Jump to content

Patty's Mouth Moves


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^

 

Have you seen my question about some alleged "Bombshell from Bob Heironimus"...a guy who is making-up a story about being Patty? :)

 

Remember...I asked you first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sure. What does it have to do with this thread? 

 

If you have a question about a bombshell, I recommend asking in the bombshell thread. I'll be happy to discuss it with you and my first response will be ask what you think is the biggest flaw in Bill's argument that based on testimony from Harry Kemball of Canawest Films, Bob Heironimus could have been telling the truth about wearing a suit for Patterson? 

 

You think that when I spoke of a bombshell from Heironimus, it is a false claim because I never discussed it at the JREF and also because you think it has been conclusively shown that Bob could not be Patty. There were a number of things I considered to be bombshells from my interviews with Heironimus such as the fact he had spoken with Gimlin only two weeks prior to our first interview and that they were still friendly to each other. The most important thing I learned in my interviews with Bob was something I never have and never will discuss in public unless I am able to return to work on my documentary project and finish it. Until then I will never discuss it as it would compromise my own investigation efforts. I don't discuss it for the same reasons I don't reveal who showed me the suit. I'm not about to hand fanatical Patty worshippers and Gimlin Guard out there the means to sabotage the only way to prove the film is a hoax. Such people are out there and actively seek to block the truth of the PGF being resolved. Mike Rugg getting screwed over the Big Reel 1 he acquired is a perfect example of the kinds of things Gimlin Guard will do, even to fellow believers. You are more than welcome in the meantime to conclude that either Bob or I or both have been deceiving people about the content of my interviews with him. You're also welcome to conclude that I have never spoken with Heironimus in my life since I have no proof of those interviews, only transcriptions of phone conversations. If you do accept that I have interviewed Bob Heironimus numerous times, it can only be because you're taking my word for it.

 

Part of your reasoning that Heironimus could not have been Patty is because of the large and distinct facial movements you discuss, including blinking, brow movement and pant-hooting. These exact same three things are demonstrated in the IDF. If those facial movements have important evidentiary value in the PGF, those same movements need to be addressed in the IDF. It doesn't involve any sensitive personal information, it's purely about what we see in the footage. If IDF facial movements are something you won't touch, that's fine with me. I'll simply continue to point them out any time you try and argue the comedy of what you think Patty does with her face during the one second she looks back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

I don't discuss it (the "Heironimus Bombshell") for the same reasons I don't reveal who showed me the suit. I'm not about to hand fanatical Patty worshippers and Gimlin Guard out there the means to sabotage the only way to prove the film is a hoax.

 

 

kitakaze also wrote...in March, 2012:

 

 

That's simply far too sensitive a thing to answer on the Internet, Jodie. Sorry.
I can tell you that my documentary will feature at least three confessions. 

 

 

kit claimed, in 2012, to already have 3 confessions relating to the Patterson Film....and now, he claims he cannot reveal any info about the "Bobby Bombshell"....because it could sabotage "the only way to prove the Film is a hoax".   :)

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7624-bob-heironimus-on-pax-tvs-lie-detector/page-15

 

 

 

 

 

If those facial movements have important evidentiary value in the PGF, those same movements need to be addressed in the IDF. 

 

 

 

Nortonaddressball3_zps93510b61.jpg

 

 

Any time you want, kit....show how the 'eyebrow movement' detail in the PGF is only 'noise', or film grain....as opposed to actual detail.

 

This particular detail is well above the level of the 'film grain'....since a secondary detail is included in the changes that occur between those two Film Frames....that being the 'white object' below the eye.

It is not visible in the Frame in which the eyebrow appears lowered....(it's shaded)....and is visible in the other Frame, where the eyebrow appears lifted higher. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"This particular detail is well above the level of the 'film grain'....since a secondary detail is included in the changes that occur between those two Film Frames....that being the 'white object' below the eye.

It is not visible in the Frame in which the eyebrow appears lowered....(it's shaded)....and is visible in the other Frame, where the eyebrow appears lifted higher."

 

This is where your brow movement claim falls apart under simple scrutiny. You claim that because the eye area is visible in one frame and not the other, this supporting the brow movement being real.

 

The problem is that with the copies you're using, exactly that detail is completely unreliable. The following comparisons show the copy version you're using to make your brow movement claim along side the clearest images we have from the cibachromes of the original...

 

Bigblur.jpg

 

Bigblur1.jpg

 

In the cibachrrome frames the eye is completely visible whereas in the other versions they can not be seen. This is showing that those inferior versions are not reliable in the detail that they show. An eye not showing in a particular Copy 8 frame is evidence of nothing when the cibachromes do show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

 

It is unfortunate there is not one 'master copy' we can look to and all work off of.

 

Is the one by Munns (a digital copy of a first generation copy if I understand correctly) the agreed upon best one out there?

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

This is where your brow movement claim falls apart under simple scrutiny.

 

 

This is where the eyebrow movement becomes stronger... :) ....(in F357 and F368)...

 

 

F359-F370EyebrowMovementAG2_zpsf4ac1952.

 

 

...along with some jaw and lip movement. 

 

 

Here are the two Frames side-by-side...

 

F357-F368SBS2_zps6b5ec454.jpg

 

 

 

And...from my post at the top of this page...F357 de-blurred, showing the opening in the lips a little more clearly...

 

F357-Deblurred1-Crop2_zpsece0c1bd.jpg

 

 

Frame 357 is just two Frames after Patty's right foot has landed hard, on the ground...and her facial expression changed, as a result. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Bill Munns does a good job addressing film detail in the Youtube video in the Yakima bigfoot roundup.  Bill has a segment on WRMP done in 2 parts.  In the second part, Bill illustrates some issue with Film Grain and the limits on what we can and cannot see.  It seems reasonable enough. I would encourage anyone interested in this issue of facial movements to watch the video. I would be curious what your take on it would be.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Someone wanted to claim they saw a muzzle flash in the PGF, but it lasted about three frames. So I looked up the length of time it takes for a muzzle flash and it was only a fraction of one film frame, thus the  muzzle flash went down the toliet. Got a theory - look for another way to test it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Well two things I notice are that the legs are rather long and human like and the knees are locked.  IMO it's fake, a nice clever fake but fake.

 

longleg_zpsokb9wbne.jpg

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote...(in the 'Thoughts On Munns' Book' thread)...

 

 

Don't forget Patty's moving skull.

 

Or you could look at the actual footage (click to enlarge)...

 

 

Patty's skull doesn't really move....but her mouth/ lips do...

 

F364-F359Q-MMAG2_zpseyco1dxu.gif

 

 

This animation uses the Frame 357 (Copy8 F359) image....which I posted on the previous page, in posts #1281 and 1297.

 

In that particular Frame....shortly after the hard landing of her right foot...Patty's lips are pursed.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

kitakaze wrote...(in the 'Thoughts On Munns' Book' thread)...

 

 

 

Patty's skull doesn't really move....but her mouth/ lips do...

 

...

 

 

This animation uses the Frame 357 (Copy8 F359) image....which I posted on the previous page, in posts #1281 and 1297.

 

In that particular Frame....shortly after the hard landing of her right foot...Patty's lips are pursed.

 

 

They certainly appear to be pursed. This is consistent with BC first nations depictions of D'sonaqua: https://www.google.ca/search?q=D%27sonoqua&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GfeGVfbyBYrToAT-jougDg&ved=0CCcQsAQ&biw=1360&bih=605  How can we rule out some weird visual artifact here?

 

Mike

 

Things would be so much nicer if we had the very best resolution scans to work with. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks for posting the 'image search' link, Mike.  It shows a real nice collection of their depictions. :)

 

We can be certain that this is not just an illusion, caused by film grain/noise...because the opening between Patty's lips appears in several Frames.....and is always centered in the mouth. It's far too non-random, to be the result of film grain/noise.

 

 

And, I agree....if we had the Original Film, itself...and if it isn't too de-graded....high-resolution digital scans of it would capture all of the original detail...and we would be able to see this mouth/lip movement a little more clearly. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Frame 352 is a good frame to compare with F357, regarding possible mouth movement....because in F352, Patty's lips appear to be closed.

 

This particular image of the Cibachrome print shows the lips pretty clearly...

 

Frame352AAA_zpswfhltavj.jpg

 

 

Here is a crop from it....compared with F357...

 

Frame352-Frame357-MouthSBS2_zpsmwn3ke1g.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^  Those pics are pretty definitive.  Pretty hard to fake that kind of mouth movement, or have a dude in a suit incorporate such distinct mouth movement (pursing of the lips) like that.  Another one of those things that makes it more likely in my eyes that the PGF is the real deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...