Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Mouth Moves

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Just wanted to elaborate on the issues needing consideration before conclusions can be drawn.

1. We know Cibachrome F352 is affected by an artifact (something that looks suspiciously like a hand and fingers) and it is not on the actual film, so we know the cibachromes can contain false image data. So with that in mind, we do need to cross check these two cibachromes in question F362 and F364, against other copies of the frames, to at least get a sense of whether any image error is a factor.

2. We need to verify the two images are scaled correctly to each other (using the landscape behind patty as the scaling reference) because the cibachromes are not exactly scaled the same as we receive them.

3. We need to ideally know where the anchor point is on the frames compared (the one common body feature used to position one frame over the other). It looks like the nose highlight is the anchor, but it would be helpful for Sweati to verify. This enables others to replicate the comparison with cibachrome copies they may possess.

4. There are actually two different versions of the Cibachromes (and DamnDirtyApe started a thread showing them, and he and I posted the two versions of the 12 known cibachromes for others to see and use). The DDA version is more grainy and the versions I have are more detail-blended/enhanced, so the two versions have slightly differing levels of detail. It would be wise to do this same comparison on both versions of the Cibachromes, and see if the apparent motions are in both versions.

5. I did notice some shifting of the highlights in the skull area, which is not a head moving part, and this must be considered in any conclusion, to discount the prospect of highlight shifts being mis-construed as real facial motion.

Summing up, facial motion is potentially within the film grain resolution potential to show, but it is on the border where copy artifacts and highlight blooms caused by contrast enhancements could potentially skew the apparent results. SO the analysis under discussion here is a worthy one to consider, but we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions while we try to resolve the various factors of concern.

Bill

Note: Just a quick reminder that the Cibachromes are mis-numbered, and their verified frame count numbers are off by 2 (so cibachrome-362 is acually VFC-2 frame 364, and cibachrome-364 is actually VFC-2 Frame 366). But the cibachromes are commonly referenced by their common numbers 362 and 364.

Well said, Bill. I gave you a plus for that. I had the same thought as you and put together some gifs of each version of the cibachromes. When this is done we can see with careful observation in the left image what is actually occurring. We can see that in the change from frame 362 to 364 when looking at Patty's upper cheek and corner mouth on our left there is a highlight shift that causes the cheek to appear to elongate and the mouth within the span of three frames and milliseconds to turn downwards. You can also see the exact same highlight shift happening simultaneously in a V-shaped hightlight on the upper left part of Patty's head. Elsewhere in the frames static objects also appear to change shape as wolftrax showed. It's simply an illusion and parts of Patty's skull and mouth are not actually moving.

Bigpattymouth.gifBigpattymouth1.gif

Sorry, Sweaty. The above is not any manner of reliable evidence for Patty being a real Bigfoot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUnv1aV4caw&NR=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

Kitakaze, the Bob H battleship was 'sunk' ages ago. Even most of the PGF skeptics don't take the Bob H claim seriously. Time for you to find a new 'man in the suit' methinks. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This thread is not about Bob Heironimus. It's about Patty's mouth moving. It is not. I'll accept your lack of rebuttal to that being clearly shown and attempt to change the subject as a grudging acknowledgement of that.

I'll also change my avatar to this for a month if you can show for a fact that most PGF skeptics do not take Heironimus' claim seriously...

bigfoot2_anonymous.jpg?w=480&h=640

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

^

Kitakaze, the Bob H battleship was 'sunk' ages ago. Even most of the PGF skeptics don't take the Bob H claim seriously. Time for you to find a new 'man in the suit' methinks. ;)

0 for 3 on that post, K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm a doubter/skeptic and I can't say with "certainty" that Bob Heironimus is Patterson's film subject.

Let's consider these as live options ---

The Patterson film subject is:

1. Bob Heironimus

2. A remnant Gigantopithecus

3. A remnant robust Australopithecus

4. A Homo Erectus/Homo Sapiens hybrid

5. A remnant Neanderthal

6. A remnant Ground Sloth

Now, let's pretend that one of these options is the REAL explanation (for sake of argument). And, let's pretend that there is a gun to my/your head, pointed by Mr. Omniscient, and he will pull the trigger if I/you choose the wrong, incorrect option.

In that case, considering the innate plausibility of the six options, I would bet my life on BH.

Which option would you bet your life on?

Edited by jerrywayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

'"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Voltaire'

lol really?? :whistle:

"Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold on them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt."

Reinhold Niebuhr

"Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering --- and it's all over much too soon."

