Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
masterbarber

Was It A Suit? (2)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, Martin said:

It is a simple well known fact that the speed is unknown. It's a best guess situation and even if we did know what the camera setting was on the dial was not necessarily accurate by your own investigation BFH.

 

 

 

All of the analysis done on the filming speed indicates a speed in the range of 16-18 fps. 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post...the simplest indicator is that Roger said, that when he checked the speed setting...(after shooting the film)....the camera was set at 18fps. Since there is no number '18' on the dial...and there is a number ''16'...it would be logical to deduce that Roger simply misread the number 16. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
49 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Martin likes to try and twist things into a conspiracy. The problem for him is that he doesn't seem to know the things he talks about well enough so to better pick and choose his battles. In this case - there are things that occur in the film that tells us what film speed Roger's camera was set at.

 

So just to be clear.

 

You are saying that you know for an absolute fact that the film camera speed was exactly 18fps?  Yes / No

 

Are you saying that the spring tension had no effect on the camera speed? Yes / No 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 minute ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

All of the analysis done on the filming speed indicates a speed in the range of 16-18 fps. 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post...the simplest indicator is that Roger said, that when he checked the speed setting...(after shooting the film)....the camera was set at 18fps. Since there is no number '18' on the dial...and there is a number ''16'...it would be logical to deduce that Roger simply misread the number 16. 

 

 

 

 

Here is another way to look at it: If the film speed was 24fps, then why haven't any of the studies/estimates ever pointed to 24fps as the likely speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
36 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

As I mentioned in an earlier post...the simplest indicator is that Roger said, that when he checked the speed setting...(after shooting the film)....the camera was set at 18fps. Since there is no number '18' on the dial...and there is a number ''16'...it would be logical to deduce that Roger simply misread the number 16.

 

That, or perhaps he actually knew something about the camera that he rented.   We had an old movie camera.   Few people had them but most of those who did, like us, had 8mm, not 16mm cameras.   16mm was more likely to be at least entry level professional stuff so far as I can tell.   The odds are pretty good if he paid for a 16mm camera, it was a choice made based on knowledge of its attributes, he didn't just take some random camera a rental place offered him.   He was likely fully aware of the 16 vs 18 frames per second "situation" and would likely be scoffing at the scoftics for suggesting otherwise.

 

In favor of 16-18 frames per second over faster speeds?  Film costs money and development costs money.   The higher the frame rate, the more cost per second of filming.   A frugal person would pick the lowest speed that would accomplish the task.   It would be foolish to do, or think, otherwise.

 

MIB

 

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
20 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

So just to be clear.

 

You are saying that you know for an absolute fact that the film camera speed was exactly 18fps?  Yes / No

 

Are you saying that the spring tension had no effect on the camera speed? Yes / No 

 

Yes - for reasons previously stated.

 

Yes - The initial frame is exposed while the camera is not up to its optimal running speed.

 

When the Government looked at the Zapruder camera - they found that his camera was running at 18.3fps. They did not find it running at various speeds during the filming process.  It, like Roger's camera, was powered by a spring wound motor. Like many of your post - I have seen no evidence to support that something was wrong with Roger's camera's spring.

 

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/movie.html

45 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Here is another way to look at it: If the film speed was 24fps, then why haven't any of the studies/estimates ever pointed to 24fps as the likely speed?

 

People who do film studies have to follow certain guide lines. When one plays the PGF at 24fps ... the known distance the subject walks in a particular amount of time must be realistic - especially if referring to humans if someone is looking at the possibility that Patty is a man inside a suit. Once someone like Martin starts to see this - I suspect the next theory will involve CIA connections to Patterson and that a mass conspiracy was implemented to hide that the PGF was filmed at the higher fps rate.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 

1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Yes - for reasons previously stated. - Then you immediately follow with this gem to support your claim - "they found that his camera was running at 18.3fps" - even though it is completely unrelated the Zapruder film was filmed at 18fps. So the correct answer to my first question is No by your own example.

 

Yes - The initial frame is exposed while the camera is not up to its optimal running speed.

 

When the Government looked at the Zapruder camera - they found that his camera was running at 18.3fps. They did not find it running at various speeds during the filming process.  It, like Roger's camera, was powered by a spring wound motor. Like many of your post - I have seen no evidence to support that something was wrong with Roger's camera's spring.

 

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/movie.html

 

People who do film studies have to follow certain guide lines. When one plays the PGF at 24fps ... the known distance the subject walks in a particular amount of time must be realistic - especially if referring to humans if someone is looking at the possibility that Patty is a man inside a suit. Once someone like Martin starts to see this - I suspect the next theory will involve CIA connections to Patterson and that a mass conspiracy was implemented to hide that the PGF was filmed at the higher fps rate.   :)

 

It is very ironic that someone who spent years of his life studing the JFK assassination wants lecture someone about being a conspiracy theorist.

 

I don't really doubt that the PGF was filmed at 18ish fps. But in truth no one knows exactly.

 

You just keep on pretending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

2 minutes ago, Martin said:

I don't really doubt that the PGF was filmed at 18ish fps. But in truth no one knows exactly.

 

 

 

 

Anatomist D.W. Grieve:

Grieve concluded that "the possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 frames per second. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
8 hours ago, Martin said:

It is very ironic that someone who spent years of his life studing the JFK assassination wants lecture someone about being a conspiracy theorist.

 

One must study the evidence of the JFK assassination so to make an informed decision as to whether there was a conspiracy or not. In your case - you start with a conclusion and require being spoon fed the basic details after the fact.

 

 

8 hours ago, Martin said:

I don't really doubt that the PGF was filmed at 18ish fps. But in truth no one knows exactly.

 

Zavada explained the 18.3fps. The dials have speed differences that can be detected - like the jump from 18fps to 24fps. (.3) of a second doesn't mean anything, nor show a noticeable difference on film. You seem to try and think otherwise, but I will bet on the experts over you on this one.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I watched American Werewolf in London the other night. I forgot how good the special effects were. Not the Werewolf itself, which was 'average'  but the make-up.  The make-up effects of the friend Jack who haunts David.  Outstanding. 

 

I mention this because I understand Rick Baker was the make-up guy.  Now, if Baker knew then in the early 1980's what it took to pull this off, I would have to think he would put in perspective the PGF.   Bakers work in the 1976 King Kong he admitted only looked decent due to the skillful camera work.  Otherwise, he was disappointed.   So we add that plus the work needed in A W I L and you think the skilled guy would have some perspective on the PGF.  

 

It is easy for someone now to accomplish many things.  Running the 4 min. mile, Climbing Mt Everest, and so on. It is another thing to do it back in the day.  Baker might think the PGF is a fake but at present does not think John Chambers was involved.  So who is left to pull off such a yet-to-be-duplicated effort?

 

We are talking about 1967 materials. 

 

A W I L is still great, but an ape suit in 1967 which was amazing?

 

I am just saying it should be Baker of all people who should understand why it is such a tall order for 2 cowboys to come up with a suit like that.

Edited by Backdoc
added comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

I have extensively searched Biloxi Mississippi and New Orleans. 

 

I found $5,000 at the Gold Nugget in Biloxi and the $125 I spent in Mardi Gras beads have paid huge dividends but no bigfeets.

 

Pictures available via email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

It seems that your extensive search only led to you posting yet another meaningless message designed at not advancing the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
On 8/31/2017 at 3:26 AM, Bigfoothunter said:

^^

It seems that your extensive search only led to you posting yet another meaningless message designed at not advancing the discussion.

 

I'm still waiting for you to post evidence of the other lenses you claim Roger had available to snap on to his Patty camera so you can keep on claiming she was a 7ft+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
3 hours ago, Martin said:

I'm still waiting for you to post evidence of the other lenses you claim Roger had available to snap on to his Patty camera so you can keep on claiming she was a 7ft+.

 

And I'm still waiting for you to ask your first honest question with integrity instead of snark.

 

The game never ends as long as everyone insists on throwing the last punch before the truce is signed.   I'm tired of the game.   Ask a relevant, answerable questions as a QUESTION rather than using it to insert insinuation and innuendo.   I'm waiting.

 

MIB
 

Share this post


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

 

I'm still waiting for you to post evidence of the other lenses you claim Roger had available to snap on to his Patty camera so you can keep on claiming she was a 7ft+.

 

Let's take height out of the equation for a min. In fact, I'll just accept your 6ft tall idea for a second.  Now a Q:

 

You see no reason why the film speed is not 18. 

 

If 18, Anatomist Grieve states it cannot be a hoax.

 

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Share this post


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

 

Let's take height out of the equation for a min. In fact, I'll just accept your 6ft tall idea for a second.  Now a Q:

 

You see no reason why the film speed is not 18. 

 

If 18, Anatomist Grieve states it cannot be a hoax.

 

Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

It is not "my" 6ft tall idea. 

 

Grieve said at 16fps it is incompatible with the human model of which he is familiar. 

 

I am happy to defer to Grieve's expertise for this exercise.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...