Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[SweatyYeti]

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

As worded, Howie....you're technically correct.

But your phrase....."it should appear to "bend"

...is missing a key component...to be relevant to Patty's 'finger-bending' issue.

The key component/word is "FALSELY appear to bend".

(In this post...I've highlighted some key words in violet, in response to your question.)


I explained this in detail, in an earlier post....#3621...

.....the 'doll-hand illusion'...in principle.....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.

In Patty's case....there are multiple images where her hand is seen edge-on, and her fingers are straight.....so we know that they are straight.

In ONE image....they appear to be bent/curled.....so, the question is....could this curled contour be an illusion/false perception, caused by the twisting of the arm/hand....(the 'doll-hand illusion').

The answer is...it cannot be...since the 'Doll Hand Illusion' cannot cause that false perception....the doll's fingers ARE ACTUALLY BENT...

The ILLUSION is the straight contour....(the doll's hands ARE NOT actually straight).


I used the computer-generated hand, since there's definitely no manipulation of the hand, as it's turned. Spektator's doll hand images can be a little confusing.


To state this a little more simply...

A 'doll-hand illusion' can only cause the illusion of straightening....not an illusion of bending.


This is simple common sense.....do you think you can take a doll, with straight fingers....and, by turning it any which way you like....make them falsely appear to be bent???

I think not.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Man, I love being technically correct.

I see where you're coming from, Sweaty.

 

[Aepervius]

ACtually that is not true. If you have a flat angle (170 for example, near PI) you can get a more accentued angle than there exist.

It is easy to verify : make your hand quasi flatand look at it from the side from say 40 cm away. Then bend your arm toward you to look it from nearly above the hand vertically and look toward the hand. You will see that the angle is much more pronunciated, while the hand is shorter. That is a perpective effect.

And to boot really the solution given by kitty is the most easiest and most simplest. it is a glove you see the bending from.

With all the precision, blur and artifacting, really, it is a wonder one can see detail that size anyway.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Man, I love being technically correct.

I see where you're coming from, Sweaty.

Glad to hear that, Howie.

 

[Óðinn]

ACtually that is not true. If you have a flat angle (170 for example, near PI) you can get a more accentued angle than there exist.

It is easy to verify : make your hand quasi flatand look at it from the side from say 40 cm away. Then bend your arm toward you to look it from nearly above the hand vertically and look toward the hand. You will see that the angle is much more pronunciated, while the hand is shorter. That is a perpective effect.

And to boot really the solution given by kitty is the most easiest and most simplest. it is a glove you see the bending from.

With all the precision, blur and artifacting, really, it is a wonder one can see detail that size anyway.

Surely you have a digital camera. Take some photos of your own hand in the 2 matching positions (keep it rigid!) and post them. You don't need a doll.

 

[kitakaze]

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

Not so fast, slip n' slide. When you insisted as fact and scoffed at others for not knowing...

....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him ).

...were you talking out your shorts?

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

It may not have penetrated the fog of disinterest based on its irrelevance to my position on Patty's arms.

Can you get on that, kitakaze....and ask Bob for the details?

Can you give me a yes or no answer for a wager on your claim of Bob having arm extensions in Phil's suit at Cow Camp?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Aepervius wrote:

If you have a flat angle (170 for example, near PI) you can get a more accentued angle than there exist.

And if you have straight fingers.....(a.k.a......a ZERO -degree angle)....you will have...after dividing by theta/beta/kappa/zappa....and multiplying by the inverse of the square of the powers that be....rotating by approx. 217.47524322895671 degrees...whistling for your dog....adding 1....subtracting 1....multiplying by 1...and dividing by 2....you will end-up with a NET angle of ZERO degrees......(a.k.a.....straight fingers.)


I guarantee it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

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

It may not have penetrated the fog of disinterest based on its irrelevance to my position on Patty's arms.

Oh.....too bad for me.....you don't care.

All that matters....is that it's TRUE.

 

[SweatyYeti]

A late correction to my explanation post...

I had written:

The ILLUSION is the straight contour....(the doll's hands ARE NOT actually straight).

I should have written 'fingers' instead of 'hands'.

I didn't have time to re-read it through thoroughly, after writing it. (TV service calls to do. )

 

[kitakaze]

Oh.....too bad for me.....you don't care.

All that matters....is that it's TRUE.

1) If an illusion does not account for the appearance of bending, why is that all that matters?

2) Sweaty is going to leave this one alone...

Is this true?

In the comparison image that you use, to show that 'Bob-in-a-suit matches Patty'....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him ).

"A hand in a glove is just fine"....WASN'T just fine....it was insufficient.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

All that matters....is that it's TRUE.

1) If an illusion does not account for the appearance of bending, why is that all that matters?

You're right, that's not the only thing that matters. I stand corrected.

Nonetheless....the statement is true....the doll-hand illusion is irrelevant.

 

[kitakaze]

I used the computer-generated hand, since there's definitely no manipulation of the hand, as it's turned.

The computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs, though.

Neltana's DAZ Studio computer-generated skeleton...



Mangler's Poser 7 computer-generated skeleton...

SweatyYeti: most clueless hypocrite ever.

Wow, sometimes when I think you can't pants yourself any greater, you just go for the gold. Well done, sir.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:




You're right, that's not the only thing that matters. I stand corrected.

Nonetheless....the statement is true....the doll-hand illusion is irrelevant.

I feel like Babe Ruth over here pointing at left field.

And how about your quote below. Is this true?

2) Sweaty is going to leave this one alone...

....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him ).

"A hand in a glove is just fine"....WASN'T just fine....it was insufficient.

Is this true?

 

[River]

River wrote:

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

Trick:

1 a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud b : a mischievous act : prank c : an indiscreet or childish action d : a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat; especially : one designed to puzzle or amuse <a juggler's tricks>
2 a : a habitual peculiarity of behavior or manner <a horse with the trick of shying> b : a characteristic and identifying feature <a trick of speech> c : a delusive appearance especially when caused by art or legerdemain : an optical illusion <a mere trick of the light>
3 a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack <the trick is to make it look natural>


I used this sentence sweaty "It could also be the film playing tricks on your perception"

Meaning, that perhaps the amount of definition available on a subject that small in film could alter your perception of the real object as seen on the film. I also listed some examples of how this could happen. (and does happen with other parts of "patty" such as the head for example) I mean come on.... really?

Can you demonstrate the "motion blur" in the frame where Patty's fingers appear bent?

Almost all frames of the PGF have some motion blur to them. With a subject that small in the frame size, (and Pattersons jerky movements) any edges of the subject that are moving are not going to be entirely accurate. (again refer to the changing head shape for example/reference) Meaning it would not appear exactly as it would appear in person to the naked eye at close range. Youre going to lose a lot of detail, and likely some edges will blend or be less precise. The image you posted below showing the alleged finger flexion shows signs of this. The edges on any of the subject are not precise, or clear. Especially so on the faster moving areas (such as the foot, hand etc) I did some experiments measuring the foot from different frames to gain a better understanding on the variance that was taking place from frame to frame due to these factors. (of which you chose to name one, that could explain what is seen)

How about adressing the other possibilties?

Do you honestly not see any blur on those images you posted to demonste the flexion? Not possible that the film could be playing tricks on your perception such as the moving head shape? How do you explain the constantly changing head shape?

(images below you posted)

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

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/Salute1.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyFingersBending/PattyFingersStraight1.jpg[/qimg]


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


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyFingersBending/handmoveFrame2.jpg[/qimg]


Only Reality.

If Im not mistaken, I think someone (perhaps Meldrum) noticed some discrepancies with these things from certain versions of the film. It appeared someone had added features, or touched up certain areas of the subject. Perhaps one of those areas was the finger flexion. (im sure someone here is aware of this, so point it out if you know)

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti: most clueless hypocrite ever.

I stand by my statements....100%.

There is no 'hypocrisy' in my statements...because they don't conflict with each other.


I said....

I used the computer-generated hand, since there's definitely no manipulation of the hand...

There is NO manipulation of the fingers, in that animation....they DO NOT BEND.


I stand by that statement of mine, quoted above...and I stand by this one, also......100%...

computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs,

Just because Computer animations are subject to user error, and maipulation.....it doesn't mean that they are ALWAYS in error, and/or manipulated.

There is no conflict...and therefore, no hypocrisy.


This is yet ONE MORE glaring example of how kitakaze twists/distorts, and misrepresents statements of mine.

I think the term "BS Artist" is appropriate, for kitakaze.



BTW.....a great example of someone being clueless would be somebody stating that the doll-hand illusions are correct, and awesome!!!.....when, in actual fact.....they are...

1) Meaningless

2) Irrelevant

3) Contrived

3) Manipulated

4) BS

kitakaze....apparently.....quite KLUELESS...

 

[SweatyYeti]

I was hoping to post an animated-gif tonight, dealing with Heironimus' arm-length being extended by the Morris suit.....but I got delayed, dealing with kitakaze's latest piece of DOO-DOO.

I'll post it tomorrow night.

 

[Vortigern99]

We're all breathless.

 

[kitakaze]

I stand by my statements...100%.

What about these?

...Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him ).

"A hand in a glove is just fine"....WASN'T just fine....it was insufficient.

 

[SweatyYeti]

We're all breathless.

And you ALL ...(except for Harry, Odinn, and Howie)....thought the 'doll hand illusion' was a possible explanation for Patty's moving fingers.

Laughingly....it required a "clueless monkey"...as kitakaze so DECLARED....to show you that it was, in fact, a total piece of garbage.


(Hey...I wonder what that makes kitakaze....being shown the truth by a "clueless monkey"...
Put that one on your resume, Champ! )

 

[Drewbot]

I thought it was just a case of different views of a slightly bent object.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us