Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest longtabber PE]

OBJECTION your honor! This is pure speculation and hearsay. The defense is asking for information that could not possibly be obtained if so said project was done in private. To say that a project has not been done based on the available information found in the public sector is based on nothing substantial. We ask the court to strike this from the documentation from the records based on the grounds of inconclusiveness. The defense argues that this would mean that it is not impossible for the film to be replicated, but the plaintiff could argue the opposite based on the same conclusion that no project of this type has been attempted, therefore it could just as easily been proven that it was in fact impossible to duplicate.

Matt "Lock"

OK

Objection as well your honor. Counsels entire argument is argumentive.

The defense made a legitimate inquiry to a recognized and documented expert in the field relative to the subject matter at hand. Said expert is in a position ( hollywood FX for 40 odd years) and by nature would be in an enviroment where information of said questions could reasonably be believed to be known to him. It is also acknowledged that such a project done "privately" as counsel suggests with no published results could not be known- much less considered.

The original request for discovery is directly relevant to the question at hand regarding plaintiffs core argument regarding degree of difficulty, materials and prior attempts as being reasons to substantiate his claim. Therefore the motion for discovery is valid as it directly relates to significant portions of the plaintiffs case in chief.

we request to the court that counsels objections be overrulled

[Guest soarwing]

soarwing:

I was not aware that the behind shot is a mirror image. That's what I get for pulling random pictures from bigfoot forums. I will try to provide a true image from the film.

Why is John Greens film not accurate? I have not heard this point of view.

- - -

The mirror image shot is probably about right as far as proportions, I'll say that much (See Giganto's post)

John Green's film is probably not accurate because the creature's feet are not visible. I've done my own analysis of Patty's height by taking frames from the film where her foot is visible and perpendicular to the ground (or nearly so). I attached a 14.5 " plank to the bottom of my shoe (14.5" being the length of the footprints taken from Patty's trackway) and then took pictures of myself in very similar poses as Patty is in these frames. Using varying transparencies, I lined up the 14.5 " plank on the bottom of my shoe with the bottom of Patty's 14.5" foot. I took pictures of myself from about 30 feet away and then about the same distance as Roger was from the creature in the frames I chose. Gigantofootecus helped my thought process on this a lot, although I think he disagrees with my GENERAL results for some reason.

I know that my comps are not 100% accurate, but based on them I don't think there's any reason at all to conclude that Patty's walking height is anything taller than 6' +/- a couple of inches. COULD she have been taller than that? Maybe, I think it's highly doubtful as I'm about 6' 2".

If you are interested in seeing my comps, go way back to the "How Tall is Patty" thread.... the images are on page 5 of that thread. (I'd post them here, but there's a "browse blocker" installed at my work and I can't shuffle images around until I get home)

[Guest Remember November]

I have taken stills from the last frames and I see the same thing as the mirror image. I see a very broad shouldered individual.

soarwing: I will look into your research.

As of now, when I look at john greens footage the enviroment matches up almost perfectly. Roger and Bob both say the subject was over six foot. We know the footprints left behind are 14.5". Did the subject in the film create those footprints? Jon Green did not report any other set of prints.

[Guest soarwing]

Edited February 9, 2008 by soarwing

[Bill]

Remember November:

Thank you for showing me the frames. If we can get some higher resolution prints from either one, I'd say this is a really important image.

I took yours and enlarged it to my callibrated sequence figures and the callibrated human, and overlaid them, as the attached image shows. The Patty is pretty fuzzy, but does show massive shoulders far beyond what is normally done in a suit (considering how I've studied the arm swing in the look back sequence.

Open call. Anybody got better prints of these frames???

Thanks

Bill

[Guest soarwing]

edit

Edited February 9, 2008 by soarwing

[Bill]

Remember November:

The frames you have posted above are stretched wider than the actual 16mm film. May be the TV square pixel/rectangular pixel conversion of broadcast TV.

So the real frame images are narrower. Still not sure how that would impact on a shoulder width analysis, since clearer prints are needed.

But just wanted to point out that fact about the images posted. So not sure if Grover was working from these stretched sideways frames in his shoulder width analysis.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill, the images I posted are from the DVD, SASQUATCH: LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE. It is the only full length copy of the patterson film available to the public. I simply saved the image to a file, and then uploaded it to my reply. Too bad its distorted. How did you discover this.

[Guest SoundMan]

As a member of this jury, I feel compelled to speak. I got the defense and plaintiff attorney stuff alright, but in all of this I have lost sight of the crime and the victim(s). And where did the judge go?

Just curious, is anyone getting paid for the research time being put into this effort?

It is at times enlightening, at other times tediously boring. And the trial goes on and on......

Seriously, great work, Bill. You have convinced me that the likelyhood (try spelling that correctly - I give up) of the subject in the PGF being a man in a suit is as probable as Longtabber PE remaining silent after being quoted and counterpointed. The key has been those neck hackles and what was realistically doable.

I got into a discussion with Longtabber about collecting data in the field and the degree and length of which he said he would go to collect evidence, but had not actually done it. Well, I have done it for weeks at a time - and I can tell you from experience that the theoretical is miles apart from the practical. That's what I take from your two sides - Longtabber's position is more theoretical, yours practical.

Longtabber has great arguments and has a wealth of knowledge. His case however is weak due to practical considerations. If the jury was now in deliberation and I was the foreman, I would be seeking unanimity in deciding against a suit (but not necessarily for a living animal).

Soundman

[Bill]

Remember November:

I got some other samples of the same general frame sequence, and they were narrower, so I copied one of your frames, and then put three in a vertical row, to make a "filmstrip", and then found a 16mm film perf specification sample, and aligned it so the perfs matched exactly on the right side.

Then I verified from another source that the original film was double perf (both sides) and when I superimposed the film spec image over the frames of yours, it showed me that your frame samples were stretched.

The whole TV system has this weird thing about square and rectangular pixels, and I've never understood it, as hard as I've tried, and never got a good explanation of why this technology was done, but in a conversion from one to the other, a video image may either be stretched or shrunk in width (depending on which way the conversion goes, starting with which type pixel format.

SO I'm guessing that's what stretched the image you have.

:evillaugh:

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Thank you Bill. I too found an alternate image. Not of the behind sequence, but of the most famous frame. As you can see, LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE does not show the full frame. Could this be a factor in the discovered stretching?

[Bill]

Soundman:

Actually, when you have a plaintiff and a defense, it's a civil case, not a criminal one, so no "crime" so to speak, just a dispute.

Judge Melissa said she was prepping a trial (in her real legal work) so she may have been pulled away from our lively mock court here to give reality some attention.

I would agree with you in your perception that Longtabber's position is more theoretical (although he hates when we say that, but until he shows me proof a real stretch fur product actually did exist before 1985, I'll insist the availability he describes is just theoretical availability, not actual, "something real in your hand" available).

But as a Devil's Advocate, the Devil really has got a great lawyer.

And i thank you for your deliberation and verdict.

Remember November:

Now that you show the real frame, it appears the one looking like film is in fact a cropped copy of the original, and has been superimposed onto a film and perf pattern, to look like original film.

So the stretch may have occurred anywhere in the cropping and re-composing as a mock filmstrp segment.

Good find, the original wider frame reference.

Bill

[Guest]

Bill, I've analysed the LMS version of the PGF to test its aspect and it's very close to the film's. The LMS version represents a copy of Green's 50% cropped, zoomed copy of the PGF. I don't think we can trust the borders of the LMS version to give us the aspect ratio of the images. It turns out that the aspect of a full frame of the PGF was measured by Glickman for his height analysis of the PGF. He measured a full frame at: 10.29mm (width) x 7.6mm (height). Here's a graphic I put together for the optics of the lens for the K-100 and the 16mm film. Note that the aspect is 1.354

Glickman also scanned in a full frame (from the 1st gen copy that Green's copy was made from?) and submitted it with his paper "Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon". This digital image has an aspect of 1.34. This is very close to the film aspect of 1.354. To test these images I registered a few frames from the LMS to the full frame image to see how their aspects compared. Here's an example. Pretty **** close I'd say.

The aspect of Glickman's image is 1.34 and so is the LMS since it registers true to the full frame image. Therefore, we can assume the aspect of the LMS is also 1.34, which is very close to the true aspect of the film.

This is a long-winded way to say that the images from the LMS are not stretched, unless someone's DVD's video processor is distorting the images (which definitely does happen). However, the copyright lettering doesn't look appreciably stretched to me. How about someone else repost these frames to confirm?

[Bill]

Gigantofootecus:

Thanks for helping sort this out..

Attached are two frame studies and two cropped versions of the same image.

First the frame studies:

I too one frame that Remember November above supplied, and repeated it three times to make a mockup filmstrip. Then I superimposed a 16mm frame sequence over it and scaled and aligned the perfs on the right side, (50% transparency.) And I got more picture going into the left frame region.

Then I took one frame and compared it to same frame supplied by Owen Caddy.

Superimposing one over the other, and clicking the top layer on and off, I see the diagonals of the various tree trunks change their angles, the sign of stretching the image.

So it seems the images supplied by RN were stretched somehow.

But i welcome any thoughts you might have on this. Obviously, one set of stills is wider than the other, just would like to confirm which is the correct one.

Thanks for helping.

Bill

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

There might possibly be a more usable section of film that shows the back section of the subject. It's at the beginning of the film if I'm not mistaken. Although you probably won't find them by cruising the Internet. If you're looking for good quality still images from the film, I'd suggest going to M.K. Davis. Regardless of what you've heard from others based on differences of opinion. Just trying to help, don't shoot the messenger.

And Longtabber, you're badgering the witness.