• 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.
Óðinn said:
How do you know that (bolded)? If the doll hand was hanging against the wall and only rotated between photos, then the only way to foreshorten its length is to angle the camera as shown below. But then the shadows against the wall (from the flash) would appear to be at different heights, but they aren't.

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/dollhand3.gif[/qimg]

Gotta get back to work. I spend way too much time on this stuff. :D
Click to expand...

It forshorten *ONLY* if you pretend that the LEFT photo is more vertical to the plan than the right photo. My point is that you have NO reference to say that, and it could very well be the contrary, in which case the hand would look LONGER. By your own demonstration none theless.
 
Óðinn:

I've figured out something that should satisfy your request: Cup your left hand slightly and angle your wrist downward. Now raise your arm straight out and bend your elbow so that your hand is in front of your face (You can do this at any distance you like). Blink your left eye and then blink your right eye. Repeat as necessary; If this doesn't work, you might have to adjust the position of your hand or how much you're cupping it until the blinking makes it appear to "move."


This is not the first time I've explained this to you...
 
LTC8K6 said:
It's amazing how a simple physical demo is like a grenade thrown right into the campfire...
Click to expand...
:D So true huh!

Just to add my two cents (oh ****). I have to agree with Odinn that it sure looks like the fingers were manipulated (from one pic to the other). And questioning the 'actuality' of those pics isn't necessarily accusing the promoter of lying. I mean - and despite the irony of it being a skeptics forum - simply telling us there was no manipulation isn't necessarily enough given the very obvious difference between the two poses. And believe me I understand all about foreshortening and perspective and all that stuff. I'm in a profession that extensively uses, and I am intimately familiar with, all manner of 3D 'view' manipulation.

Now, assuming there's been no manipulation whatsoever, that's a pretty profound effect IMPO. It almost doesn't compute. Regardless, I won't say I'd eat a bug for either case. :)
 
There must be someone out there with a Kung Fu GI Joe, or whatever it is, who can replicate the experiment.
 
HarryHenderson said:
:D So true huh!

Just to add my two cents (oh ****). I have to agree with Odinn that it sure looks like the fingers were manipulated (from one pic to the other). And questioning the 'actuality' of those pics isn't necessarily accusing the promoter of lying. I mean - and despite the irony of it being a skeptics forum - simply telling us there was no manipulation isn't necessarily enough given the very obvious difference between the two poses. And believe me I understand all about foreshortening and perspective and all that stuff. I'm in a profession that extensively uses, and I am intimately familiar with, all manner of 3D 'view' manipulation.

Now, assuming there's been no manipulation whatsoever, that's a pretty profound effect IMPO. It almost doesn't compute. Regardless, I won't say I'd eat a bug for either case. :)
Click to expand...

If the hands are rigid hard plastic, as they would be on such a doll, you'd be talking about electronic manipulation.

I think that's why illusions are called illusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_color_illusion
 
HarryHenderson said:
:D So true huh!

Just to add my two cents (oh ****). I have to agree with Odinn that it sure looks like the fingers were manipulated (from one pic to the other). And questioning the 'actuality' of those pics isn't necessarily accusing the promoter of lying. I mean - and despite the irony of it being a skeptics forum - simply telling us there was no manipulation isn't necessarily enough given the very obvious difference between the two poses. And believe me I understand all about foreshortening and perspective and all that stuff. I'm in a profession that extensively uses, and I am intimately familiar with, all manner of 3D 'view' manipulation.

Now, assuming there's been no manipulation whatsoever, that's a pretty profound effect IMPO. It almost doesn't compute. Regardless, I won't say I'd eat a bug for either case. :)
Click to expand...

Do the experiment yourself then you won't have to take anyone's word for it.
 
I'll accept that the two photos make the fingers look different; not being knowledgeable about photography, I can't supply any answers, except that the angles are different, the distance was different, and that's about as much as I know. I assure you again, there isn't any physical difference--same doll hand in both photos, no manipulation. And that's where I'll have to leave it.

The camera is just a simple point-and-shoot, an old model Olympus that we've had for years. I didn't measure the actual distances or angles, sorry.
 
Spektator said:
I assure you again, there isn't any physical difference--same doll hand in both photos, no manipulation.

And that's where I'll have to leave it.
Click to expand...


Fortunately, that's not where it has to be left.

