kitakaze 1,112 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Here we go, from Davis' site... Now…this is information that is ACTUALLY on the film. I have demonstrated this many times for different groups, how to perform these enhancements and WHY they work. Now let’s look at some animations from several such enhancements. Yes these are breasts and nipples, and yes they are real. Show of hands - who thinks they can see nipples in the PGF? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Does anyone have any critical analysis to make of MKs animations and images (he has posted more than one) rather than posting trivia? Fister Link to post Share on other sites
PBeaton 2,904 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 MK Davis has posted some animations of patty's chest area which look really important and very interesting, over at his newish site, thedavisreport at wordpress.com. I have no technical expertise and would love to see what you guys think of MK's method and results. Take a look! Fister Fister Crunchman, Cool, thanks ! Was just checkin' it out. Pat... Link to post Share on other sites
kitakaze 1,112 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Does anyone have any critical analysis to make of MKs animations and images (he has posted more than one) rather than posting trivia? Fister Davis argues that the nipples are information that is present in the film data. I would like to know who supports that argument. It's pretty normal for a discussion regarding Patty's breasts. How about you, Fister? Can the nipples be seen? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Fister Crunchman, Cool, thanks ! Was just checkin' it out. Pat... Cheers Pat, I look forward to your comments! Fister Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 2,016 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 "Can the nipples be seen?" Not conclusively, no. Too close to minimal grain resolution scale. Bill Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,115 Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 It's pretty normal for a discussion regarding Patty's breasts. How about you, Fister? Can the nipples be seen? "EYE can see them"...... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Here we go, from Davis' site... Show of hands - who thinks they can see nipples in the PGF? No nipples. Very little movement. Right breast does not move at all, in this or any other gifs. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RedRatSnake Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 "Can the nipples be seen?" Not conclusively, no. Too close to minimal grain resolution scale. Bill Hi Gang Well this post pretty much seals it for me, all these years thinking Patty was a good ole American Girl now this breast hanging out nipple thing, i mean there is no way Patty is an American Bigfoot she has to be European ~ Tim Link to post Share on other sites
roguefooter 1,374 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) Those are really Bob's rubber nipples glued to the breasts. He had some spares laying around and suggested to Roger to glue them on. No, I don't see any nipples, just more digital anomalies. Edited August 27, 2011 by roguefooter Link to post Share on other sites
Guest krakatoa Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Here we go, from Davis' site... Show of hands - who thinks they can see nipples in the PGF? <raises hand> * *(caveat - I can see nipples on your average quart of milk. It is a talent.) Davis argues that the nipples are information that is present in the film data. I would like to know who supports that argument. It's pretty normal for a discussion regarding Patty's breasts. How about you, Fister? Can the nipples be seen? And a serious response: What exactly is your aim here? It would appear you are trying to lock people into stating that they can see nipples where it could be argued either way. Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 2,016 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 elaborating on my comment above, because the nipple is of a size that is so close to film grain effect, one way to null out film grain as a factor is to see a continuity of the feature across multiple frames, which strengthens the prospect of the feature as a true anatomical detail and not a grain pattern anomaly. So you'd need the highest possible sequence of frames through the lookback to verify this. I'm trying now to track down that frame sequence and scan it, but until I do, we should be cautious about single frame evidence at this size. Bill Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The nipples are obviously only a side issue, and of course, potentially a contentious one regarding whether or not there is sufficient resolution to see them at all. The nipples are a good potential subject for a long pointless squabble between us all, and that of course is why the original respondee to my post pounced on Davis' mentiion of them.Squabbbles are his thing. Many thanks to Bill for his calm dissolution of the issue. What about the substantive issue? The breasts themselves? Unless some of you guys with technical savvy can shoot down what MK has done, the breasts now become evidence of authenticity, in my opinion. They look very natural, very difficult to have fabricated or to duplicate, and they move in breast-like fashion. Or am I wrong? Fister Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The nipples are obviously only a side issue, and of course, potentially a contentious one regarding whether or not there is sufficient resolution to see them at all. The nipples are a good potential subject for a long pointless squabble between us all, and that of course is why the original respondee to my post pounced on Davis' mentiion of them.Squabbbles are his thing. Many thanks to Bill for his calm dissolution of the issue. What about the substantive issue? The breasts themselves? Unless some of you guys with technical savvy can shoot down what MK has done, the breasts now become evidence of authenticity, in my opinion. They look very natural, very difficult to have fabricated or to duplicate, and they move in breast-like fashion. Or am I wrong? Fister You're wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
xspider1 1,065 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 They look very natural, very difficult to have fabricated or to duplicate, and they move in breast-like fashion. Or am I wrong? Nope! I think you are absolutely right, Fister. The 'bouncing' seen here is perfectly natural, in my opinion. I don't think any Bigfoot suit ever had that feature. (click to animate- thanks Romano :B Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts