Now, my screen cap is not as sharp as watching it yourself so I urge all of you who have always had doubt to watch the dvd yourself. As Mola Ram says, 'You will become...a true believer!". (evil laugh)
Anyways, going through jacket pics I noticed clear as a bell that you can see the dirt or fullers or whatever, compacted into the grooves inside of the square buckle on his chest and also down the length of the bag.
I have to admit, I began to think it possible that there were none because sometimes you see close-up's and they're not there but at least in this one scene by the plane, they're evident. Perhaps they all had them but as already pointed out, they may be so shallow that they're had to make out.
In any case go and watch the dvd yourself, preferably on your pc. I think this is undisputed. Of course, there will probably be one person who's blind or on crack who can't see this so in advance...I'm ready for you.
PLATON wrote:
But I have a close-up that I will post soon here that it's very very close and shows no grooves.
When I post it we will discuss it.
I thought it was already declared and accepted that in Raiders there were grooves with many definitive high-resolution images from IndyDoc if I'm not wrong.
Considering also that the DVD version of the film was "cleaned up" deleting many details in several scenes, do we need to start this discussion all over again?
Indiana G wrote:all right agent5, you cover raiders and strider and i will cover TOD....rightfully so cuz we're big boys and thats when indy was his biggest.
I can handle that, but if you're gonna study movie stills with me, you should order a few pizzas and a couple bottles of coke and get settled in!
I thought it was already declared and accepted that in Raiders there were grooves with many definitive high-resolution images from IndyDoc if I'm not wrong.
I thought so, but there were people still trying to debunk them. I think this screen cap, which was not shown in the initial thread, shows without a doubt, the presence of the grooves. It can be no shadow, no way the strap is turned and we're seeing the sides. The dirt is accumulated right in the grooves.
Sorry Agent 5 but i cant see any grooves !! in that scene or this pic or others pics !
you can see it clearly when indy fight with the german mechanic. i cant put screen cap but it's evidence. there is some close up view of the german's fist in the indy stomac, we can see clearly the strap and buckle...no grooves
doc riviere wrote:Sorry Agent 5 but i cant see any grooves !! in that scene or this pic or others pics !
you can see it clearly when indy fight with the german mechanic. i cant put screen cap but it's evidence. there is some close up view of the german's fist in the indy stomac, we can see clearly the strap and buckle...no grooves
OK. In the pic I posted above, you cannot see two white lines INSIDE the bag strap buckle? I just am unable to believe you simply cannot see them? I'm not saying that in another take from the same scene that there are no grooves, but that they are clearly here in this take from the plane scene. I'm not talking about any other scene other than the one posted above.
Check it out yourself and pause it if the pic above is not clear enough.
You can see the same thing on my bag strap. Not going all the way up the strap but in certain areas which is exactly how I see it in certain caps we've already gone over. Of course, certain caps do not show it, but as we all know these scenes are not always shot in order and not always even on the same day so we have to be careful on giving definite answers to a whole scene, but instead should just focus on certain shots within certain scenes.
dont understand why different straps were used in that specific scene ! ?especially if we know there is no grooves in the rest of the movie !
i talked a lot of time about this scene with Pat Roach i asked him a lot of info about indy gear but he didnt remember details of course ! he told me the scene was shot quickly in few days...
This brings up the old adage... you can't prove a negative. When we see grooves, it probably means that they are there. But, when we don't see them, that doesn't prove that they're not there. I've seen member's own photos who say that they have grooves in their straps yet they didn't turn out in the photo. Does that mean that they are lying? And that's another thing... how do you spell "lying"?
Agent5 wrote
So, in 3 days you think there is no way they could have used different bags? One with straps and one without?
i just try to understand why there was different straps for that scene, i dont say you' re wrong ! personaly i dont see them, nowhere. i have some call sheet from that sequence, i will try to find any answer or details, ... just kidding
I actually do see a groove over the top right corner of the buckle, on the left side of the strap inside the buckle and right under that, below the lower left side of the buckle.
You can't always see them going up the entire length of the strap, but only in certain spots where dirt or fullers is in the groove. This is exactly as I pointed out in the pic of my mannequin above. In my pic you cannot see any grooves in the buckle or right below it. Only on the top and bottom.
I actually do see a groove over the top right corner of the buckle, on the left side of the strap inside the buckle and right under that, below the lower left side of the buckle.
You can't always see them going up the entire length of the strap, but only in certain spots where dirt or fullers is in the groove. This is exactly as I pointed out in the pic of my mannequin above. In my pic you cannot see any grooves in the buckle or right below it. Only on the top and bottom.
I put on my glasses, I MAGNIFY the photo but again I don't see them.
Maybe I'm not the most appropriate person to say this but there are a couple of previous threads about this very matter. I suggest anyone with doubts to do a little search and read what has been discovered some time ago regarding the grooves instead of starting this all over again like if anything was previously said or shown.
laugh) 
