Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Guest

So is it correct to say that the existing and generally accepted Mclaren/Patty comp is in fact not valid, as Parn claims, regardless of the flaws in his own comparisons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mulder:

The whole problem with the PGF/McClarin comparison is that up until now, nobody actually made a thorough appraisal of all the variables which influence the comparison.

So essentially every comparison so far, including parn's, is flawed by the lack of consideration of all variables.

That's where Gigantofooticus and I are trying to clear it up, between his efforts and expertise, and mine, because we are trying to factor all the variables.

Problem is, there are still real curious things about the cameras and optics which definitely impact on the comparison, and we're the first to even acknowledge those issues.

It's going slowly because some things need to be film tested, and I don't have a budget for that right now. But we will keep working it through to a final conclusion.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Why is Parnassus avoiding this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why is Parnassus avoiding this thread?

Parnassus seems to be avoiding responding to ANY of my posts whatsoever. At this point, I think we've established that he is either unwilling or unable to back his claim.

I'm still waiting (and fully expect to get) further clarification from Bill on this issue when he returns to the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mulder:

"So is it correct to say that the existing and generally accepted Mclaren/Patty comp is in fact not valid, as Parn claims, regardless of the flaws in his own comparisons? "

Yes, it is correct to say the above.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Will he ever learn?

In my post 19 of this thread, I explained why the image (taken from one of my PDF documents, comparing the overall paths of the PGF subject and Jim McClarin in Green's film) was unsuitable for size comparisons between the PGF subject and McClarin that parnassus is trying to make.

Yet the ever persistent parnassus ignored the explanation of why the quality was insufficient to serve his purpose, and posted another comparison as some kind of "proof".

I would regret seeing any forum members fooled by his post into thinking the images he posted are respectful research quality for his stated goal, comparing the height of the two filmed subjects.

Apparently parnassus does not know what research quality is, so to bring it to his attention, the following shows what research quality imagery looks like, as compared to the material he is misusing from my documents for a purpose the image wasn't intended for.

researchquality.jpg

If nothing else, what he lacks in understanding quality or precision, he makes up for with blind determination to validate his biased agenda.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

GF:

" I just want accuracy. "

You and me both. Whereever the math goes, we go there.

:)

Bill

I wanted to give this post a +, but I just used it on Giganto's. So here's a "virtual +".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Why is Parnassus avoiding this thread?

Because it is potentially embarrassing for him.

I wouldn't necessarily hold his non-participation against him. I would, however, note that his non-participation might be seen as conceding the argument if it had not been for the fact that he continues to post similar flawed arguments in the other thread.

I'm sure he reads this thread and is now using the coaching to refine his argument. Or at least I hope so...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

It really is embarrassin', as it seems to be a habit with him. Oh well...

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Mulder:

"So is it correct to say that the existing and generally accepted Mclaren/Patty comp is in fact not valid, as Parn claims, regardless of the flaws in his own comparisons? "

Yes, it is correct to say the above.

Bill

So, by extension, would it be accurate to state that you consider the work of other photogrammetrists as presented in LMS to be equally invalid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Gigantofootecus wrote:

Then I think their trackways crossed over somewhere after frame 400, with the greatest difference around frame 352. IMO, this occured when when Patty turned right to look back at Patterson, then turned left to resume her course. This action created an "S" pattern in her trackway, which McClarin missed in his re-enactment. McClarin appears to have walked behind Patty at frame 352, crossed over around frame 400, and wasn't even on the same ground level by frame 480.

A few months ago, (I think it was), on Jref I posted some graphics illustrating the idea that Jim's and Patty's paths crossed....somewhere around Frame 352.

Here is one graphic...(it's only a rough estimation, intended to illustrate the basic idea)...

JPPathDiagram2.jpg

At they passed by the large stick, Patty's appears slightly taller than Jim, and also at Frame 352...and then, by the time they were near two trees...(one leaning tree, 'crossing' a straight tree)...Patty appears significantly shorter than Jim.

As Giganto pointed out....Jim made a mistake...( a fortunate one, I think) after the 'turn and look' Frame 352 spot. After turning right, to look back, he continued walking mainly in that direction...parallel to the plane of the camera. But Patty, after she turned to the right, to look back, immediately resumed the same angle that she had been walking away from Roger at...approx. 35 degrees.

No, I'm not suggesting Patty was short. I'm saying we need to know her distance from the camera before we can calculate her height, since McClarin didn't follow Patty's trackway exactly.

We can't use him as a yardstick unless they were the exact same distance from the camera.

Otherwise, we have to calc Patty's height photogrammetrically (geez that's a long word!), which involves estimating distances from the camera.

If we knew exactly where their paths crossed, Giganto, wouldn't a comparison of their heights...at that point...be a valid height comparison? Would it matter what the distances were, to Roger's and John's cameras...if the foreground and background objects are all matching-up, perfectly...or, very close to it?

One other thing...in just about every Frame of the film, Patty's legs are bent, at some angle....they never seem to fully straighten.

So, in comparing Patty's and Jim's heights, we need to account for Patty's very bent posture. In this comparison, Patty, if fully straightened-up, would appear to be a few, to several, inches taller than Jim...

PattyJimWalkComp4C.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Mulder:

"So, by extension, would it be accurate to state that you consider the work of other photogrammetrists as presented in LMS to be equally invalid? "

Until we solve for the lens on both cameras, any comparison of the PGF to the McClarin footage is invalid. The lens determination must be through optical analysis and mathematical calculation.

I don't recall what comparison LMS made in this respect, but if they made a comparison, yes, it's invalid, for the above reason.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Still no reply from parnassus...? Huh !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Let's start talking about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...