Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

I really hope we don't go through a repeat of the rather pointless discussion in BFF's 'where are the convincing fake suits?' or what's been around the block six times in our main PGF thread here. It's all completely a waste IMO given the distance and other conditions under which the film was taken. We've all seen that Patty is well within human range unless you are actually too far gone enough to think 2000lbs is accurate (which, of course, some do). Which reminds me, I'm guessing we won't see this anytime soon:

I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

Apparently it looks good for Patty.

 

[mangler]

SweatyYeti Quote;

"Roger was holding the camera very steady during the time Patty turned to look back. There is no 'camera shake' distortion in that frame I posted."

What are you frickin high? Even the stabilized version shows camera shake.

16mm can be duped up to 35mm and still hold damn good resolution, almost as good as an original 35mm when done right. This is why so many wildlife/nature photographer shoot 16mm.

It's the perfect hoax. Planned camera shake, pushing the film with somewhat depleted chemicals, there's your color shift/flat colors and grain. Now add a first and second generation copy and your film is crap before it even hits the street, no way to get a clean photo out of it.

There really is very little known about the original and all kinds of crap can happed once you start duping. I guess that's why they call it duping! Don't forget all the inter-negs, Cibachromes, darkrooms, digital data etc.

This is why the original will never pop up, ever.


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

mangler wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
"Roger was holding the camera very steady during the time Patty turned to look back. There is no 'camera shake' distortion in that frame I posted."

What are you frickin high? Even the stabilized version shows camera shake.

The frame I posted contains absolutely no streaking in the image, because it was exposed to light for only 1/18th of a second. (give or take a couple of hundreth's of a second.)
Roger was holding the camera steady at that point, and Patty was moving pretty slowly...and therefore...no streaking.

Here's a simple challenge for the skeptics.....

Highlight some streaking in that frame. It should be an easy task.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Just so you can see how short an interval 1/18th of a second is....

In this 2-frame animation...I shortened the duration of the second frame to 1/18th of a second.
That's 6/100th's of a second....can you even see the fingers in the bent position?

 

[SweatyYeti]

The "original" animation...

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Any other comparison is meaningless.

To a skeptic.

Hey William...shrinking that frame was a great idea!

Taking that great idea ONE step further....I shrunk it down to approx. 4 microns.

It's just to the right of the arrow....how's it look now?

 

[LTC8K6]

Your point is completely irrelevant.

Then ignore it.

Roger was holding the camera very steady during the time Patty turned to look back. There is no 'camera shake' distortion in that frame I posted.

No, he wasn't. Yes, there is. I have shakey, blurry, low res film to back up my claims. Please back up yours.

Are you using enhanced frames from Glickman or the LMS dvd? Blown up frames? Original PGF size frames?

If Patty's hair was as coarse and as long as the hair on that suit, it would be noticeable.

No, it wouldn't, and you have no clue what Patty's hair is like.

The visible edges on her arms and legs are very smooth...indicating short, fine hair.

Or indicating low resolution due to film limits, subject tiny in the frame, camera shake, motion blur, and sketchy spring wound film speeds...

 

[LTC8K6]

Note that the claims were that Patty stopped and looked back...and Patterson had two completely different descriptions of Patty's hair...

First story, Times Standard Oct 21 1967 - Roger has not seen the film:

... silvery brown hair all over it's body...The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

Argosy Feb 1968 :

She was covered with short, shiny, black hair, even her big droopy breasts.

Interesting how the description morphs. Another sign of hoaxing.

 

[mangler]

"Highlight some streaking in that frame. It should be an easy task."

The entire photo is a streak. Moving camera, moving subject, 1/16 - 1/24 shutter speed equals blur.

Amatures/clowns, what's the frickin use?


m

 

[LTC8K6]

A meaningless animation of 2 unrelated frames is what I see...

 

[LTC8K6]

The frame I posted contains absolutely no streaking in the image, because it was exposed to light for only 1/18th of a second.

The "frame" you posted is an enhanced and blown up cibachrome copy of a frame. It also has a weird looking defect making the right hand look better, and a decidedly dodgy left hand.

What does this extreme blow up on cibachrome have to do with the PGF and it's resolution?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6165&d=1175221402

 

[LAL]

Actually, the most revealing evidence is that you post here.

Of course, my (bad) joke was that, since you are a ghost, and ghosts don't exist, it is logical to assume that you, beign non-existent, would not have any proof of Bigfoot's existence.

Okay, so it wasn't very good.

Neither was my joke. I'm certainly no angel, but SY is sweet to think so.

 

[LAL]

I really hope we don't go through a repeat of the rather pointless discussion in BFF's 'where are the convincing fake suits?' or what's been around the block six times in our main PGF thread here.

Have the suitniks produced the suit yet?

Didn't you say you ordered Meldrum's book? The photo I was looking for is on page 190. It was taken on the Oregon coast south of Tillamook the morning after a sighting.

 

[SweatyYeti]

mangler wrote:

The entire photo is a streak.

Translation:
"I can't highlight a streak...because I can't FIND one."

Skeptical thinking...on this board...does not even require the use of a brain.
Skeptics can SAY there are motion streaks...but can't highlight any.

Typical skeptic brain-dead BS....all MOUTH.. ...no substance.

I highlighted four vertical and horizontal edges where there's a sharp transition from light to dark....with no streaking whatsoever.....in any direction...

 

[LAL]

This is why the original will never pop up, ever.

It was tied up in copyright issues and was in the hands of attorneys in Florida, last I read.

Patricia Patterson is old and ill.

Just what is supposed to be on the original that isn't on John Green's first generation copy?

 

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

I'm certainly no angel, but SY is sweet to think so.

Thank you kindly, Lu...

You may not literally be an angel....but you're close enough for my liking!

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

A meaningless animation of 2 unrelated frames is what I see...

Actually....what you SEE in the first animation is ONE frame...the other one is there for such a short amount of time, you can't even see it.

It shows how short 6/100th's of a second is.
There was effectively no movement when that frame of film was exposed to light....which is why there are no streaks in it....and, coincidentally , why no skeptic can highlight any streaks in it.

LTC wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
"Your point is completely irrelevant."

Then ignore it.

Sorry bub...but this being a discussion board...I'd rather comment on it and explain why it's completely irrelevant....and, as a BONUS, make you look not-so-smart.

 

[LAL]

Interesting how the description morphs. Another sign of hoaxing.

Is Bill saying Roger didn't know the color of the suit he made, therefore it's a hoax?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It was tied up in copyright issues and was in the hands of attorneys in Florida, last I read.

Patricia Patterson is old and ill.

And, this has what to do with the quality and genesis of the film ??

Just what is supposed to be on the original that isn't on John Green's first generation copy?

Uhhh, how about another 75 feet of film ? !
Anything could be on the original that we haven't been shown .. The least of which might show that Patterson did not run out of film as is claimed..


" Yes your honor, there is another 75 feet of film, but you can trust me;
there is nothing on it that you would be interested in.. "



Besides, the footage seen on LMS ( supposedly made from Green's copy ) is zoomed and cropped..

Is Green's copy in the same condidtion ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

What does this extreme blow up on cibachrome have to do with the PGF and it's resolution?

Nothing at all....go back to sleep.