Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

It's helpful to see what other people consider to be a picture of a really, real bigfoot. It helps to set expectations. 

 

 

Sure...it helps you to 'scoff'. 

 

 

 

I still say it's shadows and pareidolia. 

 

 

Good for you, dmaker. You know how to talk. 

 

Now try replicating the contracting calf "illusion".

 

 

 

 

I notice you didn't comment on any of my other comments and questions. 

 

 

Did you notice kit hasn't been answering anyone's questions about his Big, Bad Bombshell? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

The Bombshell Thread has been locked for some time now.

 

That could have something to do with it.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shadows and pareidolia are not evidence, Sweaty.

Neither is a contracting calf muscle on a video screen evidently.

Hoaxed or real? Shadows and pareidolia have nothing to do with it......come on D your better than this.

Thats not a giant bush with a red circle drawn in the middle.

 

What in the world are you talking about? Do you believe Sweatys gif shows an unmistakable contracting calf muscle on Patty? I certainly do not. The more I look at it, the more I am convinced there is no movement at all. It's just a shadow. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I dont see how you could see it any other way!

Explain to me please how on earth it could be a shadow or pareidolia? That just happens by happenstance at the exact perfect moment in the step, when we should see the calf muscle contracting....

Edited by norseman
Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be hard to do without red circles and such, but I've never been one to do that sort of thing. Imagine both frames of the gif without the darker area around the "calf muscle". You will notice that the lighter colored part (what I am assuming Sweaty and you think to be muscle), it doesn't really seem to contract from the darker area. The shape of the lighter area does not change. It's just that in one frame, it is surrounded by a dark shadow (or possibly film artefact), in the next frame that shadow is gone, providing the illusion of a contraction. 

 

Actually, looking at it again just now, the whole area of the foot below the alleged calf muscle in the first frame is all dark. Then in the second frame, it's all light. This includes the heel and other areas. Now, why would that be if shadows are not involved?  Obviously, it is the same shadow moving that gives you your illusion of a contracting calf muscle.

 

Also, Norse, where is all the other muscle movement that should be present, but isn't?  A single contracting calf muscle should not be the only moving muscles seen during these two frames. Unless, of course, it's only a shadow. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The Bombshell Thread has been locked for some time now.

 

That could have something to do with it.

 

 

kit could still answer Giganto's questions if he wanted to. He could answer him via PM...or, in the 'Was It A Suit' thread. The topic of "the Patty suit" itself is not off-topic in that thread. 

 

Besides, there has been an off-topic conversation going on lately, about tranquilizing a Bigfoot. Is that conversation a "posting crime"??? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

This will be hard to do without red circles and such, but I've never been one to do that sort of thing. Imagine both frames of the gif without the darker area around the "calf muscle". You will notice that the lighter colored part (what I am assuming Sweaty and you think to be muscle), it doesn't really seem to contract from the darker area. The shape of the lighter area does not change. It's just that in one frame, it is surrounded by a dark shadow (or possibly film artefact), in the next frame that shadow is gone, providing the illusion of a contraction.

Actually, looking at it again just now, the whole area of the foot below the alleged calf muscle in the first frame is all dark. Then in the second frame, it's all light. This includes the heel and other areas. Now, why would that be if shadows are not involved? Obviously, it is the same shadow moving that gives you your illusion of a contracting calf muscle.

Also, Norse, where is all the other muscle movement that should be present, but isn't? A single contracting calf muscle should not be the only moving muscles seen during these two frames. Unless, of course, it's only a shadow.

Sure.......shadows.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D2KMb_Ao_Fs

What other muscles should i be looking for?

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

 

The Bombshell Thread has been locked for some time now.

 

That could have something to do with it.

 

 

kit could still answer Giganto's questions if he wanted to. He could answer him via PM...or, in the 'Was It A Suit' thread. The topic of "the Patty suit" itself is not off-topic in that thread. 

 

Besides, there has been an off-topic conversation going on lately, about tranquilizing a Bigfoot. Is that conversation a "posting crime"??? 

 

post-18602-0-54801100-1451438145_thumb.j

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

kit could still answer Giganto's questions if he wanted to.  

 

And speaking of being afraid to answer questions.....where exactly did you find that manipulated image of Bob Heironimus? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Already answered: quick Bing image search.

 

I'm not playing your games tonight Sweaty.

 

Have a good night :)

Edited by AaronD
removed trolling
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Already answered: quick Bing image search.

 

 I'm not playing your games tonight Sweaty.

 

 

Right...you're playing your games tonight. ;)

 

Where exactly....(from which website)...did you get that manipulated image of Heironimus? 

 

 

This is what the "critical thinkers' of the world bring to the table, folks....a fear of answering questions. :)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This could easily be a combination of pareidolia, shadows and film artefacts. 

 

 

It cannot easily be 'film artifacts', due to it's relatively high level of resolution. Neither can it easily be pareidolia...since it is a very simple change of shape. 

 

The only thing left is an illusion caused by a shadow disappearing from the lower-leg. And if you think that is the case...then feel free to re-create the illusion. 

 

Good luck with that. :)

 

 

 

 

 

Why would I bother to try to create a suit with a realistic moving calf muscle, when I don't believe that I am looking at a suit with a realistic moving calf muscle?  That is ridiculous.

 

 

Why would you bother asking Bill to post his photo of an alleged Bigfoot, taken a long distance away from the subject...when you cannot accept that you are seeing a contracting calf muscle, in a film taken at only about 100 feet away???

 

Talk about ridiculous. :wacko:

 

 

Wait, so the calf contraction cannot be a "film artifact" but other things can be when it suits the needs of the PGF proponents?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/uploads/post-18602-0-41422300-1448862373.gif

 

Here is a "film" artifact from the beloved PGF film, so its only a film artifact when it plays in your favor? or is this a case of "special pleading" ?? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

Wait, so the calf contraction cannot be a "film artifact" but other things can be when it suits the needs of the PGF proponents?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/uploads/post-18602-0-41422300-1448862373.gif

 

Here is a "film" artifact from the beloved PGF film, so its only a film artifact when it plays in your favor? or is this a case of "special pleading" ?? 

 

 

 

The 'calf contraction' is not a film artifact...because the level of resolution is well above the level of film grain/noise....and also, there is no distortion due to camera movement.

 

In the film frame which you claim shows the "suit leg coming apart".....there is significant distortion, due to camera movement...

 

mk_davis_pgf_frame_0017_zpssz6kenzh.jpg

 

 

Patty's left leg is also distorted...it appears narrower than it does in the steady frames.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

Are we to believe anatomy opinions like Grieve and others mean nothing? It does not make the PGF real but clearly not an obvious fake to those with specialized knowledge. They see things in the PGF and are not easily fooled. Muscle groups move in an impressive and functional way on Patty. Read the opinion of Grieve and others on the movements.

B D

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Wait, so the calf contraction cannot be a "film artifact" but other things can be when it suits the needs of the PGF proponents?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/uploads/post-18602-0-41422300-1448862373.gif

 

Here is a "film" artifact from the beloved PGF film, so its only a film artifact when it plays in your favor? or is this a case of "special pleading" ?? 

 

 

 

The 'calf contraction' is not a film artifact...because the level of resolution is well above the level of film grain/noise....and also, there is no distortion due to camera movement.

 

In the film frame which you claim shows the "suit leg coming apart".....there is significant distortion, due to camera movement...

 

mk_davis_pgf_frame_0017_zpssz6kenzh.jpg

 

 

Patty's left leg is also distorted...it appears narrower than it does in the steady frames.

 

It appears, to my eye, that you use a version much blurrier than even the zoomed in view I presented in my link/example.  This view you give us to prove its not an artifact darn near shows the PGF films leg  to be a deformity that looks thin/small enough to break under Patty's supposed weight. The "artifact" is about as wide/thick as her whole leg.  Again, is this a case of "special pleading"??  Who in their right mind but blind proponents looks at my example and says, nope artifact, but sees your calf constriction as real despite that, as was pointed out by Dmaker I believe, the whole portion from calf to lower ankle/foot seems to disappear/blend away from view.  

^^^^

Are we to believe anatomy opinions like Grieve and others mean nothing? It does not make the PGF real but clearly not an obvious fake to those with specialized knowledge. They see things in the PGF and are not easily fooled. Muscle groups move in an impressive and functional way on Patty. Read the opinion of Grieve and others on the movements.

B D

Opinions, not facts.  Do their opinions hold more weight than someone like me?  Sure, they should but does not make it fact,again, it does not make their OPINION a fact.  In the end its an opinion, just as possible of being right as it is of being wrong.  Many, and I mean many opinions regarding science have been wrong in the past, science is always a living document being changed and adjusted daily. 

Edited by TWlST
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...