The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I'm making my own argument there, Sweaty. If Patty is a human, she's a human in a suit, yes?

Sure, that would be true.

I agree that if Patty's arms are longer than most human's arms, that that feature.....in and of itself....doesn't 'rule out' a guy-in-a-suit.

It is certainly possible ('probability' is a different matter)for a suit to have arm/hand extensions inside it.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It is certainly possible ('probability' is a different matter)for a suit to have arm/hand extensions inside it.

Hand extensions are not needed. By the nature of the suit, it will add a few inches to an individuals hand. It is far more probable that the few inches you are arguing about has to do with the suit and less probable that it is an actual bigfoot. We have gone down this road too many times. Provide something substantial with measurements that proves the arms are excessively long. So far, all measurements have shown they are not excessively long.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Hand extensions are not needed. By the nature of the suit, it will add a few inches to an individuals hand. It is far more probable that the few inches you are arguing about has to do with the suit and less probable that it is an actual bigfoot. We have gone down this road too many times.

Provide something substantial with measurements that proves the arms are excessively long. So far, all measurements have shown they are not excessively long.

What exactly do you mean by 'excessively'??



Astro wroto:

Quote:

Hand extensions are not needed.

Great! Makes life simpler!

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

What exactly do you mean by 'excessively'??

You were the one claiming that they were too long to be human. You stated that Bunny had "exceptionally looooooooooooong arms". So far, you have yet to demonstrate this is true.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

You were the one claiming that they were too long to be human. You stated that Bunny had "exceptionally looooooooooooong arms". So far, you have yet to demonstrate this is true.

What exactly do you mean by 'excessively'??

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

What exactly do you mean by 'excessively'??

You were the one who said they were extremely long. Don't try and escape that claim. What is the length of the arms and we can decide if it is excessively long? BTW, a suit can easily make an arm appear longer than they really are.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

You were the one who said they were extremely long. Don't try and escape that claim. What is the length of the arms and we can decide if it is excessively long?

BTW, a suit can easily make an arm appear longer than they really are.

What exactly do you mean by 'excessively'??

[Astrophotographer]

What exactly do you mean by "exceptionally looooooooooooong arms"? How about a value for that. Excessively is one that is well outside the human norm and could not possibly be duplicated by a suit.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Excessively is one that is well outside the human norm and could not possibly be duplicated by a suit.

and:

Quote:

Provide something substantial with measurements that proves the arms are excessively long.

So far, all measurements have shown they are not excessively long.

So, you want me to prove that Patty's arms are "well outside" the normal, or average, human arm length.

Well......"well outside" is a subjective judegement.



But, here is what I can do for you, Astro.....I'll repeat what I wrote in my post, from a day or two ago......

Quote:

Patty's arms....proportionally speaking....appear to be LONGER than Jim's!


Yet again......Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's.

How is that???


As for specific numbers.....I plan on getting some actual numbers, sometime in the near future.


For now, though......comparative length analysis tells us that Patty's arms appear to be longer (proportionally speaking......they reach down closer to the feet) than your average Joe's arms.

Quote:

What exactly do you mean by "exceptionally looooooooooooong arms"? How about a value for that.

See above.

[kitakaze]

Mind scumb.

[doctoratlantis]

This guy has long arms.



Man! These guys have LONG arms.


And this guy's right hand is BIGGER THAN HIS HEAD!


And this guy is just weird.


And this girls has admitted to having "very long arms"


Is it possible that early Americans had much longer arms? Look at this rifle:

Were people from Kentucky predisposed to "long arms?" Or is that a reach? I've got to hand it to you guys - you've really got me curious about how long arms are.

But I would not advise doing a Google image search on "long and hairy" - just don't.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

So, you want me to prove that Patty's arms are "well outside" the normal, or average, human arm length.

Well......"well outside" is a subjective judegement..

Absolutely it is subjective. There are always those that are outside the human norm and a suit with large or loose fitting gloves at the end is going to make somebody appear to have longer arms than they appear. If you want some values on this, I am going to have to say that I can not produce anything definitive. Perhaps we are talking 25% outside the norm? Considering the difficulties with low resolution, motion blur, etc. I think that would be considered a good yardstick.
We also see that you are now backtracking because you have two quotes that disagree with each:

"Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's."
"exceptionally looooooooooooong arms"

In one, you are stating that they appear to be/looks like they are too long and in the other you are claiming it is obvious to everyone. So which is it? Do they "appear" to be longer or is it they "are" longer? Appearance is subjective and is a little better than a guess. "Are" means you have something to demonstrate this is true. So far, in the months/years you have been doing this, you have been unable to demonstrate this is a fact. Therefore, when you say "later", I can only assume that this is another attempt to avoid answering a bigfoot question or we will see the same old crayon drawings that are improperly scaled/low resolution/etc. that prove absolutely nothing.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Absolutely it is subjective. There are always those that are outside the human norm and a suit with large or loose fitting gloves at the end is going to make somebody appear to have longer arms than they appear. If you want some values on this, I am going to have to say that I can not produce anything definitive. Perhaps we are talking 25% outside the norm? Considering the difficulties with low resolution, motion blur, etc. I think that would be considered a good yardstick.
We also see that you are now backtracking because you have two quotes that disagree with each:

"Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's."
"exceptionally looooooooooooong arms"

In one, you are stating that they appear to be/looks like they are too long and in the other you are claiming it is obvious to everyone. So which is it? Do they "appear" to be longer or is it they "are" longer? Appearance is subjective and is a little better than a guess. "Are" means you have something to demonstrate this is true. So far, in the months/years you have been doing this, you have been unable to demonstrate this is a fact. Therefore, when you say "later", I can only assume that this is another attempt to avoid answering a bigfoot question or we will see the same old crayon drawings that are improperly scaled/low resolution/etc. that prove absolutely nothing.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Astro.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Mind scumb.

YEEEEEEEEEE He He He He ... ......He He He He He ... ......kitty 'Poo-nalysis'... .....

[kitakaze]

Most telling is how Sweaty responds here. Astro completely dismantles Sweaty's dreck piece by piece and Sweaty, instead of participating in the debate with intellectual honesty and sincerity, simply gives some fake little "thanks" nothing response. Thanks, Astro. I can't handle your arguments at all as they expose my gobbledy-gook so I'll just *zip* dodge this one.

The two words that I said, however, Sweaty's gonzo with the gifs, colours, all-caps, cackling and pictures. Have you ever seen a more transparent individual?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

and:

So, you want me to prove that Patty's arms are "well outside" the normal, or average, human arm length.

Well......"well outside" is a subjective judegement.

But, here is what I can do for you, Astro.....I'll repeat what I wrote in my post, from a day or two ago......

How is that???

As for specific numbers.....I plan on getting some actual numbers, sometime in the near future.

For now, though......comparative length analysis tells us that Patty's arms appear to be longer (proportionally speaking......they reach down closer to the feet) than your average Joe's arms.

See above.

You are fail. Complete mental fail. Here is your fail post where you try to quibble about Jim and Patty's arm appearing about the same length...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Blowing-up the image a bit...to a point where it can be more accurately asessed... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...tyYeti/one.jpg ...



We can see that if Patty's hand was simply pivoted, to be pointing straight down...as Jim's hand is....her fingertips would also reach down to the yellow line.

Now, considering the fact that Patty's arm is at a significantly greater angle from the Vertical, than Jim's is.....we know that her fingertips would actually reach down to a point lower than the yellow line/Jim's fingertips....if her arm was at the same angle as Jim's.


Patty's arms....proportionally speaking....appear to be LONGER than Jim's!


Yet again......Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's.

You blah, blah, blah try and fanaticize that Patty's arms are still longer. You fail. You said proportionally but we can see that not only are Jim's arms looking about the same length, when his arm goes straight down, it reaches the same area of the leg as Patty. You are fail. Using a simple measuring tape I make a crude measurement. You know, a #number#. Did it in a jiff. From the end of the hand to the top of the shoulder on both Jim and Patty is about 5cm. On top of that is this essential point - Jim's got nothing on. He isn't wearing any Bigfoot suit. The line that touches the top of his head and the one touching the end of his hand - he's not wearing any head piece that was like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, or arms in gloves and still he matches up with Patty.

You are 100% fail.

*bzzt* FAIL. Next.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by doctoratlantis

This guy has long arms.
http://www.plasticclothing.com/shop/.../445_image.jpg

Blake, you didn't happen to *ahem* see what I saw on a certain first page, did you? Erm, yes, anyways, the arms...

Patty should meet Sebastian.

The Chabal would tear Patty Nopoop's diaper butt to shreds...

http://yellowromancandles.files.word...ien-chabal.jpg

http://spd.fotolog.com/photo/45/51/1...88792400_f.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ien_Chabal.jpg

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Can you highlight the image, to show what you mean??...

No.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

...Or, at least elaborate on what you mean?

Patty's entire arm looks like it's hanging straight down, to me.

Not in the literal sense. Not like your wooden Bigfoot's arm. As has been pointed out earlier, real subjects have shoulders, with ball and socket joints. The arm is not parallel to the axis of the body. It is moving in a swinging motion, back and forth, and away from the body. Not by a great deal, but by enough. It isn't a stiff armed marching swing (like plywood Patty). You are proceeding from the assumption that the exact position of joints and sockets are exactly where you want them to be. The point is- that factoring in the shoulderpads, whatever padding the actor is wearing doesn't necessarily impact the arms. In any event, this is neither here nor there. Patty McPadding's arms aren't "inhumanly long". So the argument that BH couldn't manage the stroll without Reed Richards' powers is just so much sasquatch.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You are fail. Complete mental fail. Here is your fail post where you try to quibble about Jim and Patty's arm appearing about the same length...



You blah, blah, blah try and fanaticize that Patty's arms are still longer. You fail. You said proportionally but we can see that not only are Jim's arms looking about the same length, when his arm goes straight down, it reaches the same area of the leg as Patty. You are fail. Using a simple measuring tape I make a crude measurement. You know, a #number#. Did it in a jiff. From the end of the hand to the top of the shoulder on both Jim and Patty is about 5cm. On top of that is this essential point - Jim's got nothing on. He isn't wearing any Bigfoot suit. The line that touches the top of his head and the one touching the end of his hand - he's not wearing any head piece that was like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, or arms in gloves and still he matches up with Patty.

You are 100% fail.

*bzzt* FAIL. Next.

Sorry Kitz, but those Photo's are flawed. It is unknown if Mclarin was in the EXACT location of Patty's footsteps. It should also be considered whether or not Green filmed Mclarin on the correct level, correct angle, etc.

[kitakaze]

Just an update on my efforts to meet Heironimus...

I've had no response to my email to Bob's wife. Either the email address is unused or she/they chose not to respond. I suspect with the address I used that the former is the case and that she simply doesn't use that email address. I was considering using snail mail to send a letter requesting the interview. I contacted Gigantofootecus about accompanying me. Giganto is enthusiastic about the interview but unable to attend due to family obligations. Correa PMed me an excellent idea for an alternative collaborator for meeting with Heironimus and once I receive a response from that person, I'll update further.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Sorry Kitz, but those Photo's are flawed. It is unknown if Mclarin was in the EXACT location of Patty's footsteps. It should also be considered whether or not Green filmed Mclarin on the correct level, correct angle, etc.

I see you missed, neglected or ignored my earlier post regarding proportion. With regard to this specific discussion -- the ratio of the arm length compared to the length of the body -- it doesn't matter what distance each subject is from the camera. What's important, once more, is the ratio of the arm length compared to the length of the body. Get it?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I see you missed, neglected or ignored my earlier post regarding proportion. With regard to this specific discussion -- the ratio of the arm length compared to the length of the body -- it doesn't matter what distance each subject is from the camera. What's important, once more, is the ratio of the arm length compared to the length of the body. Get it?

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I'm going to say this one last time; after that you're on your own. Please pay close attention, because you've missed my point altogether.

The distance from the camera is not at stake here. Put that question aside for a moment. We're talking about proportion: a comparative ratio.

In the pics under review, McClarin's arm length compared to the length of his body, and Patty's arm length compared to "its" body, are the same. McClarin's hand hangs down just as far on his own body as Patty's does on "its" own body.

We don't need to know the distances involved because the only unit of measurement is the subject's own body. Got it?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You blah, blah, blah try and fanaticize that Patty's arms are still longer.

Hey, kitty-POO.... ....

...You FAILED to show where the error was, in my post....

Quote:

Patty's arms....proportionally speaking....appear to be LONGER than Jim's!


Yet again......Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's.

.....therefore....





....You FAILED!!!

Quote:

You fail. You said proportionally but we can see that not only are Jim's arms looking about the same length....

"ABOUT" the same length.....as in, Patty's arms are longer.

Proportionally speaking...they reach down closer to the FEET than Jim's do...

Quote:

when his arm goes straight down, it reaches the same area of the leg as Patty. You are fail. Using a simple measuring tape I make a crude measurement. You know, a #number#. Did it in a jiff. From the 'end of the hand' to the 'top of the shoulder' on both Jim and Patty is about 5cm.

Part of the reason why Patty's arms appear to be exceptionally long...(Bob Gimlin said that her arms reached down to, or were slightly below, the knees)....is due to the proportion of the arm-length, relative to other body limb lengths/proportions...(such as Patty's 'shorter legs', for example.)

Therefore, simply measuring the length of the arm, itself...(fingertips to shoulder).....leaves out the most significant part of the arm-length proportional differences... which can be seen very clearly, in this skeleton comparison...

Quote:

On top of that is this essential point - Jim's got nothing on. He isn't wearing any Bigfoot suit. The line that touches the top of his head and the one touching the end of his hand - he's not wearing any head piece that was like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, or arms in gloves and still he matches up with Patty.

You are 100% fail.

*bzzt* FAIL. Next.

Wrong, kitty-POO....Jim doesn't match-up with Patty.

Once again.......for those who are having trouble grasping what the Patty/Jim comparison shows...


We can see that if Patty's hand was simply pivoted, to be pointing straight down...as Jim's hand is....her fingertips would also reach down to the yellow line.

Now, considering the fact that Patty's arm is at a significantly greater angle from the Vertical, than Jim's is.....we know that her fingertips would actually reach down to a point lower than the yellow line/Jim's fingertips....if her arm was at the same angle as Jim's.


Patty's arms....proportionally speaking....appear to be LONGER than Jim's!


Yet again......Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's.

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, instead of wading through your muck and sparing the forum the plastic doggy poop and the other crap (Vision Realm's pseudo-scientific artistic rendering), I'll simply number your problems. You can then proceed to *plonk* not deal with the issues...

1) Do you have a clear image of Patty standing back, head, shoulders, legs, straight, unobscured, with arms at the sides? It would really help in trying to disprove that Patty has inhumanly long arms, proportionally speaking, of course.

2) Patty's arms are longer than a human's (proportionally speaking, of course)? A-ha, yes... Like this guy would not compare to Patty?

3) You said that I failed to point out the error in this comment of yours...

Originally Posted by A desperate, conniving Bigfoot fanatic

Patty's arms....proportionally speaking....appear to be LONGER than Jim's!

Yet again......Patty's arms appear to be longer than a human's.

a) LTC kindly pointed out to you that it can be seen that the end of Patty's arm is blurring with the background. You ignored that. You can see it right between Patty's right arm and her body in the image comparison showing Jim's looooong arms. That's what happens when you have blurry images. You get crap blurring together. That's why it's a mental fail to try and make spurious claims based on them. That's woo. That's you.

This is the sort of moment where you do something lame and pathetic, like, talking about how lucky Patterson was. By all means, try that move once again. I have some wonderful Bigfoot girly drawings by your favourite cowboy that I love to flaunt and you love to dodge. Shall we?

b) Astro pointed out very specifically what was wrong with those comments of yours. All you could muster in return was a little, smug "thank you" dodge. You did this because you couldn't come up with anything better. Ineptitude is the word I'm thinking. Dodge or repeat? Dodge or repeat? Which is it? That time Astro got dodge and now I'm getting repeat.

4) You dodged the crucial point that Jim's got nothing on. He isn't wearing any Bigfoot suit. The line that touches the top of his head and the one touching the end of his hand - he's not wearing any head piece that was like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, or arms in gloves and still he matches up with Patty. Yes, he matches up pretty good. Once you take into account the way the background was blurring with Patty's hand, it looks like the end of the right arm is right about where the red line is.

OK, so let's say that Patty's arm, if straight down, might be slightly longer than Jim's. That's to be expected. Let's check. What I did is took a piece of thin paper and placed it of the image of Patty. Trying my best to discern where Patty's arm actually stopped, I traced an outine around Patty's arm and then cut it out with scissors. Placing it back over Patty's arm on the screen and swinging it down, I can see that it slightly comes over the yellow line. And I do mean slightly. Nothing that would require any sort of crazy hand extension garbage. Also, when I look at Patty's left arm and similarly try and project where it will come down, it doesn't seem weird at all.

I take into account the head piece, shoulder pads, and gloves that Patty would have and I can see that there is no problem at all. Patty's arms are definitely within human range, and when we take into account suit features, it's game over fanatic time.

5) You said about Patty's arms "Proportionally speaking...they reach down closer to the FEET than Jim's do.."

Prove it. I won't expect that they might not be slightly longer. I don't think Patty is a hairy human. I think she's a man in a suit, hunched over, with a head piece, shoulder pads, and gloves. I expect that there will be some increase. Prove the increase puts us into crazy hand extension territory. Give us hard numbers. Give us reliable measurements and spare the dodge/repeat.

6) You said "Bob Gimlin said that her arms reached down to, or were slightly below, the knees."

Yeah, he kinda screwed that up, didn't he? That's why Patterson totally made him look like a giddy ass and said that Gimlin was just over-excited. It's like Gimlin screwed up the script and said too much. But he is supposed to be saying something, right? Patterson is trying to get a person in a suit to look like Bigfoot. He wants hunched over and simian. Tube could replicate the effect quite well, remember?

7) Does Patty have short legs? Making crude measurements on the large image you blew up there I get 3.5cm for Patty's waist to knee. On Jim? 3.5 cm. Patty's knee to foot comes out to 3cm. Same again for Jim. So looking at those numbers there, I see nothing to indicate that Patty could not simply be a suit with a head piece, shoulder pads, and gloves. Exactly what are said to be there.

You may now resume your dodge.

[kitakaze]

So here's the haymaker, just for Sweaty...

1) Putting a skeleton of normal human proportions directly () over images of both Patty McLumpy and Bob Heironimus show a close match in limb length/body proportions...



Sweaty has utterly failed at every attempt to refute this. The best he can muster is a crappy blurred-out image from a distance and subjective opinions. Nothing that rules out a suit with a head piece, gloves, shoulder pads, and a diaper butt.

2) We know that Patty isn't all that tall. She was in fact shorter than Jim Mclarin (who was still pretty tall) and right around the height we could expect for a hunched over Bob Heironimus with a head peice like on oldtime football helmet...



3) We know that Patty's limbs and proportions are quite comparable to human out of a suit...

3

4) Even using some simple imagination you can see that Patty doesn't scream "inhuman"...



5) So, taking those things into account, we can get to the reality. How does the only human being to ever claim to be Patty and passed not one but two polygraphs in support of the claim look when we get him in a Bigfoot suit?



Oh dear, looks like yes, Bob in a suit is a pretty good match (proportionally speaking, of course ) for Patty. This is where the desperate switch to Philip Morris' suit claims and how bad they think the recreation looks. Sorry guys, I don't think Morris made the suit.

6) Uh-ohs. This is where desparate fanatics such as Sweaty start really getting sweaty and look for something, anything, to clutch on to. The head, man! Try the head! Yes, this is where ol' Sweaty tries the head routine. But uh-oh again, looks like Sweaty has a problem that he's been ignoring quite a bit lately. I call it conehead meet Andy Capp...





What the heck is going on there? Patty's head is freaking morphing! The Infiltrator (Bigfoot) is doing some freaking infiltrating right in front of my eyes. Well, it's either that or the images themselves are flawed, thereby rendering their reliability for objective measurements as useless.

7) Damn, it's looking really grim for Sweaty types. Maybe they can just brush it all away and say Bob Heironimus is delusional. Wait... I'm sorry...what's that? He was there?...



8) No no. It's just some crazy coincidences. Who cares if Bob Heironimus, the only man to ever claim to be Patty, was hanging out with the guys whose names are on the film at the time that they were making the film. Patterson was just a happy-go-lucky cowboy. He was lucky. He was reaaaally, really, astronomically, never-in-a-million-years lucky...





9) Lucky and not without funds...



10) It's OK, desperate Bigfoot fanatics of the world. I know how you feel...



But you just do like Sweaty does...



And maybe it'll aaaalllll go away...

[Skeptical Greg]

SweatyYeti:

Quote:

...which can be seen very clearly, in this skeleton comparison...

Sure it can ...

You do know that Patty skeleton is made up, don't you ? Don't you ??

I hate to break this to you Sweaty, but that is like showing us the skeleton of Barney while lecturing us about T-Rex ..

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I hate to break this to you Sweaty, but that is like showing us the skeleton of Barney while lecturing us about T-Rex ..

So I decided to get down some of my body proportions because I'm hoping I can find out sometime how I compare with Patty. I'm tall and I have long arms and legs. I used a tape measure and a tailor's measure.

My height (no shoes) = 74 inches or just over 6'1"

My arms (from the top of my shoulder to my the end of my middle finger straight down) = 32 inches

My legs (from top of hip bone to heel) = 43 inches

My legs (from top of inner thigh to heel) = 36 inches

Length from tip of middle finger to ground when hanging straight at my side = 26 1/2 inches

Therefore...

My arms are 43.24% of my total body height.

My legs are 58.1% of total body height. Measuring from inside of leg results in 48.65%

Distance from and of arm to ground is 35.81% of total body height.

Additionally, the tips of my middle finger when put flat to my sides while standing straight up are 6 inches from the tops of my kneecaps.

Can Patty be reliably measure in any of those proportions? If so, does Patty exceed my proportions to such an extent as to be impossible for a human (or at least very abnormal)? If Patty exceeds any of my measurements, is it possible to be produced by nothing more than a suit with a head piece like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, and gloves without crazy hand extensions?

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

If Patty exceeds any of my measurements, is it possible to be produced by nothing more than a suit with a head piece like an oldtime football helmet, shoulder pads, and gloves without crazy hand extensions?

According to Bob Munns the costume expert, it could not be accomplished with a costume.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

SweatyYeti:

Sure it can ...

You do know that Patty skeleton is made up, don't you ? Don't you ??

I hate to break this to you Sweaty, but that is like showing us the skeleton of Barney while lecturing us about T-Rex ..

Yeah...

How did we get a skeleton for Patty?

I can understand putting a generic one in there to illustrate a point, but I don't see how we arrived at a useable skeleton for Patty for any sort of accurate comparison or measurement purpose.

If we are going to use a skeleton for Patty, could we use that one that does the funky chicken while it walks in LMS? I kinda' like that one.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, he kinda screwed that up, didn't he? That's why Patterson totally made him look like a giddy ass and said that Gimlin was just over-excited. It's like Gimlin screwed up the script and said too much. But he is supposed to be saying something, right? Patterson is trying to get a person in a suit to look like Bigfoot. He wants hunched over and simian. Tube could replicate the effect quite well, remember?

Yeah, "well", but not well enough......






Patty's arms are longer....proportionally speaking...(fingertips reach down closer to the feet)....than Tube's.....despite the fact that Tube's arm is straight down, while Patty's is bent at the elbow, making it appear shorter than it actually is.

[Astrophotographer]

Bunny's shoulder appears to be lower than Tube's in this blurry image. Tube's shoulders appear level, while Bunny appears to have the shoulders angle towards the right. Also, Tube has his fingers in a curled position. When I did some rough measurements, the resulting difference is about 5-15 pixels, which is about an inch (maybe 2). Nothing to get all worked up about and it implies that it is well within normal human standards.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Bunny's shoulder appears to be lower than Tube's in this blurry image. Tube's shoulders appear level, while Bunny appears to have the shoulders angle towards the right.

Wrong, Astro.

Take another look at the "made-up" Bunny skeleton...





Notice how the distance from the 'shoulder to the top of the head' is greater in Patty than it is the the typical human skeleton.

You're interpreting that dfference as "Patty is leaning to the right".....but that simply isn't the case.



If you watch the film, you can actually SEE that Patty is walking straight....needing no correction for "list", either to the left, or the right......

[Astrophotographer]

We weren't talking about skeletons were we? You were posting your Tube-Bunny comparison to demonstrate your point about Bunny's arms are way too long to be human. I suggest you look at the GIF and the images again. The angle between the left and right shoulders is 7-13 degrees to the right (depending on how you measure it). You can say Bunny was walking straight and level all you want but the fact of the matter is the right shoulder is significantly lower than the left. This results in Bunny's right shoulder being lower than Tube's. If you can't see it, then you need glasses or we need some higher resolution imagery. Didn't I ask you to provide that once before?

[Vortigern99]

Yes, Patty's arm begins at a point (the shoulder joint) that is placed considerably lower than Tube's, so of course Patty's hand appears to hang lower.

Comparing the two arm lengths from shoulder to hand yields a significantly closer -- and more accurate -- measurement.

[Astrophotographer]

The difference in your lines is between 5-10 pixels which is very similar to what I previously stated. This is nothing and can easily be accounted for by a suit.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

According to Bob Munns the costume expert, it could not be accomplished with a costume.

I'm sorry, I stopped registering anything from Bob a couple months ago. Is he still around? I haven't bothered to check any of that stuff out, lately.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Yeah, "well", but not well enough......


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ubeComp222.jpghttp://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ttyComp222.jpg

Patty's arms are longer....proportionally speaking...(fingertips reach down closer to the feet)....than Tube's.....despite the fact that Tube's arm is straight down, while Patty's is bent at the elbow, making it appear shorter than it actually is.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...crapAG333b.gif

1) Tube is absolutely doing well enough. Especially, considering he's not wearing a Bigfoot suite.

Oops for you.

2) Is your crayon line from the bottom of tube's foot actually going to the bottom of Patty's foot? If so, can you prove it? I can't see. It looks like it should be lower for Patty. The difference is already slight enough that no crazy hand extension would be needed, but put that line where it looks like the bottom of Patty's leg is and you have absolutely nothing. BTW, you put a line from tubes right leg to Patty's left.

Double oops for you.

3) Nice boots Patty is wearing. Or is the blur deceiving me?

Oops for you.

This thread smells like roast Yeti. You have a lot of dodging to do. Luckily I've numbered a lot of it so as to easily point it out to you. Good luck with that.

[makaya325]

Jack on the BFF, calculated that Patty is around 6ft tall, yet here is an interesting post of his.

Quote:

I'm confused. What would be the point? Are you trying to prove she's real? Or not? I believe she's the real McCoy,

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Yes, Patty's arm begins at a point (the shoulder joint) that is placed considerably lower than Tube's, so of course Patty's hand appears to hang lower.

Yup.....Patty's shoulder appears to be placed a bit lower than Tubey's shoulder.

And, what is wrong with that???

Could it possibly be "placed" there legitimately.....as in.....Patty is a real Bigfoot, with different body proportions???



Here is the same comparison again...with the same scaling as before.
This time, I highlighted where the eyes are located on each subject...and which, happen to line-up very closely...







Now.....let's sit back and watch the "skeptics" try to extricate Tube from his "shortcoming"....

Astro is still going with "Patty is 'listing' to the right".......possibly due to the suit being 'unbalanced'?????


The arrow is simply there as a reminder that, when Patty's arm is straightened out......as Tube's is....the yellow line would consequently move downward, increasing the difference in their body proportions.

Quote:

Comparing the two arm lengths from shoulder to hand yields a significantly closer -- and more accurate -- measurement.

A good idea.............when one is faced with something they find disturbing, is to look away from it, and focus on something else.

(Don't like the 'fingertip-to-feet' comparison.....just switch-over to the 'fingertip-to-shoulder' comparison.....and......feel good! )


I agree that the 'arm lengths', themselves, are closer....as they are also, in this skeletal comparison...





......but, what in the world makes that a more accurate measurement/comparison???

Is it wrong...illegitimate...meaningless...."inaccurate" .....to compare the distances from their fingertips to their feet?????

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Wrong, Astro.

Take another look at the "made-up" Bunny skeleton...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Skeletons6.jpg

Take another look at the art? Rough day, huh, Sweaty?

Quote:

Notice how the distance from the 'shoulder to the top of the head' is greater in the artisitic interpretation of what Patty's skeleton might look like than it is the old drawing of the typical human skeleton.

Fixed it (in pink). You're welcome.

Quote:

If you watch the film, you can actually SEE that Patty is walking straight....needing no correction for "list", either to the left, or the right......


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...eckHairAG9.gif

Nice gif. I absolutely can't say that Patty is walking straight from that. You keep wishing, though.

What I would like to see is Patty standing up, legs, arms, back, head straight. Now let's take off the hypothetical head piece, shoulder pads, and gloves.

How is Patty going to compare to my arms being 43.24% of my total body height, the distance from the ends of my arms to ground being 35.81% of total body height, and the end of my arms being six inches from my kneecaps?

It's not looking so good. Better run some diversion, Sweaty.