|
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. |
16th April 2010, 07:20 AM | #961 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
My chief source for the last three decades of figure drawing, Rubins, is not clear on the distinction. He uses the term adduction alongside flexion and extension of the muscles themselves. Wiki describes it as "a movement which brings a part of the anatomy closer to the sagittal plane of the body" and goes on to list "Muscles of adduction", including the teres, citing several links and references in support.
The distinction you're making is prepositional. In your opinion it is not correct to say "adduction of the teres", but my sources disagree. Evidently, in your opinion I should say instead, "adduction caused by the teres". It's a pedantic point and a semantic one. I don't mind being corrected, if you care to cite a source backing your claim, but you're being unnecessarily arrogant about the matter and it's ticking me off. You felt it was important, but everyone else in this thread, who has been reading my posts for the last year, knows that I have never claimed to be an anatomist. From my first post at the JREF I made it clear my expertise derives from illustration of the human figure and a minor in anthropology. So you've clarified the point, which didn't need public clarification, at the expense of berating someone for making a claim that was never made. Well done. I'm not "blowing smoke", whatever that means exactly; I'm reporting on my perceptions using terminology I've acquired in the last 25 years of anatomical research. And as far as I'm aware I'm not rambling; every sentence has a clear intention, the exact opposite of rambling. Please stop with the derisive language. I used the word "tissues" when correct medical terminology would require the word "layers". Okay.... and? I've already admitted the error. So what? The point remains, and again you're just being pedantic about terminology. I'm not making "an enormous blanket assertion about Patty's musculature". I've made a specific point about being able to see specific muscles in the back and arms of the figure, which I've qualified by allowing that these shapes could be the result of an optical illusion called apophenia, and/or the natural drape of fabric over the actor's own masses. I've also asserted that fabric folds are visible (to my eye) in the legs. Where is this blanket assertion? You're cherry-picking my posts just to argue with me, and you're wasting my time. |
__________________
"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 |
|
16th April 2010, 09:43 AM | #962 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Yes you are correct; though it is beside the point. The original question I asked you was whether or not you see any contraction of muscles. The reason should be clear. Muscles contract, padding doesn't. When you mistook the meaning of "contraction", I launched into pedantry. Sorry. Here's why:
You made a blanket assertion about Patty's musculature, in essence that it all looks fine to you. I think that verges on the bizarre, but more importantly you give no evidence. I wanted to find out where you would get such an idea, because from a biomedical perspective, Patty is a mess. I think it is quite likely that you, like Bill Munns, who also has no biomedical background, will be quoted by 'footers as "proof" that Patty has legitimate muscles. And I think that's a bad thing. I challenge your opinion, and I challenge your training if you use it to claim special standing. Now, I don't dispute your expertise as an artist. Your opinion has validity. But your expertise is in superficial appearance, not in issues of tissues and muscle action, and function and abnormalities. So when you start moving away from what you know, you are "blowing smoke," the common term being b.s.'ing or ********ting. The "rambling" I refer to is getting off topic, the topic being the muscles, not the epidermis. I appreciate the fact that you are not a "true believer," and that your opinion has been determined by facts gathered by Dfoot/others. I apologize if my tone is offensive to you. But let's not deny what you wrote: Where is this blanket assertion? Your statement: "Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled." Do you deny that this is a blanket statement? or that you made it? You can make these statements, and they have some validity, and they are quoted by others as "evidence," because you are putting yourself out there as an expert. Sort of like Jimmy Chilcutt, the "fingerprint" guy. If you were just giving your imho, nobody would mind. Everybody has an imho. Sweaty has an imho. But nobody on the BFF is gonna quote Sweaty's triangles and elbows, because he has no expertise. I hope I am making myself clear. I will try not to be offensive. But this is adversary-type stuff. |
16th April 2010, 11:03 AM | #963 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
parnassus,
You appear to have a pretty good handle on some of these issues as well as an articulate and informed debating style. Have you considered engaging Bill Munns over at BFF, or even in his ' Report ' thread here at JREF ? http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=133244 |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
16th April 2010, 11:33 AM | #964 |
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 |
|
16th April 2010, 01:44 PM | #965 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Parnassus, I appreciate the effort to clarify your stance. I trust you can see now that there's no need for hostility with me. All I need are logic and information to convince me on a particular point; by all appearances you have an abundance of both.
I understand and appreciate your points about "'Footers" using my so-called expert opinion as support for claims about Patty being a real non-human animal. But any such usage would be cherry-picking at best and false characterization of my statements at worst. Yes, I see what appear to be lifelike muscles in Patty/MITS' arms and back. But to beat a dead (red) horse, I also see material folds in the legs, which given the tightness of the skin in primate leg anatomy, utterly falsify the claim that the figure is a non-human primate of any species. I also readily acknowledge the workings of apophenia on the human mind, including my mind. I further understand that fabric sometimes takes on the shape of the muscle masses beneath, owing to a complex dynamic between the physics of drapery and the masses of the body. So to take that opening sentence -- "Yes, I see what appear to be lifelike muscles in Patty/MITS' arms and back" -- without taking the next two paragraphs of qualifying statements into account, would be disingenuous and just plain false. I have no control over what a believer in bigfoot might do with my out-of-context words. All I can do is report my own assessment of these matters -- or else, I suppose, keep silent. Which I'm beginning to see I should have done instead. |
__________________
"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 |
|
16th April 2010, 05:50 PM | #966 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
Here is another cowboy hat for Blevins.
|
17th April 2010, 11:48 AM | #967 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
I'll be looking in on him. Thanks for the links. I may get inspired. However, I think that he's pretty well discredited himself amongst those with critical minds, with the 15mm lens stuff. Munns is sort of the Sarah Palin of the Bigfooters. Not a scientist, not bound by any rules or organization, he is just makin it up as he goes along and can do whatever he wants. He is not bound by any ethics, code, logic or evidence. I have no doubt he will be coming out with a book in the near future, and selling it at the various bigfoot conventions. He'll sell a thousand copies. He appeals to the hardest core 'footers, who have limited logical abilities and will never give up their delusions. Twenty years from now, there will still be UFO'ers and 'footers of this ilk. Little can be done about these folks, frankly.
I actually think that Meldrum is more worthy of attention. Among those whose opinions are not set in stone, I think Meldrum is more influential. Ostensibly a scientist, as well as a member of a university faculty, he should be playing by certain rules. He should be reminded of those obligations, and should be more responsive than Munns. Twenty years from now, there should be zero scientists endorsing these myths. I think that is a good goal. Is Meldrum "encouraged" by Munns' nonsense? probably. But there is so little in Munns that's worthy of scientific notice. Does Meldrum participate in forums? not much, though he undoubtedly reads them. I really enjoy the critical approach here, and thanks for your message. |
17th April 2010, 11:54 AM | #968 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
17th April 2010, 12:20 PM | #969 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
|
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
17th April 2010, 02:13 PM | #970 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
17th April 2010, 02:19 PM | #971 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
|
17th April 2010, 02:21 PM | #972 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
I have been wondering whether there is evidence of PattyBob jumping in a hole at the end of his walk, as Bob H described.
At one point in the PGF, we lose sight of PattyBob's legs, as if this may be happening. This is about 19 seconds into the action. I have posted about the discontinuities in the PGF, which to me suggested that the earliest PattyBob segment was spliced in. There is an obvious splice in the BBC version at the beginning of this segment. There is also a discontinuity in the action, at the end of this first sequence, just before the "looks-back" sequence, though no obvious splice. Was there a splice here in earlier generations/copies of the film? or is just where the camera was turned off and then on, as Patterson moved from one location to the next. According to MK Davis, it may well be a splice, because of the absence of signs of camera/film startup. Munns says it may well have been camera off/on, because this camera starts up fast enough that startup artifacts are not seen. Take a look at Davis' stabilized version. I have been trying to analyze the shadows in the first sequence to be sure of the direction, but it is very shaky. If the camera is looking basically west, then the first sequence is probably not out of order, whether or not there was ever a splice. I have read about an S branch that supposedly establishes continuity between these two segments, termed first and second walk by Davis. However, I have not been able to find such a marker. Perhaps someone can show me this evidence. |
17th April 2010, 02:42 PM | #973 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
BH said he jumped into a hole left by a large uprooted tree, at the end of the filming sequence .. We can see such a tree in the film at the very end ..
I'll try to post a screen shot later.. Of course, we do not see Bob actually jump in the hole .. Roger |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
17th April 2010, 04:36 PM | #974 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Can Patterson believers come to the table and talk about the fact that he was a liar, a thief, a con artist, and an admitted Bigfoot hoaxer who pulled a Babe Ruth at Bluff Creek, or is it too frightening? If that is too much too ask, can we talk about Gimlin's stone-faced lying?
The fact that fanatics like Sweaty won't touch the dirty truth with a ten foot pole shows what intellectual cowards they really are. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
17th April 2010, 04:56 PM | #975 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
|
parnassus
"and should be more responsive than Munns." try me. wmunns@gte.net "I have read about an S branch that supposedly establishes continuity between these two segments, termed first and second walk by Davis. However, I have not been able to find such a marker. Perhaps someone can show me this evidence." http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_050.htm PDF document "Release 1F" explains the "S" Branch |
17th April 2010, 05:07 PM | #976 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Hi, Bill. Nice to see you pop in. I am considering joining you over at the BFF to discuss your considerations of the PGF hoax.
Quick question: You said in your BFF thread about Bob, "A claim is made in some discussions that Bob Heironimous lived in proximity to Bob Gimlin, reportedly about 9 houses down on the same street." It's not a claim. It's a fact. Here are their houses... Why don't you know that? You've been to Yakima. You've been in Gimlin's house on S. 90th. You could have walked down the street and seen for yourself. I'm surprised you wrote so much without establishing such simple facts. ETA: I forgot to mention that one of the last times I spoke with Bob Heironimus, he had just seen Gimlin two weeks before when they were at a horse show together. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
17th April 2010, 06:47 PM | #977 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
17th April 2010, 09:45 PM | #978 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
I want to change my name to ScepticalWag or something.
kitakaze: You'll have loads of fun other there. I haven't really looked into that site, but it looks cool. |
18th April 2010, 01:10 AM | #979 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
Gimduhlf Wizard of the Bluff
ETA: Bluff the magic Wizard. Whatever Everything is a lot darker when I upload them here. |
18th April 2010, 11:11 AM | #980 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
Have fun Kit. I have my doubts about whether you should expect reasonable discussion there though.
There doesn't really seem to be much interest in Munns' threads unless an "evil skeptic" checks in, then the baiting and bashing begins. It's already started in the thread you posted to, it's not too bad yet but the baiting has begun. After the "evil skeptics" check out of the thread the postings stop and the thread withers until the next "evil skeptic" checks in. The interest in Munns' "Hoax Analysis" threads (and for that matter the rest also) is dependent on the skeptics posting to them, other than that there doesn't seem to be much going on in them other than the initial adoration posts. |
18th April 2010, 06:14 PM | #981 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Thanks, that is very helpful. And thanks for your email address. I have another question: the BBC version shows about 9 flipped frames and a splice at the beginning of the encounter with the subject "Patty." Is that (or other flipped frames or obvious splices) present in the other versions you have looked at? Have you heard of any explanation for that? Thanks.
|
19th April 2010, 03:56 AM | #982 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Quote:
Here is some data for you, parny....which you WILL promptly exclude from your mind.......due to the FACT that you'll be unable to accept, and deal, with the numbers... I defy you to explain the discrepancy in this data....which shows a vast difference in the areas (in pixels) encompassed by the squares/triangles on....(what is allegedly)...Bob Heironimus, and Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit. Note: While one might think that the greater area on Patty is caused by the bulk of a suit....the problem with that false hope is that, as padding is added onto the side of Bob Heironimus.....(or any human being)....the intersection between the 'vertical line along the visible edge of the body', and the 'elbow line' occurs lower on the upper arm....thereby reducing the size of both the square and the triangle. So it tuns out that a 'bulky suit' doesn't help the good skeptic's make-believe theory, that Bob was Patty, in the least. It is simply.....and unfortunately........a physical impossibility for Heironimus to have been Patty. 'Them's the data'! |
__________________
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 04:09 AM | #983 |
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 05:56 AM | #984 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Any photos of Bob on the same angle as Patty? Why are you using Patty's right arm, and Bob's left arm? Ever had an Engineering class? Ever wonder what would happen to your triangle's area if Bob's arm was extended out like Patty's? I counter defy you, to answer all 4 of these questions. Also- How do these two 'Elbow Triangles' compare? |
__________________
"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 |
|
19th April 2010, 07:27 AM | #985 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Drewbot wrote:
Quote:
Actually, that is Bob's right arm.....I flipped the image, horizontally. But why should that even matter...Bob's arms are both the same length, aren't they? I chose to use that arm because the elbow looks to be slightly closer to the camera than the other one is....and it better represents Bob's upper-arm length. More later... |
__________________
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 08:08 AM | #986 |
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 |
|
19th April 2010, 09:02 AM | #987 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Drewbot wrote:
Quote:
No.
Quote:
Yup....and that's the arm that I'm using....as the other arm appears to be angled-back a little more....or, 'less parallel'. The important thing, though, is that....with Bob's right arm...the elbow appears lower than the other elbow....so, again, it's a more accurate measure of the true length of his upper-arms. |
__________________
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 09:10 AM | #988 |
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 |
|
19th April 2010, 09:17 AM | #989 |
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 09:40 AM | #990 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Drewbot wrote:
Quote:
Not only have I wondered about that, but I've already measured it. Unlike the 'Arm-Gap Triangle'...(whose Area is greatest with the arm at a 45-degree angle)....the combination 'Square/Triangle' has it's greatest area with the arm straight, vertically. The 'total area' they occupy decreases steadily as the arm is swung upwards, and outwards. The reason for that is because the square...being the larger of the two, area-wise...encompasses it's largest area with the arm straight down, at the side....and, as a result, the combination of the 2 shapes is also largest, despite the fact that the Triangle's greatest area is at the 45-degree position. |
__________________
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." |
|
19th April 2010, 09:58 AM | #991 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
1. I have no Bobby dream.
2. I'm not saying the measurements themselves are in error, but that your total premise is flawed. You have no verifiable true-length measurements available to use. http://books.google.com/books?id=ENg...eering&f=false |
__________________
"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 |
|
19th April 2010, 02:04 PM | #992 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
19th April 2010, 02:20 PM | #993 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
19th April 2010, 06:45 PM | #994 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I have been contacted by Philip Morris and will be meeting him on the phone tomorrow to discuss his involvement with Roger Patterson. He has provided me with some of the details of the lecture he has given that incorporates the PGF.
As always, suggested questions are welcome. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
19th April 2010, 06:52 PM | #995 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
That is exactly what I am doing. The first step is establishing their veracity. I want to check the accuracy of your measurements with the pixels to inches thing. Here is a sleeve measurement...
http://www.benjaminpeters.com/images...easurement.jpg Don't worry about starting at the back. Bob's shoulder to wrist - lay it on me, and let's see your voodoo work. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
19th April 2010, 10:28 PM | #996 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 449
|
paranassus:
": the BBC version shows about 9 flipped frames and a splice at the beginning of the encounter with the subject "Patty." Is that (or other flipped frames or obvious splices) present in the other versions you have looked at? Have you heard of any explanation for that? Thanks." There are no flipped frames on the 8 other copies i've personally inspected, so it seems isolated to the BBC when they edited their program, probably all on 16mm film, before doing the telecine conversion to video. That would have been a common practive for documentaries in the 70's (editing on 16mm and telecine conversion, not flipping frames) The frame flip is impossible if the film is on single perferation stock, as some copies are, but if the copy was on double sided perforation film stock, flipping the film is an easy mistake. Since some of the copies I've inspected were on double perf stock, it seems reasonable the BBC got one such copy. And a film editor wasn't paying too much attention. Bill |
20th April 2010, 05:32 AM | #997 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
If he used a 15mm lens Bill Munns said Patty was 7'4" tall +/-
Bill- have you discovered any film sources that have touching-up on them? I am referring to the difference in facial features in some frames and the altered hand features. I think those might only be in the Cibachromes, but have you seen any evidence of image alteration in any of the film sources you've looked at? Parnassus- I was referring to Longtabber's claim that the Bigfoot he saw was behind an APC and he could see it from the chest up. Which my little sketch above was referencing. |
__________________
"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 |
|
20th April 2010, 08:44 AM | #998 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
Sorry to stick my head in here. Thanks Bill. The BBC and NG versions blow a lot of smoke when it comes to this issue. Funny not necessarily hoaxy. I know I spent too much time looking at the NG version and seen some oddities, after the fact oddities not necessarily true representations. Just curious about these editing processes.
My question - Do you address this issue in more detail someplace? Thanks. I'll pick on the oddities regardless. But that's just me. |
22nd April 2010, 12:33 PM | #999 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I'm reposting news I shared at the BFF last night...
I just finished having a roughly three hour conversation with Philip Morris. It was extremely interesting and for me, full of bombshells. Philip is just the most fantastic guy, and I've lost all doubt that he sold a suit to Patterson in 1967. I have pages and pages of notes to go over and write up which I doubt I will finish tonight. He answered all the questions I asked and we both had extensive notes prepared for our conversation. Here's a quick bit of highlights... - Philip is coming to visit me personally in Canada in about three weeks or so. He will be attending his grandson's graduation in Seattle and will come with his family to Victoria. - Philip is sending me a ton of stuff. He is sending me DVD's which includes unseen footage from the NatGeo and TV Land specials that will include live footage of Bob Heironimus taking his polygraph on the show Lie Detector, as well as footage of Bob walking in his recreation suit. He will send me his catalogue from 1967 and photos of his suits and studio shots from his Dr. Evil show. The details of the long interview I will post as soon as I can. http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...c=29264&st=198 So I will have some very cool video to post in soon. I think that will be one of my first youtube uploads. My time so far at the BFF has been interesting. I've only had one post deleted and that was for having links to Thunderdome. I had one posted edited because I asked BFF'ers why they maul Rick Dyer and Matt Whitton, yet Patterson, who was much, much worse, gets a pass. I've been told a lot of people are upset and up in arms that I'm being allowed to post. On the flipside, Teresa Hall, an old friend, is now a BFF admin, and has made me feel very welcome. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
22nd April 2010, 12:43 PM | #1000 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
I am not an expert in photometry, but from what I can glean from Bill's report, the calculated height of the subject depends on the measured height of the image of the subject, as well as the distance from the camera.
Furthermore, it seems that Bill is also using assumptions about John Green's footage, taken the next year. If one wanted to, one could generate a spreadsheet showing a variety of ways to change assumptions (lens, distances, etc.) and measurements (image heights) in order to make the subject's calculated height come out to be over 7 feet tall, thus achieving Bill's apparent goal of disqualifying Bob H. Changing the lens is the easiest way to get to 7 feet, because it doesn't require making a 40% change in measurements and distances. Another advantage to just changing the lens is that this is a quantum leap, bypassing any embarrassing middle ground between 15 and 25 mm lens; a 20 mm lens, if there were such a thing, would lead to the "Patty was 6 feet tall" option, which pretty much confirms other work and puts Bob H. pretty much right in the suit. On the other hand, if Bill gives up on the lens swap and tries to make Patty 7 feet tall by changing measurements and assumptions by a total of 40% from what he originally thought were the best available, he is gonna have some 'splainin' to do, to show that a 40% change is somehow more reasonable than a 20% change (20% making Patty 6 feet tall). So this is a quandary, isn't it? Bill has to not only admit a mistake, he has to convince us that it was a really big one, and not a sort of medium sized one. That could be tough to do, without folks smelling a rat. imho. |
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|