The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, I'm glad you asked!

The simple answer to your question, now that we all seem to be on the same page with regard to the rules of perspective and the action of the human arm, is that in the overlay onto sports-jacket Bob, the humerus/arm bone is extending toward the camera.

It's just that simple. Foreshortening is occurring. No one has artificially shortened the arm-bone to squash it into the needed space. The upper arm-bone is simply angling toward the viewer/camera, resulting in the phenomenon of foreshortening, according to the rules of perspective which we've discussed at length.

The reason that your slat-pegged-to-a-post does not work in this context is that: 1) The human arm (minus the hand) is made of two sections, the upper and lower arm bones (humerus and radius/ulna, respectively), whereas your slat consists of only one straight segment; and 2) There is no ball-and-socket joint permitting a full range of motion out and away from the body in a rotational arc.

Taking both flaws at once, then, the slat-pegged-to-a-post does not allow an upper segment to angle toward the camera while the lower segment bends to a less severe angle.

I hope this clarifies!

[neltana]

Okay, Sweaty, your goal is obviously not to simply establish that you are incapable of creating a physical model that matches the 3D animation. Nor is your goal was to establish that a skeleton is not like a block of wood (although you have already succeeded in that).

You clearly want to establish that nobody can create a physical model that matches the 3D animation. Right? But building a flawed physical model doesn't do anything to prove that somebody else can't build a non-flawed one. Surely you see that.

I'm still not clear precisely what properties a real, physical object would need to show, when filmed, to convince you that you are mistaken. Sum it up for me in a simple sentence, would you? E.g., "I, SweatyYeti, would need to see X occur with constraints Y before I would be convinced."

The issue on the table is whether the 3D animations are reasonable analogs of real, physical objects. You have asserted that they are not. Let's address that assertion before we get back to talking about how the animations relate to Bob H. and Patty.

Otherwise, we will just keep on going around in the same circles over and over again.

[Óðinn]

As much as it pains you...Sweaty is right on this one. Actually, it looks like Patty's arm is angled farther from her body than Bob's. So Patty's arm is being foreshortened as well. Yet Bob's humerus appears almost 20% more foreshortened than Patty's. (but measure the LENGTHS of the humerus bones, not their vertical components).

For arguments sake, let's cheat and say that Patty's humerus is not foreshortened at all. So what angle towards the camera does Bob's humerus have to be in to match him to the suit? (20% foreshortened->ArcCos(.8)=37 deg). But Bob's humerus is foreshortened 20% relative to Patty's, which has also been foreshortened (by your criteria). We must add this angle relative to the angle of Patty's humerus to get a 20% difference. We're talking about a >45 deg angle here, which is preposterous.

Now go to a full length mirror (stand as far away as possible) and assume Bob's body position and angle your arm from your body by 45 deg. If your hand is at the same height as Bob's, I'll eat a bug. But it would have to be if it was foreshortened relative to Patty's by 20%.

Of course this exercise assumes that Patty's image is scaled correctly next to Bob's. That's the real issue here. Has Patty's image been scaled to achieve the "best" fit for the skeleton overlay? If so, then we have a problem.

[neltana]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

As much as it pains you...Sweaty is right on this one. Actually, it looks like Patty's arm is angled farther from her body than Bob's.

As much as it pains you, this conversation isn't about Bob H. or Patty. It is about whether or not 3D models/animations were faked/have technical errors in them.

Remember, the animation I produced was not intended to show that Bob H. was Patty. It was intended to refute Sweaty's contention that Mangler had used different skeletons in his illustrations. By demonstrating that it was possible to transition from one pose to the next in a continuous shot, I thought I established pretty clearly that Mangler's illustrations indeed used the same model.

Sweaty now appears to be arguing that the software itself is producing effects that cannot be duplicated in real life. That's great. Let's test this out. We need Sweaty to spell out exactly what he thinks can't be produced with a real, physical object. Then we can establish if he is correct or not.

By putting to bed the issue of whether the software is flawed or the 3D models were switched, we can then dispose of this irrelevancy and never discuss it again.

This issue arose from the Bob H. versus Patty discussion and its resolution (if one is indeed possible) goes to inform that discussion, but it is a separate, narrow issue.

If, for instance, we can establish that the 3D software produces reasonably accurate representations, we could use it to illustrate what you (Óðinn) are stating in your post. We could look at the poses from various angles and perhaps agree on what is reasonable and what is not. Then, perhaps, this conversation could move forward.

It hasn't moved forward in many, many months. It would be nice to change that.

[Óðinn]

I don't care who's right here. But I see where you're coming from. I agree that there is likely no flaw in the skeleton animation software. It's doing what you positioned it to do, that is, fit onto both subjects (sorta). But the implication is that Bob's arm must be significantly foreshortened for the software to match up their elbows. This is the only way the skeleton would fit (as the subjects are scaled).

I'm taking for granted that the software is doing its job adequately, so we can take the next step. I thought this is where Sweaty was going with this, which is that the skeleton's arms don't support Bob in the suit (at the scale depicted). This exercise would be less damning if the software was actually flawed.

I'll wait another few months and check back.

[neltana]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I'm taking for granted that the software is doing its job adequately, so we can take the next step. I thought this is where Sweaty was going with this, which is that the skeleton's arms don't support Bob in the suit (at the scale depicted). This exercise would be less damning if the software was actually flawed.

I'll wait another few months and check back.

I look forward to us all getting to that phase of the conversation. But trying to get there without Sweaty probably won't work really well.

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

Quote:

As much as it pains you...Sweaty is right on this one.

Thanks for the support, Odinn.

I think their 'pain' is going to get worse, before it gets any better.....considering the fact that the skeleton animation is neglecting one significant factor in this arm-length equation.

Patty's extreme body width...





If Bob was Patty.....then his shoulder joint would actually have been approx. 2-3" inboard from where Patty's shoulder is....meaning.......his upper arm bone needs to be longer than Patty's upper arm appears to be.


The "padding on the outside of the shoulder' reasoning won't help the skeptic's cause, on this one....because Patty's entire upper torso has this extra-width.....it's not just on the outside of the arms and shoulders.

MUCH MUCH more on this.......later...

[Astrophotographer]

The funny thing about those comparison images Sweaty is they probably are not scaled correctly. You always proclaim that Bob's head is too big to fit into Bunny's head. However, if you do some measurements of this extremely blurry image, you see that Bunny's head is 26 pixels wide while Bob's is only 17. Additionally, the height is something like 28 to 19 (hard to measure for the hat on Bob's head). These are rough measurements but you have just refuted your original argument that Bob's head was too big, too square, not pointy enough....etc....etc.... So what is it? Is it a massive body with a large skull or is it a tiny body with a tiny head? Perhaps you want it to be a combination of the two possibilities?

Edit: When I measured Bunny's height, I got about 182 pixels. Bob's from the top of his hat was only 175 pixels. If you measure where the top of his head probably is, it is something like 165-170pixels. Something is wrong with your scaling.

The bottom line is you probably don't have the images scaled properly and the Bunny image is so blurry, you can't tell where the edges really are to make any accurate measurements. Of course, we have to consider blur induced by the camera as well.

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Quote:

The funny thing about those comparison images Sweaty is they probably are not scaled correctly.

Sure...the scaling on those images is only close, at best....not precise. I never claimed that it was a precise scaling.


Regardless, there are better images of Patty seen from directly behind...where her upper torso width can be better seen, and measured.....and compared with Bob's.


As I said.....MUCH, MUCH more on this....later......

[SweatyYeti]

Check out how far Patty's elbow is away from her side, and how relatively low it is...in this image...






A pretty good feat for Bob's arm to accomplish....considering the "fact" that his shoulder joint is buried 2-3 inches deep inside of padding....

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

....

Regardless, there are better images of Patty seen from directly behind...where her upper torso the upper part of the costume width can be better seen, and measured.....and compared with Bob's.

.

There, fixed it...

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Sure...the scaling on those images is only close, at best....not precise. I never claimed that it was a precise scaling.

Then what was the point of presenting it in the first place! Your "teasers" are just a bunch of fluff. If you want to present evidence of a bulky suit, gather all your information and then present it. Putting up poorly scaled images just demonstrates you do not know what you are doing or are trying to pull a fast one. I hope "later" will involve some actual measurements and sharper images with better resolution than the one you have presented so far.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Then what was the point of presenting it in the first place! Your "teasers" are just a bunch of fluff.

In that comparison, the difference in 'upper-body widths' is easily noticeable....in fact, it jumps out at you.

Considering the small size of the images...and the fuzziness of Patty's image......simple common sense would tell you (or anyone) that the difference in body widths must be more than just an inch or two.
It is...in fact...on the order of several inches...approx. 4-6 inches, total.

Quote:

If you want to present evidence of a bulky suit, gather all your information and then present it.

Thanks for telling me when, and how, to post on this public discussion board, Astro......but I'll decide that for myself.....if you don't mind.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

In that comparison, the difference in 'upper-body widths' is easily noticeable....in fact, it jumps out at you.

However, since the scaling of the images is obviously wrong by a factor of between 1.1-1.5 (based on very rough measurements), it is an invalid comparison. It "jumps out" because it is improperly scaled.

Obviously, your 'teaser' was in the "I am trying to pull a fast one" category. Let me know when you are willing to look at this objectively.

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Quote:

Obviously, your 'teaser' was in the "I am trying to pull a fast one" category.

In actual fact, Astro, I'm doing this analysis very slowly....methodically...and very honestly.

I stand behind every single thing that I've said in my posts....and I can, and will, post other images that'll support what I've said about Patty's extreme body width.

There is nothing 'underhanded' about anything I've posted on this forum.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I stand behind every single thing that I've said in my posts....and I can, and will, post other images that'll support what I've said about Patty's extreme body width.

There is nothing 'underhanded' about anything I've posted on this forum.

In this case, the images are flawed and not properly scaled. Therefore, they are invalid. You admitted they were not scaled and then presented them anyway as an example of "extreme body width". To me, that sounds a lot like somebody being intellectualy dishonest. That is what I mean by "pulling a fast one". When you are ready to do this right, feel free to present your evidence. However, what you presented so far is just plain wrong.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

In actual fact, Astro, I'm doing this analysis very slowly....methodically...and very honestly.

I stand behind every single thing that I've said in my posts....and I can, and will, post other images that'll support what I've said about Patty's extreme body width.

There is nothing 'underhanded' about anything I've posted on this forum.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

(Again....and as always....nobody can ask me a Bigfoot-related question that I am afraid to answer, or will respond with an outright refusal to answer that particular question.)

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The bottom line is......nobody here can find a question that I will refuse to answer, or that I'm afraid to answer.

Go ahead........prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The last time I invited people to ask me those "feared" questions, which I'm supposedly refusing to answer.....I got no takers.

Sweaty is honesty-challenged.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

In this case, the images are flawed and not properly scaled. Therefore, they are invalid.

Invalid??!! Again???? Crap!

Quote:

You admitted they were not scaled and then presented them anyway as an example of "extreme body width". To me, that sounds a lot like somebody being intellectualy dishonest.

Guess what, Astro.....I'll happily present them again......as an example of Patty's..... "extreme body width".......







You don't like the fact that Patty is significantly wider than Bob....do you?


As for the scaling.....here is a slightly different scaling for ya'......





Patty is STILL wider than Bob....even though Bob is just a tad taller than Patty....


But don't worry, Astro....these images are.......

"Improperly Scaled"



........so you don't have to think that Patty is really any wider than Bob!

[neltana]

Originally Posted by neltana

I'm still not clear precisely what properties a real, physical object would need to show, when filmed, to convince you that you are mistaken. Sum it up for me in a simple sentence, would you? E.g., "I, SweatyYeti, would need to see X occur with constraints Y before I would be convinced."

Okay, now that you have that out of your system, how about you fill in X and Y for me. You went to the trouble of nailing boards to a post, surely you can explicate exactly what property of the 3D models you feel cannot be duplicated in reality.

Óðinn wants to move on to the next phase of discussion and you are holding him up!

(that was a joke, Óðinn isn't actually putting any pressure on you...I would hope that was obvious, but you never know.)

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, in case you missed this point, a suit can make its wearer look bulkier than s/he truly is. If you have any doubts about this, simply pop in a Japanese monster movie and let the realization wash over you.

[William Parcher]

Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume. The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.

[Vortigern99]

Wow, you mean SweatyYeti has been proven to be incorrect/erroneous/credible/given to making unsubstantiated assertions/invalid claims?

Color me AMAZED.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Invalid??!! Again???? Crap!

If you are going to use out of focus, low resolution images where the arms tend to blend into the body and the pixels blur into the background, it is going to look bigger. I asked for measurements and proper scaling, you give me garbage. Try producing something of high resolution where we can see something more than an outline and then we can have a sane discussion about your scaling and if the body really is too massive to be a human in a suit. BTW, I see football players wearing all sorts of gear that makes them look pretty big in the shoulders and the chest when they really are not. I am not sure what you are trying to prove other than that it could be a bulky suit. However, it does not prove that it can not be a suit.

[William Parcher]

It's the same for Janos Prohaska. The ape suit widens his shoulders and gives overall bulk. Ironically, this comes from a clip of him explaining his skepticism about Patty being a human actor.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

If you are going to use out of focus, low resolution images where the arms tend to blend into the body and the pixels blur into the background, it is going to look bigger.

Check it out, Astro......baby......





The right arm is distinctly shaded, while Patty's back is clearly in full sun.

The extreme width of Patty's upper-torso is clearly visible....her body 'widens-out' at the top of the legs, and is the same width all the way up to the armpits.

Quote:

I asked for measurements and proper scaling, you give me garbage.

Actually.....this is garbage......






Nice work, Astro.

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

The ape suit widens his shoulders and gives overall bulk

It widens his shoulders, from the outside.....not his chest area/torso, between the arms.

Big difference.

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, did you miss Parcher's Gemora/gorilla suit pics? The torso bulk is quite evident.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume. The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/085a4919.jpg http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...r/0a2dfc1a.jpg

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume.

The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.

The suit doesn't appear to be widening-out the actor's chest....just the outside of his shoulders...





"Big Deal".......it doesn't say anything about Patty's unusual body dimensions.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Mr. Yeti, did you miss Parcher's Gemora/gorilla suit pics?

The torso bulk is quite evident.

No it isn't.

Can you demonstrate how that suit's chest width (torso bulk) compares with someone outside of a suit??

I can...and have....done so with Patty's torso width, and Bob's torso width.

[Vortigern99]

I, Noah D. Henson, aka JREF member Vortigern99, do hereby avow that this is the final message I will ever post to JREF member "SweatyYeti".

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The torso bulk is quite evident.

No it isn't.

Can you demonstrate how that suit's chest width (torso bulk) compares with someone outside of a suit??

Edited for rule 12. Do not make personal attacks.

Posted By:Cuddles

Vortigern out.

[SweatyYeti]

It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.

The extreme chest/torso width is absolutely a major feature of that alleged "suit"....and yet, Roger did not arrange to get a good, close-up look at it.

In the first part of the film, Roger's angle-of-view is about 3/4 of the way behind Patty......very close to directly behind....




....and yet, he chose not to get the FULL WIDTH of Patty on camera, when it would have had it's strongest effect on the viewer.


As Columbo would say....."Gee, that seems strange to me. Does it seem strange to you??? I mean you go through all that work, to custom-form padding to make the guy's chest extra wide...and then you just ignore it.
I just don't get it! .............Oh well!"

[mangler]

What took you so long Noah?


m

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.

The extreme chest/torso width is absolutely a major feature of that alleged "suit"....and yet, Roger did not arrange to get a good, close-up look at it.

In the first part of the film, Roger's angle-of-view is about 3/4 of the way behind Patty......very close to directly behind....

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...0Bob/fr9aa.jpg


....and yet, he chose not to get the FULL WIDTH of Patty on camera, when it would have had it's strongest effect on the viewer.


As Columbo would say....."Gee, that seems strange to me. Does it seem strange to you??? I mean you go through all that work, to custom-form padding to make the guy's chest extra wide...and then you just ignore it.
I just don't get it! .............Oh well!"

Now why in the world would a hoaxer ever want a good shot of the suit? That's the last thing the hoaxer wants in his film.

We never have a good clear focused shot of bigfoot. Ever. Not since the subject came up have we had a good look at a bigfoot. If we did, we'd see that it's not bigfoot.

[LTC8K6]

Maybe if sweaty found some of those other rolls...

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.... [edit]

That wasn't in the storyboard.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The right arm is distinctly shaded, while Patty's back is clearly in full sun.

The extreme width of Patty's upper-torso is clearly visible....her body 'widens-out' at the top of the legs, and is the same width all the way up to the armpits.

Another low resolution image that blurs into the background. Do you have anything that is better? This is GIGO (Garbage in = Garbage out).

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Actually.....this is garbage......

Hey, as I said before, I was trying to give your creature theory the benefit of the doubt and showed how the head probably sloped. However, overprocessing/scans/motion blur/etc resulted in the head not being perfectly resolved. Instead of an argument of how that was not possible, you keep throwing it out as a futile gesture of last resort. What this image demonstrates, using your lines, is that this is nothing more than a floppy headpiece that did not fit on top of the persons head very well. Thanks for demonstrating that it is not a creature but a guy in a suit.

[Astrophotographer]

deleted

[LTC8K6]

Why can't we just see the original film rolls? What is the big deal there?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

....

The extreme width of Patty's upper-torso is clearly visible....her body 'widens-out' at the top of the legs, and is the same width all the way up to the armpits.

..............

Precisely what you might expect in a suit as opposed to a real animal, which
would have some tapering from shoulder to waist ..

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Precisely what you might expect in a suit as opposed to a real animal, which
would have some tapering from shoulder to waist ..

By 'tapering'....you mean like this guy......