Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest]

Bill, you're right. The image for this frame has been stretched horizontally. I seem to be able to capture frames from the LMS with the correct aspect ratio but the frame capture on RN's DVD player (and possibly others) must be misrepresenting the aspect. Since there isn't a full frame to register this particular frame to, we have to assume the borders will give us the film aspect. It does appear that the back width has been exaggerated, by as much as 8%, which is significant. So, I would say the 1st image is likely more accurate than the LMS version (for that frame). I no longer trust any of the previous images to correctly display the full back view, at least not without knowing how the aspect has been affected. I still believe the back width is > average, but now it's not quite so evident. Without references, there's just no way to trust some of these images. Is is safe to correct the aspect ourselves? Maybe. But this is just another reason why only the source material should be used for a formal analysis. Good catch.

[Guest longtabber PE]

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

I dont know where you are getting this information from but you may need to go back and re read.

I dont know where you are getting this "quoted and counterpointed" from because i have provided facts, data and reference to validate my points. ( Bills references to stretch fur and mine are referencing 2 different things and the film proper doesnt allow for enough data to answer)

I dont also know where you get this>>he said he would go to collect evidence, but had not actually done it.

I have had a career ( CID- active/reserve as well as civilian) collecting/analyzing. case preparation and having to defend my finding in REAL courts as well as being an instructor for same. ( not counting the forensics we do as a firm or military intelligence as an operator) Cases i have been involved in range from the Duke case, the Jack Croft "suicide/murder" and as a firm the Scott Peterson appeal ( when it comes) so i dont know where this 'theoretical/ not actually done it" comes from. I dont get these jobs because I'm an "internet commentator" or "theoretical"

I have only made 2 points in former posts that could possibly be what you are referencing.

1) I never ( in my career) collected DNA evidence ( because in my day- no such animal existed)

2) I have never collected any "evidence" relating to anything regarding a bigfoot ( which i have not and doubt i ever will)

I think your premise is a wee little bit out of context and highly inaccurate

[Guest Remember November]

Well I dont know what else to do. I have searched the internet high and low for a full frame of the last sequence in the film and have found nothing. The program I am using is POWER DVD from CYBERLINK.

I have selected the option to "keep aspect ratio". Also when I go to capture the image I have selected the option "by original vedio source size". I dont know if the original images I posted were captured under these options so I will post new images.

[Bill]

Remember November:

I noticed your frames posted list their size as 720x480. This is close to D1 NTSC size (television standard) but actual TV's display about 640x480. That's where this bizarre squeeze thing between rectangular and square pixels comes to play, and as I've already stated, I don't understand it, been struggling for years to figure it out in a simple, real world "what the He** is going on" sort of attempt to understand it.

Anyway, as long as we have this discrepency between the images as to width, any attempt to measure a true horizontal dimension (like shoulder width) of the PG figure, is suspect until we can certify our reference image as not being stretched or shrunk in horizontal dimension.

Bill

[Guest SoundMan]

I dont know where you are getting this information from but you may need to go back and re read.

I dont know where you are getting this "quoted and counterpointed" from because i have provided facts, data and reference to validate my points. ( Bills references to stretch fur and mine are referencing 2 different things and the film proper doesnt allow for enough data to answer)

I dont also know where you get this>>he said he would go to collect evidence, but had not actually done it.

I have had a career ( CID- active/reserve as well as civilian) collecting/analyzing. case preparation and having to defend my finding in REAL courts as well as being an instructor for same. ( not counting the forensics we do as a firm or military intelligence as an operator) Cases i have been involved in range from the Duke case, the Jack Croft "suicide/murder" and as a firm the Scott Peterson appeal ( when it comes) so i dont know where this 'theoretical/ not actually done it" comes from. I dont get these jobs because I'm an "internet commentator" or "theoretical"

I have only made 2 points in former posts that could possibly be what you are referencing.

1) I never ( in my career) collected DNA evidence ( because in my day- no such animal existed)

2) I have never collected any "evidence" relating to anything regarding a bigfoot ( which i have not and doubt i ever will)

I think your premise is a wee little bit out of context and highly inaccurate

See what I mean. LTPE just proved my point. You get awful defensive my friend. Lighten up. Point/counter point might be good in court but not here. I was referring to when you said how you would collect evidence in the field (hypothetical) and I responded go to it. You then made an excuse that that's not your job or not being qualified or something of the sort.

Premise is spot on. Because its my opinion not yours. I love you anyhow. Keep up the good work. I just think Bill has presented a better case and I'm in agreement that a suit is too hard to swallow at this point until some epiphany occurs.

Take care.

Soundman

[Guest Remember November]

Bill, it’s a shame that the only copy of the film amateurs like me can get our hands on are cropped images. I was so excited when I got your calibrated human overlay. I have been up since seven this morning trying to find a full frame of this hairy mystery. Hey at least you were able to show me that my references were not what I thought they were. LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE even claims its a full frame. Thanks for all the hard work.

[Guest]

Remember November, the LMS claims to be full frame because it is a full frame of a 50% zoomed copy of the original 16mm format. There are very few actual full frame images of the PGF. The LMS version is 50% cropped and panned.

I loaded the LMS into PowerDVD and noted that the display had a correct aspect ratio of 1.34 but when I captured a frame to the clipboard, it came out with an aspect of 1.5. Weird. This is completely out of your control. PowerDVD is doing this internally. With most DVD applications you can't save the image from a DVD by selecting the PrintScreen button, then Pasting the image into an image editor (e.g. MS Paint). Instead, PowerDVD constructs the frame image then sends it to the clipboard with an inaccurate aspect ratio.

At any rate, you can load these images into any image editor (e.g. MS Paint) then expand the image (Stretch/Skew) in the Horizontal by 109% to match the true film aspect.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Gigantofootecus

[Bill]

Remember November:

Chances are, somewhere along the way, maybe even before LMS got the footage, it was stretched. Seems as far as i can tell, those of us investigating today grab at frames with no actual "chain of possession" and documented copy process from source to the end images we have.

So we just have to be extra cautious, and cross reference images from varied sources, to verify the integrity of the image.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Giganto and Bill, thank you both. This is exactly why this forum is so important; we can come together and work out the critical details that normally would go unrecognized.

[Guest Remember November]

Bill,

I don’t know if you’ve read Jeff Meldrum's book SASQUATCH LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE or not. But I came across something that goes along with your observation of the neck hackles.

On page 183 he says, "Emotional expression is not only limited to facial displays. The hair of a sasquatch, especially over the head and shoulders, has been reported to occasionally bristle or stand on end, an action that is called piloerection. One particular witness to an encounter with a saquatch noted the hair rise and fall repeatedly as the sasquatch stared at him."

[Bill]

Remember Nov.

I haven't read the book, but thank you for bringing that to our attention. It sounds very much like what I see on the film.

Bill

[Guest]

Bill,

Thanks so much for the "Let's talk Bigfoot" net-radio interview the other night, I enjoyed it immensely.

One thing that you mentioned was the leg/hip area in the PGF and I had made an earlier post pertaining to this in another thread. I'm not sure how to link from thread to thread so I'll just copy a part of it here.

One of the bigger details that has been mulling around in my mind is the previous comments about the waist / hip area in the film.

This never stood out to me before so I decided to do a little human anatomy research and found that in body builders there is a definate line that starts in the front. This line is along the Inguinal ligament which is the major attaching ligament along the Obliquus Extermus Abdominis muscle. The Inguinal Ligament curves up from the front meeting the Creat of Ilium. Continuing this curved line towards the back of the body is the Gluteus Maximus.

Looking at various body builder pictures there is a definate curvature of the skin along this line. It makes sense to me that a body with large and what we call well defined muscles, covered in a dense short fur would also show these distinct lines.

a good web site that shows this line is

http://www.emusclor.com/en/articles/fitnes...muscular-system

From that link click on the #23 in the list of muscle nomenclature... Obliquus externus abdominis

Bill, I'm eager to hear your comments on this after viewing the above link.

Thanks

Edited February 16, 2008 by urbanshaman

[Bill]

Urbanshaman:

I did follow the link and looked it over. Yes, it could have a connection to the issue.

One thing I'm wondering (this is just very early speculation, nothing even close to conclusive yet) is approaching the shadows in the pelvic region as slight rolls of fat for a body maybe getting older and pickng up fat deposits (a subject my own body seems to be researching every day more and more) and wondering if there are loose skin/fat rolls in the region of the body.

I see a curious sort of almost "atrophied" bicep, in the arm swings of the look back part, and in the end of the film, some of the back views show me pockets of bulging and rippling along the sides of the back which to me are more fatty tissue that muscle in a very toned quality.

So I'm looking at the pelvic shading lines as a variation of the loose fatty tissue idea, and trying to settle it in my head if that may account for what I see.

It sort of goes the opposite of "muscular", but I want to give it a try as an option.

Bill

[Guest]

These muscle lines fall right where a body builders suit (no matter how skimpy) fits, so the distinct lines become obscured.

link

Body builders look like padded suits under streached skin, especially still photos.... they look unnatural really, Yet, many who have had a close up sighting have commented on the well defined muscles of sasquatch even covered with fur or hair and how their muscles are simply "massive".

[Bill]

Urbanshaman:

I've actually been thinking about your posts here and the comparisons to human bodybuilders, for the last week or so, but just didn't have a reply settled in my head.

I am aware of some reports that do tend to describe observed creatures as having rather powerfully distinct musculature, and of course human bodybuilders do likewise have powerfully distinct musculature. I've actually done some study of the bodybuilding endeavor (including the documentaries Pumping Iron on the men's and women's events).

But one thing tends to influence my thoughts along that line, and that is while the body builder usually is photographed "pumped up", and every muscle is straining to rip out of the skin, when the same person is more "at ease" or relaxed, much of that muscle definition can settle in under the skin. I'm reminded of Raye Howlette (The American Gladiator lady and champion woman's power lifter, as i recall) doing a Playboy layout, and her musculature in that photospread was actually quite softened as I recall. Certainly there was a massive musculature evident in her physique, but nothing like the usual "ripped" definition of the competition posing photos more commonly seen.

So with that reference, I personally don't expect to see as much definition in Patty's musculature as the bodybuilding comparison would suggest.

But I'm still studying some new frames of Patty's back, from the end part of the PG Film, and I see contours that do suggest perhaps some aging or fat tissue deposits on the body. I'm not taking the simplistic idea that a body must either be buffed up or flab, as if there were nothing in between. On the contrary, I suspect a middleground of natural muscle, appropriate for a wild creature, might co-exist on the same body as some fat deposits, especially if it's october and the animal is bulking up for a winter of less food.

So the jury is still out on this part of my study, (and of course I'm still trying to finalize my analysis if these folds could be the result of furcloth folding, or if this option can be discounted based on furcloth dynamics), but I just wanted to get back to you on your ideas, and suggest that the muscle definition to explain some apparent body contours and shadows may actually co-exist with some body contours better explained by fatty tissue deposits.

Bill