Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
masterbarber

Was It A Suit? (2)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Sweaty wants to TALK arm proportions.

 

 

:beach: 

 

ChabalPatty_ArmProportionComp4.jpg

 

 

:bbq:

 

 

Matt_Patty_MMSuit_Arm_Comp1.jpg

 

 

:smoke: 

 

 

BobPatty_ArmLengthComp1B.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

^^

 

SweatyYeti,

 

You shouldn't have to explain your position to dmaker unless you believe he hasn't seen it over and over again in the past few years and is only now hearing about it. You might even find he participated in those discussions quite often.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

It seems no one here can explain why the LFTBM costume does a poorer job of demonstrating non human limb proportions in a costume than the pgf costume. 

 

I'll just assume you have no good answer, then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

I'd plan on a bit of a wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
12 hours ago, dmaker said:

It seems no one here can explain why the LFTBM costume does a poorer job of demonstrating non human limb proportions in a costume than the pgf costume. 

 

I'll just assume you have no good answer, then.

 

 

The answers provided to you have been good - your ability to understand them has been poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I notice you do this often, BH. Whenever you do not have a decent answer to a question, or the answer might weaken your position, you just wave your hand and claim that you have already answered.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:03 PM, ohiobill said:

Yes, they all have eyewitness accounts. As far as I know many may have multiple sightings of different cryptids. That's just one reason why I can't treat them as evidence and why you can't either.

Their belief should mean nothing if it's based solely on eyewitness reports, how do they know who is telling the truth?

As I'm open to the possibility of bigfoot, as I have stated numerous times. 

 

Eyewitness reports are nothing but eyewitness reports in the absence of evidence. Are fairy witnesses somehow less human than bigfoot witnesses? How are the witnesses of cryptids different in your opinion and how do you rank them in terms of reliability?

 

 

This is one of those bunny trails that -should I go down- we will be lost and wonder how we got here.  However, this is the BFF so I'll give it a stab.

 

I had previously addressed this stuff and it was all pretty clear unless a person is willfully wishes to just not see it.   We can say <this or that> about Eyewitness testimony but whatever we say it still need to relate to what we are talking about.  We were not talking about Fairy sightings.

 

So here we are with eyewitness accounts of 'fairy witnesses'    I would simply say I doubt them, have no interest in them, and don't see how they at all relate to seeing in this case Bigfoot. 

 

Take a witness with a perfect pedigree.  They have no drug use, pefect vision, no arrest record, and so on.  Now if the perfect witness said they saw bigfoot in Times Square, I would highly doubt them if they were telling me it was a 'real bigfoot' vs a man in a suit.  I do  not base this on the witness but based on the LOCATION in this case.  There is a lot more than just eyewitness testimony when we consider eyewitness testimony.   The Bluff Creek area and the PNW has had at least some history of a relationship with Bigfoot sightings.  Fossil evidence, footprints, and the social stigma of witnesses coming forward are also considerations in the Bigfoot topic.  This along with a lot of other reasons would have me want to hear what those area witnesses have to say should they say they had a sighting in an area like this.

 

Now we get to the big point here.  The reason you want to bring up fairy sightings.  You hope somehow some bigfoot believers will put eyewitness accounts as some "sole standard" of what determines if Bigfoot exists or not.  Then, the skeptic can step in and say, "If this witness must be believed, then what about <fill in the blank>" with the most crazy example one can find.

 

It's not about finding truth it is about diminishing any part of the pro-bigfoot argument.  This is esp in the face of points and evidence for Bigfoot which might appear well thought out and fairly reasonable.   That is why the fairies appear.

 

My interest is in the PGF.  By extension there is some interest in the idea of Bigfoot. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, dmaker said:

I notice you do this often, BH. Whenever you do not have a decent answer to a question, or the answer might weaken your position, you just wave your hand and claim that you have already answered.  

 

It was SweatyYeti's, Munns, Sal's, and othes comments pertaining to the body ratios that you seem to not understand.

 

They only other way to offer it to you is with sock puppets and if it must come to that, then perhaps you have refused to get it.

31217de22cfe0057504b1c3d0ef2e8de_zpsxjyhochn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

They why don't you explain, in your own words, and feel free to summarize, how the costume I showed is not as successful as the PGF costume in portraying non human limb proportions?

 

This should not be difficult or unwanted effort by you. You have demonstrated a remarkable penchant for saying the same thing over and over again. Summarizing one more point should not be too tough for you--provided you understand it, of course.

 

Was that sock puppet your best friend growing up? He probably got all the chicks, though, he's better looking.   ;)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
28 minutes ago, dmaker said:

They why don't you explain, in your own words, and feel free to summarize, how the costume I showed is not as successful as the PGF costume in portraying non human limb proportions?

 

If I wanted to teach at a Kindergarten level - I would get a job as a teacher. Several people have pointed out the more obvious problems for you.  Pat posted a link to a Munns video that is pretty easy to follow. I suggest you watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

It would seem pretty obvious to me the PGF subject has proportions fairly out of the range of a person. One might say 10-15% or whatever.  Whatever that amount, it is significant.  Also, it is not just that % but the fact most agree as far as legs and arms go this is further magnified.  That is, what should be long is a bit shorter and what should be short is a bit longer.

 

I will gladly concede a person may find on frame of the PGF and- if you what to hallucinate just the right way- one might be able to say, "see this pic of Patty looks like <pick your person of reference>"   Let's agree we have an advantage in both the PGF as well as some video of some rugby player or NBA player. That is, we know when we have a film, we get to look at multiple images appearing over many frames.  With this in mind we get a pretty clear picture of the attributes of Patty.   We get a pretty clear picture of the attributes of Larry Bird or Pele or whomever one wants to use as an example representing the person.

 

Taken as a whole, most skeptics on these Discovery Channel type shows will concede Patty's arms appear significantly longer than a person  (we can debate the %).  There just does not seem to be a Q about this. It seems also nearly held as fact by most the arms and legs have parts that are long in ways people are not, short in ways people are not.

 

Many skeptics on here will pick on frame and say "see it's a perfect match"    It's not really.  But, shouldn't the person match Patty  all the frames of the PGF?  This is where I see the fail.

 

If Patty did not have those visual differences, then why on earth do the 'experts' in costume, anthropology and so on on these shows seem to say those differences are present.  For instance, Peter Burk (or brooke?) explaining how he might use extenders to make the costume arms look longer.  Why explain that if it was not agreed to this was an attribute of Patty?

 

A person needs to:

1) Fit in the suit

2) bend where it needs to bend (elbows and knees).

3) Move in a functional way which is also walking in a fluid way in a convincing or natural way.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

A person needs to:

 

3) Move in a functional way which is also walking in a fluid way in a convincing or natural way. - No one knows the recording speed. The film is re-played at the speed that makes Patty look the smoothest and most natural. Set to default speed Patty doesn't look smooth or nearly as convincing. 

 

 

Read below. Roger says he normally filmed at 24fps. 24fps was best suited for television which was Rogers goal. 

 

The common clips we see today are the results of attempts by footers to get Patty to look the most realistic. 

 

No one knows at what speed the film was shot.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Filming_speed

 

Filming speed[edit]

One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps) . . . ."[162][163] It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".

"Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real."[164]

John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[165] Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz,[166] contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."[165][167]

Krantz argued, on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known (5'2" or 5'3"), a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."[168]

René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."[169] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."[169]

Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. . . . I have nine K-100 cameras now. . . . I tried it on one camera , and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"]."[170]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
7 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Read below. Roger says he normally filmed at 24fps. 24fps was best suited for television which was Rogers goal. 

 

The common clips we see today are the results of attempts by footers to get Patty to look the most realistic. 

 

No one knows at what speed the film was shot.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Filming_speed

 

Filming speed[edit]

One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps) . . . ."[162][163] It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".

"Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real."[164]

John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[165] Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz,[166] contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."[165][167]

Krantz argued, on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known (5'2" or 5'3"), a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."[168]

René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."[169] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."[169]

Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. . . . I have nine K-100 cameras now. . . . I tried it on one camera , and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"]."[170]

 

 

Martin,

 

If you don't think Patty moves smooth as a cat I don't know what to tell you.  You can still think Patty is a man in a suit.  It seems this is a point not worth the skeptics trouble to debate as it is so obvious.  Ralph Nader wrote a book, Unsafe at any speed.  I would say Patty's smoothness is impressive at any speed.  The reason should be pretty obvious.  When a man walks in a 1967 era suit over varied terrain (or even on a flat floor) it is a bit more difficult to walk smoothly.  Take the added issues of a suit and this is further magnified.  To hear Heironimus tell it, he didn't even rehearse the attempt. They just showed up and Roger said go and off Bob H went. 

 

Patty not only moves smooth but the figure lacks two things common in people walking.  One is a bit of an up and down motion or bobbing. The other is the fact a person walks straight legged from one step to the other.  Please observe Jim McClarin walk at Bluff Creek.  There is nothing smooth about it.

 

As for the film speed, others posters will do a better job than I can to address this issue.

 

The result we see on film is very impressive as it relates to smoothness.  If you watch dancing with the stars you can tell you is the professional dancer and who is the celeb amateur.  Patty moves like the professional dancer where Heiromius (in an unfamiliar suit) would be expected to move like the amateur.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

Patty moves like the professional dancer

 

tumblr_nn6vkjRPoN1urkwq4o3_r1_540.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Dmaker,

 

Funny is funny and that is funny.  Well done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...