Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Mouth Moves

Recommended Posts

Teegunn

You can see Patty's calf flex in the animations above.  We have seen this in several different clips and pics from the PGF with what truly and reasonably looks like real muscle movement beneath the fur.  If the calf muscle visibly flexing like that was achieved in 1967 from a suit on a dude - the academy award for special effects has a new standard.  Lots of things that, when taken together, add up to a very reasonable likelihood that Patty was not a dude in a suit.  This film is by far the most important reason I feel that a BF creature could (or did) very well exist.  I cannot find myself looking at the total amount of video evidence we see in the film and say that I think this could have been a dude in a suit.  Almost all other purported evidence outside of the PGF does not do much for me like the PGF does.  I am obviously not someone who has had an experience, mostly I see the PGF and the more we learn and see about it in what is truly scientifically detailed level of study (from experts like Bill Munns for example), I find it hard to see how it could have been a dude in a suit.  That is it in a nutshell for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here's a stabilized headshot from those 4 cibachrome images in real time (approx.). The best scans of the cibachrome prints will be as good as we get. Even then the mouth is near the limits of the film's resolution at those distances from the camera. That doesn't even include the other sources of distortion that are present.

 

The cibachrome prints were also derived from transparencies so it depends how well Bonney cleaned the slides before creating the prints. It makes it difficult to identify and rule out these artifacts when they get blended into the photo, such as the right hand artifact on the cibachrome of frame 352. Then there's motion distortion from the slow frame rate, changes in lighting and head orientation and on and on.

The moral of the story is it is possible for any apparent mouth movement to be an illusion of distortion or lighting, even if it persists over several frames. What you see isn't always what you get. That said, it sure looks like the mouth is doing something besides just offering lip service.

 

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Giganto. :)

 

There are changes in detail on Patty's jaw/mouth/lips which are within the limits of the Film's resolution...and can be seen in multiple Frames....and, therefore can be reliably determined to be legitimate details.

 

A similar example of a small detail on Patty's face, is the light-shaded spot/area just below Patty's right eye. It is at the limits of the Film's resolution...and is visible in several film frames.

 

It is slightly detectable in F352...

 

Frame352-SS2_zpseuchvtmy.jpg

 

And, more easily seen in Frames 362 and 364...

 

F362-F364Cibachrome-SS1_zpsqfnfatdl.jpg

 

It stands-out more distinctly in this Blurity-sharpened version of F364...

 

Frame364Cibachrome_deblurred2SS_zps8df3u

 

 

And it also appears....in the same location on Patty's face...in the 'Copy 8' version of F370...

 

C8%20F370-SS1_zpsgo5dm7um.jpg

 

 

That 'white spot' appears in at least 4 frames...always in the exact same location. It is a legitimate detail of something protruding on Patty's face, just below her right eye. 

 

To me, it is a strong indicator that Patty was a real creature...since, under the 'hoax' scenario...there would be absolutely no reason for such a detail existing on a costume mask...in that precise location.

 

It would only serve to interfere with the person's vision.

 

 

 

It is no wonder the skeptics just laugh it off.

 

 

 

The "skeptics" also laugh-off/disregard the apparent calf muscle contraction on Patty's right leg....which sits at a higher level of resolution.  

When it comes to the subject of Bigfoot....people have an amazing ability to disregard details which are easily discernable.

 

Fortunately, that ability of others doesn't prevent me from seeing/determining what the truth is, regarding the filmed subject. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

Sweaty - to me that light spot is where the cheekbone is located.  It looks like an area of the face without much fur, and the cheekbone being prominent allows it to reflect more light.  You can also notice what looks like a very real bone structure of the jawline in addition to the real looking structure of the cheekbones.  These elements certainly seem to not only move slightly during the film when different clips are compared closely, but IMO they look and move like what one would think a real creature made of skin and bones would move, not a dude wearing a mask/helmet contraption.  Just can't see these things being faked to this level of detail, especially when these details have never even remotely been reproduced in suit attempts in the near 50 years since the PGF creature was filmed.  Not a dude in a suit when you look at this thing this closely and take all the evidence into consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I agree completely, Teegunn. :)

 

The totality of the realistic features on Patty is just light-years beyond anything ever seen, in a man-in-a-suit. 

 

 

 

 

Sweaty - to me that light spot is where the cheekbone is located.  It looks like an area of the face without much fur, and the cheekbone being prominent allows it to reflect more light. 

 

 

It looks that way to me, also...it appears to be on the top of the cheekbone/bottom of the eye socket. But, I think it could possibly be a small growth on the skin...protruding, and reflecting the direct sunlight.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

You can see Patty's calf flex in the animations above.  We have seen this in several different clips and pics from the PGF with what truly and reasonably looks like real muscle movement beneath the fur.

 

And that is apparent in the poorer copy films we see today .... those that saw the higher quality camera original film remarked on those muscle movement details under the fur as well.

 

You two are also right about the effects of reflective light, which was an issue - especially where Kodachrome II film stock was used.

costumecomparison_zps992cdaa4.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Another example ... The pilot on BCM seems to either have the same problem as Patty or someone slopped bleach all over the poor guy.   :)

E-samewrinklesinshirt.jpg

 

 

One angle to the sun and the left arm sleeve location (E) is white and then seen at a slightly different angle the white area moves and location (E) appears shaded.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is another example of the white spot below the right eye....in F350....(this particular image is from one of Bigfoothunter's animations)...

 

F350-SS1_zpsiylr8zp4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, Giganto. :)

 

There are changes in detail on Patty's jaw/mouth/lips which are within the limits of the Film's resolution...and can be seen in multiple Frames....and, therefore can be reliably determined to be legitimate details.

Like I said, even transitory dust on the lens can create artifacts that persist over several frames. But I agree that we need to evaluate each feature on its own merit. Keep in mind that a cibachrome print is a darkroom creation and may be tampered with in any way. Just like the Zapruder film. ;)

 

A similar example of a small detail on Patty's face, is the light-shaded spot/area just below Patty's right eye. It is at the limits of the Film's resolution...and is visible in several film frames.

 

It is slightly detectable in F352...

  

That 'white spot' appears in at least 4 frames...always in the exact same location. It is a legitimate detail of something protruding on Patty's face, just below her right eye. 

 

To me, it is a strong indicator that Patty was a real creature...since, under the 'hoax' scenario...there would be absolutely no reason for such a detail existing on a costume mask...in that precise location.

 

It would only serve to interfere with the person's vision.

I totally agree that the white spot is a feature of Patty and not a film artifact. It never goes away. But this is different from the mouth movement which is constantly changing over time. We need to determine how much of that change can be attributed to distortion from MANY sources. Notice how the persistent white spot in Patty's eye distorts over those 4 frames. The variance of the white spot indicates its distortion from frame to frame. We are near the limits of feature resolution when we can track a feature the size of an eyeball and note how it fluctuates over many frames.

Likewise the shadows between the toes in frame 61 must be less than 1/2" at a distance approx. 150 feet from the camera. Seeing the lips from 120 feet should easily be within the film resolution. Most of the distortion comes from the motion of the camera and Patty, combined with the slow frame rate of the camera. Otherwise, the optics of the K-100 were exceptional. I possessed a K-100 identical to the one that shot the PGF and the stock Cine Ektar 25 mm f/1.9 lens had great cred, even by today's standards. The main source of distortion was caused by the relatively slow shutter speed of 18 fps. Combine that with the motion of the camera and the motion of Patty and dust on the lens then anything was possible. Without the original film to work with, we need to interpret everything we think we see with a grain of salt.

 

The "skeptics" also laugh-off/disregard the apparent calf muscle contraction on Patty's right leg....which sits at a higher level of resolution.  

When it comes to the subject of Bigfoot....people have an amazing ability to disregard details which are easily discernable.

 

Fortunately, that ability of others doesn't prevent me from seeing/determining what the truth is, regarding the filmed subject. :)

I share your frustration. It's politics. You are the enemy and there is nothing you can say to persuade the skeptics of your irrefutable argument. But do you actually expect a skeptic to admit that you were right and they were wrong and they humbly eat crow? The only time that could possibly happen is if a bigfoot is captured and verified. And maybe even then. ;)

And lastly keep in mind..WE AREN'T EVEN WORKING WITH THE ORIGINAL FILM! Stay thirsty my friend. ;)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^

 

Nice animations, Giganto. :)

 

Your top animation shows the change in the angle of the lip (that I mentioned in my post 1315) really well.

 

Also visible in it is a raising of the eyebrow, in F364.

 

 

One question....what animator program are you using??

 

I wrote my own software to do this. I call it "Frame Player/Recorder". I got frustrated with GIF animations because the quality was usually so crappy. This is because GIFs only have 256 colors to work with and not all GIF converters are created equal. Anyway, I decided to develop my own image animation software, which includes a GIF animator because the web doesn't recognize animated JPEGs, PNGs, TIFs or BMPs yet. But I hope they will in the near future. Then we will see MUCH better quality ANIMATED FRAMES (â„¢).

 

My Frame Recorder can take snapshots of YouTube vids and save the frames in any format you like. Then you can use my image editing/stabilization software to build your animated GIFs (soon to be Frames).

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Gigantofootecus,

 

Nice work !

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Like I said, even transitory dust on the lens can create artifacts that persist over several frames. But I agree that we need to evaluate each feature on its own merit. Keep in mind that a cibachrome print is a darkroom creation and may be tampered with in any way. Just like the Zapruder film. ;)

 

 

 

Sure, I would keep that in mind...when studying the smallest details on Patty. 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree that the white spot is a feature of Patty and not a film artifact. It never goes away. But this is different from the mouth movement which is constantly changing over time. We need to determine how much of that change can be attributed to distortion from MANY sources. Notice how the persistent white spot in Patty's eye distorts over those 4 frames. The variance of the white spot indicates its distortion from frame to frame. We are near the limits of feature resolution when we can track a feature the size of an eyeball and note how it fluctuates over many frames.

 

 

Glad you agree, Giganto...on the white spot being a real detail. It must be at the very limit of the Film's resolution...since some experts have calculated that the limit of resolvable detail on Patty is about 2"....(which I think is clearly incorrect).

The size of that white spot is most definitely smaller than 2"....and significantly smaller, at that.

So, I can't see how any details on an even smaller scale than the 'white spot' could be resolvable. 

 

 

 

 

Likewise the shadows between the toes in frame 61 must be less than 1/2" at a distance approx. 150 feet from the camera. Seeing the lips from 120 feet should easily be within the film resolution. Most of the distortion comes from the motion of the camera and Patty, combined with the slow frame rate of the camera. Otherwise, the optics of the K-100 were exceptional. 

 

 

I am curious about your calculation of Patty being 120' from the camera....(rather than the shorter distance of 102'). Can you post a link to where you've posted your photogrammetry calculations for that figure? 

 

I have been looking at several film-site images....and the film-site measurement diagrams made by Dahinden and Green...and about the only way the distance between Roger and Patty could have been as much as 120', was if Roger was further away from the 'main log' than the early researchers thought he was.  

 

I will eventually post some images/graphics about this...(showing the distances between key objects...from the 'main log' to the spot where Patty was located, at F352).

 

But for now, I would be interested in seeing your photogrammetry calculations on that distance. :)

 

 

 

 

I possessed a K-100 identical to the one that shot the PGF and the stock Cine Ektar 25 mm f/1.9 lens had great cred, even by today's standards. The main source of distortion was caused by the relatively slow shutter speed of 18 fps. Combine that with the motion of the camera and the motion of Patty and dust on the lens then anything was possible. 

 

 

Yeah, it is amazing/impressive to see the level of detail that can be distinguished on Patty....given her small size within the film frame. Roger must have had the focus set perfectly, to get that degree of resolution.

 

 

 

 

I share your frustration. It's politics. You are the enemy and there is nothing you can say to persuade the skeptics of your irrefutable argument. But do you actually expect a skeptic to admit that you were right and they were wrong and they humbly eat crow? The only time that could possibly happen is if a bigfoot is captured and verified. And maybe even then.  ;)

 

 

I don't expect any of the skeptics to admit they were wrong about something, and give me credit for being right. There's already been one glaring example of that....the 'doll-hand illusion', that was posted on JREF. 

 

I showed how it was flawed..and eventually they seemed to 'get it'....but never really admitted to being wrong about it. 

 

 

 

 

And lastly keep in mind..WE AREN'T EVEN WORKING WITH THE ORIGINAL FILM! Stay thirsty my friend.  ;)

 

 

I sure will, Giganto. I've found that eating popcorn helps, with that...  :popcorn:

 

I just hope that the Original reel never gets into kitakaze's hands. Given his "LOVE" for Bigfoot....I doubt the Film would ever see the light of day, ever again. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I wrote my own software to do this. I call it "Frame Player/Recorder". I got frustrated with GIF animations because the quality was usually so crappy. This is because GIFs only have 256 colors to work with and not all GIF converters are created equal. Anyway, I decided to develop my own image animation software, which includes a GIF animator because the web doesn't recognize animated JPEGs, PNGs, TIFs or BMPs yet. But I hope they will in the near future. Then we will see MUCH better quality ANIMATED FRAMES (â„¢).

 

My Frame Recorder can take snapshots of YouTube vids and save the frames in any format you like. Then you can use my image editing/stabilization software to build your animated GIFs (soon to be Frames).

 

 

Very impressive, Giganto. :)

 

The program I've been using...(Easy-Gif Animator)...has issues with the quality of the images, when it saves the animated-gif file. So, I'd like to switch to a better program. 

 

Will your Program ever become available to the general public?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
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.

 

Ah Ha .... so you do know the benefits of using the best images. Too bad you weren't holding to that standard when you were talking transfer evidence in fine dust.     :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

Yes impressive work giganto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...