• 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.
Vortigern99 said:
I'm having a hard time reproducing the Spektator effect, even using (what part I understand of) Aepervius' math as a guide. Here's my first pass at achieving the effect, using a 1976 MEGO Lt. Uhura (STAR TREK) doll.

ETA: Totally unconvincing and irrelevant to the discussion. I may be ill-equipped for this kind of analysis.
Click to expand...


Yo, Vort.....you're wasting your time. :)


In case you missed it.....the 'doll-hand illusion'...in principle....(in every case)....is completely irrelevant to Patty's apparently moving fingers.

This is due to the fact that the doll hand illusion can only create the illusion/false perception of fingers straightening....not bending.
(The fingers on the doll hand are actually bent, and falsely appear to straighten).

What is needed, for Patty's case, is just the opposite.....an illusion that creates the false perception of fingers...which are actually straight...appearing to bend.


As far as I know....there is no such illusion in existence. :)

Do you happens to know of one?
 
Last post on this (sorry I even brought it up). Aepervius needs to apply the math to the doll hand photos to make his point. The vector math doesn't track the entire hand as it (and the camera) change orientation between photos. This isn't just about the index finger. The angle of the fingers, shadows, and cuff can be used to approximate the relative orientation of the doll hand w.r.t. the camera. I'll spare you the math, but there are 3 parameters that determine the orientation of an object in 3-space. One system used to represent an object's orientation w.r.t. the camera is called Omega-Phi-Kappa. Let's define the Z axis as up/down, Y as toward/away, X as left/right and say the Z axis goes thru a fictitious string that the doll hand is hanging from. Then the doll hand spins on the string by an angle Kappa. If you swing the doll hand like a pendulum against the wall it goes thru an angle Phi. Pulling the bottom of the fingers toward you forms angle Omega.
OmegaPhiKappa.gif


The doll hand/camera orientations could have experienced a combination of all 3 rotations. A solid object needs orientation parameters unless you want to track every single point on the surface of the doll hand. X, Y & Z define a point in 3-space, and vectors can only connect 2 points in 3-space. But it's a lot easier to let software apply the math to orient a solid object. I'm too lazy to build a CG hand model, which can then be re-oriented with software. Perhaps someone else can give it a go, if he/she is so inclined (Mangler perhaps?). In the case of the doll hand, the apparent changes between photos are caused by a rotation of the doll hand combined with a change in the camera position. Note that it doesn't matter how much the object or camera changes orientation, it's the net effect that matters. IOW, there should be an infinite number of ways to achieve the same relative orientation by manipulating both the doll hand and the camera. The bottom line is that we only need to determine the vector components created by the tilt of the doll hand, toward or away the camera. Those vector components will also tell us the angle of the tilt w.r.t. the camera.

Just a little math is needed here. As you tilt a 3D vertical vector toward or away from the camera, it's apparent length is reduced by Cos(Omega). In this case only angle Omega (toward or away) creates foreshortening. Since we don't know the distances from the camera, and we can't know what scaling was done by Spektator, we can't readily determine the effects of foreshortening. That said, angle Kappa appears to be less than 10 degrees, which is the only parameter that could "straighten out" the hand. IMO, this is the killer. There is too little Kappa to make Spektator's graphic work. I have no problem being wrong here and I don't relish implying that someone was cheating. It's all part of peer review. I hope you'll show me I'm full of it.
 
Óðinn said:
...There is too little Kappa to make Spektator's graphic work. I have no problem being wrong here and I don't relish implying that someone was cheating. It's all part of peer review. I hope you'll show me I'm full of it.
Click to expand...
This is my last post on this more-than-mundane matter too unless something further that's actually interesting crops up about it.

With thanks to WP, having now read the original post on the matter, I was right about a few things. Firstly, apparently the shadow in the second image has been altered in Photoshop™ to some degree and the camera position isn't quite in the same position for both shots. Also, the entire photo itself has been rotated some. Swearing an oath or not, there's too many irreconcilable variables it seems to make serious heads or tails of it here on an internet forum.

And also, so it's clear that I was not necessarily implying willful 'cheating' any more than Odinn was, my thought was that maybe several more pictures had actually been taken, possibly even a set with the hands somehow (by heat?) bent also and he simply got 'crossed up' as to which ones were which. Coincidentally, based on his first two posts concerning this, he admits he did in fact get 'crossed up' (flash-no flash) a bit. I'd guess a straight-up and clear duplication of the experiment by a little more dispassionate sort (sorry Sweaty, despite still agreeing with the blatant obviousness of your own experiment, I think you can also agree that it should be done by another Bigfoot player who has no real dog in the fight ) could solve it once and for all. Anyone?
 
For such a small degree of rotation...there's no way there should be this large a degree of change in contour, of the fingers...

DollHandIllusionAG5C.gif



Look at the change in curvature of the pinky finger. You can see where it bends, near the end of the finger, in one frame...and then it's suddenly perfectly straight.

It was manipulated. :)


Harry Henderson wrote:
I'd guess a straight-up and clear duplication of the experiment by a little more dispassionate sort (sorry Sweaty, despite still agreeing with the blatant obviousness of your own experiment, I think you can also agree that it should be done by another Bigfoot player who has no real dog in the fight ) could solve it once and for all. Anyone?
Click to expand...


No problem, Harry. I don't care who does what, with this Illusion.

But, there really isn't anything that needs to be done with the 'doll hand illusion'....since it has NO relevance to the question of whether Patty's fingers 'curled-up', for the reason I just explained, in my earlier post.
 
Last edited:
Odin, do whatever you want to do. The same math I did can be applied to all possible sort of rotation (your kappa rotation will turn out as a combination of my phi and theta change, nothing more!). It is also quite clear that for every 3 set of phalange (1 finger) NOT in the same plan the effect will be different. I did enough to convince me that in all case where there is a lack of reference and one can only see a few vectors like in the PGF, the effect is applying.. In the second photo of spectator hand you have next to no reference to know how much of all rotation was done. IMHO the only "cheating" (more like innapropriate application) which one can say was done, is that the *all* angles were changed so much that it does not mirror anymore what happens in the PGF. But it is a demonstration of the foreshortening effect. If you want to say this is IMPOSSIBLE in the case of spektator hand, model the hand with vector like I did, then calculate in the various rotation how it looks like. And show that in no rotation it approach what we see. All I see in your post is "I am dubious" but no demonstration as Vortigen or me tried.

And more importantly in the PGF you have NO depth perception and a complete LACK of reference making the blob at best a few vectors. Look at sweaty photo for pity's sake. And it does not change the most easiest explanation that he had long gloves.

That is the last I have to say. The effect is mathematically demonstrable, and the most probable explanation for the PGF bending is a long glove or forshortening effect *NOT* that some creature hand really bent.
 
Couldn't this be recreated by a slightly bent stick, rotated in one of the imaging softwawre? and the two frames over layed?
 
Drewbot said:
Couldn't this be recreated by a slightly bent stick, rotated in one of the imaging softwawre? and the two frames over layed?
Click to expand...


Maybe it can be....but it cannot make straight fingers falsely appear to bend...

Salute1.jpg




PattyFingersStraight1.jpg



Can't be done....:).....by way of illusion...


handmoveFrame2.jpg



Only Reality.
 
Last edited:
Or the glove flexing, with a hand in it or not. The arms are not outside of the normal human range. Also, shoulder pads would give the illusion of longer arms. The glove may also only be partially filled with the hand. The movement seen on the film could be explained in one of many ways. It could be the empty part of the glove flexing due to inertia. It could be a hand moving inside of the glove. It could also be the film playing tricks on your perception. (dont forget motion blur as well) Let us not forget how much different shaped the head is in certain points of the film. Does the head change shapes? Or is it just the film?

Seems to be at least 2-3 inches in variance, or near that. If we can see the skull seem to be mishapen, and or move around, why not the glove also?

;)

Still waiting on your estimates on scale, so we can get to comparing the subject seen on film with the only claimed actor.

Just a btw, I cant really merit more replies debating this unless you can cough up something more than imaginary numbers on "elbow reach" that you seem to see as a fixed number, but your method of measurement would vary quite a bit due to arm movement. = foo foo.

Give me some real numbers, if you want to debate it.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
I'm putting together an animated-gif to SHOW that Bob's suit does add some length to his arms.

So far...the numbers are lookin' good! :D
Click to expand...

Hey, that's nice! I couldn't be more disinterested.

You stated more than once as fact that Bob Heironimus at Cow Camp had to be using arm extensions in the suit. I say there were no arm extensions. Were you right or wrong? Looks like you're not so confident in your scribbles to wager. LOL
 
Last edited:
River wrote:
It could also be the film playing tricks on your perception.
Click to expand...


Can you elaborate on precisely what you're refering to as "tricks"?


(dont forget motion blur as well)
Click to expand...


Can you demonstrate the "motion blur" in the frame where Patty's fingers appear bent?
 
SweatyYeti said:
I couldn't care less. I can analyse the film without your interest.
Click to expand...

But can you put your avatar wear your fingers are?

SweatyYeti said:
....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him :) ).
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti said:
Look at Bob's left hand, Drew. It obviously has an extension on it.

But, no problem, I can do more comparisons...to prove it. :)
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti said:
Sometime this week.

Here comes Peter RUG-ged tail...
Hopping down the RUG-ged trail...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob%20Two/RuggedBob9A.jpg[/qimg]

....with his left hand about to fall off...

Yup....no 'hand extension' there...;)
Click to expand...

Note to the kids at home: Sweaty likes to scribble and proclaim things as established fact. A simple wager is a great way to make Sweaty turtle. The Gollum dance turned into the shuck n' jive routine as soon as I called Sweaty on his statement that arm extensions were used by Bob Heironimus at Cow Camp for the NatGeo special. It's obvious, he says. He spews sarcasm and rolls his eyes at those who don't see this "obvious fact." He assures you that it will prove to be true. And then the turtle happens. He clams up and will pretend the invitation to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, is not there. It's delicious!
 
kitakaze said:
Note to the kids at home: Sweaty likes to scribble and proclaim things as established fact. A simple wager is a great way to make Sweaty turtle.
Click to expand...


I'll post the animated-gif tonight, showing that the suit extends the length of Heirony's arms.




The Gollum dance turned into the shuck n' jive routine as soon as I called Sweaty on his statement that arm extensions were used by Bob Heironimus at Cow Camp for the NatGeo special. It's obvious, he says. He spews sarcasm and rolls his eyes at those who don't see this "obvious fact." He assures you that it will prove to be true. And then the turtle happens. He clams up and will pretend the invitation to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, is not there. It's delicious!
Click to expand...


AWESOME Yak-Tastic post, kitakaze!!!

But not as AWE-SOME as Spek's and Wolfy's doll-hand illusion concoctions!!!
Isn't that right, Champ! :Banane08:


BTW....have you gotten the word, yet....a doll-hand illusion can only cause the illusion of straightening....not bending?!!

You know what that means, Ace?...the bending of Patty's fingers is not an illusion....and Bob needs to explain EXACTLY HOW his fingers were able to move Patty's fingers.

Can you get on that, kitakaze....and ask Bob for the details??
 
SweatyYeti said:
BTW....have you gotten the word, yet....a doll-hand illusion can only cause the illusion of straightening....not bending?!!
Click to expand...


I have no dog in this fight, Sweaty, but isn't "straightening" just "bending" in the other direction? Seems to me if you rotate an image and the subject appears to "straighten", then when you rotate the image in the opposite direction it should appear to "bend", no? Sorry if I missed something important, here. All these lines and gif's and whatnot are hard on old Howie's brain.

http://theoatmeal.com/quiz/bigfoot_love
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom