Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

Stay tuned....

For a recognition of the fact that hand bending real or no has absolutely no bearing in the slighest on the validity of the PGF as a film of a real sasquatch? And hopefully followed by a subject change to a less retarded avenue of deperate pursuit for Pattycakes to follow? Well, I can hope, can't I? Really I know it's just too irresisitable for Baby D to horse-hump the PGF.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is one of the frames from the "extras" section of the LMS dvd....
...the fingers in the bent position are easily seen....by most people....

This is so cute, Greg....wherever did you find it?!!

Speaking of "finding" images... where did you get this one?

The caption is part of the image. It seems to have been written by a non-English-speaking or grammatically-challenged person. Who wrote that obviously improper bit of English beneath the image of Patty? Did some podunk Pattycake write that? Where is the P. Patterson (Patricia Patterson - widow of Roger) copyright stamp? Has a law been broken in the creation and reproduction of this "bootleg" image?

I guess I took the long way to ask if an idiot created the captioned image that you have posted.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's neat how the fur blocks part of the suit's hand, making it appear curved.

With the blur, the angle change, the low res, and the enlarging, I'm surprised people don't see all sorts of details on Patty...

 

[rgann]

You're welcome, Rick.
As for reconsidering my claim that the fingers can clearly be seen bending....I'll wait until after seeing some proof that they are indeed below the film's resolution.
I don't think that's the case, though.
Rick, in the frame pictured above....does Patty's hand look like it's below the film's resolution to you?
Does it look like 'film grain' or 'noise'?
Notice how much smaller her toes are than her fingers and hand.

Sweaty

Sounds like a reasonable testable request on your part. Here’s the beauty of this, it’s not about what my opinion is or if I think it looks like film grain or noise or not, it’s simply the math behind the capacity of 16mm film to show detail at a particular enlargement.

The frame you posted appears to be somewhere around the famous “352 frame”, taking your image and comparing it to several online “frame 352’s” it appears the image you posted matches the enlargement of these samples (I did this using photoshop). According to Fahrenbach the Dahinden cibachromes have a magnification or enlargement of 133X.

133 x 31.7 microns = 4,216 microns, or 4.2 mm

So anything inside a circle with a 4.2 mm diameter cannot mathematically give you reliable details. Try this for yourself don’t take my word for, a circle 4.2 mm covers the area on the hand that you are suggesting shows fingers flexing or curling.

In your response you ask “does Patty's hand look like it's below the film's resolution to you” and “Does it look like 'film grain' or 'noise'?” Its not that Patty’s hand is below the resolution it’s that the size of the area you are pointing out is below the testable range of detail. “Noise” or “Grain” on a film is not something that has a tell tale pattern or color, it’s simply the fact that at this enlargement intrinsically it is “Noise” even if it does create the illusion it’s a finger or toe. It’s simply math, it’s not an opinion or a feeling.

Rick

 

[kitakaze]

Mathematics applied shall deter no Pattycakes. Pattycakes eat math and crap NASI.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Speaking of "finding" images... where did you get this one?

That image is taken from the "Still Gallery" of the "Extra Features" section of the LMS dvd.

In the caption, they mistakingly left out the word 'showing'. I guess they're human.

 

[Belz...]

You'll see what I mean tomorrow.

I see right now that no skeptics have figured it out.

Yeah, sure.

"Well, I'll tell you later but I want to see if YOU know".

That's rather convenient. If someone says something smart, you can claim to have known all along. If no one finds it, you can confidently invent the answer.

Some investigator you are.

 

[Belz...]

Here is one of the frames from the "extras" section of the LMS dvd....
...the fingers in the bent position are easily seen....by most people.....

And what about the fingers in this picture, Sweaty ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

rgann wrote:

Here’s the beauty of this, it’s not about what my opinion is or if I think it looks like film grain or noise or not, it’s simply the math behind the capacity of 16mm film to show detail at a particular enlargement.

I agree, the math determines the limits of the film resolution.....but I didn't ask you "what it IS"...but what it looks like to you.
Regardless of the 'numbers'....it looks like Patty's hand, and even her toes, are within the film's resolution capability...to me.

What do they look like to you....film grain, or body parts?

The frame you posted appears to be somewhere around the famous “352 frame”, taking your image and comparing it to several online “frame 352’s” it appears the image you posted matches the enlargement of these samples (I did this using photoshop). According to Fahrenbach the Dahinden cibachromes have a magnification or enlargement of 133X.

That frame is from an earlier, shakier part of the film. It's not close to frame 352.

 

[SweatyYeti]

As for the film resolution limit of 4mm....that applies to the Dahinden cibachromes.

You stated:

According to Fahrenbach the Dahinden cibachromes have a magnification or enlargement of 133X.

I don't know what the actual size of those pictures were....but going by this picture of 16mm film....

If that's magnified 133 times...the image would be roughly 93 inches wide, by 46 inches high.
That's about 8' wide by 4' high.

That doesn't seem right. Do you know what the size of the cibachromes were?

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

"Well, I'll tell you later but I want to see if YOU know".

To be more precise....."I want to see if you can 'figure it out'."

Apparantly no-one can.

 

[Belz...]

Yep, "Well, I'll tell you later but I want to see if YOU know".

You can say it all day if you want. But you still haven't given us the "answer".

Seems "no-one" includes you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

"Seems" that way....doesn't it?

 

[William Parcher]

Here is an animation of the entire ' bending finger ' frames from the LMS copy of PGF .. ( scaled down from DVD -720x480 - )

Just to give you a feel for what we are working with here..

Of course the resolution of 16mm film is much higher than DVD, but when you start converting it back and forth, you get mush..

Greg, I'm going to ask a favor of you. Would you please post the two frames that make up this animation as individual stills? Please take them directly from the LMS DVD without scaling them down or changing anything else. Also please give frame numbers for them if you can. I'm asking this of you because I don't have LMS, nor software to create stills from a gif. Thanks in advance.

 

[kitakaze]

When is tomorrow? In typical form Sweaty is carrying on with his tired habit of talking about nothing at length. Have a good explanation why the appearance of bending is not an illusion? Joy. Have a cookie. Enjoy it because you have no good explanation showing that it's a sasquatch while discounting a man in a suit. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[kitakaze]

I agree, the math determines the limits of the film resolution.....but I didn't ask you "what it IS"...but what it looks like to you.
Regardless of the 'numbers'....it looks like Patty's hand, and even her toes, are within the film's resolution capability...to me.

What do they look like to you....film grain, or body parts?

To be more precise....."I want to see if you can 'figure it out'."

Apparantly no-one can.

"Seems" that way....doesn't it?

So Stumpy, if the hand appears to bend or does indeed bend what's your point? How does it support a living sasquatch and rule out a man in a suit? Apparently you haven't 'figured it out'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

When is tomorrow?

Well, since I said it yesterday......that would be TODAY.


The reason why I can tell Patty's hand isn't turning, thereby creating the illusion of 'fingers bending'....is because, as anyone can plainly SEE....though apparantly not on their own....when the hand turns from an edge-on view towards a more face-on view.....the hand becomes wider.....

Patty's hand does NOT become wider in the frame in which her fingers are more curled-up............not in the least.

Not one skeptic could figure this out on their own.

Probably because they're either all idiots....or victims of "wishful thinking".

"If the fingers bend.....you MUST pretend."

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey kitty....why don't you do mankind a favor....and roll your computer down the stairs...so it sits in the shop for another week or two....

 

[kitakaze]

Hey kitty....why don't you do mankind a favor....and roll your computer down the stairs...so it sits in the shop for another week or two....

Right then, so I take that as an admission you don't have a good explanation as to how if the hand does indeed bend it shows Patty is a real sasquatch while ruling out a man in a suit. That's fine, it was obvious anyway. Next.

 

[rgann]

I agree, the math determines the limits of the film resolution.....but I didn't ask you "what it IS"...but what it looks like to you.

I am glad we are in agreement on the math

That’s an interesting distinction, have you read anything about Pareidolia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

The point being made is that I clearly understand that the image shows a hand, however the math indicated that the details about the hand is unreliable.

Regardless of the 'numbers'....it looks like Patty's hand, and even her toes, are within the film's resolution capability...to me.
What do they look like to you....film grain, or body parts?

For me to disregard the “numbers” I would be glad to read any information you have that disputes the findings. I understand you don’t feel/think its true but to be convincing showing data that contradicts or at least questions the accuracy +- would be welcomed.

What I have tried to do is to lay out in front of you the information that I found, the calculations that where used and allow you to double check my work and then agree or disagree on the conclusion based on the math.

That frame is from an earlier, shakier part of the film. It's not close to frame 352.

I don’t know which frames the images you posted are from and I don’t have a way to determine it, if you can that would be great. Although given that you are admitting that the frames come from a “shakier” part of the film, I would ask you to consider the two factors (confounding?) one being 16mm resolution range and two being the “blur” caused by camera movement as being reasons why one should question the ability to discern detail in these frames

Reading other peoples responses I think that the frames come from the LMS that being the case that the source comes from a DVD we may not be able to determine what frame the images come from, if it’s a still from the digital source the process of converting analog/film to digital is called 2-3 pull down which converts 18fps to 29.97 fps, essentially a computer “interprets” the data creating duplicate new frames based on an algorithm.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-3_pulldown

Rick