Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Bill

The real solution to this "eye spot" debate is to take a mask and put one glass eye in it, both inside a mask eyelid (the usual way) and outside so it's a round bug eye, and a black hole on the other side (left eye) for a person to wear, and photograph both (as well as a usual mask with no glass eyes) outdoors under similar sunlight, and see what actually shows and what doesn't.

 

I don't have the funds at the moment to do it, but sooner or later, the claim should be tested with a real mask, a real glass eye, and film.

 

If some of my project proposals are finalized, I can do it, but just not yet.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

There really isn't any reason to go through the bother, Bill....it has already been shown "Eight ways to Eureka"....(and then some)....that Bob wasn't Patty. :)

 

Without Bob Heironimus in the picture...there is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility that that white spot is due to a 'glass eyeball'.  No Bob = no Glass Eyeballs on Patty. 

 

 

What needs to be done, for the good of the Film, is simply for Bob Heironimus to be publicly exposed via some serious in-depth questioning....to the point where he will truly confess. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The spot could be a skin tag, my Dad had a big bump under his eye like that before he got it cut off.

 

 

It sure could be, Nakani. :)  Here is a picture of one, on a human...

 

SkinTag1_zpsea826975.gif

 

 

 

The white spot definitely isn't an 'artifact' of noise, film grain, processing, copying...or any other type of artifact. It is a physical thing, on Patty's body.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The real solution to this "eye spot" debate is to take a mask and put one glass eye in it, both inside a mask eyelid (the usual way) and outside so it's a round bug eye, and a black hole on the other side (left eye) for a person to wear, and photograph both (as well as a usual mask with no glass eyes) outdoors under similar sunlight, and see what actually shows and what doesn't.

 

I don't have the funds at the moment to do it, but sooner or later, the claim should be tested with a real mask, a real glass eye, and film.

 

If some of my project proposals are finalized, I can do it, but just not yet.

 

Bill

 

Bill,

 

Do not feel the need to test every claim that comes along, especially one that won't matter one way or the other as Bob H has been debunked to death where many skeptics don't buy his story of being in the alleged suit.

 

If we go by Bob H's statements, there was only one fitting and he described how it was alleged to have gone down. There was no dress rehearsal or test filming, thus Patterson would have had no idea when he mailed his film off if the alleged fake eye against a hole in a mask would have been seen or not. And if these things were seen, then the entire alleged staging would have been for nothing. Its these defiance's of all logic and common sense that makes what Bob H said less believable with each statement he made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Not to mention how//when/where they managed to fly the film out for processing. Or what happened to the camera original?

 

Logic that. Pesky little details like that kinda matter.

 

Bob also said Roger fleshed out the nose with a blob of clay or plasticine.

 

The mask on the 'morris costume in a jail' pic has a rather elongated bridge to the nose. MS Paint some brown and grey and black and you can place Patty's muzzle over the mask. The bottom lip of the gorilla mask becomes the dimple in Patty's chin.

 

If you right/flip the pic  of the Morris costume in a jail cell, the flipped image also has a white spot in its right eye.

 

I've already shooped it and am working on a styrofoam head in my shop. I even have some Dynel.

 

It's a mask wrapped in fauxfur

 

It's nothing to overthink.

 

I'll let you know when it's finished. :)

 

I also worked as a family theme park mascot mime for a summer in university and I can assure you, as Ollie the Otter, that it is factually possible for a human in a costume to wear said costume for more than several minutes in the great outdoors  without risk of personal injury. It's not comfortable, but it was a job.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Skeptics have so many Q's and when you answer them all with facts, reason, and evidence, they just want more.  

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

...

I've already shooped it and am working on a styrofoam head in my shop. I even have some Dynel.

 

It's a mask wrapped in fauxfur

 

It's nothing to overthink.

 

I'll let you know when it's finished. :)

 

That's perfect!  We'll just wait another 46 years to see if any PGf mock-up costumes pass the laugh test before making a final decision.  In the meantime, it looks like we'll need lots of these:

 

Cute_Crickets_by_emla.jpg

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I also worked as a family theme park mascot mime for a summer in university and I can assure you, as Ollie the Otter, that it is factually possible for a human in a costume to wear said costume for more than several minutes in the great outdoors  without risk of personal injury. It's not comfortable, but it was a job.

 

Any film of Ollie the Otter walking like the Patterson creature?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

A Mascot or theme part stroller costume is designed entirely diferent from a film costume. A filn costume must be a snug fit so the skin/fur surface looks smooth like skin, but that causes excessive heat buildup inside because of a lack of air circulation to cool the body.

 

A mascot or stroller costume is generally loose and not fully padded, but may have aome foam sheet defining the outer character shape. Being far looser than a film costume, air circulates inside more easily, and thus has some potential to cool the person in costume. The physics of heat transfer are entirely different.

 

Visibility is also different, with often used wire mesh screens n an open mouth the person can view out of, and air can circulate into the mask, and this provides both greater vision and head cooling, which movie costumes lack.

 

Thus, in general, the physical stresses of wearing a padded and tight fitting movie costume and significantly different and more physically stressful than wearing a mascot or stroller costume.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

Yes, I agree that the spot on the eye is an artifact on the film and said so in my article.

 

 

No, BFH....we don't agree that the 'white spot' on Patty's right eye is an "artifact". I've said before that I think the use of that word is inappropriate.....because it is an actual detail...rather than a false detail/'artifact'...(due to film grain noise, or copying/processing.)

 

 

 

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 don't care what spot Greg Long was talking about, Bigfoothunter.....first and foremost, this is Bob Heironimus' claim.

 

Heironimus claims that his 'glass eye' can be seen reflecting sunlight...and there is only one white spot in Patty's right eye area, on the original film.  And what is circled/highlighted in your report is not that white spot.`It is a speck of dust, or debris that got onto the image, at some point along the line.

 

Here is another good example of this type of thing. Taken from the 'Cibachrome Files' thread, here are 2 different copies of the very same Cibachrome....(Frame 307).....one copy has several small white specks on it, which are clearly debris, or dust...

 

F307Pair1B_zpsc9751d6a.gif

 

 

One easy way to tell that those specks are not part of the original film detail, is by how sharply defined they are. Details that small on the film don't have such sharp edges...instead, they fade gradually into neighboring details.

 

A few of the small 'white specks' in the image in your report also have that sharply-defined edging...including the one circled within the eye...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Head/MillerReportGlassEye-Frame350Comp6_zps1b733f39.gif

 

 

 

 

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. 
 

 

 

 

Again...the white spot is clearly visible in at least 4 Film Frames...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Head/Patty-RightEyeWhiteObject-Compilation1_zps29a5d393.gif

 

And, especially so in this image of F350....taken from your animated-gif...

 

MillerF350_zpsf9515753.gif

 

 

So...one more time, BFH....your article is in error, in stating this...

 

 "High magnification brings out the many more artifacts
     that were randomly scattered across the film frame"

 

In your article, you are claiming that the 'white spot' in Patty's right eye is nothing more than a small 'speck of noise'/artifact...rather than a legitimate detail, on Patty's body.  And you are incorrect on that...the one and only, true 'white spot' on Patty's right eye is actual detail......(it appears on 4 Frames, and in the exact same location).

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 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. 

 

 

Not in this case, BFH....here is F350 again, this time with the brightness decreased by 50%...

 

ClearFrame2C_zps033f00e2.gif

 

 

The white spot is still there.....(light reflecting off some-thing on the bottom of Patty's eye socket, or on the top of her cheekbone.)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

Bigfoothunter wrote:

Yes, I agree that the spot on the eye is an artifact on the film and said so in my article.

 

 

No, BFH....we don't agree that the 'white spot' on Patty's right eye is an "artifact". I've said before that I think the use of that word is inappropriate.....because it is an actual detail...rather than a false detail/'artifact'...(due to film grain noise, or copying/processing.)

 

As I said before - the only white spot I was interested in was the one that Long was calling a 'reflection of sunlight'. You are talking about something totally different than what I believed Long to be referring to. I have detailed what light reflection is and I have gone a step further and demonstrated what portion of the round eye that is reflecting light will depend on the position of the light source in relation to the eye. I believe it to be dust or some other artifact on the film and said so in my article.

 

"Minus density artifacts cover a broad range of "defects" seen on films; the ...

single biggest contributor to minus density artifacts is airborne dust contaminants,

lint, ... of a lightproof vent in the door or in a wall of the light lock may be

considered."

 

So we are clear - I am not talking about the spot you are referring to and I have stated the grounds for why I believe your location not to be the 'sunlight reflection' location Long spoke of whereas he went on to say that only a glass eye could produce. The white area you are talking about could be made of painted wood and be illuminated, which still has nothing to do with sunlight light reflection and/or be added to light reflecting off of glass.. If you have evidence that Greg Long specified the location you speak of, then I would be interested in reading it as it was not pin-pointed in his book from what I recall.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Not in this case, BFH....here is F350 again, this time with the brightness decreased by 50%...

 

ClearFrame2C_zps033f00e2.gif

 

 

The white spot is still there.....(light reflecting off some-thing on the bottom of Patty's eye socket, or on the top of her cheekbone.)

 

If one uses the original image and makes adjustments, then they can be reversed to some extent. But one the image is saved - reopening that same image lowering the contrast will not remove the border changes that were saved from before. This should have been obvious when the shape of the nose didn't change either.

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