling with crayons and thought he found something. Instead, his work is worthless because nobody can replicate it (and when they attempt to do so, they are laughed at and/or asked trick questions to make it appear they are right). I guess this is another case of him not answering questions relating to bigfoot.
 
makaya325 said:
Did you get a chance to meet up with BH, Kitz?
Click to expand...

No. If I had gone to Yakima I would have obviously told the forum about it. I will be contacting him soon and seeking to arrange a meeting for later this summer. I still have a large piece on the PGF that I need to make time to edit as well. I have little time even to post here now as it is music festival time.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Not that I can see. IMO, he won't answer them because he really can not or will not. He was just scribbling with crayons and thought he found something. Instead, his work is worthless because nobody can replicate it (and when they attempt to do so, they are laughed at and/or asked trick questions to make it appear they are right). I guess this is another case of him not answering questions relating to bigfoot.
Click to expand...

Oh, we're talking about Sweaty here. The description sounded so similar to someone else I thought you may have posted in the wrong thread.
 
That was a cool episode of MQ, that just ended.

I thoroughly enjoyed Bill's analysis of the cone-shaped head of Patty. :)


Here's a comparison I put together a couple of days ago....showing a similar result.....(as is typical)....the human head doesn't quite fit...


PattyBobHeadCompAG4.gif
 
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PattyBobHeadCompAG4.gif[/qimg][/QUOTE]

They are at completely different angles and direction. Did you see when Munn's complained when Begun gave his more likely analysis of the film
 
makaya wrote:
They are at completely different angles and direction.
Click to expand...


There is some difference in the head angles. I haven't spent much time looking at that, yet.


It's just a comparison lining-up the eyes, and seeing how the heads match-up.
I'll be doing some more work on it...re-sizing the two images, and maybe reversing, or flipping, one of the images horizontally.

I just decided to post this comparison now, because of the similarity of it to Bill Munn's 'Patty head analysis' on MQ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom