Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest Tontar

Make up your mind. You mean this image?

Nope, missed again. Let me refresh your memory a bit, since you seem to be clueless or purposely trying to bait. The image I protested about was the image of a woman which Bill M. cut her into pieces and attempted to rotate her newly sectioned limbs into a pose that might approximate Patty, and that now articulated image did not fit the image of Patty. My complaint was that once you start sectioning something like a leg, and start trying to estimate where the knee joints would bend, and then rotating segments of those limbs about the virtually approximated axes, you lose accuracy. Better to pose teh woman in whatever pose desired, that way the joints have articulated naturally, and not artificially. That is the image that you say I complained about. Posting whatever random lis of images you want to apply a specific quote to is yet another silly strategy.

The image you reposted above was used to demonstrate the proportions of a arm, with upper arm, forearm, wrist and hand intact. Overlaid upon the image of Patty, it was used to demonstrate the comparable location of said joints. Patty's arm was intact, all joints accounted for, Bob's arm was intact, all joints accounted for. Given the context of the above image, I had no complaints. Taking things out of context, and applying them carelessly and irresponsibly like you have shown the propensity to do, only muddies up the water, where one can successfully hide dubious "evidence".

As far as making up my mind, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Same images as the last one I posted. What are you talking about?

Please see above. You introduced your choice of images, and tried to apply what I had said in another thread to it. There was no connection between the two, only you trying to make a connection. How old are you anyway? Seems an appropriate question considering the way you represent things out of context, apparently on purpose.

Foreshortening is not a defense, it's a fact and it's science.

And what, you're the scientist? The fact is, you have a habit of throwing out the concept of foreshortening as a defense when you disagree with the results produced by someone's efforts. As an example of this, let's see how you react to this next question. You declare that the mangler animation, which in essence is a digital model overlaid onto an image of Patty. You say that it is an invalid experiment because of foreshortening. Were foreshortening a real problem, then animating the model so that it mirrors the movements of Patty throughout a long segment of movement should expose the problem of foreshortening. It would not hold up to motion that would demonstrate maximum and minimum values of foreshortening. The arm swings forward, it swings back, it swings at an oblique angle to the camera, and so it appears to shorten and lengthen throughout this swing phase. Were the digital model truly mismatched, it would show up in the animation. It would also show up as the digital model was examined in a 3 dimensional view. The mangler animation demonstrates extreme compatibility with the Patty subject as they both "walk" through the sequence. Furthermore, the digital model is then rotated in virtual space so that it can be seen from all angles, verifying that the walking gait is not performing anything unusual which would "trick" the foreshortening test. Patty walks on film, the digital model walks almost exactly the same. Foreshortening should show up if here were a problem with the proportions, but it doesn't. The digital animation passes the test.

Now here comes the question. You invalidate the mangler animation for reasons of foreshortening. How do you feel about Bill Munns' digital model that he produced some time ago. You know the one, the one that has shortened thighs, even more shortened shins, and lengthened arms. Are you prepared to invalidate Bill's digital model, proclaim that it cannot possibly represent accurate dimensions or proportions because of foreshortening, or whatever other arguments you use against the mangler animation? As far as I know, Bill's virtual model did not have an animated version which was matched to Patty, so we cannot verify how well it might mirror Patty. We have seen the Vision Realm version, which doesn't even come close to a fit, whether in proportion, scale or motion matching. It'd be interesting to hear what you have to say about the VR version, but even more so, what do you think of Bill's digital model, is it as inaccurate as the mangler version, or is it even less accurate because it has not been tested throughout animated motion matching Patty, like the mangler version does?

Will you discredit Bill's digital model as you have the mangler model?

Get a grip. I think everyone can decide who has the problem here.

It would be me, of course. I do have a problem with people saying things condemning other people's work without showing why, or producing anything better themselves. With Sweaty, he makes no bones about it, he simply says people's work is "junk" and "garbage". Of course he doesn't refute their work with anything better, so I guess you have that in common. But at least he posts images that undermine some of his other arguments in the process. :-)

JMO, but I think tho protests too much.

Perhaps so.

All I've ever said is that I am a photogrammetrist and I know how to measure photos. Been doing it for over 15 years. Take it for what it's worth. I let my posts do the talking, not my credentials. If you can refute what I claim based on my posts then do so. Otherwise.. :)

If you are a photogrammetrist, and know how to measure photos, is that a skill that you can apply to the PGF? Do you even believe it is possible to measure the PGF in a way that Patty's dimensions could be approximated? As far as letting your posts do the talking, you actually do put your credentials out there by saying that you have been measuring photos as a PG for over 15 years. That's putting your credentials out there, I think you would agree. When you refute someone's claim about Patty's dimensions, you throw out the photogrammetry business, the science of photogrammetry, as a "defense", and yet as far as I have been able to determine you have not brought any of those credentials, or skills, which you use as a defense, to the table in a way that would substantially refute the work. You say something isn't correct, but you have never backed it up with anything. To me, that clearly is putting your credentials first, since no substance follows. It's as if you say, "that model may look like it fits Patty to a T, but it's inaccurate because of foreshortening, and I know about foreshortening because that's what I do for a living. Don't ask me to validate what I said, just believe me because that's what I do..." And that sort of tactic is what earns you a "talk is cheap" badge.

Sure it's possible and I would be glad to do it. But I have no influence and I am not willing to do it without pay and source materials. In the end, I doubt anyone would buy it anyways, no matter how persuasive it was.

In other words, you can't do it, and you won't even try. I get it. Of course, it wouldn't do to use any of the many sources of the PGf that exist on the internet. How many hundreds of versions are available on Youtube alone? How many versions are available within this forum alone? Are you going to chastise Sweety for using unauthorized images? You seem to feel his work is persuasive enough to give thumbs up, high fives, and all that to. How super simple to use any of the cibachromes posted here in the forums? There is an almost endless supply of halfway decent to excellent source material to use. So the "source materials" are there, are available. Money? What's up with the money thing? You have to rent time on a special computer or something? Hire someone else to help you do it? Why would yo be bumming money to do a measuring experiment on Patty? Are there material costs? I can see if there are material costs, but the photos exist, the videos exist, what would be the costs you would incur?

Talk is cheap..tell me about it.

I have. You selectively condemn one digital model that was painstakingly well matched to the moving image of Patty, yet have not to my knowledge been willing to condemn with the same degree of passion the digital models produced by Bill Munns and VR. You claim that there is a scientific method to determine Patty's proportions, that you are a professional in that field, yet refuse to put your hat in the ring, to back up the condemnations that you selectively apply to the works you don't want to see.

Your biased measurements notwithstanding, focus on the frames that show maximums. Then justify your choice. It's all there for the taking, if you have the copyright go ahead.

You're a funny guy. My biased measurements aside? Hey, at least I took the time to do some measuring before opening my mouth about it. Where's your work, big guy?

You don't need a copyright to do scientific or educational study on materials that are in the public domain. Unless you are trying to make a profit of some sort for the work, like maybe preparing a piece of "work" form those images, claiming that the "work" is your own, and then pimping it out to people at conventions and things like that, or taking payment, room and board, transportation, dinner, stuff like that. When money or favors or trades are involved, and when work is used and then claimed to be one's own work, those are instances where copyright infringement should be considered a problem. Simply using images posted in forums, videos posted online an din forums, and measuring the content is not copyright infringement. That's just another "defensive" tactic to avoid backing up your claims.

So another question for you. You say you're a photogrammetrist, a professional and that's what you do for work. Is what you do map making, in a sense? Is map making something that can translate to measuring Patty? Just wondering where it all fits. You say, as a pro, such and such. But as a pro, are you really qualified to deal with the type of science involved with measuring Patty?

His comments about the calf is wrong. (I have walked in jeans and had them do the exact same thing in the exact same way).

We had a big snow recently, and I spent a lot of time wearing Muck boots. My jeans were doing the exact same thing as you mention, where the lower rear leg collapses in with each step, leaving the pant leg above the boot in place, like a calf muscle. I still need to take pictures of that happening, it looks exactly like Patty's "calf" flexing!

His strange idea that the mouth moves can be explained by the grain of the film. and is thus not quality evidence (as other things of similar size also appear to move on the film) The butt moves just as it would with a person wearing a suit with something padding their butt would move,making this also bad evidence.

In fact, the blown up pictures themselves make the case for a hoax. Everything looks off and can be explained as a person in a suit. there is nothing there that is unique to a new creature. With this informatio one must conclude that the most likely scenario is a hoax.

This doesn't mean Squatchy ain't real. But it does cast a lot of doubt on the film. (and that stinks cuz I always liked that film and wanted it to be real :( )

Agreed in whole! Besides, bigfoot does exist, Finding Bigfoot has found them everywhere they have been!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

PLUSSED!!! Great post Tontar. Believers will not listen to anything that points against Patty in any way. If you show measurements that match a humans they scream bias. You show the ma 3d model that shows a perfect match for a human skeleton in Patty they scream bias.....

It's really like arguing with a cat.

Edited by See-Te-Cah NC
Edit offensive content
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

PLUSSED!!! Great post Tontar. Believers will not listen to anything that points against Patty in any way. If you show measurements that match a humans they scream bias. You show the ma 3d model that shows a perfect match for a human skeleton in Patty they scream bias.....

It's really like arguing with a cat.

Thanks! I agree, it's really frustrating.

Here's something as a followup to the talk about Patty's fingers moving. Sweaty had this image that seemed to show the fingers curling and uncurling. I objected to the graphic because it was clear the arms were not aligned. So I took Sweaty's animation, broke the two images apart, indicated where the elbow was on one, and then rotated the other image so that both forearms were properly aligned. With both forearms properly aligned, the hand curling "illusion" is eliminated.

Pattys-Hand-no-flex.gif

Edited by Tontar
To correct quoted text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Patty's fingers seem naturally extended thru much of her walk cycle. But at certain times they curl and flex.

Odd behaviour for gloves is all.

This would be one of those times... ;) ...

F302-F303AG1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

This would be one of those times... ;) ...

F302-F303AG1.gif

If you want to use that image, how about explaining the action happening on the forearm. Like a long motorcycle glove shifting around. I'd be tempted to say it's a film anomaly, myself, but then again, you seem to argue that certain film anomalies are features,m not bugs, and that anomalies like these are bugs, not features...

However, what say ye about that articulated forearm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

PLUSSED!!! Great post Tontar. Believers will not listen to anything that points against Patty in any way. If you show measurements that match a humans they scream bias. You show the ma 3d model that shows a perfect match for a human skeleton in Patty they scream bias.....

It's really like arguing with a cat.

Plussed your plus and fully agree. My personal favourite is when you show not one, but literally two different 3D models of average human skeletons fitting both a normal human and Patty and not only do they scream bias, but absurd things like physics violation. Then you show them an actual physical body doing the same thing as the model and they scream garbage. You ask them to quantify how and they go from screaming garbage to going completely silent. They absolutely will not answer. It's awesome.

Bigspideymeasure.jpg

And then you see what they have to offer and the awesome goes to 11...

Bigpattyvr.jpgPattySkelWidthHeight3.jpg

It is like talking to a cat and the cat's name is Gandalfcat...

Biggandalf.jpg

Edited by See-Te-Cah NC
To correct quoted text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

So.. it's no longer a Morris suit but a motorcycle glove?

Which horse is being backed in this race nowadays?

Edited by Wheellug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nope, missed again..[snip]

I had a lot of trouble reading that. I hope the mods fix the quote tags. But all I can add is that you appear to be rather cynical towards anyone who disagrees with you. You can dance around the photogrammetry all you like but in the end, it's right there waiting for you. It's calling to you. In the meantime you can insult me all you want if it makes you feel better. I don't care because I know what I'm talking about. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Thanks JohnC, that was an interesting link. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So.. it's no longer a Morris suit but a motorcycle glove?

Which horse is being backed in this race nowadays?

Well, first you try reading that again until you get to a place where you understand what was actually written...

If you want to use that image, how about explaining the action happening on the forearm. Like a long motorcycle glove shifting around. I'd be tempted to say it's a film anomaly, myself, but then again, you seem to argue that certain film anomalies are features,m not bugs, and that anomalies like these are bugs, not features...

However, what say ye about that articulated forearm?

Nothing in there says that a motorcycle glove was used or even that a physical feature must have been seen. Then you get onto the part where not every person whose position is that the PGF is a fake supports the same scenarios or perscribes to believer style herd behaviour...

Thanks for asking. But I don't really know what Bob claimed as far as hand or arm extensions. I'm not a big Bob H. fan, I don't know what to think of him pro or con, and so quite honestly I don't really know what all he claimed about the hands. He may have been talking about hand extensions, or gloves, I have no idea. Sorry on that point! :-)

From there you should get a leg up on being able deal with PGF skepticism in a meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

I had a lot of trouble reading that. I hope the mods fix the quote tags. But all I can add is that you appear to be rather cynical towards anyone who disagrees with you. You can dance around the photogrammetry all you like but in the end, it's right there waiting for you. It's calling to you. In the meantime you can insult me all you want if it makes you feel better. I don't care because I know what I'm talking about. :)

Dude, you claim to be the photogrammetrist. You say that photogrammetry is right there waiting for me. I am still waiting for someone who is well versed in the technology to turn on the light, part the heavens and show me the way! You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Where is all this photogrammetry science which you seem to be a pro at? Show me the money! Show me the photogrammetry!

If asking you to prove what you say is insulting, then you're pretty thin skinned. You say you're a pro at measuring photos, yet you seem to be refusing to do just that. You're actually telling an amateur to do it instead, so you can what, laugh if it gets messed up? Really well played there, my man.

If asking you to share the same professional critique you had of a well produced digital model in motion towards another seemingly acceptable non-motion digital model is insulting, then I'm sorry. you say that Poser is not worthy, and thus what is produced from Poser would likewise not be worthy. Same goes for Daz. So, what do you have to say about Bill's model? Are you going to say that his estimations, his work, his digital model is suffering the same as everything else? Or are you going to avoid that question too?

What is it with you? You're fine with trying to chip away at others, but when asked to put up, you seem to put your hands over your ears and say "lalalalalalala, can't hear you, lalalala..." Why will you not respond to direct questions?

1. Is Bill's digital model that he feels fits Patty's proportions equally as bad as the mangler model? Is it better? Is it worse?

2. Are you able to measure the images featuring Patty to come up with more accurate dimensions? Not will you, but do you have the capability to apply photogrammetry and plot out her dimensions?

Those questions are not cynical, they are straight questions that so far you have avoided answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See-Te-Cah NC

I am warning all members to refrain from using derogatory terms when describing those that hold a differing opinion. Please remember the following from the BFF rules and guidelines:

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything. 4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

Any other derogatory terminology used to describe other members of opposing beliefs will be dealt with.

Please... Don't make the staff issue warning increases. This is your one and only warning!

See

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

but literally two different 3D models of average human skeletons fitting both a normal human and Patty and not only do they scream bias....

I don't need to "scream bias"....I only need to show this image....(the "3D Model" does not match Patty in either 'arm proportion' or in 'torso width')... :) ...

CGJunkComp2A.jpg

Do your lines in this graphic accurately represent the bones in Patty's arms, kit?...

LNIN5.jpg

Are these animations...'my work' or are they 'MK Davis work'?...

PattyCibaF350F352VMMoveAG2.gif

F347F350AG1.gif

F347F350AG07BB.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG
I don't need to "scream bias"....I only need to show this image....(the "3D Model" does not match Patty in either 'arm proportion' or in 'torso width')... :) ...

CGJunkComp2A.jpg

As I said to you in an unanswered PM, you'll make you case much more strongly if you could overlay that LH 3d model over a view of Patty from the rear. If you have control over the model that should be easy. This oblique view is much more open to charges of incorrect foreshortening.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...