posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:43 PM
Yeah, I thought about that whole stretch fur scenario. The problem is I don't see the stretch fur. No one else saw this for years until someone said,
"Hey, look! It's stretch fur material." Now everyone sees it, LOL.
I don't see stretch fur. I don't see facial movement. I see shadows and light refraction, but no true smooth musculature movement. And I don't
think anyone else does either. My reason? It's just not there. Not on the original film source. No matter how sophisticated we get with our new
digital enhancing technology you will ALWAYS AND FOREVER WITHOUT ANY QUESTION, be limited to the quality of your source material to a great degree.
It's just a fact. Anything outside of the original source is either interpretation (human) or interpolation (non-human). If the original source,
whether it be visual or audio, is incapable of capturing the required "detail", then nothing will ever occur to make that detail "reappear" short
of magic or fabrication. Yes, things can be enhanced, but the problem is that you have to trust that the interpolation or interpretation is accurate
and infallible and unfortunately for us, both systems are imperfect.
The 16mm film camera, film stock & lens, operator sophistication and the problem with the natural elements all combine to limit the quality and
resolution of the Patterson film.
No matter how hard we try, we will always be limited by that original material. To make matters even more difficult and limit that source material
even further, there is NO ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. The original was lost, stolen, misplaced or disintegrated long ago. We are stuck with, at best, a
copy of the original.
Does anyone not remember the big stink a few years back about the "zipper bell" in the costume. Half of the people SAW the bell, the other half saw
an artifacting issue from the enhancement. That instance took a while to finally die down. I believe the "it's just an artifact" crowd finally won
My point is that every few years a new expert with new proof pops up to blow the lid off the Patterson film. Proof that it's real, Proof that it's
fake. I guarantee you within 5 years there will be another "major breakthrough" in this argument of real or fake.
If you want to really impress people, let's find the original film and the original camera and lens. THEN, and only then, can we get a real foothold
into digging into the facts of the Patterson film.
Got my fingers crossed...