• 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.
Volsquatch said:
http: //vimeo.com/2175790


Sorry, not enough post to submit click-able URL.
Click to expand...

Tried removing the space:

We did not find results for: http: //vimeo.com/2175790. Try the suggestions below or type a new query above.
 
Here ya' go....:)...


CGSpekDollHandAG3.gif
 
Skeptical Greg wrote...regarding Spektator's doll-hand gif...

The point still being, the fingers appear to bend, when in fact they don't.. Illustrating that subject and camera movement can account for the apparent bending of the fingers in the film ..
Click to expand...



So, let's recap....:)...


Greg says Spek's doll-hand fingers DO NOT bend.....when, in fact, they do...


And....Greg says that Patty's fingers may not, or do not, bend.....when, in fact, they clearly appear to bend...and nobody has yet produced ONE piece of evidence which LEGITIMATELY indicates that they are not bending, and that it's just an "illusion".


Keep up the good work, Greg.....but, may I suggest...you find yourself a new pair of "Speks".... :wink8:

:dl:
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Sweaty you were already told to do more than 1 rotation, 1 in the vertical plan too. The hand is only rotating along a vertical axe !

jeez.
Click to expand...


Rotation in the vertical plane would be IRRELEVANT to Patty's hand/finger motion.


There was NO vertical movement....for either Patty, or the camera....within/between the frames used for Patty's finger-bending gif.



Spektator's gif is BOGUS. Deal with it.
 
Taking Sweaty's simple experiment, and a bit of my own analysis using AutoCad, I'm now absolutely convinced there's some serious corruption of something going on there with the doll hand pics. Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of personal assurance of integrity can overcome simple physics. And without further evidence to the contrary, simple physics is winning. At the very least I think there needs to be some more splainin' coming from Spektator. It now appears entirely possible Odinn took some unjust 'heat' for nothing more than iterating the 'cosmic truth'. Whether damned to hell for it or not, I'm with Sweaty on this one.
 
Earlier, I had written...

Rotation in the vertical plane would be IRRELEVANT to Patty's hand/finger motion.
Click to expand...


Actually, after thinking about it, for a while....I realized that rotation...itself...is irrelevant to the apparent bending of Patty's fingers.

In other words....the 'doll hand illusion' is not even a potential/possible candidate as an alternate explanation for Patty's bending fingers.
It NEVER was a candidate, from 'day 1'.


The reason for that is simple....the doll hand illusion creates a false perception of the fingers in the straight contour....not in the curved contour.

The illusion makes curved/bent fingers falsely appear to be straight.........not the other way around.

It cannot make straight fingers appear to be curved.


AFAIK...there is no fancy trick of lighting, viewing, angling, or hoping....that can make straight fingers falsley appear to be curved.



So.....since we KNOW that...


A) Patty's fingers are straight, in some images...with the hand seen 'edge-on'...(the straight shape cannot be the result of an illusion, since a 'false straightness' can only be created when the hand, with curved fingers, is viewed largely 'face-on', as opposed to 'edge-on')...


PattyFingersStraight1.jpg



and...we know that...


B) Patty's fingers are curved...in at least one image...(with NO potential effect available, to make straight fingers falsely appear to be curved)...


handmoveFrame2.jpg




We can then CONCLUDE.....with 100%, RELIABLE certainty....that Patty's fingers must have moved, as she walked.


There is no other explanation for the change in contour/shape. :)
 
Last edited:
HarryHenderson said:
Taking Sweaty's simple experiment, and a bit of my own analysis using AutoCad, I'm now absolutely convinced there's some serious corruption of something going on there with the doll hand pics. Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of personal assurance of integrity can overcome simple physics. And without further evidence to the contrary, simple physics is winning. At the very least I think there needs to be some more splainin' coming from Spektator. It now appears entirely possible Odinn took some unjust 'heat' for nothing more than iterating the 'cosmic truth'. Whether damned to hell for it or not, I'm with Sweaty on this one.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Harry. :)
 
SweatyYeti said:
Rotation in the vertical plane would be IRRELEVANT to Patty's hand/finger motion.


There was NO vertical movement....for either Patty, or the camera....within/between the frames used for Patty's finger-bending gif.


Spektator's gif is BOGUS. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Are you sure ?

Besides, the effect can still be achieved without vertical movement ..

I might demonstrate this later, but we've waited 40+ years .. What's a few more days/weeks ...





Harry:
Whether damned to hell for it or not, I'm with Sweaty on this one.
Click to expand...

Is it getting warm in here, or is it just me ?
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg wrote:
Are you sure ?
Click to expand...


I'm sure that Patty's fingers moved.



And, I'm also 100% SURE that this statement of yours is 100% WRONG...


The point still being, the fingers appear to bend, when in fact they don't.. Illustrating that subject and camera movement can account for the apparent bending of the fingers in the film ..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm also sure that Patty's fingers reach lower down than Heironimus' do....and I'm also quite sure that Phony Heirony has never uttered a word about the method the suit employed to enable his fingers to bend Patty's fingers.


Perhaps kitakaze can call Bob, and tell him what he needs to say, to fix this little HOLE in his story. ;) :)
 
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg wrote:
Is it getting warm in here, or is it just me ?
Click to expand...


Is it awfully QUIET in here...or is it just my imagination ???! :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA :busted HA HA HA HA HA...
 
IIRC correctly from the film, there is at least the movement of the arm itself. The arm is never trully "fix". And there is the camera movement. So yeah, there is a evrtical movement. None of the angle are fix, not even the distance.

ETA: so your comparison to a vertically fixed hand is *INVALID*. You would need to compare to a hand rotating not only vertically but with a rotation out of plane.

I am not able to have a doll hand, but with math, and with my own hand I am able to reproduce the effect.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius:
You would need to compare to a hand rotating not only vertically but with a rotation out of plane.
Click to expand...
And the camera jumping the hell all over the place...


Part One .. ( for Harry's benefit ... So he can move into cooler territory )..

Just a quick .gif that shows Patty is moving down slope ( Or Roger elevated the camera slightly ) and the vertical position of the hand changes in the field of view ...

bend1a.gif


It's not stabilized horizontally, but the red line shows the hand moving downward relative to the branch; almost the entire length from the wrist to the finger tips ...

Here is a little .wmv that I slowed down .. The actual sequence is less than one second at 30fps ( LMS DVD )

WMV

Really shows how the camera was moving, including vertically ..
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
I am not able to have a doll hand, but with math, and with my own hand I am able to reproduce the effect.
Click to expand...

We complement each other's resources, then, because I have a doll hand (hundreds, in fact) and a digital camera. :cool:

Allow me to suggest, Aepervius, that you walk me through the process which explains or matches your math, as in a "word problem" on a geometry test. Does that make sense? Then I'll repeat the experiment as best I'm able, to produce the effect in question.

First I'll need to understand the X and Y vector stuff, so if you're willing, please begin with a definition of terms, and we'll go from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom