Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Guest

This is a rebuttal for Parnassus from the "PGF for Skeptics" thread.

In the thread, Parn alleges that he has shown that the accepted McLarin/Patty comparison is in accurate.

First the accepted M/P photo comparison:

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ajq8au.jpg

Please note that the two images are both size matched and positionally matched.

Parn then goes on to arbitrarily manipulate the Patty image by first 10, then 15 percent. With the following results (10% reduction on the left, 15% on the right)

post-458-028613900 1290626852_thumb.jpg

Note that in addition to rescaling the image by an arbitrary figure, rather than scale matching the best available landmark (the obstruction in the lower left corner), the McLarin image has been positionally displaced, with the two prominent upper points significantly higher than on the corresponding Patty image (as referenced by the red lines).

So not only have the two images been knocked out of scale, but they are positionally not propperly aligned. This leaves the unsophisticated viewer with an exaggerated impression of McLarin's size compared to Patty.

Edited by Splash7
To remove calling out a MOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jtaylorcubsfan

Mulder, I am new to the forum and have spent most of the night reading ALL the PGF posts in every topic till I cant see straight. I have to agree with you and the data that you have just posted. I really appreciate you, and every one else, whether skeptic or believer, for all the work that you guys do looking for answers. Unfortunatly, In my opinion, whichever we may believe in, which I am a believer, science will never accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus said :

"The difference in subject distances is at least 12 feet and possibly 18-20 feet."

I for one would like to see some proof of this statement, since it is phrased as a declarative fact ( "is at least 12 feet"). There is no "maybe", or "I think", or "My estimate is" or any such qualifier, so we must assume the writer has some factual determination to make such a statement.

Also, I personally would like to know if this distance discrepancy between the two subject positions is consistent across the whole path shown, or in just some parts, and if so, in which parts.

Paranassus, will you share with us that factual determination?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Paranassus:

I wanted to add another question I had.

You said:

"1) However, most agree that Green was about 10 feet farther from the trackway than was the PGF camera."

Now the "Most" part seems a bit vague, and I was curious if you could elaborate on that. Is it most people (based on some type of poll or survey) or most researchers, or most forum members, or most what?

Now, a year and a half ago, I personally did think Roger was about 10' closer than Green, but my own analysis is under review, so I think that distance may change and be considerably shorter, like 3-4 feet, if the preliminary data I am evaluating now holds up in the final analysis. But of course, the word "most" is a plural concept, implying more than one, but not all, so I was curious who might be the other people making up the plural "most" (if we assumed I was one of those people).

Now, of course, you are scientifically oriented and academically accomplished, as you have described yourself in the past, so I think you will concur that your phrase "most agree" is rather vague and not up to your usual standards of exactitude and factual precision.

Could you share with us some specification for how those "most" are defined, so that we might have some sense of their collective level of intellectual, academic or scientific reasoning.

Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
....First the accepted M/P photo comparison:

Please note that the two images are both size matched and positionally matched.

Parn then goes on to arbitrarily manipulate the Patty image by first 10, then 15 percent. With the following results (10% reduction on the left, 15% on the right)

Note that in addition to rescaling the image by an arbitrary figure, rather than scale matching the best available landmark (the obstruction in the lower left corner), the McLarin image has been positionally displaced, with the two prominent upper points significantly higher than on the corresponding Patty image (as referenced by the red lines).

So not only have the two images been knocked out of scale, but they are positionally not propperly aligned. This leaves the unsophisticated viewer with an exaggerated impression of McLarin's size compared to Patty.

Was this resizing explained, or was it done on the sly?

Are we dealing with another Dfoot here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Interesting thread. I'll wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Was this resizing explained, or was it done on the sly?

Are we dealing with another Dfoot here?

Who's Dfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Was this resizing explained, or was it done on the sly?

Are we dealing with another Dfoot here?

Parn claims it's to "correct" for the difference in camera positions between the two films. He's up front about rescaling the images by an arbitrary figure, I'll grant him that much.

It's when he goes so far as to not position match the landmarks (which I suspect is because it would REALLY show how badly mis-scaled his "corrected" images are) that I have to wonder if this is at best "deliberate ignorance" as to proper photogrametry in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Who's Dfoot?

Moron on the old forum who got caught doing un-kosher things to photos and trying to pass them off as "evidence" of his claims. I don't know the exact details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Who's Dfoot?

Dfoot was a participant on the old BFF who claimed to be a stunt man in the movie industry in Los Angeles. He claimed that he could reproduce the subject on the PG film. He began to work on a suit and gave regular posts complete with photos. Then he offered some photos of his suit, and somebody realized that he was superimposing parts of Patty's image onto his suit in his digital photos. He then claimed that his goal all along was to merge such images of Patty onto a suit of his own makings in order to prove that sasquatch "believers" would never admit that his suit was as good as Patterson's.

In essence, he was manipulating photos in order to deceive forum members, and when caught, tried to make it look like he was on some sort of glorious and justified crusade to prove that bigfoot believers were too biased to admit that others could make a phony sasquatch as good as Patterson supposedly did.

He was a liar and cheat.

My question now is whether or not parnassus manipulated the McLarin/Patty photos in order to deceive others, or if it was part of a previously explained exercise.

I think I know the answer, but am waiting like others for his reply to Mulder...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Explained or not (and he does up front say he's rescaling in the "skeptics only" thread), it's intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Parn claims it's to "correct" for the difference in camera positions between the two films. He's up front about rescaling the images by an arbitrary figure, I'll grant him that much.

It's when he goes so far as to not position match the landmarks (which I suspect is because it would REALLY show how badly mis-scaled his "corrected" images are) that I have to wonder if this is at best "deliberate ignorance" as to proper photogrametry in this case.

I can accept that. No clear and blatant deception. Maybe a bit of testing on his part.........

Good eye, Mulder. I appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Parnassus has made mistakes like this before.

I seriously doubt he will participate in this thread.

While I don't necessarily think he did this with any kind of malice, I do think he is grasping at straws in an effort to bolster his arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
I seriously doubt he will participate in this thread.

I agree, but he clearly mentioned a couple of threads here on "another forum" specifically about him as if it was a badge of honor.

While I don't necessarily think he did this with any kind of malice, I do think he is grasping at straws in an effort to bolster his arguments.

That's a daily, rote effort with him. I usually just ignore him, note that many others do as well, and I suspected that may have been one reason why he may have resorted to deception; in order to get attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...