• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was told? What do you mean I was told? What is this potty training? Well I went though photos I've posted and yes there are two photos where I highlighted the forearms of Patty.

IMO bristling.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1875549373eb843497.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18755493740ca033c5.jpg[/qimg]

All I see are furry, blurry photos. You are seeing things that are beyond the limit of resolution.

"One of these laws defines the resolution limit of any optical system, any camera lens, even a perfect one with absolutely no lens errors. ......So, even a perfect lens with no lens errors is limited in its resolution! (Such a perfect lens does not exist. Even the most sophisticated lenses on this planet, the Carl Zeiss S-Planar lenses for the semiconductor industry are only approximations to the perfect lens, although very close ones.) Thus the term "diffraction-limited" has become the synonym for lenses that are so good their only per-formance limit is the law of diffraction. According to this law no camera lens used in photography, still or motion, can produce resolutions higher than given in the following table (Approximate, rounded off values for white light spectrum of even energy distribution. In unevenly distributed spectra of gas discharge light sources somewhat higher resolutions may be achieved.)


f-no......................resolution
.............................(line pairs per millimeter)
.45.............................35
.32.............................50
.22.............................70
.16...........................100
.11...........................140
...8...........................200
5.6...........................280
...4...........................400
2.8...........................560

In practical photography other limitations of resolution occur, too. The existing depth-of-field concepts, for example, lead to a limit at 30 line pairs per millimeter, simply because they assume that the image of a sharp point may be considered sharp as long as the unsharp disc it actually is (called the "circle of confusion") grows no larger than 1/1000th of the focal length of the respective standard lens. In 35 mm photography only 1/1500th is allowed. 1/1500 th of the 50 mm standard focal length equals 1/30th mm. So 30 fit into one mm, which means, we are talking 30 line pairs per millimeter (CLN 1 has more details in "Depth of Field – An Insider's Look Behind The Scenes", an article that meanwhile has been reprinted in many publications around the world). This is about the same limit set by diffraction for f/45 which was an aperture setting quite popular with 5 x 7 inch large format photography, producing images that can be viewed without any subsequent magnification.
"(Camera Lens News No. 2, fall 1997)
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the blue bear pictures. We dont find them at high clips, like we find deer, despite deer are 30 million
 
Patty Nopoops sat on a stump.
Patty Nopoops had no Dumptys to dump.
All the Anthropologist and all the Footer's men.
Couldn't find Dumptys nor Patty again.
 
ROTFLMAO!!!:D:D:D

Oh, that would make a fine sig. JcR, you should use that. Patty Nopoops! I love it. Better than Patty McLumpy!
 
If (a bif if) the PGF is the high water mark for evidence of the existence of BF, how many years must pass without proof positive before you conclude BF doesn't exist?

Is the 40+ years long enough for us to conclude BF is a cultural myth or must we wait 50 years? 100 years? How long without evidence before BF proponents give up?
 
It will go beyond that even time itself will dare not travel.
Until the Universe collapses onto itself.
Beyond even the most outer fringes of our Imaginations.
Beyond...
Beyond...
Beyond...
 
Last edited:
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )
 
Last edited:
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Hmmm... I don't think Bill Munns matters anywhere nearly enough to do that. I'd call it maybe a 2-3 year boost tops among BFF members who don't leave their forum long enough to find out how well that opinion does beyond its nursing area.
 
At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.

Why?

I mean, as long as nobody ever looks at the film to see what it really does and does not show, Bigfoot enthusiasts can claim anything they want. It's not like the PGF actually exists any more than the Bigfoot it supposed to show.
 
At some point the PGF has to run out of gas.

Not as long as long as there are wind bags like Meldrum who can pontificate forever about nothing and prove that what you never saw is proof it was there.
 
What's sad, is that the PGF will get another 40 year boost when Bill Munns declares, in his expert opinion, we are not looking at a costume that could have been cobbled together by RP with his limited resources and materials .. ( .... or something to that effect )

Obviously Patty was the last of her kind..

It's sad when you go extinct, but have never been acknowledged to exist.. ( .... by the community at large )

It has been clear that Munns was going to declare Patty a real BF from early on at his BFF postings. At least that has been my take on Munns.

Altho it has been a long time since I read Krantz, didn't he say the longer we went without a body, that was a promblem for BF proponents? Or am I remembering wrong?

The BFF members have been using Munns to bolster their "Patty was a real BF" from early on.

The lack of BF evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that BF doesn't exist as a real animal and that BF is a clutural myth. How else could they be undiscovered eating pancakes in KY?
 
Dio, what does bill munns have in costume expertees that you dont? Please!
( What hitch said ... but, since you asked .... )

Best I can tell, he's got some super-secret glasses that enables him to see an extremely well made costume, when all I can see is a cheesy monkey suit that is starting to fall apart..


This, must just be a coincidence .. No wait ! I know .. Charlie Gemora modeled his suit after a real Bigfoot ....
 

Attachments

  • buttcomp.gif
    buttcomp.gif
    38.9 KB · Views: 110
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom