The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by neltana

But that is precisely the point! They [forest elephants] are rare, and yet we can still get pictures of them. Not so for BF! We still don't have confirmed, unambiguous pictures of them.


kitakaze, you need to clean out your inbox. I'm trying to send you a PM, it is darn interesting, but you can't see it!

How would anyone know if the photos are unambigious? If NGC took them? Please, there are pictures of bigfoot, it is up to you whether you want to accept them or not. Due to a lack of a body, any photo, no matter how clear, will remain ambigious.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Who said anything about the teacher claiming a fake dog ate it?

Since you are having reading comprehension issues today you may want to run this past Mak#2 and see if he can explain it to you.

Reported. It's called being on the fence, genius.

Why the hell do you assume things too often? Do you enjoy tormenting me by your rude post?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Reported. It's called being on the fence, genius.

Why the hell do you assume things too often? Do you enjoy tormenting me by your rude post?

What's called being on the fence? Where did a fence come from in this conversation? What in the world are you talking about?

Go back and read my analogy. The student claims a new species of homework-eating dog ate his homework. There is no fence. There is only a student, a teacher, some missing homework, and a mysterious dog.

In this situation who must offer proof that the dog ate the homework? Is it the teacher or the student?

Clear enough?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

What's called being on the fence? Where did a fence come from in this conversation? What in the world are you talking about?

Go back and read my analogy. The student claims a new species of homework-eating dog ate his homework. There is no fence. There is only a student, a teacher, some missing homework, and a mysterious dog.

In this situation who must offer proof that the dog ate the homework? Is it the teacher or the student?

Clear enough?

But your analogy is not what's going on. Instead, it is like the teacher saying to the kid that "a mundane cat" was eating the hw, not a unknown species" and not being able to back up her claim.

Person 1: Oh, cool, look at the PGF, it is one interesting footage. I think it could be real

scoftic: No, uh uh, its fake, and until you prove its real, its a guy in a suit

Person 1: wha?

[neltana]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Person 1: Oh, cool, look at the PGF, it is one interesting footage. I think it could be real

scoftic: No, uh uh, its fake, and until you prove its real, its a guy in a suit

Person 1: wha?

The actual truth of a statement is not influenced by the amount of proof provided. The strawman in your illustration seems to imply that it does.

Regardless of what a skeptic would or wouldn't say, I think they would typically mean something like this: "I am going to presume it false until I see proof to the contrary. This is an extraordinary claim and such claims typically end up being false (inherent in the definition of "extraordinary claim"). Therefore, I shall not give it the benefit of the doubt."

Obviously, anyone can claim anything. We can't independently verify everything anyone else says...if we did, what would the point be in talking to them? So, we pick our battles and accept certain things at face value. However, when a claim is extraordinary, the most reasonable course of action is to not treat it at face value and not believe it until it is demonstrated to be true.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by neltana

The actual truth of a statement is not influenced by the amount of proof provided. The strawman in your illustration seems to imply that it does.

Regardless of what a skeptic would or wouldn't say, I think they would typically mean something like this: "I am going to presume it false until I see proof to the contrary. This is an extraordinary claim and such claims typically end up being false (inherent in the definition of "extraordinary claim"). Therefore, I shall not give it the benefit of the doubt."

Obviously, anyone can claim anything. We can't independently verify everything anyone else says...if we did, what would the point be in talking to them? So, we pick our battles and accept certain things at face value. However, when a claim is extraordinary, the most reasonable course of action is to not treat it at face value and not believe it until it is demonstrated to be true.

What I find most extraordinary is that people are still interacting with Trolls.
|

[neltana]

Well, we had a nice reasonable PM exchange, so I figured I'd give it a shot. I'm not blind, just eternally optimistic.

I have no problem talking to "reasonable Mak." I choose to believe that is the one who will reply to my message.

I also voted for George Bush in 2000 because he said he was "compassionate". So, that should give you a pretty good gauge of my track record.

ETA: Yeah, I have my doubts that is the right spelling of gauge...gague? guage? gayj? I just don't know at his point!

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by makaya325

But your analogy is not what's going on. Instead, it is like the teacher saying to the kid that "a mundane cat" was eating the hw, not a unknown species" and not being able to back up her claim.

Person 1: Oh, cool, look at the PGF, it is one interesting footage. I think it could be real

scoftic: No, uh uh, its fake, and until you prove its real, its a guy in a suit

Person 1: wha?

So you are going to dodge all around the question and once again prove that your only reason for being here is to try to troll. You are incredibly predictable, and pathetic at trolling.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by neltana

But that is precisely the point! They [forest elephants] are rare, and yet we can still get pictures of them. Not so for BF! We still don't have confirmed, unambiguous pictures of them.

Hey, look at that. A mak attack. With gorillas, even... again. A bucketload of forest elephants...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Fo72lx72I

http://www.treehugger.com/forest%20elephants.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/...3633bafe75.jpg

http://www.nickgarbutt.com/images/dm...ie_Gabon_1.jpg

And now for Bigfoot...



































Or not.

Quote:

kitakaze, you need to clean out your inbox. I'm trying to send you a PM, it is darn interesting, but you can't see it!

Hit me.

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Quote:

In short, we now have definitive proof that "Patty" shares a visibly and measurably close range of proportions with a normal (if somewhat heroically formed) man, and that with a slight crouch that same normal man can match "her/its" unusual gait.*

Odinn wrote:

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Come on, you're joking right? These are nice animations but they don't prove anything. They certainly aren't up to photogrammetric standards. Mangler will be the 1st one to admit this.

They must match Patty EXACTLY, and they don't. Good fit, but not perfect. It has nothing to do with Mangler's efforts, it's just highly unlikely that the figure in the suit had the exact same dimensions as the poser, human or otherwise. And that's just 1 of the major problems here.

This poser figure has "standard" proportions that were forced to fit over Patty's images. But this approach is backwards. At best it's only phase 1. For phase 2, the proportions must be adjusted for a BETTER fit. Repeat this process until you converge on an accurate model of Patty. The resulting animation will then meet photogrammetric standards. Otherwise, what do these animations actually show? They AREN'T averages and they certainly don't prove that a person with "poser" proportions fits perfectly in the suit. As I alluded to upthread, whenever limbs are foreshortened, there are always MULTIPLE solutions for a 2D representation of a 3D object. This can only be resolved thru averaging over many frames, which in turn revises the model. This was not done here. Each frame was fit independently and the poser's proportions were never averaged.

Not close, it must be exact. No excuses. These animations don't fit to these specifications probably because the model is rigid and due to limitations of the software.

Then there is the hefty preparation required before these animations can meet photogrammetric standards (listed upthread). I wouldn't trust any derivations from any PGF images unless these standards were adhered to. Any CG animation can't come close to proving anything, otherwise.

But I also applaud Mangler, who has proven the persuasiveness of a slick graphic. Very nice job...and proof enough, for some. I guess I'm just a stickler, but I need more. Bring on phase 2.

Oh no, he's not joking, Odinn.........Vort's going with "The Land Of Make-Believe" here, rather than dealing with the REAL-world.



Odinn wrote:

Quote:

Not to sound harsh, but for these animations to mean anything, they must attempt to match Patty's proportions, not force a "standard" human CG figure over them.
The objective should be to achieve an optimal fit.

'Optimal' is a key word, because that's what meaningful analysis is all about......being precise.



On a related note.....I just got back from a trip to Virginia, helping someone move.....and I had a lot of driving time to think about the 'elbow analysis', and came up with some more ideas on how to expand it....including incorporating my (future) re-creation of Patty's alleged 'upper-body padding' into the analysis.
I also found some good information in Grover Krantz's book "Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence" that's relevant to the elbow analysis.


(BTW...his estimate of Patty's walking height is 6'0", with an additional 6" added to that, for her standing height'. A little bit out of Bob's league....
Personally, I think Patty's walking height may be 1-3 inches taller than 6-feet even. There's one factor in the 'foot-ruler' height-measuring method that may be causing an error....and I'm going to test that out, very soon.)


Lots of good stuff, ahead........but, unfortunately, all "REAL WORLD" stuff.....so it won't mean anything to the "critical thinkers" of JREF!

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by makaya325

How would anyone know if the photos are unambigious? If NGC took them? Please, there are pictures of bigfoot, it is up to you whether you want to accept them or not. Due to a lack of a body, any photo, no matter how clear, will remain ambigious.

I think you are engaging is a kind of semantic dodge ball with this question. Clearly none of the pictures of the alleged bigfoot creature are remotely as unambiguous as the photographs that millions of people take every year of wild animals.

A picture of a smudge or some other out of focus piece of non-sense is no more probative with regard to the existence of a bigfoot type creature than anecdotal sitting-around-the-campfire BSing type stories.

I recently took some pictures of gorillas at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. If I posted them nobody here would have any doubt that they were not of a man in a monkey suit. So far there have been no bigfoot images that are remotely that credible.

I also have taken my own bigfoot photo:


If I claimed that this was an unknown primate that I saw running through Yosemite would I have added one iota of evidence for the existence of an unknown hominid? Maybe under some philosophical idea where anything that might support a claim in anyway is evidence I suppose I might have. But on a practical for probative purposes basis would I have actually provided useful evidence that supported the existence of an unknown hominid in the North American west? And if bigfoot supporters dig up hundreds of images like this to support their claims does that mean that the net effect is significant evidence for bigfoot? My thought is that thousands of crap images are no more probative than zero crap images.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

'Optimal' is a key word, because that's what meaningful analysis is all about......being precise.

I guess it was precise to say Patty has inhuman proportions!

Quote:

Lots of good stuff, ahead........but, unfortunately, all "REAL WORLD" stuff.....so it won't mean anything to the "critical thinkers" of JREF!

Sweaty, I'm glad you took my advice on how to deal with these difficult times for proponents of inhumanly proportioned Patty...

Those computers, why, they'll just do anything!

*kerplonk*



Debate, Sweaty style.

[kitakaze]

Let's keep this more simple...

Sweaty, mangler has provided an excellent demonstration that a human of average proportions could be within the alleged Patty suit.

Simple question - does the animation show a proportionally normal human? Yes or no.

[Locknar]

This has been placed on Moderated status until further notice; it has devolved into the same members trading the same insults...hardly productive or civil. Whether it reopens, remains moderated, is heavily purged of off-topic posts, or closed is a matter the Moderation Team is discussing.

Posted By:Locknar

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I recently took some pictures of gorillas at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. If I posted them nobody here would have any doubt that they were not of a man in a monkey suit. So far there have been no bigfoot images that are remotely that credible.

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

What does the left hand have to do with the ' inhuman proportions ' you claim exists ?

I don't understand the point of your question, Greg. Can you elaborate on what it is you're trying to find out?

[Óðinn]

Unfortunately, the ONLY way to demonstrate that an "averagely" proportioned human would fit into the suit, using a CG Poser model, is with a perfect fit. Otherwise, how "close" a fit is required to prove your point? Ultimately, it will be subjective. You certainly can't eyeball a 2D graphic of a 3D object and claim "yep that good enough fer me!" If you can make an averagely proportioned human fit exactly over Patty's body, then you're good as gold. Checkmate. Anything less and it's close but no cigar. You must remove any subjectivity. And even when you do obtain a perfect fit, it doesn't mean they have the same proportions, but it does prove that Patty could have had human proportions. This is all about aligning the images to prove a point, right? So who decides if the fit is good enough? You must remove all doubt with an exact fit, period. I'm not making up these rules. They are the built-in criteria for this exercise.

Here's the deal in my nutshell:

Mangler used frames 288 to ??? of the PGF, which were taken from MK Davis' stabilized GIFs, which were in turn taken from Rick Nolls microscoped images of Greens 2x magnified/cropped copy of the PGF. I assume that MK Davis attempted to stabilize and scale these images to a consistent size (distance from the camera). At least the animations depended on this. It looks like mangler's animations relied on MK doing the prep work. However, without the frame borders, we can't really tell if the aspect of these frames are accurate. IMO, I think they are accurate, but this could undermine manglers efforts if the aspect is wrong.

Legs and arms are the key here. What I see in these animations is a Poser figure that is scaled for a best fit in the upper body only. If the head & arms are scaled correctly then why don't the legs fit? It looks like mangler faced this dilemma when overlaying the images. IMO, the head looks a bit overscaled if a helmet and costume head were placed over the Poser's head. Not nearly as much leeway as the shoulders got. But this is what I would expect if the arms weren't cooperating. You must scale up the figure to match the arms. But then the head is a forced fit and the legs, forget about it. The fact that the entire body was problematic when trying to fit it to an average human needs to be addressed. That is the exercise here after all. Why was it so difficult to make the legs work? I'm willing to bet that BH in the Morris suit would not have the same problems. This is what intrigues me about the PGF. To hell with fitting an average human in the suit. Just determine the actual body dimensions and lets see what we've got. Then we can debate whether a human could have been in there. Personally speaking, I see an oddly disproportional individual in the suit. The fact that it's been so difficult to fit a "normally" proportioned human in the suit needs to be addressed. What's the deal?

We have the software to do all this. Now we need the images. Bill Munns?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I don't understand the point of your question, Greg. Can you elaborate on what it is you're trying to find out?

I think I can help with that. What Greg is attempting to get you to directly discuss is summed up in the question in this post just a few above...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Let's keep this more simple...

Sweaty, mangler has provided an excellent demonstration that a human of average proportions could be within the alleged Patty suit.

Simple question - does the animation show a proportionally normal human? Yes or no.

It's not a hard question. You claim Patty has inhuman proportions. Mangler's animation totally disproves that. Does the animation show a proportionally normal human? Yes or no.

See, Greg was making a point that Patty is not inhumanly proportioned and that the costume disguises particularly the hip and sholder joints. He also said that you try to present pictures of Patty that give the impression of odd proportions...

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I believe the costume disguises joint locations. Particulary the hip and shoulder .. Less so for the knee and elbow ..

Sweaty seems to favor positions and angles that give the impression of odd proportions..

Here is a shot where the arms and legs look fairly human in proportion, IMO ..

You responded talking about Patty's left hand...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Thanks for mentioning this again, Greg. I meant to respond to it last time you brought it up, but didn't get around to it.


Patty's arms didn't shrink, as she walked......her left hand is simply overexposed in this frame...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ortArmsAG1.gif

Which is irrelevant to the proof presented by mangler that an average human can fit Patty's proportions fine.

[shandyjan]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

I think people taking pictures of gorillas have nothing to hide, they are very clear pictures. No one is even thinking they are men in suits. Now take fuzzy pics and claim ebigfoot..thats the opposite of the millions of wildlife pictures!

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

See, Greg was making a point that Patty is not inhumanly proportioned and that the costume disguises particularly the hip and sholder joints.
He also said that you try to present pictures of Patty that give the impression of odd proportions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg
I believe the costume disguises joint locations.

Particulary the hip and shoulder .. LESS SO for the knee and elbow ..

'Less so"??? Actually.....it's 'NOT AT ALL' SO for the knees and elbows.

In Patty's case, the positions/locations of the elbow and knee joints cannot possibly be altered, or disguised, in the least.

I'll demonstrate that, later.



At this point, it's looking like Patty has an actual (demonstrable) elbow-to-elbow span, in some frames, of approx. 40"-44"....and that's with elbows in a position which are in a relatively 'low' position, in the arm swing.

Try replicating that yourself......

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by shandyjan

I think people taking pictures of gorillas have nothing to hide, they are very clear pictures. No one is even thinking they are men in suits. Now take fuzzy pics and claim ebigfoot..thats the opposite of the millions of wildlife pictures!

That did not answer my question: What features do Gorilla's display that can not possibly be faked?

[xblade]

Originally Posted by makaya325

How would anyone know if the photos are unambigious?

By looking at them?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by xblade

By looking at them?

Ahh, but they can always easily be Faked.

[desertgal]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Ahh, but they can always easily be Faked.

You are missing the point. You asked how anyone would know if the photos are unambiguous.

Faked, genuine, unambiguous, ambiguous - the only way to judge if a photo is any of those is by looking at it. You know any other way?

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

Gorillas are not impossible to fake. I think some modern movies have done a very credible job. These involved the use of sophisticated special effects techniques. But it is probably easier to fake a gorilla for a still shot image than a movie and perhaps it would be possible that it could be done by determined individual with a modest budget. As to why it would be difficult to do this, just look at a real gorilla and a human, there are major differences and somebody would have to be moderately skillful and determined to prevent those differences from being obvious in a faked image. Or they could just should a blurry low resolution picture of a fake gorilla and avoid all the difficulties involved in producing a credible fake gorilla.

Are there credible images of a non-human hominid living in North America?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Are there credible images of a non-human hominid living in North America?

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post one so we can tell you how we look at it.

[SweatyYeti]

The problem....(the impossibility)....is related to the elbow position of Bob, or any average-proportioned human, not the shoulder.


That little detail is a detail that not one of "Randi's Heroes" can deal with......as was just shown by Vort's and Drew's posts...which made reference to the shoulder, rather than the elbow...


Vort wrote:

Quote:

Here's a radical hypothesis that would explain why the skeletal dimensions of the PG figure are wholly normative and human with the sole exception being the shoulder width and the crest of the head:

Drewbot wrote:

Quote:

Sweaty, regarding the EPIC shoulder/centerline sketch...

Much more to follow......on the 'Elbow Position' analysis...

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Physically............Impossible. FOO-FOO on you....kitty-POO-POO.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Physically............Impossible.

For Patty to be a human in a suit? Is that what you are saying? Oh wait...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

The problem....(the impossibility)....is related to the elbow position of Bob, or any average-proportioned human, not the shoulder.

You have a sample base? No, you are just trying to slip that by in order to cheat and bypass the moderated status of a thread so that you can start filling this one with the same crap. And...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Well... aaaaaaaaaaaaactually, Vort I posted my opinion in conjunction with the graphic at the end of the previous page........you know, the graphic which shows, with numerical certainty, that Bob's elbows cannot possibly reach the positions that Patty's can.....and did.

Reported.

Sorry, ol' Sweat. I don't really care how often you break your MA with the "chump" and "kitty-POO" and all the rest, but when you cheat to get around the decision a JREF moderator has made regarding a thread, I think you've had more than enough warnings.

[Locknar]

Do not by-pass the moderated thread; Bob Heironimus and Patty discussions belong here. Future by-pass attempts may result in infractions and/or your post being summarily removed. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Posted By:Locknar

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Perhaps you would be so kind as to post one so we can tell you how we look at it.

The Patterson Film, the Klamath footage

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads...1133504584.jpg

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-h...rriotts-video/

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Perhaps, but it is really how you look at it.

OK, here's credible to me:
1. A picture of routine quality similar to the quality level for which millions of images of known animals exist.

2. A credible individual that has a credible story about how he came to take the picture.

3. The animal in the picture is is unlikely to be something known, like a bear or a man in a monkey suit.

Some nice to haves:
4. Information from other witnesses that lend support to the photographer's story.

5. Other images that provide independent corroboration of the physical details pictured in the first photograph.

6. The entire set of images that were taken on the CF card or the roll of film.

Let's see how the PG film stacks up on this list:

1. Maybe routine quality for the time, but still a very unclear film.

2. The PG film guys had significant credibility problems

3. Despite SweatiYeti's claims, the animal in the PG film could have easily been a man in a monkey suit.

4. There was more than one witness but two of them had credibility problems and they were acknowledged partners in the hoax if there was one.

5. There have been no other images which lend significant credibility to the PG film

6. The original, unedited film reel has never been made available.

So got any images that can beat the PG film for credibility? The PG film sets a pretty low standard.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by makaya325

The Patterson Film, the Klamath footage

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads...1133504584.jpg

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-h...rriotts-video/

So you're saying that in your opinion this is quality evidence?

[SweatyYeti]

davefoc wrote:

Quote:

3. Despite SweatiYeti's claims, the animal in the PG film could have easily been a man in a monkey suit.

Not really "easily", dave. The numbers tell us that...






......The numbers that nobody can refute.


As for the 2 measurement points used in this comparison...

The location of the backbones....the center of the body....in both Bob and Patty, is unaltered by padding.

The position, and location within the arm, of the elbow joint is unaltered by padding.


Therefore....the measurement figures are not altered by padding, or any type of suit....and, along with those measurement figures....the difference between them is unaccountable-for by a 'padded suit'......a 'monkey-suit'.....a 'donkey-suit'......a 'make-believe suit'......a 'JREF SCIENCE suit'......or, even a 'davefoc says-it's-so suit'.


What DOES account for the difference is a difference in skeletal structure, between Bob and wide-bodied Patty.

[Vortigern99]

Oh, Sweet Mary McGillicuddy.

The problem, as with all such comparisons, is that those pictures are not scaled properly. They do not account for different lenses used in either the capturing of the image on the negative, nor during the enlargement of that negative onto celluloid for film projection, nor on the amount of digital compression during the conversion to a computer-graphic image. Neither do they account for the different angles of view on display in each picture, angles which change the proportions of the figure based on the rules of perspective and foreshortening. In short, the two figures do not match up properly, and so cannot be compared with any degree of accuracy.

Regarding the just-this-week invented measurement of "elbow-span", this fluctuating-by-the-moment method does not account for the fact that an individual can extend his/her arms to a 180-degree position parallel with the ground, and beyond. At any given moment, the elbow may be anywhere along an arc centered at the navel and extending to several centimeters above the crown of the head. This is not an accurate or reliable means of measurement or comparison between two images, especially given the errors listed in the preceding paragraph.

[Careyp74]

What is that 143 supposed to represent? The distance from the monster's left elbow to his right nipple?

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a comparison using a padded costume, that AtomicMysteryMonster linked to, earlier...in another thread...


Note how, despite the padded shoulders, padded-out chest, and padded arms.......a couple of lines drawn down the center of the subject....(his backbone).....and along the center of the arm.....produce a figure of 14" for the subject's Elbow Span/Reach........from his backbone...






The length of 14" compares very closely to an average human's elbow span....for that particular arm-angle. In Bob's case, it measured 16".


Again....well short of Patty's Elbow Span of approx. 20-23 inches, for a similar arm-angle.


One of the strengths of this analysis, is that it literally cuts-through the padding, and gets down to the heart of the matter.....the actual skeletal structure underneath any and all padding.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Oh really? Tell me, why couldn't they have been simply monkey suits? What features do Gorilla's have that make them impossible to fake?

Just to clear up for anyone reading this quoted post, the idea being conveyed is not that the guerrillas couldn't be faked, but that they looked like guerrillas, and no one would say, "Hey, could be men in monkey suits." On the other hand, this video being discussed, and others similar to it, all look like people in monkey suits. This logic seems to fall short with some people.

[Careyp74]

Again, you go from the monster's left elbow, to his right nipple. And why doesn't the line on the padded costume go straight down towards the belly button? Little skewed if you ask me.

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Quote:

Regarding the just-this-week invented measurement of "elbow-span", ....

I love it...42 years of people analysing the film, and nobody, apparently, has discovered this REVEALING little detail.....until now....

Quote:

....this fluctuating-by-the-moment method does not account for the fact that an individual can extend his/her arms to a 180-degree position parallel with the ground, and beyond.
At any given moment, the elbow may be anywhere along an arc centered at the navel and extending to several centimeters above the crown of the head.

Actually, Vort.....it DOES.

There is a way to quantify the position, and reach, of the elbow, anywhere along it's arc of swing.....by simply taking measurements in both the horizontal, and vertical direction....measuring the lengths from the elbow joint...to the backbone, and to the top of the head.


Logically.....if a subject's upper-arm bone, and breastbone, are both actually longer than an average human's.....(as Patty's appear to be)....then the differences in those bone-lengths should ADD-UP to a significantly different position....and longer 'reach'....of the elbow-joint, relative to the subject's backbone.

And, that significantly longer reach of the elbow-joint should SHOW-UP in those measurements, since all of the measurement points involved are unaffected by any potential padding.

The 'extra-long reach' of the elbow...cannot be hidden.