Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

hiflier

ICBW but using pixels, although somewhat subjective for as a reference/replacement for a hard linear measurement pixel counting is fine for ratios. Ratios rule out whether someone is using 'x' amount of pixels per linear foot as opposed to 'y'. In either case, even with a different pixel/resolution sizes, their respective ratios should not differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

You are correct if the same software is used to measure or produce both pictures compare one to another via ratios etc.      Most cannot even detail the source of their images.    At this point in time,  only a few people on the planet have film copies of the original  film and most of the rest of us have not even viewed a film copy.    Everyone else is using digital reproductions.   Most of them digital copies of earlier digital copies.    This thread is full of people comparing digital images with other digital images and arguing seemingly endlessly about the results of their comparison and measurements.   I rarely if ever hear a disclaimer from anyone providing a measurement.    Even though I believe the film authentic,   skeptics can always question most of this, due to chain of custody issues,  reproduction artifacts,  and 50 years of opportunity for anyone with an agenda either way.   We have no idea how many of these digital images have been manipulated before being sent out again.   I think it interesting that costume proponents can find and use reproduction artifacts to argue their points,  but clean copies of the same frames keep showing up to support the authentic position.     How does that happen when access to film copies is so limited?   Without access to good film copies,  the best way to eliminate or enhance a reproduction artifact, is digital manipulation.     For all we know many of the classic images that produce the most arguments either way are simply digital fabrications.   Those that lambaste science for not paying attention to the film,   simply do not recognize that such manipulations could have happened and happened many times.     At this point,  the film has little value to science.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimB
On 8/7/2017 at 4:32 AM, roguefooter said:

So now that Kitikaze is banned, would it be wrong for me to come forward with his sources?

 

I noticed the 3 confessions thread is closed now for some reason.  Kit told me a while back who his 'third source' was- the one who I assume broke the news to him about the Patty suit being in DeAtley's house, etc. I was supposed to call this person and talk to them and verify his story, but he never gave me their contact information. I have yet to speak to the person (frankly because I'm terrible when it comes to interviews), but I did eventually find the person's contact information. Is the person directly tied to the film? Kinda sorta. They would probably have direct knowledge of what went on during that time. Kit did say that when certain people died that the hoax story would come forward. Kit feared if the person's name got in the wrong hands that this person could be harassed and jeopardize the whole thing (including the suit). One thing I noticed is that people surrounding the Patterson film don't seem to take it all that seriously- at least not to the point of taking any kind of drastic measures like 'destroying evidence' or worrying about some kind of conspiracy being revealed. I think that's just a lot of overreacting. 

 

Anyways, it would be interesting to hear what the person has to say, but I'm just not the person for the job. Maybe someone would like to be the 'interviewer' and make the call?  Or should I just zip the lip and let it be?

 

Was this info ever released to the general

members?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, TimB said:

 

Was this info ever released to the general

members?

 

It was, Tim. Roguefooter emailed the person's name and contact info to me. 

 

I will be calling this person...but, I've been thinking over different ways of questioning them, first. There'll probably be only one chance at getting significant information out of them....so, I really want to think it over, until I feel I have questions worded in such a way that the person won't have any objections to answering them.

 

Also, there is the matter of recording the phone conversation. A revelation by this person won't actually carry any weight....(or, maybe only a little weight)....if the information is made public by me without anything to support it's legitimacy....that is, if it is only 'hearsay' evidence. 

Ideally, the call should be recorded.....but that may not be legal without the other person's consent....right up front.

 

That raises the question of whether or not I should ask them, at the start of the conversation, for their approval to record the call.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

First of all a lot of people in the BF world have made a lot of claims.       We are constantly reminded by the skeptics ( and they have a good point) that anyone can say anything and that does not make it true.   The only thing that can prove the existence of BF is one on a lab table being examined by scientists.    The only thing that can prove that Patty was a costume is someone in that costume so that we can compare point by point with the P/G film     If that costume exists,   it should be considered a thing of value by whoever is in possession.  Not likely something that was tossed out years ago.     Bring it out, put it on, walk around,  and show us Patty was a hoax.  If that cannot be done for whatever reason,  all the hoax theories are not provable.  I don't care who saw what when as nothing is provable without the suit.    The most likely explanation of all the missing suits is that they were an attempt to duplicate Patty.     Why would anyone go to the expense to fabricate a suit, unless they thought they could duplicate Patty and cash in like Roger Patterson did?    You don't spend thousands to disprove a hoax.     Human nature is to spend money to make more money.    It is telling to me that the only suits produced to date trying to reproduce Patty are terrible copies.   The other ones, rumored to have been seen,  are probably worse which is why no one can or will show them. 

 

Most states have a recording law.      You have to have permission to record or an audible beep indicating that the call is being recorded.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
20 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 

Most states have a recording law.      You have to have permission to record or an audible beep indicating that the call is being recorded.   

 

 

Therein lies the tricky part, of calling this person.

 

If I don't try to record the call....then any information I receive from that person is only going to prove something to myself....and not necessarily anyone else. 

 

But, if I try to record the call, and do so legally....then I have to inform them that I am recording the call...and run the risk of them choosing not to talk to me, and answer my questions. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Do it like a reporter does.    Ask if they will talk to you first.     If they say yes, say that you want to be sure you accurately document what they tell you and ask if you could record the call to ensure that.    I think you might be able to record only your side of the conversation without legal trouble.      I guess that depends on state law too.     You would have to repeat what they say to get their side of the conversation.    If not recorded and you have to take notes,   you would have to do that anyway as most of us cannot write as fast as people talk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmknight

Wasn't there a member of this forum who, several years ago, claimed he knew where the "suit" was, and was taking steps to obtain it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Yeah, CM.....that was kitakaze.  

 

Or, as I like to refer to him.....kita-KA-BOOM-ze.....or, on occasion.....kita-CRAP-ze....(because, for several years, that's pretty much all he did on this forum.........took a crap). 

 

Btw, he also claimed that he had "Three confessions".....from "Principals of the PGF".....that the "confessions"...."existed"....and..."would be featured in his upcoming Documentary". 

 

Later, he explained that the "3 corn-fessions" were nothing more than unsubstantiated statements (hearsay evidence) made by Bob, Howard and Glenda Heironimus. 

 

 (Ka-Boom) :lol: 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Do it like a reporter does.    Ask if they will talk to you first.     If they say yes, say that you want to be sure you accurately document what they tell you and ask if you could record the call to ensure that.    I think you might be able to record only your side of the conversation without legal trouble.      I guess that depends on state law too.     You would have to repeat what they say to get their side of the conversation.    If not recorded and you have to take notes,   you would have to do that anyway as most of us cannot write as fast as people talk.  

 

 

Thanks for the good suggestion, SWW. That's what I'll do. :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

If they say they don't want to be recorded, you can simply not record, right?  I don't think there should be an issue.  (Unless dude is seriously paranoid).

 

Do you know what state the caller will be in?  Easy to check the laws.  For instance, in WI, only 1 person needs to be aware of the recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Cotter said:

If they say they don't want to be recorded, you can simply not record, right?  I don't think there should be an issue.  (Unless dude is seriously paranoid).

 

Do you know what state the caller will be in?  Easy to check the laws.  For instance, in WI, only 1 person needs to be aware of the recording.

 

I do have the person's address, Cotter.....so I can/will find out what the State's Laws are, regarding recording phone conversations. 

 

I could, at the very least, record my half of the conversation....and simply repeat portions of what this person says. 

 

 

Another thing that I would need to do, is to also make a video recording....showing the actual number I am calling....since, if all I do get is an audio recording of the conversation....how is anyone going to really know, with certainty, that the person I'm talking to is actually the person I claim he/she is?

 

All an audio recording...(in and of itself)...would be, is a conversation with an unidentified individual....and hence, it wouldn't prove anything.   

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Seems like you are placing a lot of  emphasis on the recording but the recording will not prove anything if the person makes false statements to begin with.   All that you will have done is documented what the person told you.   Might be more important to have the witness provide someone else to cooberate his claims if such a person exists.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Seems like you are placing a lot of  emphasis on the recording but the recording will not prove anything if the person makes false statements to begin with.   All that you will have done is documented what the person told you.   Might be more important to have the witness provide someone else to corroberate his claims if such a person exists.     

 

 

That's what we need, SWW.....(at least, as a starting point)....this person's verbal testimony, regarding the alleged "Patty suit"....and his alleged conversations with kitakaze. 

 

We'll see what he says, and then go from there. :) 

 

Btw, the identity of this individual has "opened a door" for other possible candidates, for questioning....whose testimonies would either corroborate, or refute....his, and/or kitakaze's stories. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

That's what we need, SWW.....(at least, as a starting point)....this person's verbal testimony, regarding the alleged "Patty suit"....and his alleged conversations with kitakaze. 

 

We'll see what he says, and then go from there. :) 

 

Btw, the identity of this individual has "opened a door" for other possible candidates, for questioning....whose testimonies would either corroborate, or refute....his, and/or kitakaze's stories. 

 

 

 

SY, Is your reasoning to question said party to:

 

A ) Gain info on BF

B ) Gain info on Kit

C ) Both 

 

Just curious B)

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

If Kit was still a member of this forum then publishing any information on him would be a violation of forum rules.   Not sure if that rule applies to former members.  SY you might ask for a ruling from an administrator before you publish anything on Kit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×