|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th March 2012, 11:46 AM | #8041 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
|
I'm fairly sure the sprocket holes would interrupt any analog sound stripe. There is no information in the emulsion between the holes. I've never seen any 16mm film with a sound stripe that didn't have sprocket holes on only one side. This website has an image of a sound stripe on 16mm film:
http://www.videoconversionexperts.co...m_Details.html |
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 (Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily. |
|
17th March 2012, 11:54 AM | #8042 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
Kilaak Kommander-
On the PG film you hear sounds of wind and horses you also hear music and a narrator the same as you hear in documentary. Then when it come to the part of the film that shows the Bigfoot you start to hear this scary music and horse sound like horses are being scared. Then the rest of the Bigfoot walking they just play the scary music. Then right after that on the film you start to hear soft music again and them showing Roger Patterson making the cast prints and the narrator start to talk again. You see when Roger Patterson gave the film to Ron Olson he turn the film into a 20min documentary film for Roger Patterson. This is why they never show the whole film and they never played the sound on the film. For if they did then people would know all they was seeing is a documentary film and it was not real. The narrator on the PG film was J.English Smith. He worked for ANE for years and was a narrator in a lot of their documentary films they made. |
17th March 2012, 12:06 PM | #8043 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
|
17th March 2012, 01:44 PM | #8044 |
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,102
|
I hate to tell you this Leroy Blevins, but that picture with sound on the film does not show what you think it does.
That's NOT a sound track. |
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
17th March 2012, 01:54 PM | #8045 |
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,102
|
|
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
17th March 2012, 02:06 PM | #8046 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,424
|
No, it doesn't. There is no sound track on that sample. The sprocket holes are where a sound track might be. What you may be looking at is at the left, to the left of the sprocket holes. If you enlarge that, you may see some text or other filmstock ID. It's too narrow to contain sound data for that era of technology, and in the wrong location.
|
17th March 2012, 04:03 PM | #8047 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
First this image here is a copy from one of the copies of the PG film. This image here is from the copy of the film that Miss Patterson has. the sound is on the side I point out in this image. This is the end of the PG film that Miss Patterson has. The first image I shown on here is a copy from one of the original copies of the film. Take the time out and look over the Bill Munns report and you will read about when he looked over the film and by THE NARRATOR ON THE FILM talked about the two men being Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Now if the PG film did not have sound on it why did even Bill Munns talked about the narrator on the film. Now there has to be sound on the film to have a narrator on the film. I have heard the sound on the film but I can not get a copy of the sound track that is on the film for they did not let me make a copy of it. So yes the PG film does in fact has sound on it. Now as for the original film I can not say if it had sound on it but the remake film that people been researching and showing on TV does have sound on it. And they are the copies of the film that Miss Patterson and John Green has and show. These films are remade films by Ron Olson and ANE. Look at the date on the image I am showing above of the end of the PG film and the date on this film states 11-7-68 and this is the film they done research on the remade film by Ron Olson and ANE. |
17th March 2012, 04:24 PM | #8048 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Leroy,
We know that the film we've been looking at is not the original and we also know that the film that was shown in theaters had sound, so if we're looking at a copy of the theater film what does that prove, other than what we already knew? |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
17th March 2012, 04:38 PM | #8049 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
First this will be my last post for I have other research I have been working on.
I post what I find weather anyone believes it or not, that is that person opinion and people are allowed to have there own opinion. No matter what anyone can show or say about this film the one side will always back the film as real. Then on the other side the none believers will claim the film was a hoax. so it really does not matter what anyone say or show. Just like Bigfoot.I believe in Bigfoot for I have seen one face to face in 2002 but what I found in the film and from what I know about a real Bigfoot the Bigfoot in the PG film was nothing more then a man in a suit. Now all the other researchers that gone over this film has never seen a real Bigfoot and they are 60/40% sure that Bigfoot is real but they claim the Bigfoot in the PG film is real. Now what I find is so funny about that is how can anyone claim the Bigfoot in the film is real when they themselves don't really believe in Bigfoot. As for me I believe they are real for I have seen one and I know what they look like. As for the PG film it was a man in a suit. God Bless And I like to thank all of you for the time in this matter and thank you for giving me the time to share some of my research with you. Leroy Blevins Sr. |
17th March 2012, 05:24 PM | #8050 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 917
|
Are you now claiming the original film had single sprocket holes, not double?
Where exactly on a K-100 camera is the microphone jack? http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthetube/6860491665/ |
__________________
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 (Bigfoot) evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse. David Daegling The Bigfoot hypothesis is tested daily. |
|
17th March 2012, 08:36 PM | #8051 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
This was an image Leroy was using in an earlier discussion, just for reference.
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
17th March 2012, 11:02 PM | #8052 |
NWO Acorn Hoarder
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,102
|
|
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
|
18th March 2012, 03:05 PM | #8053 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
18th March 2012, 03:52 PM | #8054 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
19th March 2012, 06:14 AM | #8055 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Back to suits for a second, through the magic of Netflix I've been working through every episode of Star Trek and finally made it to Kirk's battle with the Gorn last night. (He - the Gorn - was the original sleestak btw, complete with metallic tunic and crazy eyes.) The Gorn suit up close and in HD of course looks rubbery and "fake" in some shots, but otherwise its sculpted musculature blows Patty out of the water in terms of where one would expect certain bulging muscles to be. Its fingers bend and it even blinks.
|
19th March 2012, 08:48 AM | #8056 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
But how could that be ? It's not possible in the 60's to mimic muscle, or make the fingers move. I think we should launch an immediate investigation; as obviously, the creators of Star Trek are in contact with reptilian aliens. There is no way that anyone could have constructed a suit to look that realistic.
|
20th March 2012, 07:25 PM | #8057 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
I am new to this. Mr. Blevins, if you get a chance could you post to the thread the details of your encounter wirh Bigfoot ?
|
23rd March 2012, 07:07 PM | #8058 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
23rd March 2012, 07:31 PM | #8059 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
SY, when you overstabilize film it looks as though the head wasn't moving. It was moving. That accounts for different patterns of light reflection. And it was moving for a second or more, because there are 19 missing frames between the two you posted.
thanks in advance for not posting this thing again, and thereby not wasting our bandwidth. p. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
23rd March 2012, 08:08 PM | #8060 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
24th March 2012, 04:31 AM | #8061 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
And.....OH SO IMPOSSIBLE to be the result of a 'flexible mask tight against a human face'....considering how far forward Patty's eyebrows extend...
We have ourselves a Sasquatch... |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
24th March 2012, 08:45 AM | #8062 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
I think the sarcasm of my Gorn comment was missed. Patty is a man in a suit. There are so many problems with the suit, that the believers have to make excuses for those. The wrinkle in the thigh is an old injury, the patchy fur is a gun shot wound, and so on.
|
24th March 2012, 03:39 PM | #8063 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 343
|
Sweaty, can you do a stabilized GIF showing Patty raising her eyebrows between frames 350 and 370? The face was not obscured in the intervening frames. We should be able to see a transition between the two positions of the brow.
|
24th March 2012, 10:08 PM | #8064 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Sure, I can make an animated-gif of those intervening Frames....sometime soon. But, there really isn't anything in any of the intervening frames that can change the 'bottom line'...regarding the 'degree of change' on Patty's face...in these two Frames. The 'apparent movement' is simply beyond the range of 'random noise'...and, with the 'protruding brow'....it's beyond the capability of a human inside a 'suit mask', to accomplish it. And Patty's head is turned at the exact same angle, relative to the camera/sun...in those two Frames. So, the only thing left, to cause it....would be a real, live animal.....a Sasquatch. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
24th March 2012, 10:13 PM | #8065 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
I honestly don't know why you go to the trouble. None of us are going to change our minds about the FACT that Patty is a guy in a suit.
|
24th March 2012, 10:18 PM | #8066 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Quote:
right, that's why the right ear looks the same. oh wait..... it looks different. Back to the tv repair biz, pal. |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
24th March 2012, 10:19 PM | #8067 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
25th March 2012, 01:19 AM | #8068 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
Your argument is flawed in many ways. I'm not suggesting there is mouth movement. I don't see it. If there is any, its extremely minimal. One might want to include possibilities like the images morphing due to the amount of zoom on the small area of film you're looking at. The film grain is only capable of so much. Another thing to consider might be "if" there were even exaggerated mouth movement or other facial area would that exclude it from being a mask? (which I tend to think is a static mask changing slightly due to the limits of the film) Are you suggesting that any of the movements you describe (if they were to be genuine movements....) were not possible in a mask in 1967?
|
25th March 2012, 06:04 AM | #8069 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
Bigfootery produces loads of examples of people shutting down their eyes and not just blindly following an absurd belief, but also using absurd arguments to support the said belief.
Sweaty (assuming he actually believes in the stuff he posts and is not doing it all for the lulz) is among those providing case studies. Let's forget about resolution, noise, blur, pareidolia, etc. How can anyone actually propose a real vertebrate, whose anatomy can not diverge too much from ours, would be able to change its head shape in that way? Can he actually show any real example of apes making such shape-shifting stunts? Same magnitude of changes/movement, detectable from similar distances? Its the produt of blind faith, gullibility and ignorance. Or he just moved to the shape-shifting paranormal bigfoot field, what would not be an actual surprise. I'll show you my "theory": Patty and bigfoots are cartoon characters visiting our universe. That's why she can change shape, that's why bigfoots can do all the stuff they are supposed to do. My "theory" is as plausible as bigfoots being real and the PGF showing a real bigfoot doing the stuff SY claims she's doing... |
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too… |
|
25th March 2012, 06:46 AM | #8070 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
25th March 2012, 07:32 AM | #8071 |
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 245
|
|
25th March 2012, 08:07 AM | #8072 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
|
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
25th March 2012, 04:09 PM | #8073 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
Hey..
Even poorly designed on the fly 1960's suits bounce... like bumbles ! |
25th March 2012, 05:41 PM | #8074 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
|
25th March 2012, 05:47 PM | #8075 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
|
25th March 2012, 05:48 PM | #8076 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
I think I saw his head move and the eyebrows.. well protrude !
|
5th April 2012, 05:30 PM | #8077 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
I believe the PGF is a public domain film.
I believe there is no legal basis for the owner of the PGF to successfully force someone to pay for it's use. I believe the owners act like it is properly copyrighted hoping that noone will risk a legal battle. Why? Night of the Living Dead is a public domain film. It was released in 1968. it is well within it's copyright time limit. The problem is, that when the film was distributed, the distributor failed to include a copyright notice on the film. Any legal defense of the films copyright failed because of this. Has anyone seen a frame of the pgf with a copyright notice? I asked Bill Munns if he has seen one, and he wont answer. Bill now says There is a copyright notice on LMS version, not on the film. versions can our Jref legal experts weigh in on this? Has Pat Patterson ever successfully sued to keep someone from using it? I asked an advertising friend how much it would cost to use it in a commercial, he said "nothing, anyone can use it" |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
5th April 2012, 06:11 PM | #8078 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
Just a quick note: It is my understanding that, under the old US copyright laws (at least, those prior to 1978) a work had to do the following in order to secure a copyright: 1) Have a copyright notice on it 2) Have the work registered at the Copyright Office and 3) Include a copy of said work with the copyright application. If you missed a single step and published the work, you were screwed. There may have been a window of time that allowed you to withdraw the work from circulation and correct any errors made during the initial copyright process in order to save it, but I'm not 100% sure on this.
I've often wondered if the Night of the Living Dead can truly be considered 100% public domain due to its soundtrack made up entirely of stock library music. Unless said music is PD, then any cheap DVD company that distributes the film without paying for use of (or simply replacing) the music could potentially be setting themselves up for some trouble.
Quote:
|
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
5th April 2012, 06:59 PM | #8079 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
couldnt they just release another version of NOLD with a copyright notice, and they would be protected?
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
5th April 2012, 07:37 PM | #8080 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
|
If they wanted to make a copyrighted version of NOTLD now, they would have to make significant changes to the film. I recall that some people involved in the original (but not George Romero) filmed and edited in new scenes to create a copyrighted "30th Anniversary Edition" years ago. However, the copyright would only apply to the new version.
Sadly, the original masters (which had footage not seen in the commercially available version) were destroyed in a flood, which prevents Image Ten (the company behind NOTLD) from making a copyrightable version that theoretically wouldn't enrage fans. Thankfully, there have been a few home video companies that have done the right thing and licensed the film for restored versions in spite of the film's public domain status. |
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|