Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Tontar, are you claiming that a static hand can be reoriented to give us these 2 images?

Why don't you demonstrate this with a doll hand, for example? At least try it for yourself to confirm that this is merely an optical illusion. When you get images that demonstrate this, then post them.

To which....Tontar wrote...(in part)...

I'm not taking a real versus fake stand here, I'm only pointing out a specific problem with a specific graphic that presents a misleading conclusion.

Tontar apparently "doesn't want to go there", Giganto. :)

When you consider the entire picture...regarding Patty's arms...

The 'exceptional length' of the arm...

BobbyShortArms1.jpg

....the lengths of the upper-arm...and lower-arm....the 'low -elbow location'...indicating the lack of an extension on a human lower-arm...

tubepatty308andthensome.gif

Frame362Fr372ElbowLocationAG3.gif

....where the hand bends, at the wrist...

TwoFrameWristBendAG3A.gif

....and where the fingers bend...

F61-F307FingerBendRotatedAG3.gif

.....you have a picture of something which would be difficult...or, perhaps impossible to produce with a human arm.....of 'average' proportions....or otherwise.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

To which....Tontar wrote...(in part)...

Tontar apparently "doesn't want to go there", Giganto. :)

When you consider the entire picture...regarding Patty's arms...

The 'exceptional length' of the arm...

....the lengths of the upper-arm...and lower-arm....the 'low -elbow location'...indicating the lack of an extension on a human lower-arm...

....where the hand bends, at the wrist...

....and where the fingers bend...

.....you have a picture of something which would be difficult...or, perhaps impossible to produce with a human arm.....of 'average' proportions....or otherwise.

Obviously when I say something like "let's be clear", or "let's be specific", it's an invitation for you to be unclear and unspecific. I get that, and expect that now. But it doesn't change the issue pointed out previously, which has also been distilled down to a very specific point just prior to your attempt at changing the subject.

If we are talking about a giraffe, for example, I will talk about a giraffe. I will not answer questions about a giraffe with answers about lions, birds, fish, and anything and everything other than a giraffe. It would be nice if you would do the same. What I was talking about was the graphic you submitted as "proof", which was overturned as somewhat bogus. In your terms, it would be called "junk" or "crapola". That graphic is similar to the giraffe. Your pictures presented immediately above are similar to the lion, the fish, the birds, and so on.

You produced a graphic that suggested hand movement that was not there. I fixed your graphic, which clarified the fact that the movement was not there. Do you respond to that directly? Do you admit that your graphic was in error? Of course not. You start posting pictures of all sorts of other things, talking about all sorts of other things.

Bottom line is that you produced a specific graphic, used that graphic to convince people that there was hand movement in a part of the film where there was no hand movement. I pointed it out, fixed it, showed the error, showed the lack of movement, and you seem unwilling or unable to answer to that very specific point. I would not be surprised if at this point you reissue the two frame image proposing mouth movement, or an image with a lot of lines on it showing some strange relationship between eyes, elbows knees and toes, knees and toes...

Very simply. Read it slowly. You produced a graphic that misrepresented reality during a specific moment in the film, making claims and using that graphic as evidence. The graphic was exposed as inaccurate. It was corrected. It refuted your claim. You changed the subject and have never responded about the inaccuracy of that graphic, nor about the lack of movement that has now been shown.

Eyes, elbows knees and toes, knees and toes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

I fixed your graphic, which clarified the fact that the movement was not there.

Do you respond to that directly?

You were/are wrong, Tontar. There is movement of the fingers, between those two Frames.

And I did respond to your claim, that my gif falsely shows movement in those Frames. I posted another version of the gif...using a better-quality version of Frame 72.....(which shows some movement/curling of the fingers)...

F72-F328RotatedAG1.gif

And I posted this montage of 4 Frames...showing the fingers in 3 different contours...(perfectly straight...slightly curled..and significantly curled)...

PattyFingerContourMontage1.jpg

And you ignored the main point of Giganto's post. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Here is a comparison of your newly issued graphic which demonstrates that the arms and thus hands are not aligned properly. This misalignment creates the illusion of finger and hand movement where there was none. Note the small hash marks on the wrists, elbows, and the line circling the outline of the hand. Watch as it not only rotates, but shifts vertically! This is how you arrive at simulated hand and finger movement when there was none. Now note the images on the right. Note that they have been properly aligned rotationally, as well as vertically and horizontally. The elbows match up; both front and back edges. The wrists line up; both front and back edges. The hands line up almost identically. Considering that the subject has moved an unknown distance between frames, as indicated by the different backgrounds, the different angle of the body, and so on, it is interesting that the hand can be so well matched between the two.

The bottom line is, I believe this illustrates just how easy it is to make the wrong impression when graphic images are mismatched. It also illustrates how easy it is to get the wrong impression as a viewer looking at graphics that contain misleading information.

Sweatys-Finger-Final.gif

Edited by Tontar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

1899: A zoologist, Professor Satunin, said he caught a glimpse of a “hairy wild woman†during an expedition to the eastern Caucasus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...