View Single Post
Old 30th April 2012, 09:16 PM   #8424
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
I'm not attacking anyone, nor am I "in a snit". I'm pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw in River's reasoning. It's significant, IMO, because River is proposing his discovery as positive proof that the PGF is a hoax.

I'm saying: "Wait a second, this object is missing in the overhead shot, and there is no sign of disturbed soil from any putative excavation."
Why is that so significant? Perhaps the wind blew the leaf?/stick?/twig? or perhaps they removed it when they made the rest of the footprints after the casting scene. Why would you discard all of the matching features because one is missing? Is that critical thinking?

How about taking a closer look at the other matching features, especially immediately surrounding the casted track and compare it to the other scene. There are also other small twigs and such on both scenes that match. Because one is missing (almost where the next footprint was made) is not a surprise, nor does it change the location.

(eta, just saw your other response)

BTW, I like the feedback. I am positive the two scenes are the same location. Its verifiable/duplicable by anyone with good quality scans of the film. (not just on one special "enhanced version" or such.

Last edited by River; 30th April 2012 at 09:25 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top