Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Óðinn said:
Maybe that it's a guy in a bigfoot costume. There's more information in a 3D image than a single frame.
Click to expand...

But its information ammount will not be larger than the sum of the information ammounts contained by the individual images used to build it.


In other words, nothing new will come from it. We don't have some crucial precise and reliable data on the camera optics or paralax or subject-camera distance to allow good measurements. You are also not supposed to trace drainage networks over Patty.

So, again, besides being cooler to look at, WTF is it suppose to prove?
 
GT/CS said:
It becomes a 3D image when seen through a stereoscopic viewer. So unless you have one the image ain't worth squat.
Click to expand...
I guess you weren't paying attention. You don't need a stereoscopic viewer to see 3D, just stereo images. And besides, if you don't have a PC monitor to view the images, they ain't worth squat either. ;)

Blackdog said:
How is something like that a 3D image?
It's two 2D frames. It's a nice (and old) trick but that's all it is.
Click to expand...
Two 2D frames (stereo pairs) = 3D. You would be surprised how extensively this "trick" is used for photo interpretation. This method restores the elevation on aerial/satellite photos used to survey the land, forest, etc. Even the Mars missions used anaglyphs to add relief to the 2D photos.

The jagged border that Kit drew around Patty disappears in 3D. The edges get sharply defined, as well as other detail. This is similar to the difference between stills and film.

Correa Neto said:
But its information ammount will not be larger than the sum of the information ammounts contained by the individual images used to build it.
Click to expand...
Not true. Film alone amounts to more than the sum of the individual frames. This is akin to image averaging.

In other words, nothing new will come from it. We don't have some crucial precise and reliable data on the camera optics or paralax or subject-camera distance to allow good measurements. You are also not supposed to trace drainage networks over Patty.

So, again, besides being cooler to look at, WTF is it suppose to prove?
Click to expand...
It likely won't prove anything. Especially the highly edited 3D image I created from Sweaty's GIF. But this method does provide a relative 3rd dimension, which is "new" information. It's not just cool to look at.
 
You would be surprised how extensively this "trick" is used for photo interpretation. This method restores the elevation on aerial/satellite photos used to survey the land, forest, etc. Even the Mars missions used anaglyphs to add relief to the 2D photos.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised; believe it or not I actually can read and comprehend things above a 5th grade level. I'm pretty sure that when the satellite surveys a geographic area it records more than a few pictures to achieve the relief detail. It is also photographing static geographic features, the Patterson subject is not static. If it were we might get something more from this method.

Regardless of the shift in perspective the main subject of the film is still two dimensional. I don't see any three dimensional aspect of the body of the subject. (muscles, costume folds, bullet holes, etc...).
Any motion blur and film anomalies that are on the subject are also on the stereoscopic images.
What can be determined (and we already knew this) is that the subject and photographer were moving.
What new information am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Óðinn said:
Not true. Film alone amounts to more than the sum of the individual frames. This is akin to image averaging.


It likely won't prove anything. Especially the highly edited 3D image I created from Sweaty's GIF. But this method does provide a relative 3rd dimension, which is "new" information. It's not just cool to look at.
Click to expand...
The information was already in the frames, right?
No new information.

And regarding the 3d perception, call me a scoffic if you want, but I'm afraid I can't see cant any new usefull information being taken from it. That the guy who shot the film panned the camera is not exactly new information.

If we were looking at an image built from high-resolution scans taken from a first generation copy with all the image processing steps propperly recorded, then maybe -just maybe- something new would appear.
 
Blackdog said:

I'm not surprised; believe it or not I actually can read and comprehend things above a 5th grade level. I'm pretty sure that when the satellite surveys a geographic area it records more than a few pictures to achieve the relief detail. It is also photographing static geographic features, the Patterson subject is not static. If it were we might get something more from this method.
Click to expand...
I'm just correcting you. It's got nothing to do with your comprehension, or lack thereof. Aerial surveys use stereo cameras to create stereo photo pairs. That's all you need. The relief info is contained in the parallax between the 2 slightly different perspectives.

Regardless of the shift in perspective the main subject of the film is still two dimensional. I don't see any three dimensional aspect of the body of the subject. (muscles, costume folds, bullet holes, etc...).
Any motion blur and film anomalies that are on the subject are also on the stereoscopic images.
What can be determined (and we already knew this) is that the subject and photographer were moving.
What new information am I missing?
Click to expand...
Edge detection and relative distances from the camera, etc. Surely restoring the 3rd dimension counts for additional info. Geez.

Correa Neto said:
The information was already in the frames, right?
No new information.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If I measure Patty's dimensions in every frame, then I can determine her relative distances from the camera. Then I can reconstruct the trackway and track RP's position. I can also refine my estimates by feature tracking and image averaging. This is not information that can be gleaned from individual frames.

And regarding the 3d perception, call me a scoffic if you want, but I'm afraid I can't see cant any new usefull information being taken from it. That the guy who shot the film panned the camera is not exactly new information.

If we were looking at an image built from high-resolution scans taken from a first generation copy with all the image processing steps propperly recorded, then maybe -just maybe- something new would appear.
Click to expand...
Thousands of photo interpreters might call you a scoftic, but not me. ;) The edge detection alone can help determine Patty's body dimensions better than any other method used so far. Whether that ultimately helps resolve anything is unknown and perhaps unlikely, but it CAN give us new information. And when it comes to this film, at this point what more can you ask for? Otherwise, we're at a dead end and we might as well stop talking about it. But go ahead and scoff if you like. I'd like to see at least 1 comprehensive photogrammetric analysis of this film that everyone can agree on. Is that so wrong? :D
 
If the edges of the subject contain motion blur and film anomalies how can you be certain the edges are properly defined?

BTW I look forward to your analysis and presentation on this new 3D study of the film. It sounds like you think you may have the answer to Bill's main problem.
 
Óðinn said:
I guess you weren't paying attention. You don't need a stereoscopic viewer to see 3D, just stereo images. And besides, if you don't have a PC monitor to view the images, they ain't worth squat either. ;)

<snip>
Click to expand...

Uh, no. You cannot see an true 3D without a stereoscopic viewer. What you're calling 3D is just a trick used to approximate 3D.
 
Blackdog said:
If the edges of the subject contain motion blur and film anomalies how can you be certain the edges are properly defined?
Click to expand...
Because the anomalies would have to persist over several frames, which means they weren't anomalies. Image averaging tends to counteract motion blur. This is how speckle interferometry gives us clear celestial images thru our turbulent atmosphere.

BTW I look forward to your analysis and presentation on this new 3D study of the film. It sounds like you think you may have the answer to Bill's main problem.
Click to expand...
Don't hold your breath (providing you're not pegging the sarcasometer). Bill is the only one who has the images that I would consider suitable for an analysis. Plus it's a crapload of work which I can't afford to do for free.

GT/CS said:
Uh, no. You cannot see an true 3D without a stereoscopic viewer. What you're calling 3D is just a trick used to approximate 3D.
Click to expand...
A stereoscopic viewer cannot do anything different than you can do by crossing your eyes. And this "trick" does not approximate 3D, it represents the parallax between 2 images, precisely! This is a well established branch of geomatics called stereoscopy. And in geomatics the aim is precision.
 
Last edited:
Óðinn said:
Wrong. If I measure Patty's dimensions in every frame, then I can determine her relative distances from the camera. Then I can reconstruct the trackway and track RP's position. I can also refine my estimates by feature tracking and image averaging. This is not information that can be gleaned from individual frames.
Click to expand...

The information is already there, at each frame, isn't it?

But the keyword here is "relative". That's as far as one can go, unless precise measurements of the film site are available (I am assuming the optics are known with a good precision margin). You can build a relative track of the cameraman and Patty. Yes, you can paste it over one of the available maps of the filming site, but the precision will be questionable.


Óðinn said:
Thousands of photo interpreters might call you a scoftic, but not me. ;) The edge detection alone can help determine Patty's body dimensions better than any other method used so far. Whether that ultimately helps resolve anything is unknown and perhaps unlikely, but it CAN give us new information. And when it comes to this film, at this point what more can you ask for? Otherwise, we're at a dead end and we might as well stop talking about it. But go ahead and scoff if you like. I'd like to see at least 1 comprehensive photogrammetric analysis of this film that everyone can agree on. Is that so wrong? :D
Click to expand...

Well, I think thousands of photo interpreters would agree with me regarding the limits of what can be gathered from the currently available material.

The available material from which one can derive error margin figures are measurements of Patty on film (or digital files) and the optics. Without the distances of Patty from the camera (with error margins), relative estimates are all that can be obtained. Or of course, estimates with poorly constrained or huge error margins, but these would be, I think, useless.