This is a simple enough "illusion"....it can be tested...and verified, or refuted.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Fortunately, that's not where it has to be left.

This is a simple enough "illusion"....it can be tested...and verified, or refuted.
Click to expand...

You don't even need to test it you only need to calculate the projected vector over a plan and see if it changes. Mathematically it does. (for a vector making an angle theta to the plan y,z and an angle phi in the plany,z , you can calculate the projection to be length*sin phi, therefore for any phi lower than pi/2 you will have a lower length, and the maximum being phi=pi/2).

Therefore QED.
 
I confess to not following the vector X, Y stuff because I lack the suitable education in math.

But I do happen to have about a thousand and three action figures with various hand and finger poses, I'll be glad to produce a few snapshots and post them, if someone will take pity on my geometric idiocy and guide me through the steps of how to reproduce Spektator's "experiment".
 
tsig said:
Then do so and get back to us.
Click to expand...


I sure will.


In the meantime....I did a little work on Spektator's animated-gif....I enlarged it, and increased the contrast...

DollHandHighContrastAG1.gif




....then I re-aligned the two images...cropped them, and highlighted the shape of the fingers...

DollHandHighContrastCropAG2.gif



One interesting detail is the last bend in the fingers. It seems to disappear/straighten-out in the 2nd image.

Perhaps that explains the increase in overall length.


LTC8K6 wrote:
If the hands are rigid hard plastic, as they would be on such a doll, you'd be talking about electronic manipulation.

I think that's why illusions are called illusions.
Click to expand...


'Hard rigid plastic' can be manipulated very easily with something called "heat".


It's funny..."Skepticism" helps a person find many, many alternate explanations for such things as 'Bigfoot evidence"....but seems to go "belly-up" when it comes to finding alternate explanations for everything 'Anti-Bigfoot'.....kitakaze's parade of 'anecdotal evidence' included. ;)


Example...

Spektator wrote...with Skeptical Wisdom...

--just that such an illusion was one of many possible explanations for a "finger bend": it could be caused by a human hand in a well-fitting glove; it could be caused by a hand in an oversized glove, with just the last joints of the fingers in the glove fingers; it could be caused by a hand extension; it could be caused by the poor resolution of the film, when we can't always be sure we're even seeing "fingers" or background elements; it could be partly an illusion of perspective in two discrete photos; and so on and so on.....
Click to expand...


Fantastic work, Speks! :)


What doll did you use?
 
Last edited:
Óðinn said:
How do you know that (bolded)? If the doll hand was hanging against the wall and only rotated between photos, then the only way to foreshorten its length is to angle the camera as shown below.

But then the shadows against the wall (from the flash) would appear to be at different heights, but they aren't.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/dollhand3.gif

Gotta get back to work. I spend way too much time on this stuff. :D
Click to expand...


Nice graphic, Odinn.


I just did a little replication of the doll-hand illusion....that anyone can try, for themselves, in just a few minutes.

I took a cheap, thin plastic pen...heated it up over the stove...and put 2 bends in it, closely matching the bends in Spek's doll hand.

If you hold the top of the pen rigidly, with both hands, to keep it's position steady, as it's rotated.....you'll notice that the bends...the joints...do not change their position, vertically.

If you hold the pen so that the bottom tip is lined-up directly over a horizontal line on your computer screen...you'll see that, as the pen is rotated, the tip stays right on that line. The pen doesn't increase in length.

The bends will appear to straighten-out as the pen is rotated....but it takes a larger degree of rotation for that to happen than the degree of rotation seen in Spektator's gif.
And....the length never changes.
 
That's interresting but using my own hand, viewed vertically, and then at an angle, I can make the bend nearly fully disappear without even changing my finger angle. Not fully disppear mind you. But straighten a lot. Problem is, in your second pic there is no reflection or anything to indcate the ebnd. It is nearly of uniform color.
 
PS how to make the bending disappear, hold your hand so that the outmost phalange are about right-angled from the first phalange, and about 1/2 right angle to second phalange like the doll hand with the first photo. Hold your hand near your right breast look downward. That is near the first photo. Then rotate inward your arm (about 1/3 of a right angle) then a bit up. That is the second photo. I egt an apparent angle which is much lower between second and third phalangem is near flat due to the perspective.

If I find a web came I will film my hand in rotation and upload somehwere. With a film it is easier to see it is all perspective, from the experience I did.

I have no doll sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom