Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Guest

At the equivalent of frame 352 of the PGF, Greens footage shows McClarin to be 134' from the camera. This is providing the focal length of the lens was 1" (25mm). McClarin was 6' 5", Patty was 6' 3". The camera Green used can be identified thru its camera aperture plate dimensions. However, in Green's case, he had removed the aperture plate (for some reason) and forgot to put it back on before shooting the McClarin footage. Instead Green's footage is seen thru the magazine's aperture which showed us much more horizontal field of view than normal. This makes it extremely difficult to identify the lens that Green used regardless of what camera he used. We need to match the magazine aperture dimensions to the film instead. However, Green's magazine on his Keystone camera could definitely tell us whether he used it to film McClarin. But identifying the camera doesn't identify the lens anyway, so who cares?

 

Since Green and Patterson used the same size lens to shoot their footages, this means that Patty was 10% closer to the camera than McClarin. This calculates Patty to 123' from the camera in frame 352. McClarin wouldn't have walked directly on Patty's trackway, he would have walked ~10' beyond the trackway since he and Green were not trying to replicate the distances from the camera exactly. Otherwise, how can anyone determine exactly where Patterson stood at frame 352? Did they use his boot prints for reference? Who knows? Historical distances were used as fact, which was not the case.

 

The 20mm lens theory comes from the lens equation, which uses the distances from the camera and the subject height to derive the focal length of the lens. Problem is we don't know the distances from the camera or the subject height. I have yet to see verification where Roger stood when he shot Patty at frame 352. Otherwise, the historic numbers point to a focal length of ~23.5mm instead of 25mm. This discrepancy is likely caused by either inaccurate camera aperture gate dimensions and/or inaccurate estimates of the camera position. After all, we don't have access to the original film stock so everything we look at is a copy of the original which has its own frame dimensions. The copying process redefines the frame dimensions making it almost impossible to use the lens equation to measure anything unless we can establish the original aspect ratio and gate dimensions of the film stock and calibrate the copy. Otherwise, the lens equation will give us a skewed focal length that will be LESS than the actual focal length. Exactly like we get with the PGF.

 

In summary, there is an error with either the camera's frame dimensions for the PGF and/or the distances measured from the camera to the subject but this error does not point to a non-standard or zoom lens. We should be resolving the source of the 5% error from a standard 25mm lens as opposed to fitting the error into an alternate scenario of non-standard and zoom lenses. We have to ask ourselves which scenario is more plausible? A 25mm lens isn't the end of the world, after all.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^

 

That...coming from someone who at one time said, about Patty...."Can't see a suit, no matter how hard I try"..

 

Subjectivity.

 

So many things affect it.

Not willing to accept that?

 

Welcome to extremism.

 

How does fundamentalism feel?

 

I would imagine 1000 showers to get it off of me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

kit: "The flailblogdotorg arms could almost distract from the comedy that is the breasts."

 

kit: ."Can't see a suit, no matter how hard I try." 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Subjectivity.

 

So many things affect it.

Not willing to accept that?

 

Welcome to extremism.

 

How does fundamentalism feel?

 

I would imagine 1000 showers to get it off of me.

 

 

Where was the subjectivity when you couldn't grasp on your own that Patterson rounded the downfallen tree ahead of Gimlin which allowed him to see the creature squatted by the creek before Gimlin caught up to then seeing the creature by that time in a standing posrure?  Was it because you were unable to accept the common sense of how that could happen? Was it your extremism that caused you to consider a "smoking gun" before attempting to rationally think the situation through? And why do you still repeat the same modus-operandi - not yet taken a thousand showers over all these years?     :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

how many showers to wash the *poof* off of  fundamentalism  face melting ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Since Green and Patterson used the same size lens to shoot their footages, this means that Patty was 10% closer to the camera than McClarin. This calculates Patty to 123' from the camera in frame 352. McClarin wouldn't have walked directly on Patty's trackway, he would have walked ~10' beyond the trackway since he and Green were not trying to replicate the distances from the camera exactly. Otherwise, how can anyone determine exactly where Patterson stood at frame 352? Did they use his boot prints for reference? Who knows? Historical distances were used as fact, which was not the case.

 

 

 

 

No there were no boot tracks there when Green went to the spot the following June. He did say there were depressions left from track castings but none in the area where the clear frames of the footage were taken.

 

"I found that making things in the background and foreground line up in the camera viewfinder as they appeared in the slides was a remarkably accurate way of locating the camera position. Moving the camera less than a foot in any direction would completely change the relationships. I presume there may have been inaccuracies caused by differences between the lens of Roger's camera and my viewfinder, but I think I must have been very close to the right position."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I once did an overlay of of Roger's view to that of Green's and when seen in motion - the shift in locations was very noticable. Green was further back and to the right of where Roger stood. When simply eye-balling the two images they looked very close until seen in a transparency stabilized overlay. I will look for it when I get back to BC in the Spring.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Where was the subjectivity when you couldn't grasp on your own that Patterson rounded the downfallen tree ahead of Gimlin which allowed him to see the creature squatted by the creek before Gimlin caught up to then seeing the creature by that time in a standing posrure?  Was it because you were unable to accept the common sense of how that could happen? Was it your extremism that caused you to consider a "smoking gun" before attempting to rationally think the situation through? And why do you still repeat the same modus-operandi - not yet taken a thousand showers over all these years?     :)

I'm going to welcome you today to the opportunity to demonstrate what you are talking about.

 

Here for your convenience is the advanced search function...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&search_in=forums

 

At the top in the "Find words" field you can enter key words such as "squat" or "stand." Then, in the "Find author" heading you can enter "kitakaze". This will allow you to quickly and handily have access to any post in which I have ever discussed squatting/standing. You may then peruse such posts and should you find a single one that ever makes any mention, let alone taking issue with, any discrepancy between Patterson and Gimlin about the posture of Patty when first encountered, you can make a meaningful and effective demonstration of how your objection was something based in any manner of reality.

Bigfoothunter, did I have any manner of issue with the detailing of Patty's posture when first encountered? Yes or no, thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

kitakaze, on 07 Dec 2013 - 6:45 PM

 

Kitakaze:  "LOL Squatting or standing. Try not being able to get one straight story as to what you were doing with the horse when the film was shot of the only person to ever make a serious public claim of being in the suit. One week? Three? Roger was chasing the creature through the underbrush? Trapped under horse, look at this bent stirrup, acrobatic Legolas dismount? Squatting or standing. Too good."

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

Well that explains that.

 

Cue song, "Another one bites the dust"

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

kitakaze, on 07 Dec 2013 - 6:45 PM

 

Kitakaze:  "LOL Squatting or standing. Try not being able to get one straight story as to what you were doing with the horse when the film was shot of the only person to ever make a serious public claim of being in the suit. One week? Three? Roger was chasing the creature through the underbrush? Trapped under horse, look at this bent stirrup, acrobatic Legolas dismount? Squatting or standing. Too good."

 

 

 

Actual context - quote-miners never want you to see it...

 

 
 
 

Bob and Roger contradictions? One saying the creature was squatted by a creek when he came around the down root system while the other said it was standing by the waters edge when he first saw it is not a contradiction issue, but a timing issue. It takes little imagination to understand how that could have occurred. Steenburg has spotted a bear standing along the road, but by the time I looked up it was on the run. These were different than Bob H totally contradicting himself.

 

By the way .... good to see you have found more time to share more stories with the forum.   :)

 

Bigfoothunter

 

 

LOL Squatting or standing. Try not being able to get one straight story as to what you were doing with the horse when the film was shot of the only person to ever make a serious public claim of being in the suit. One week? Three? Roger was chasing the creature through the underbrush? Trapped under horse, look at this bent stirrup, acrobatic Legolas dismount?

 

Squatting or standing. Too good.

 

 

 

I think I have read some of the same articles as you, but with a more unbiased investigative approach. I know this has been said before, but its worth repeating. Take the squatting and standing remarks made by both men. There is no evidence that the two men were sharing a saddle. In fact, Gimlin has always said that he followed behind Roger. The two men were not racing their horses at a gallop, but were walking them up the old road alongside of the creek bed. There is nothing in the record that rules out that when Roger first saw the creature and just as his horse went crazy - the animal stood up and that is why Gimlin can say that when he first looked over and saw it that it was standing. The time span to rise up to a standing posture from a squatting position would be just a matter of around 3/18ths to 4/18ths of a second. One could even make an argument that two people can recall the same event and interpret what they witnessed differently, but I choose not to waste time on such nonsense if what has been said falls easily into the realm of likelihood. Anything less means I have to address Sweaty-Yeti's arm length observations and/or accept some ridiculous theory that Roger and Bob sculpted the trackway by hand and somehow managed to erase their own prints and other ground disturbances without so much of leaving a trace of altered sand behind. So I find myself back to where I started with the skeptic merely making unsupported inferences of conspiracy while claiming they have new ground breaking news coming that they then never produce. We just witnessed such garbage on the footprint thread.

 

Bigfoothunter

 

 

No, I don't think I will take squatting or standing as if there was a paucity of big fat whopper contradictions in Patterson and Gimlin's stories that the only thing you could get red flags from was piffle like that.

 

No, I think I'll take instead that Gimlin can't decide on a story for why he had the horse of the only man ever to make a serious public claim of being in the suit when he was at Bluff Creek. He had the horse for weeks and was breaking it in for Heironimus? No, wait. None of Gimlin's horses were experienced enough, so that's why he borrowed Heironimus' horse. No, wait. Roger arranged everything and borrowed the horse and he had nothing to do with it. Which is it, Gimlin? Roll the dice.

 

And how long were they there? Three weeks, all of October before the alleged filming date of the 21st? No, wait. A single week? That's a major discrepancy in time. Which is it?

 

Heironimus was a trusted friend of Gimlin's? No, wait. They were never friends. Which is it, Gimlin?

 

You tracked Patty for three miles before turning back or you just went up the creek a bit to where she went into the brush and turned back. Which is it?

 

Roger was trapped under his horse, injured his foot and had his stirrup so mangled that he removed it and displayed it to Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy as evidence of the encounter. No, he dismounted one handed while extracting the camera in an agile maneuver he practiced for just such an occasion. Which is it?

 

Standing or squatting… LOL

 

 

The only person actually raising squatting or standing was Bigfoothunter, not myself. When raised by Bigfoothunter I dismissed it as piffle.

Bigfoothunter, did I have any manner of issue with the detailing of Patty's posture when first encountered? Yes or no, thank you. 

^^^

 

Well that explains that.

 

Cue song, "Another one bites the dust"

 

Backdoc

 

Just not the one you were hoping for...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^

 

The last thing I want to see in the morning is Freddie Mercury in his underpants. Eeek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You expect to see more appreciation for a hairy hominid on a Bigfoot forum. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

You expect to see more appreciation for a hairy hominid on a Bigfoot forum. lol

 

Well it is a Bigfoot Forum and not a post men in their underwear forum. To date, you are the only one who has attempted to make it such that I am aware of. Please try to post that odd nonsense on the appropriate sites.

 

By the way, is there a reason for your posting the same Kitakaze nonsense on two threads ..... I thought you were the one who wants post to be made in the appropriate thread. Does Gimlin's alleged contradictions have something to do with McClarin's comparison to Patty???

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Freddie Mercury's underpants notwithstanding...here is one small detail I noticed, in the 'middle sequence' animation that I created/posted recently....Patty's shadow can be seen falling on the stick that she appears to walk right in front of...

 

 SasOdyssey-MiddleSequenceClearFramesAG9_

 

 

The shadow landing on the stick makes it a definite that she walked very close to the stick....probably within a foot or two of it.

 

 

As has been shown before, Jim walked well behind the stick...(this animation shows three consecutive steps)...

 

JimMcClarinWalk-3Steps-BehindStickAG1_zp

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...