Note that a 10% final error margin for Patty's height (something I believe most casual observers would consider good) probably would not be enough. If the estimate is 2m, 2.0+0.2m, means the actual size may be somewhere between a towering 2.2m-tall figure to a normal 1.8m-tall figure. And this range of sizes can be easilly reproduced in costumes.

And if even we keep within the relative measurements field, suppose an IM beyond human range is obtained. Besides the obvious problems related to locate propperly the joints, there are plenty examples at this and other threads which show costumes can change human proportions.

Yes, you do have the right to want at least one good analysis of the film (NASI was not one). But I doubt one will be made- unless the attitudes of those who hold the original and first genartion copies change. And I also doubt it would provide "good" results.

And yes, I do think PGF is a dead end. If you consider this scoffing, well, then...
 
Óðinn said:
<snip>
Bill is the only one who has the images that I would consider suitable for an analysis.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Can anyone provide a fully reliable (i.e. truthful) chain of custody for all the materials used to make the images and the images themselves?

Do we know who made the images and exactly what processes and safeguards were used to prevent manipulation?

Why do you believe that the images are exactly what they are purported to be?

What purpose does analyzing images of unknown authenticity and accuracy accomplish?
 
"Ponytail Flies Up Here" - the revised story of Patty by MK Davis and The Bluff Creek Truthers.

There are gifs with some animations at the link...


68dcd279.gif
 
I don't know what to say about this analysis as I'm at a loss for words.

It is referenced on the Wiki page for the PGF.

Dave Davis

Mr. Davis, while reviewing the film frame-by-frame in mid-2009, found "Bigfoot" wearing a Western hat and without a mask appearing in two sequences of the film that are not usually shown. There is also a person resembling Bob Gimlin appearing to hold the costume in the film's background, along with other images incorporated into the film that have noticeable inconsistancies with raw footage. For easy verification of the lack of authenticity, large black patches are seen throughout the film which do not appear in nature on a sunny day along the top of a photograph. A video of some of the findings was made available on YouTube at the following URL - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXtcD4tXRVk
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • WTF.jpg
    WTF.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 24
William Parcher said:
This is a New Years present for SweatyYeti complete with thigh hernia.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting that link, William. :) I can use that "re--HA HA HA HA HA--creation" ( :D ) in my analysis.



The test prove - Keys in the pocket

Have a laugh :)
Click to expand...


This is even more proof that Bob H. wasn't Patty...(the 'elbow reach' analysis being the HARD, numerical proof.)

The point that bulges is too low on the leg for it to be keys in his pocket.

This is an animated-gif that I made quite a while ago...and had highlighted the bulge with a line directly below it.....(to show how the area of the leg around the bulge behaved differently (first it 'bulged', then it 'rippled', without the bulge re-appearing).....as the leg moved from the raised position, to hitting the ground)...

Pattywalking6.gif



But, as far as this particular claim is concerned....the spot that bulged is simply not located where a pocket would have been located, in any normal pair of pants.
 
SweatyYeti said:
This is even more proof that Bob H. wasn't Patty...(the 'elbow reach' analysis being the HARD, numerical proof.)
Click to expand...

Your "'elbow reach' analysis" is nothing of the kind. It's unsupportable hogwash. Costumes can distort the apparent locations of limb joints, as we've seen in numerous examples provided by AtomicMysteryMonster, and in the video linked above by WilliamParcher.

SweatyYeti said:
The point that bulges is too low on the leg for it to be keys in his pocket.

But, as far as this particular claim is concerned....the spot that bulged is simply not located where a pocket would have been located, in any normal pair of pants.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Pants and jeans were cut differently in the 50s and 60s. The bulge is precisely where I would expect a bulge in the pocket of one of my grandfather's pairs of pants or jeans from that era.
 
I just want to mention that the "keys in pocket" thing might be something of a false rumor attached to Bob Heironimus. Although I do not have Greg Long's book, I'm not aware of BH claiming that any visible thigh bulging is because of his keys.
 
I think it's amusing that the "many giant cowboys" debunking theory is now sitting there on the Wiki page. But it should be balanced with that obscure support theory that shows multiple Bigfoots in the scene outlined with red circles.

Crackpot PGF Supporter vs Crackpot PGF Skeptic

May the most absurd man win.

BTW, Roger Knights has made a recent appearance on the Wiki PGF discussion page. Why isn't he posting on BFF anymore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom