Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

Just looking at your article, Bigfoothunter....I noticed that the white spot you circled in Frame 350...is not the white spot in question, on Patty's face....(it's just a speck of dust on that particular version of F350)...

 

**IMAGES REMOVED**

 

 

Sweaty,

 

Long was rather vague in his allegation of this white spot, but a couple of things steered me away from the spot that others here are talking about, which I believe to be in error.

 

To start with, the face above was shown on the Internet during the Jeff Rense Show. I am trying to remember if the spot was actually marked - for it may have been - I just do not remember it that well. I do know that I copied the face they had posted during that Interview.

 

In going back to what Long said about his seeing this reflection of sunlight in the inner corner of the right eye socket, I considered where the eye would be if it was actually stuck into the hole as Bob H later stated to Long after the fact. The light spot that is being referenced here in this thread is on the face. It's also large enough that I couldn't imagine Long calling that a 'reflection of sunlight'. Long didn't say that the sun illuminated the inner corner of the eye, thus making a portion of it visible - instead Greg Long called it a 'reflection of sunlight'. In my article I showed two such 'reflections of sunlight' on a real gorilla's eyes.

 

I have never spoken to Long, but if someone narrowed him down on this point, then I'd yield to Long's pinpointing the spot he had been talking about.

Ya i was kinda wondering if they stuck the eye like onto the actual face of the mask or what because it wouldnt be visible in the eye socket. Was just throwing it out there.   The PGF never really mattered to me because it doesnt prove/dis prove anything so im just now getting into it. what was the story with long? where did he pop out from???   

 

I seem to recall Long having already spoken to Bob H about the suit and nothing had been said at that time about a prosthetic eye being glued into the eye-socket of the head. It was only after Long went back to Bob H with his observation about the possible 'reflection of sunlight' in the eye-socket that Bob H added the gluing of a glass eye to his story. Least ways that is how I remember it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
To Remove Quoted Images
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Yep^ ^^  The allegations from BH, via GL, about Roger attaching BH's spare glass-eye to a mask might have been an effective detraction from reality if it weren't for actual images which indicate other-wise:   

 

post-131-0-34286600-1373170206_thumb.jpg

 

^ real sasquatch eyes on right and left, real human eye on right-side only :G 

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

Just looking at your article, Bigfoothunter....I noticed that the white spot you circled in Frame 350...is not the white spot in question, on Patty's face....(it's just a speck of dust on that particular version of F350)...

 

 

 

Sweaty,

 

Long was rather vague in his allegation of this white spot, but a couple of things steered me away from the spot that others here are talking about, which I believe to be in error.

 

To start with, the face above was shown on the Internet during the Jeff Rense Show. I am trying to remember if the spot was actually marked - for it may have been - I just do not remember it that well. I do know that I copied the face they had posted during that Interview.

 

In going back to what Long said about his seeing this reflection of sunlight in the inner corner of the right eye socket, I considered where the eye would be if it was actually stuck into the hole as Bob H later stated to Long after the fact. The light spot that is being referenced here in this thread is on the face. It's also large enough that I couldn't imagine Long calling that a 'reflection of sunlight'. Long didn't say that the sun illuminated the inner corner of the eye, thus making a portion of it visible - instead Greg Long called it a 'reflection of sunlight'. In my article I showed two such 'reflections of sunlight' on a real gorilla's eyes.

 

I have never spoken to Long, but if someone narrowed him down on this point, then I'd yield to Long's pinpointing the spot he had been talking about.

 

 

 

Huh????  :huh:

 

I'm having trouble deciding where to begin responding to your statements, Bigfoothunter. The statements I highlighted in bold are points which are either irrelevant....or essentially meaningless.

 

 

I'll start with these two...

 

"It's also large enough that I couldn't imagine Long calling that a 'reflection of sunlight'. Long didn't say that the sun illuminated the inner corner of the eye, thus making a portion of it visible - instead Greg Long called it a 'reflection of sunlight'."

 

The first statement doesn't make any sense, to me...how can something be 'too large to be a reflection of light'???

 

And, neither does the second statement make any sense...."sun illumination" is the same thing as a "reflection of sunlight". I have no idea what distinction you are attempting to make, there.

 

 

And...regarding this statement of yours, BFH...

 

"In going back to what Long said about his seeing this reflection of sunlight in the inner corner of the right eye socket, I considered where the eye would be if it was actually stuck into the hole as Bob H later stated to Long after the fact."

 

......the location of the 'white spot' (that is claimed to be the result of a 'glass eye') is not a subjective thing. It is clearly visible in several Film Frames....and the white spot that is circled in your article....(the 'speck of dust')....is not the white spot that is in question. 

 

What is circled in the image in your article is simply incorrect....regardless of who highlighted it with the circle.

 

 

Here is a compilation of four Film Frames which show the white spot...

 

Patty-RightEyeWhiteObject-Compilation1_z

 

 

And, just as a curiosity...here is an animation showing how the white spot appears, from F369 to F370...

 

F369-F370AG4_zps55d648eb.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I am aware as to what you and others are referring to as the white spot. That area is the skin under the eye and appears white in the same manner the nose and others areas of the face appeared white.

 

Bob H said Roger glued his prosthetic eye into the alleged mask. To do this the eye would the need to be glued into place from inside the mask so only a small portion would extend outside the smaller hole where the eye would go ... if done the other way, then the 'pop-eye effect' would be a problem.

pop-eye_zpsb6029246.jpg

 

While I do not have Long's book any longer as I gave it away (after extensively reading it several times over) so at least one person wouldn't have to waste their money on it, Long made mention that this reflection of light was something one would only get from a 'glass' eye. In my view ... the difference between sunlit and light reflection is that one is the result of the illumination of sunlight light much like a hill slope or a mountain peak and the other is a result of direct sunlight bouncing off a surface.

igt4a_reflection_zpsdf1604ff.gif

 

A reflection of light by definition is like a 'glint' or 'sparkle' (like on glass) whereas light bounces off the surface. Had not Greg Long not made a point of how this would only happen with something like a glass eye, then I might agree with you. And whether you agree with my take on what Long was talking about - hopefully you now understand how I differentiate between illumination Vs reflection when it comes to sunlight.    :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

For those who think Bob H. is telling the truth, which of his stories or version is the truth. They can't all be truthful.   And if there are many different stories, that alone should alert you Bob H. is not to be believed.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

In my view ... the difference between sunlit and light reflection is that one is the result of the illumination of sunlight light much like a hill slope or a mountain peak and the other is a result of direct sunlight bouncing off a surface.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, Bigfoothunter...but, with all due respect....I still have no idea what the distinction here is.

 

Can you please elaborate further....with diagrams illustrating "both types" of illumination.....and, how these "two types" make any difference in what the object might be, on Patty's face.

 

That being.......very simply.....an object/body part on the lower edge of the eye socket, or on the top of the cheekbone....which is being lit-up very distinctly by the sunlight. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

 I am going on Greg Long's description. Long called it a 'reflection of sunlight' on the eye which he says that only something like a glass eye would produce. He went on to describe how the eye is round and how that shape reflects light. The diagram on light reflection explains this process quite well. The woman's eyes I posted are illuminated with light, but the reflection of light is seen as white spots on the eye itself.

 

I would ask that someone who has his book to try and see if there was anything else that he said to better understand what he was referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

 "Who else but Heironimus had a right prosthetic eye - and one that was brown, the same color as the right eye of the Bigfoot? Now it was clear to me why there were reflections on the surface of the right eye of the Bigfoot: they were from light dancing off the hard, curved surface of Bob's right prosthetic eye."

Greg Long, MOB p. 404

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^  A squatch is what Roger and Bob rode out that day to film.

 

They called it a Bigfoot, but that raises the question again:

 

what IS a sasquatch?

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

 

Give me a reason to consider the PGF a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a biological creature and common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

Has anyone ever put together a list of all the "experts" who have evaluated the film and gave their opinion on authenticity one way or another.

It seems over the years I have read a bit from both sides and they usually seem compelling either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 "Who else but Heironimus had a right prosthetic eye - and one that was brown, the same color as the right eye of the Bigfoot? Now it was clear to me why there were reflections on the surface of the right eye of the Bigfoot: they were from light dancing off the hard, curved surface of Bob's right prosthetic eye."

Greg Long, MOB p. 404

 

Thanks for the Greg Long quote.

 

Long was a hoot ... making things up on the fly without sources. First of all - is there a difference in a left or right prosthetic eye - I have always assumed they were the same. One eye fits either side.

 

Prosthetic eyes are  white all around the iris like that of a human. (see Pop-eyes in post #170)  The eye of a Sasquatch has been described as being dark with no whites of the eye showing. Long would not have known this unless he researched it first.

 

gorillastare_zps5e8d7483.jpg

 

Light reflection in the eyes of apes .....

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/Picture%201000.png

 

Jody_slide01_zps2a41460e.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^

 

 I am going on Greg Long's description. Long called it a 'reflection of sunlight' on the eye which he says that only something like a glass eye would produce. He went on to describe how the eye is round and how that shape reflects light. The diagram on light reflection explains this process quite well.

 

The woman's eyes I posted are illuminated with light, but the reflection of light is seen as white spots on the eye itself.

 

 

 

 

I see the distinction you're making now, Bigfoothunter....it is a distinction in 'illuminated areas', though...not in 'types of illumination'.

 

I highlighted the area of the eye that you have been talking about...where the 'glint' of light is visible...

 

MonkeyEyes2_zps0b48974e.gif

 

 

The 'white spot/glint' is reflecting the light from the light source, as you have been saying....but it is simply a more intense, and focused reflection of the light. The rest of the eye...and the monkey's face....and it's body are also reflecting light from the 'light source'.

That's what 'illumination' is.....a reflection of light. :)

 

 

But that distinction has nothing to do with my original point. My point is that in your article, you claim that the 'white spot' within Patty's eye is nothing more than an "artifact"...(as opposed to a real object/body part)...

 

 "High magnification brings out the many more artifacts

     that were randomly scattered across the film frame"

 

 

But the white spot is an actual detail on Patty's body...it is located at the bottom of the eye socket/top of the cheekbone...and it is visible in at least 4 Film Frames.

 

Also, the white spot that is circled in the image in your article is highlighting the wrong spot....(as I've shown, in my graphic in Post #169).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
But the white spot is an actual detail on Patty's body...it is located at the bottom of the eye socket/top of the cheekbone...and it is visible in at least 4 Film Frames.

 

Also, the white spot that is circled in the image in your article is highlighting the wrong spot....(as I've shown, in my graphic in Post #169).

 

 

Yes, I agree that the spot on the eye is an artifact on the film and said so in my article.I also implied that this was the reflection that Long spoke of. I read Long's words very carefully and I do not recall him using words like 'illuminated', but rather 'sunlight reflecting' off the eye.

 

So I will make this simple as I did not find it in Long's book:  Did Long say in his book that the spot he was talking about is the exact same white spot that you are referencing? I know that soon after I wrote my article that Long was approached over the issues I raised by other researchers and nothing came back to me where Long said that I had misinterpreted anything he had said, nor was there anything said about I having the wrong location. I do recall someone posting on the Internet the place that you speak of and they saying they could possibly see part of the eye, but I was only interested as to what Long was talking about at the time he wrote his book and not what someone else believe they saw in support of Long's position.

 

I will add this point as well, there is no white part of the eye seen in at least four film frames that I can find. In film frames where the light and contrast are increased, the edges of the facial hide around the eye are widened and expand beyond their original borders as what happens when this process is used. If you go back to the chimp image, you will notice that the reflections are on the side of the eye in the direction of the light source. They are not on the opposite side from where the light is coming from. The sun was high above the subject in Patterson's film and when the animal turned in the direction of the sun, the reflection of light should have been on the mid to upper part of the eye and not on the bottom of it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Has anyone ever put together a list of all the "experts" who have evaluated the film and gave their opinion on authenticity one way or another.

It seems over the years I have read a bit from both sides and they usually seem compelling either way.

 

 

Urk,

 

I have heard many people in day to day life that are skeptical who have never really looked at the film.  I would just guess there are few experts that will comment on the film itself.  They will say things like, 'Well, the existence of Bigfoot would not match the fossil record" or things like that.  Little would be said about the actual film. As example, I watch a show on the subject where the 'hollywood' expert spoke of the long arms of patty. He only gave a way long arms 'could' be done with modern arm extenders in a suit.  They limited the extent of his opinion. 

 

I doubt very much there has been a conference where a gentleman like Mr. Bill Munns and others have stood in a back and fourth with a expert asked to make the case.

 

It reminds me of when Lawyers Vince Bugiosi and Gerry Spence had a trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. They called the witnesses and were ask to make the case. 

 

So many experts seemingly are just dismissive of the film and don't bother to look at it in detail.  moving fingers and so on.  I have heard Dr. Meldrum and others have been practically academically threatened by trying to do serious study of this matter.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...