Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Pgf Frames Sharpened With Blurity Software

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

The dark line between the lips, what version of the film does that originally appear?

 

Was it first brought out in the Cibachromes?  (Or added into the Cibachromes?)

 

It certainly is not visible in the Bill Munns chart here

 

http://www.themunnsreport.com/pgf%20ref_chart_01_head%20shapes.jpg

 

 

There is a visible opening of the lips in those 'Copy 8' images of Bill's, Drew...

 

Copy8%20F359%20Deblurred%20MouthOpening_

 

 

I posted that image here, in Post #1297...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/page-65

 

 

At the top of that page, you can see the same dark, round opening between the lips on Snowflake's image.

 

 

In the F350 and F352 images, it looks to me like Patty's lips are pretty much closed...and the dark shading between them is just the inward curvature of the lips.....but in F357/'Copy 8' F359....there is a distinct round-ish opening between her lips.

 

It's just a side-effect of Patty breathing... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Wow. I don't see the black line in that frame.

 

Can you draw the black line on that frame to help me see it?

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, what original frame shows the black line that we see in the Cibachromes?

 

I really can't find one.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Wow. I don't see the black line in that frame.

 

Can you draw the black line on that frame to help me see it?

 

 

 

I don't see a black line either, Drew. What I do see is puckered lips, though. :)

 

 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, what original frame shows the black line that we see in the Cibachromes?

 

I really can't find one.

 

 

The Cibachrome prints were made from the Original film. So, I don't understand what your objection to them is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunflower

Sweaty,

 

I want to commend you on the work you have been doing. You are a true investigator.  

 

HMB

 

 

Ditto! thank you very much.  You have such great patience and skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty, If you are taking requests for application of your technique, I have had a long interest in the back side of the left leg just as it is put under load. I am not sure what frame that is. It seems to show an anomaly behind the knee. Perhaps artifact, perhaps injury or defect. Are you familiar with the frame?

 

 

 Are you referring to this image, HMB?...(F307)...

 

Frame307Cibachrome1_zps4vdjofni.jpg

 

 

If so, I can try sharpening it with Blurity. I should be able to tomorrow. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

That is also of value. Something is behind the knee. The frame I am thinking of is at a greater distance and the matter more defined. I have the frame in my archives but can't seem to find it. I will keep looking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Ditto! thank you very much.  You have such great patience and skill.

 

 

Thank you very much, Sunflower. I really appreciate your positive comments... :)

 

 

HoldMyBeer wrote:

 

 

That is also of value. Something is behind the knee. The frame I am thinking of is at a greater distance and the matter more defined. I have the frame in my archives but can't seem to find it. I will keep looking

 

 

Okay, HMB. I'll also check for other similar frames...and post one or two of them, tomorrow. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Here you go. From the thread "Opening images...stabilized".  

 

 

post-1736-0-39971000-1424927558.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

I had noticed that also HMB.  In the frame I was looking at it was a little clearer than yours.  I think what you're seeing is the calf muscle, the same sort of indentation that we have behind our knee and a well developed muscle at the back of the thigh.  I would have to think that because the subject walks differently than a normal human that at least the leg muscles would have to be somewhat different also. I don't think it necessarily means there is anything wrong with the subject.

 

But, again, this is something that can't really be determined from this film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

 

That's a good idea, JC. Here is the Morris Suit image sharpened...(with the default settings)...

 

 

MorrisSuit-BluritySharpen-AG1_zpswridjjt

 

The think what stands out for me is that I do not see a glass eye in the Morris/Heironimus image and yet it is alleged to be seen in the PGF.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MNskeptic

I've read, watched, and listened to probably every conceivable argument as to why the PG subject is the real deal, been firmly on both sides of the fence at one time or another, yet today I'm not convinced. Maybe that's because BF is so human-like that my mind can't quite make the leap that the creature is truly NOT human. Or maybe that's because I've yet to hear compelling explanations for some oddities that potentially support a guy in a suit.

How can I try to convince others that the PG subject as an actual BF when I myself can't explain curious characteristics of the subject without them sounding like far-fetched rationalizations; things like the apparent seam on the thigh, the apparent flap of fabric on the heel, the seam under the neck, diaper butt, the outline of what looks like shoulder pads, and conical cap on the head. I'm conflicted by these when so many other aspects of the subject might be supportive of the subject being a BF.

I don't wish any ill will for the creature, but if a logging truck someday runs over one of these things and gives us the proverbial body-on-a-slab, this whole PGF thing goes away. Personally, that would give me great relief on many different levels, one of which being closure to the film mystery known as the PGF.

MNSkeptic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

MNskeptic wrote:

 

 

 .....things like the apparent seam on the thigh, the apparent flap of fabric on the heel, the seam under the neck, diaper butt,

 

 

I would suggest that the first thing you need to do, MN....is to get up-to-speed on the analysis. 

 

There is no "diaper butt"....no "flap of fabric on the heel"....and no "seam on the thigh".

 

 

The analysis can be found on this Forum.....well hidden/buried underneath kitakaze's endless "analysis". Term used loosely. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

 I agree with your advice for MN....

 

Beckjord was the master at seeing oddities, but they ended up being other artifacts and such. I just shake my head at some of the things said about why it must be a guy in a suit and yet they bypass the foot bends, long arms, finger movements, and such seen on the film. Someone like Kitakaze will make himself look silly by supporting Heironimus who said he wore shoes inside of slippers, which could never account for the foot bends of Patty's foot seen in motion on the PGF or explain the upward toe furling when Heironimus said they were merely foam toes.

 

Simply mind boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...