Woody Allen

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

x

Edited by BobZenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I'm a doubter/skeptic and I can't say with "certainty" that Bob Heironimus is Patterson's film subject.

Let's consider these as live options ---

The Patterson film subject is:

1. Bob Heironimus

2. A remnant Gigantopithecus

3. A remnant robust Australopithecus

4. A Homo Erectus/Homo Sapiens hybrid

5. A remnant Neanderthal

6. A remnant Ground Sloth

Now, let's pretend that one of these options is the REAL explanation (for sake of argument). And, let's pretend that there is a gun to my/your head, pointed by Mr. Omniscient, and he will pull the trigger if I/you choose the wrong, incorrect option.

In that case, considering the innate plausibility of the six options, I would bet my life on BH.

Which option would you bet your life on?

I would bet my life that none of the above is a reasonable possibility to the mystery of the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I'm a doubter/skeptic and I can't say with "certainty" that Bob Heironimus is Patterson's film subject.

Let's consider these as live options ---

The Patterson film subject is:

1. Bob Heironimus

2. A remnant Gigantopithecus

3. A remnant robust Australopithecus

4. A Homo Erectus/Homo Sapiens hybrid

5. A remnant Neanderthal

6. A remnant Ground Sloth

Now, let's pretend that one of these options is the REAL explanation (for sake of argument). And, let's pretend that there is a gun to my/your head, pointed by Mr. Omniscient, and he will pull the trigger if I/you choose the wrong, incorrect option.

In that case, considering the innate plausibility of the six options, I would bet my life on BH.

Which option would you bet your life on?

I'd vote....Real Sasquatch... :) ...

PattySasquatch2.gif

PattySasquatch3.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

This thread is not about Bob Heironimus. It's about Patty's mouth moving. It is not. I'll accept your lack of rebuttal to that being clearly shown and attempt to change the subject as a grudging acknowledgement of that.

I'll also change my avatar to this for a month if you can show for a fact that most PGF skeptics do not take Heironimus' claim seriously...

bigfoot2_anonymous.jpg?w=480&h=640

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I temporarily deleted the animated-gif of Patty's mouth moving, in Post #54, for a reason that I'll explain later. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

This thread is not about Bob Heironimus. It's about Patty's mouth moving.

I thought you keep saying Patty IS Bob H?

So now you don't think that's Bob H we are looking at? :lol:

I'll also change my avatar to this for a month if you can show for a fact that most PGF skeptics do not take Heironimus' claim seriously...

Whatever. I don't believe anything you say. I mean, in your own signature you claim you 'love' bigfoot....yet all you ever do is try your best kill the phenomenon off and you've been doing it for YEARS!!!. If you truly loved the idea of bigfoot, as you claim you do, then you wouldn't be so obsessive about trying to chip and even hack away at it every chance you get. ;)

Oh sorry off topic again. Yeah just like that tattoo pic you posted.

PS) When have you EVER 'shown for a fact' that Bob H is Patty..... despite claiming it as 'fact'?? Your complete lack of irony in what you post is astonishing.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

By the way I'd like to thank Sweaty (and others) for all the great GIFs etc. They really are doing a lot to help confim Patty is the real deal (a sasquatch).

Well done folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Woodenbong

I'm sorry I just can't see the movement of the mouth, with the REFLECTION of the glass eye staring back at me just distorts the image :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I thought you keep saying Patty IS Bob H?

So now you don't think that's Bob H we are looking at? :lol:

Whatever. I don't believe anything you say. I mean, in your own signature you claim you 'love' bigfoot....yet all you ever do is try your best kill the phenomenon off and you've been doing it for YEARS!!!. If you truly loved the idea of bigfoot, as you claim you do, then you wouldn't be so obsessive about trying to chip and even hack away at it every chance you get. ;)

Oh sorry off topic again. Yeah just like that tattoo pic you posted.

PS) When have you EVER 'shown for a fact' that Bob H is Patty..... despite claiming it as 'fact'?? Your complete lack of irony in what you post is astonishing.

On another thread I stated I thought SY was deliberately quoting Kit out of context and doing so with malice. The (alleged) offending part of my post was removed by the administration due to my (alleged) "insinuating lying" by SY.

Now, what does the above post by Kerchak "insinuate"?

I do not ask that Kerchak's remarks be removed. Skeptics are used to such comments. But, apparently, the True Believer is thinned skinned and does need protection from the slings and arrows of Blog Discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...