Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Last edited:
Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters
- Thread starter desertyeti
- Start date
- Status
Spektator
Is that right?
Excellent, Diogenes! You are truly a Good Scout. Thank you very much.
I took the second photo with a flash, by the way, and rotated it a little bit in Photoshop to get it in about the same position as the first. It was a bit smaller, too, so I fudged in a strip of "wall" near the bottom of the photo with the stamp tool. But I did NOT retouch the fingers at all--just a different tilt, angle, and distance from the camera!
'Nother edit--I think the flash went off in the first photo, too, now, when I look at the shadow; I didn't even realize that in the heat of photographing the elusive Kenfoot!
Now, in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny..."If the fingers woik, you must be a joik."
I took the second photo with a flash, by the way, and rotated it a little bit in Photoshop to get it in about the same position as the first. It was a bit smaller, too, so I fudged in a strip of "wall" near the bottom of the photo with the stamp tool. But I did NOT retouch the fingers at all--just a different tilt, angle, and distance from the camera!
'Nother edit--I think the flash went off in the first photo, too, now, when I look at the shadow; I didn't even realize that in the heat of photographing the elusive Kenfoot!
Now, in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny..."If the fingers woik, you must be a joik."
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Spektator
Is that right?
Yes, but my daughter would never let her Barbie date a GI Joe. Hers is a standard Kenfoot doll, no grip whatsover.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Nothing like a little computer fart induced hiatus to give one perspective. I'm not at all surprised to see Baby Dangling doing some wall humping with PGF blather. So if the hand moved then what?
Shazam! What an angle! Let's
There's no aspect of the PGF that can't be explained by a man in a suit. There are aspects that don't conform with what one would expect for such an animal. Those hilarious boobs, for example.
BTW, just off the top of my head, can anyone think of any reports of a big cans and diaper butt sasquatch from northern California roughly contemporaneous the PGF? Where'd Patty go?
I'm guessing while my computer was in the shop no reliable evidence of bigfoot has turned up. As I've said before, if the best a footer can do here is to hump the PGF in Tom Green fashion then they really should think about getting into el chupacabra (if they aren't already).
Shazam! What an angle! Let's
There's no aspect of the PGF that can't be explained by a man in a suit. There are aspects that don't conform with what one would expect for such an animal. Those hilarious boobs, for example.
BTW, just off the top of my head, can anyone think of any reports of a big cans and diaper butt sasquatch from northern California roughly contemporaneous the PGF? Where'd Patty go?
I'm guessing while my computer was in the shop no reliable evidence of bigfoot has turned up. As I've said before, if the best a footer can do here is to hump the PGF in Tom Green fashion then they really should think about getting into el chupacabra (if they aren't already).
tconley2019
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11
If the hand has flexed, you will be vexed?
If the angle has changed, you sound deranged?
It's a poor line of evidence to begin with. Has anyone commented on that weird shelf at the top of Patty's butt in some of the stills? What is that supposed to be?
I guess I'm one of the people who think it would be really cool to find a new primate, but if this is the quality of the evidence, I don't think it's worth looking for.
If the angle has changed, you sound deranged?
It's a poor line of evidence to begin with. Has anyone commented on that weird shelf at the top of Patty's butt in some of the stills? What is that supposed to be?
I guess I'm one of the people who think it would be really cool to find a new primate, but if this is the quality of the evidence, I don't think it's worth looking for.
Spektator
Is that right?
Nothing like a little computer fart induced hiatus to give one perspective. I'm not at all surprised to see Baby Dangling doing some wall humping with PGF blather. So if the hand moved then what?
Shazam! What an angle! Let's
(snip)
....
I was just reading through the thread and got a little piqued with the assertion that the fingers were clearly bending. After I took the doll photos, I thought they looked "bendy" enough that other people might like to see them. No dead horses were actually injured.
Fellow Scoftics:
As a daily reader of this thread (who knew you guys –SG-Tube- had fans?) and from someone who read the entire PGF thread and way too many threads at BFF I am interested in this version of defense of the PGF.
I have seen possibly hundreds of simple GIF animations depicting some kind of anomaly or another on Patty/BH, typically they are zoomed in on a specific part of Patty/BH, they are always in a loop and usually give Patty a hip hop kind of persona, taking the time to create a serious defense that makes Patty look like she’s doing the humpty-hump is well, nice…
It would seem to me that the ability to discern any kind detail from a 16mm print would have a mathematical equation determining the point in which a frame “blown up” to a certain size would offer no reliable data.
As someone who makes a living doing video and graphical work I am surprised when someone creates a looped GIF as a proof of validity. To the best of my understanding the lineage of the image would have had so many generations so many file format changes so many compression methods used so many resolution changes that artifacts couldn’t possibly be reliable.
1. Does anyone know what level of detail 16mm film will display? Meaning given that 16mm film has display parameters (lines of resolution I think) wouldn’t it be possible to determine at what size of an area do details stop being reliable.
2. Does anyone know at what point does details on 16mm film that has been “blown up” “X” amount of times stop being reliable for determining details?
3. Does anyone know the lineage of the source material BF proponents use to create these animated GIF’s? Meaning can one reliably rule out the effects of film to digital conversions as not being part of what is seen in the numerous body/suit anomalies.
Here is my best guess on the amount of versions or generations that may be being used to make animated GIF’s (corrections or revisions welcomed)
Source:
Original 16mm film
1st Generation Copies:
1 of 5 16mm Copies>Color Cibachromes>B&W Cibachromes
2nd Generation Copies:
16mm copy or original to 35 mm Copy (various 70’s documentaries)
16mm copy or original and/or 35mm copy conversion to Analog for broadcast (telecine process 18 fps to 29.97 fps)
16mm copy or original and/or 35mm copy conversion to Digital (2-3 pull-down method)
3rd Generation Copies
Convert Analog (broadcast Beta 3/4) to Digital (unknown compression, codec, interlacing)
Convert to Analog (broadcast Beta 3/4) to VHS (for distribution)
Convert Digital Master to DVD (unknown compression, codec, interlacing)
4th Generation Copies:
Rip DVD to Computer
Record from VHS or Broadcast (DVR)
5th Generation Copies:
Digital source from ripped DVD(.avi, .mov, .mpeg)
6th Generation Copies:
Frame Capture from digital source (.tiff, bitmap)
7th Generation Copies:
Enlarged Frame Capture (100x for detail)
Create GIF or Copy GIF from online source
Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum:
Post on JREF
Seems likely that enlarging this film to 100X+ would give you all sorts of details, but of what I am skeptical.
Rick
As a daily reader of this thread (who knew you guys –SG-Tube- had fans?) and from someone who read the entire PGF thread and way too many threads at BFF I am interested in this version of defense of the PGF.
I have seen possibly hundreds of simple GIF animations depicting some kind of anomaly or another on Patty/BH, typically they are zoomed in on a specific part of Patty/BH, they are always in a loop and usually give Patty a hip hop kind of persona, taking the time to create a serious defense that makes Patty look like she’s doing the humpty-hump is well, nice…
It would seem to me that the ability to discern any kind detail from a 16mm print would have a mathematical equation determining the point in which a frame “blown up” to a certain size would offer no reliable data.
As someone who makes a living doing video and graphical work I am surprised when someone creates a looped GIF as a proof of validity. To the best of my understanding the lineage of the image would have had so many generations so many file format changes so many compression methods used so many resolution changes that artifacts couldn’t possibly be reliable.
1. Does anyone know what level of detail 16mm film will display? Meaning given that 16mm film has display parameters (lines of resolution I think) wouldn’t it be possible to determine at what size of an area do details stop being reliable.
2. Does anyone know at what point does details on 16mm film that has been “blown up” “X” amount of times stop being reliable for determining details?
3. Does anyone know the lineage of the source material BF proponents use to create these animated GIF’s? Meaning can one reliably rule out the effects of film to digital conversions as not being part of what is seen in the numerous body/suit anomalies.
Here is my best guess on the amount of versions or generations that may be being used to make animated GIF’s (corrections or revisions welcomed)
Source:
Original 16mm film
1st Generation Copies:
1 of 5 16mm Copies>Color Cibachromes>B&W Cibachromes
2nd Generation Copies:
16mm copy or original to 35 mm Copy (various 70’s documentaries)
16mm copy or original and/or 35mm copy conversion to Analog for broadcast (telecine process 18 fps to 29.97 fps)
16mm copy or original and/or 35mm copy conversion to Digital (2-3 pull-down method)
3rd Generation Copies
Convert Analog (broadcast Beta 3/4) to Digital (unknown compression, codec, interlacing)
Convert to Analog (broadcast Beta 3/4) to VHS (for distribution)
Convert Digital Master to DVD (unknown compression, codec, interlacing)
4th Generation Copies:
Rip DVD to Computer
Record from VHS or Broadcast (DVR)
5th Generation Copies:
Digital source from ripped DVD(.avi, .mov, .mpeg)
6th Generation Copies:
Frame Capture from digital source (.tiff, bitmap)
7th Generation Copies:
Enlarged Frame Capture (100x for detail)
Create GIF or Copy GIF from online source
Rinse and Repeat ad infinitum:
Post on JREF
Seems likely that enlarging this film to 100X+ would give you all sorts of details, but of what I am skeptical.
Rick
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Absolutely, Spektator, and your photos are a great demonstration of how that illusion can fool one. Nice one. I just think it's hilarious that Sweaty thinks he's got skeptics falling over themselves trying to run damage control about the most retarded point. Mm hmm, and if the hand bends... your point is? *whispers* I don't think Sweaty knows what his point is.
Anyway, Sweaty's MO is to shuck n' jive around the fact that there is absolutely no reliable evidence for bigfoot. When he hears me say something to that effect he usually responds with an amusing mock tone comment in which he demonstrates a misunderstanding of the difference between proof and reliable evidence. I personally rather enjoy the humour of a silly footer kid scoffing at skeptics and calling them braindead over bigfoot.
Well said, tconley. Welcome to the board.
Belz...
Fiend God
Spektator said:
Why of COURSE. They bend, obviously. Those skeptikz can't deny the facts.
If the fingers bend, then you MUST pretend!!
Belz...
Fiend God
I can't wait to see how Slippery squirms out of that one. I expect he'll somehow avoid discussing it.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Actually, after comparing the doll hand illusion to the 2-frame animation....it's rather easy to tell that that is not what is going on with Patty's finger bending.
I'll show why it's not the case tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'll wait and see how many skeptics can figure it out.
I'll show why it's not the case tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'll wait and see how many skeptics can figure it out.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
And so what if the hand does bend? What have you shown other than Patterson didn't make use of a manequin?Actually, after comparing the doll hand illusion to the 2-frame animation....it's rather easy to tell that that is not what is going on with Patty's finger bending.
I'll show why it's not the case tomorrow.
In the meantime, I'll wait and see how many skeptics can figure it out.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Belz...
Fiend God
Now you're just using your knowledge that they don't bend to reinterpret your observations.
If I didn't know it was a doll, I would say that the fingers "seem to bend". Which is exactly what I said about YOUR animation.
In the meantime, I'll wait and see how many skeptics can figure it out.
See what I meant about avoiding ?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I've got a better idea, how 'bout not? You know, since it has absolutely no bearing in the slighest on the validity of the PGF as a film of a real sasquatch.
Thanks LTC8K6!
So the formula is this:
Magnification x Lines of resolution (simple enough)
From Dr Fahrenbach
“the Dahinden vertical pictures of Frames 323 and 352 are magnified about 133 times”
“16mm film has 63 lines/ mm.of resolution or resolving power”
“Nyquists's Sampling Theorem states in its simplest fashion, that for a signal (minimal image element) to be detected, you need in effect the space of two lines, which brings the resolving power to 31.5 lines / mm”
see Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem on Wiki
133 x 31.7 microns = 4,216 microns, or 4.2 mm
So any details under this size really should be considered “noise” and not details. Couple this with the fact that film to digital also creates “noise” how has this fact been overlooked by proponents or has anyone addressed/sidestepped this?
I may regret this but here goes…
So Sweaty where exactly did you get your source file for the finger curl GIF and how many times has that image been enlarged (source + detail)?
Thanks
Rick
So the formula is this:
Magnification x Lines of resolution (simple enough)
From Dr Fahrenbach
“the Dahinden vertical pictures of Frames 323 and 352 are magnified about 133 times”
“16mm film has 63 lines/ mm.of resolution or resolving power”
“Nyquists's Sampling Theorem states in its simplest fashion, that for a signal (minimal image element) to be detected, you need in effect the space of two lines, which brings the resolving power to 31.5 lines / mm”
see Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem on Wiki
133 x 31.7 microns = 4,216 microns, or 4.2 mm
So any details under this size really should be considered “noise” and not details. Couple this with the fact that film to digital also creates “noise” how has this fact been overlooked by proponents or has anyone addressed/sidestepped this?
I may regret this but here goes…
So Sweaty where exactly did you get your source file for the finger curl GIF and how many times has that image been enlarged (source + detail)?
Thanks
Rick
Last edited:
Spektator
Is that right?
Your reason couldn't possibly be that the doll has no separate "fingers," just a molded hand. I'd explain why, but that would only insult your intelligence.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,495
Rick,
It is very frustrating to try to be a student of the PGF. That is to say it is difficult to treat it as if it were a physical artifact or collection of artifacts that are available for scientific inquiry. It is not at all like an anthropological or paleontological artifact that can be physically studied by various scientists in a museum or institution. The PGF is both copyrighted and said to be missing (in its original form). Numerous people are in possession of first and second generation copies of the film. To my knowledge, all of those people are strong PGF believers, or at least represent themselves as being such. The only PGF materials that can be examined by students are what is available in books, magazines, VHS, DVD, internet, loaned from a material holder, etc. Attempts to learn of the ultimate origins or provenances of these materials can be difficult. Often this stuff just seems to come from someone who got it from someone else, and on and on. But none of it seems to be traceable to any strong PGF skeptic. Instead, it is all in the hands of PGF proponents. This means that a PGF skeptic can only examine things that have been presented to them by a PGF believer (or proponent/advocate).
The PGF is commonly described as blurry, out of focus, grainy, etc. I have said that it really was not so bad in its original form. The reason I say that is because of the decent appearance of the "Dahinden Cibachromes". These are high-quality print enlargements that were presumably reproduced from the original film frames. It seems that the first time any of these Cibachromes appeared in print was in the 1987 book, Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence. In this book, is the Rene Dahinden copyrighted Cibachrome of the famous Frame 352. It shows the controversial right hand. The controversy surrounding the right hand (which is only seen in the Cibachrome print) is a unique issue in my opinion.
Below are some images taken from the internet. They are presumably all from Dahinden Cibachromes. They give me the impression that the original PGF was really rather sharp as opposed to blurry or out of focus. As you know, these images have already passed through various copying processes before appearing here in front of your eyes. I think you can therefore imagine the quality of image if you actually held a Dahinden Cibachrome in your hands.
It is very frustrating to try to be a student of the PGF. That is to say it is difficult to treat it as if it were a physical artifact or collection of artifacts that are available for scientific inquiry. It is not at all like an anthropological or paleontological artifact that can be physically studied by various scientists in a museum or institution. The PGF is both copyrighted and said to be missing (in its original form). Numerous people are in possession of first and second generation copies of the film. To my knowledge, all of those people are strong PGF believers, or at least represent themselves as being such. The only PGF materials that can be examined by students are what is available in books, magazines, VHS, DVD, internet, loaned from a material holder, etc. Attempts to learn of the ultimate origins or provenances of these materials can be difficult. Often this stuff just seems to come from someone who got it from someone else, and on and on. But none of it seems to be traceable to any strong PGF skeptic. Instead, it is all in the hands of PGF proponents. This means that a PGF skeptic can only examine things that have been presented to them by a PGF believer (or proponent/advocate).
The PGF is commonly described as blurry, out of focus, grainy, etc. I have said that it really was not so bad in its original form. The reason I say that is because of the decent appearance of the "Dahinden Cibachromes". These are high-quality print enlargements that were presumably reproduced from the original film frames. It seems that the first time any of these Cibachromes appeared in print was in the 1987 book, Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence. In this book, is the Rene Dahinden copyrighted Cibachrome of the famous Frame 352. It shows the controversial right hand. The controversy surrounding the right hand (which is only seen in the Cibachrome print) is a unique issue in my opinion.
Below are some images taken from the internet. They are presumably all from Dahinden Cibachromes. They give me the impression that the original PGF was really rather sharp as opposed to blurry or out of focus. As you know, these images have already passed through various copying processes before appearing here in front of your eyes. I think you can therefore imagine the quality of image if you actually held a Dahinden Cibachrome in your hands.
- Status