Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3
- Thread starter JcR
- Start date
- Status
I'm curious about your analysis. Why would foreshortening be used? It would appear that it would be an odd thing to do for a home movie unless making a comedy since the larger cowboy is in the back. Wouldn't the camera have to be set on a tripod? Just wondering as I've not tried that technique.
How large do the cowboys look when compared to Patty?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
What do you mean by ' used ' ?
Foreshortening is the effect that makes an object look larger or smaller depending on how far it is from the camera ..
If those cowboys and their horse look that big, considering they are farther from the camera than Patty is, then they would have to be considerably larger than Patty ..
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Roger evidently kept switching lenses on us Greg...
Maybe it was a turret camera after all...
Maybe it was a turret camera after all...
Somehow I missed something. I had read early that foreshortening might have been used to increase the size of Patty before the new video was loaded. I wasn't referring to the image of Patty with the cowboys although it does seem as though Patty is quite broader.
The particular image that interested me was the one of the cowboy riding away from the camera and the hugh horse and cowboy mixed in with the background. Once shown the horse stands out to the extreme. Logic escapes me for understanding why someone would go to that effort to shoot the scene simply for a home movie. You would have to put the background image on a board and shoot the film below the board to create the effect. If foreshortening wasn't used then the film would have had to be edited.
Either way, I'm curious as why the clip was made and I simply can't think of a reason.
You are using a different definition of foreshortening than what is being used by the ohters in this thread. We are not talking about an intentional manipulation of the images.
Thanks for posting that link, William.I can use that "re--HA HA HA HA HA--creation" (
) in my analysis.
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.
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.
1) The NASI report stated that the upper leg was short compared to other measurements. The seat of the suit is sagging badly displacing the expected location of the hip joint.
2) The picture of Patty was taken from an elevated position lengthening the side closest to the camera allowing the hand to extend further down the leg. If you visualize a person directly above you looking down, your arms will be long enough to touch your toes without bending over. This is particularly true when mono vision (lack of stereo vision) impeds the brain from spatially placing the hands and fingers in relation to other objects.
Spektator
Is that right?
I think maybe the term might be "forced perspective," not "foreshortening." Forced perspective is deliberately altering the sizes in a picture (or in the set pieces of a stage set) to give the illusion of greater depth. Imagine sitting in a theater and looking at a stage on which the set is meant to represent two city streets, one going across the stage, the other leading away from that and toward the back of the stage. For the horizontal street--the one going across--the buildings are all twelve feet tall. But the houses on the street running back decrease in size, from twelve feet to only four feet. The street running back also narrows--it's ten feet wide at the intersection, but at the back it narrows to only 2.5 feet. The audience gets the perception that the street running back is much longer than it actually is. But this is an illusion, and on such a stage set an actor could not walk away from the audience, "down the street" because that would give away the illusion. An actor who was six feet tall would walk back and forth along the horizontal street, his head coming halfway up the twelve-foot-tall "buildings"; but if he walked down the street that goes away from the audience, he would seem to grow until he towered over the "houses" at the back.
Disneyland uses forced perspective on Main Street. The buildings there look to be three full stories tall, but they aren't; the second stories are smaller than the ground floors, and the third stories are smaller than the second stories. This makes the castle down at the end of the street look much taller than it is. There is a short explanation here, in the third paragraph under the heading "Magic Kingdom."
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Forced perspective is often used in cinema, most notably perhaps in the Lord of the Rings films, in which the normal-sized actors playing the hobbits were sometimes filmed behind the normal-sized actors playing the humans and elves, but were still in focus because of a deep depth of field/smaller camera aperture, so that the hobbit actors looked smaller.
Above, the wagon is built in such a way that we cannot see that the Frodo/hobbit/left portion is recessed some distance back from the Gandalf/wizard/right half. Neat trick, eh?
From the context, I think this is what UGottaB is referring to mistakenly as "foreshortening".
(Foreshortening is an optical effect in which objects/persons closer to the viewer/camera appear shortened and/or larger than the objects/persons behind it. Related to forced perspective, but foreshortening just happens owing to the laws of optics and physics, while forced perspective is just that: forced or artificial.)
Above, the wagon is built in such a way that we cannot see that the Frodo/hobbit/left portion is recessed some distance back from the Gandalf/wizard/right half. Neat trick, eh?
From the context, I think this is what UGottaB is referring to mistakenly as "foreshortening".
(Foreshortening is an optical effect in which objects/persons closer to the viewer/camera appear shortened and/or larger than the objects/persons behind it. Related to forced perspective, but foreshortening just happens owing to the laws of optics and physics, while forced perspective is just that: forced or artificial.)
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
That screenie provides a nice example why estimating Patty's height without having the propper figures for its distance from the camera and for the lenses used as well.
What are the Hobbit/camera and the Gandalf/camera distances?
More extreme examples can be found at that re-make of the giant woman film with Daryl Hannah. There's a nice scene where she's using a swimming pool as a bathtub, with her husband "besides" her, made with this technique.
Simple, cheap and easy, even tried my hand with it a couple of times.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
1) I suggest you have a misguided concept of what constitutes proof.
2) Where does Bob say he had keys in his pocket?
Maybe Bob was wearing cargos? Maybe there is no audio on the PGF because of the jingle-jangle coming from Patty/Bob?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
This Wiki paragraph is now gone. I went to the article history page and it appears that this bit is being inserted then removed then inserted then removed...back and forth. It looks as if "Dave Davis" keeps trying to have his bit appear in the article. I think it's even possible that Dave Davis is a pseudonym for Leroy Blevins. Blevins is the new Beckjord, but unlike EB, he thinks the film is a hoax.
Those responding to UGottaB in a matter-of-fact informative fashion may have misunderstood his/her position and intent. I could be wrong but I think this person is saying that there are multiple "hidden" cowboys that can be found in the PGF scenes.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
Leroy Blevins Sr. on himself...
Bitter Monk
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 208
I'm assuming all those activities are what prevented him from having the time to master the written word.
Last edited:
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Got the guy's name who wrote the first five book of the bible, but dropped the ball from number six on? What's his name?
<yes I know he's not actually reading these posts>
And debunked the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot footage? Glory hallelujah finally! Actually, where ya been buddy, the debunking came the very day the film was released because, and let's shout it out loud, THERE IS NO BIGFOOT. Ergo, any 'film' of Bigfoot would default at 'fraudulent'. Re-leased, de-leased, de-bunked, de-loused and de-labeled all on the same day. Yet it prospered and fascinated so many for many many years to come. I've said it before, that Roger Patterson was good, he was real good.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Enjoy the Support, Vort....
.....loaded with "different camera angles....camera lenses....distances-from-subject-to-camera....body angles"....and "different types of arm/chest padding"...
Despite ALL of the differences in those images....the human's elbows reach the same distance away....(within a very small range)...from their backbones, for any given arm-angle.
The exception is Patty.
Last edited:
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Enjoy the Support, Vort....
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyEATwo/ElbowReachCompAG4.gif[/qimg]
Despita ALL of the differences in those images....the human's elbows reach the same distance away....(within a very small range)...from their backbones, for any given arm-angle.
The exception is Patty.
Couple questions before I ask any further. Exactly how are you coming to those numbers on the figures you posted, mostly with "patty"? How do you estimate the height of "patty", and what is your estimate? Exactly how do you base your scaling?
Last edited:
- Status