Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

No, it's a moving graphic display of the undeniable fact that an average human skeleton can fit Patty.

Not her elbow reach......






When you visit Bobby-Boo, you can take a thousand pictures of him, with and without padding.......and never will you be able to produce ONE image of Bob that will replicate the same elbow position, and reach, relative to his backbone, as seen in these images of Patty.


NEVER. I guarantee it, kitakaze.

But please try.....and bring your Fric and Frac dolls along, for "good luck". They're absolutely magical!

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Sweaty, here are the two images for you again...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1925http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1927

Now you're going to need to fetch a ruler or measuring tape to answer the three following questions...

1) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder to elbow line on both images of Bob?

2) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder line to top of head in both Bob images?

3) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder width of both images of Bob?

If the numbers in numbers in the three questions above match each other, how is it possible that I have significantly mis-scaled them?

Here's the approx. scaling. Take a common body part and match their lengths. (click to animate)



You can also match Patty's humerus bone to synchronize their scale.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

With regards to the image in the quote box above....as I have shown before......the Poser 7 skeleton does not fore-shorten anywhere near the amount that it MUST fore-shorten, in accordance with the amount of change in the angle-of-view it undergoes, from Bob to Patty....(approximately 30-40 degrees).

You know who can bail you out here, Sweaty? Slatty McPosty! Get that bad boy in here. Take a picture of Slatty viewed straight on and measure the "shoulder" width. Turn Slatty the exact degree to match Patty as in those shots and measure again and let's see how messed the overlays really are.

Quote:

1st) The Poser 7 skeleton on Patty does not cover her full apparent width. It's short by about 20 pixels.

That's nice.

1) Poser 7 is not supposed to be a perfect fit, only an approximation showing that a human could fit Patty. Altering the bones to fit will not take the skeleton out of normal human range.

2) Shoulder pads will make a siginificant difference in this scenario. You are intentionally ignoring that fact. That is what you do to maintain your fantasy.

Quote:

2nd) The Poser 7 skeleton only shortens by about 2 or 3 pixels from Bob to Patty.....while it MUST fore-shorten...(according to the Cosine figure for an angle of approx. 40 degrees).....by an amount of approx. 40 pixels.

Show me how much it must foreshorten. Tell me why DAZ confirms Poser 7? Are these two separate physics engines failing impossibly in the exact same way? Tell me why you ignore the Poser 7 animation? Why not repeat the process yourself? Both mangler and neltana have given you everything you need to replicate what they've done? Why do you not do that? Why do you insist on scribbles on blobs?

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

How did you establish you measurements, Sweaty?

I "established" my "measurements" by "taking" my "measurements"....with "measuring tools".

Quote:

How can we go about verifying them and knowing them to be factual?

I don't care if you can verify, or know that my measurements are "factual".

I don't care what you think....about anything.


If you have the ability to find errors in my measurements/graphics....then please, FEEL FREE to enlighten the world as to precisely where, and to what extent there are errors in them.

Go for it, kitty!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Not her elbow reach......

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...eMeasured5.jpg

When you visit Bobby-Boo, you can take a thousand pictures of him, with and without padding.......and never will you be able to produce ONE image of Bob that will replicate the same elbow position, and reach, relative to his backbone, as seen in these images of Patty.


NEVER. I guarantee it, kitakaze.

But please try.....and bring your Fric and Frac dolls along, for "good luck". They're absolutely magical!

Yes, about that elbow reach thing...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

This is a perfect example of Sweaty "analysis". Let's measure an elbow span. I know! Let's take images of Bob and Patty cut them somewhere in the middle-ish, make a Rorschach Bob and Rorschach Patty, then start making measurements like they're the real thing.

I have an important question, Sweaty. Exactly what is the length in centimeters or inches of Patty's elbow span? Also, I would like to measure my elbow span to see if Patty's elbow span far exceeds mine and any other average human. How do I measure my own elbow span?

My limb length proportions and those of many real skeletons I've shown exceed Patty's proportions. Once again, how do I measure my elbow span and compare it to Patty?

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Note that in response to the post of Vort's that I have quoted, Sweaty ignored the centrally important question of how he established the veracity of his 21-22 inch measurement and simply responded with a nuh-uh post. Why would Sweaty do this? Can he not verify his measurements? Does he not care to? Is he not interested in establishing verifiable facts about Patty?

How did you establish you measurements, Sweaty? How can we go about verifying them and knowing them to be factual?

Once again, Sweaty, how did you prove that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately."?

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

1) Poser 7 is not supposed to be a perfect fit, only an approximation....

Well, it's approximately WRONG/FLAWED/INACCURATE/BOGUS/IN DEFIANCE OF ONE LAW OF PHYSICS.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I "established" my "measurements" by "taking" my "measurements"....with "measuring tools".

OK, what measuring tools and how did you employ them to conclude that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately."? If you made such a specific measurement of Patty, I should be able to take that and use it as reference to know exactly how tall and wide Patty is. How did you achieve this wonderful thing that no footer before ever has?? You're amazing, Sweaty! Bigfootery first right here!

Quote:

I don't care if you can verify, or know that my measurements are "factual".

I don't care what you think....about anything.

It needn't be about me at all. Sweaty. I mean people in general. How can anyone verify the measurement and proclamations you make? If the steps aren't repeatable than the conclusions are not scientific. That's the basic scientific principle. I can make up all sorts of crap but crap is what it is if others can't reproduce independently what conclusions I make. Why are you dodging that simple point? Sweaty analysis not working or what?

Quote:

If you have the ability to find errors in my measurements/graphics....then please, FEEL FREE to enlighten the world as to precisely where, and to what extent there are errors in them.

Go for it, kitty!

I'm showing the errors all over the place and for some reason you won't even engage in the process of dealing with them. For example, I think that your elbow span stuff is foo foo. You tell me Patty's elbow span is 21-22 inches from her backbone. I want to test this. I want to see if my measurements exceed Patty, because in all other cases my proportions exceed Patty's. Yet for some reason you refuse to allow me the process of testing your methods conclusion.

You make whopper mistakes here all the time, really silly things like not being able to account for height discrepancies when slouching or the effects of padding on measurements. You can't just toss things out, call them facts, and ask people to prove you wrong. Try showing me how you established verified scale with the PGF to make any solid measurements and I will try and repeat the process.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Well, it's approximately WRONG/FLAWED/INACCURATE/BOGUS/IN DEFIANCE OF ONE LAW OF PHYSICS.

Typical Sweaty. Sweaty, here again is the post you responded to with everything you ignored in bold...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You know who can bail you out here, Sweaty? Slatty McPosty! Get that bad boy in here. Take a picture of Slatty viewed straight on and measure the "shoulder" width. Turn Slatty the exact degree to match Patty as in those shots and measure again and let's see how messed the overlays really are.



That's nice.

1) Poser 7 is not supposed to be a perfect fit, only an approximation showing that a human could fit Patty. Altering the bones to fit will not take the skeleton out of normal human range.

2) Shoulder pads will make a siginificant difference in this scenario. You are intentionally ignoring that fact. That is what you do to maintain your fantasy.



Show me how much it must foreshorten. Tell me why DAZ confirms Poser 7? Are these two separate physics engines failing impossibly in the exact same way? Tell me why you ignore the Poser 7 animation? Why not repeat the process yourself? Both mangler and neltana have given you everything you need to replicate what they've done? Why do you not do that? Why do you insist on scribbles on blobs?

Can you respond again to that post and not ignore the parts in bold? They are relevant to this discussion and it appears you can't deal with those points.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by lucaschorak

I can call Bob H tomorrow.I think he doesn't like being called at night.

Lucas, seeing how it is now night on the west coast and that you were signed in here late this afternoon, I'm wondering if you called Bob as we discussed. If you were too busy, please let me know.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Once again, Sweaty, how did you prove that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately."?

I measured it.


I think it's pretty cool....in 42 years of analysis of the PG Film, nobody to date....as far as I know....has discovered this neat little aspect of Patty's body dimensions/proportions.


The extreme reach of Patty's elbows....(due to a combination of both a longer 'collar bone' and a longer 'upper arm bone')....proves definitively, with HARD, IRREFUTABLE numbers, that a human being of average body proportions could not possibly have been inside the alleged "Patty suit".



Due to the fact that kitakaze simply cannot accept, and deal with this reality, he is now engaging in a blitzkrieg of posting distorted comparisons, physics-defying CG skeletons....and general "smoke-show" ranting, in an attempt to avoid dealing with the measurements, directly.


To summarize what kitakaze cannot do...regarding the evidence I have presented....in many graphics, containing many measurements...

He cannot SHOW precisely where, and to what extent, there are any errors in the measurements, in any of my graphics.

He cannot SHOW, with real-world physical objects....or even with direct Patty-to-Bob comparisons....that Patty's and Bob's dimensions actually do match.

He cannot SHOW that Patty's and Bob's upper-torso widths match.....with anything, at all.....real, or computer-generated.



And, lastly....he cannot SHOW even ONE example of an 'average' human being....(scaled to Patty's height)....whose elbow-reach matches Patty's.




And neither can Vort.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

2) Shoulder pads will make a siginificant difference in this scenario.

Thanks for the info!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Here's the approx. scaling. Take a common body part and match their lengths. (click to animate)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...26954a8f2c.gif

You can also match Patty's humerus bone to synchronize their scale.

Thanks, Óðinn. You'll have to teach me how to do that sometime.

That is what I did with my comparison but yours does a much better job at it. As we can see, there is no significant mis-scaling going on.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Thanks for the info!

Thanks for not addressing the point at all and demonstrating your complete unwillingness to participate in a debate with any measure of intellectual honesty. Thanks for continuing to ignore centrally relevant points of the discussion.

Here again is the post with the parts ignored bolded...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You know who can bail you out here, Sweaty? Slatty McPosty! Get that bad boy in here. Take a picture of Slatty viewed straight on and measure the "shoulder" width. Turn Slatty the exact degree to match Patty as in those shots and measure again and let's see how messed the overlays really are.

That's nice.

1) Poser 7 is not supposed to be a perfect fit, only an approximation showing that a human could fit Patty. Altering the bones to fit will not take the skeleton out of normal human range.

2) Shoulder pads will make a siginificant difference in this scenario. You are intentionally ignoring that fact. That is what you do to maintain your fantasy.

Show me how much it must foreshorten. Tell me why DAZ confirms Poser 7? Are these two separate physics engines failing impossibly in the exact same way? Tell me why you ignore the Poser 7 animation? Why not repeat the process yourself? Both mangler and neltana have given you everything you need to replicate what they've done? Why do you not do that? Why do you insist on scribbles on blobs?

A trite thanks does nothing to address the point that your arguments are flawed because they do not address the fact that shoulder padding will help account for the space that you are saying indicates a non-fit.

I see you are having difficulty actually address the things people are saying to you. Why is that?

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Thank for not addressing the point at all and demonstrating your complete unwillingness to participate in a debate wityh any measure of intellectual honesty.

Thanks for continuing to ignore centrally relevant points of the discussion.

And thank you for not refuting the elbow-reach measurements.

You can't!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I measured it.


I think it's pretty cool....in 42 years of analysis of the PG Film, nobody to date....as far as I know....has discovered this neat little aspect of Patty's body dimensions/proportions.

What is it about the question that causes you to become conversationally dysfunctional? I'm just going to keep asking it...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

OK, what measuring tools and how did you employ them to conclude that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately."? If you made such a specific measurement of Patty, I should be able to take that and use it as reference to know exactly how tall and wide Patty is. How did you achieve this wonderful thing that no footer before ever has?? You're amazing, Sweaty! Bigfootery first right here!

You said that Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately. I want to check your work. How can I do that? How did you establish a basic unit of measurement for Patty? What determined the scale? If you say Patty's elbow in an image is 21-22" away from her backbone, I want to know how you determined what sets an inch.

Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of verification and repeatability?

Quote:

The extreme reach of Patty's elbows....(due to a combination of both a longer 'collar bone' and a longer 'upper arm bone')....proves definitively, with HARD, IRREFUTABLE numbers, that a human being of average body proportions could not possibly have been inside the alleged "Patty suit".

Yes, Sweaty. Your numbers are completely irrefutable. Being correct is not what makes them irrefutable. The fact that you refuse to show anyone how you arrived at them is what makes refuting them impossible.

How long is Patty's collar bone in cm or inches? How did you discern that under either a suit or flesh? How long in cm or inches is Patty's humerus? How did you discern that?

Not doing too well with these basic concepts, are you, Sweaty?

That's a nice little bizarro world you've set up for yourself.

Quote:

Due to the fact that kitakaze simply cannot accept, and deal with this reality, he is now engaging in a blitzkrieg of posting distorted comparisons, physics-defying CG skeletons....and general "smoke-show" ranting, in an attempt to avoid dealing with the measurements, directly.

You haven't successfully demonstrated any of my comparisons to be distorted nor addressed any of the processes of how they can be shown to be distorted. Bust out Slatty McPosty. Follow the instructions mangler and neltana gave you to get working with a physics program. Physics program doing physics. It's a wild concept, I know.

Try actually explaining how two separate physics engines are failing in the impossibly coincidental bizarre way. Try actually addressing the full motion Poser 7 animation. You have that, right? You realize how that destroys all your scribbles on stills, right? You are in fact interested in the truth, yes?

Quote:

To summarize what kitakaze cannot do...regarding the evidence I have presented....in many graphics, containing many measurements...

He cannot SHOW precisely where, and to what extent, there are any errors in the measurements, in any of my graphics.

I've made measurements and you can not possibly show them to be wrong. No, I won't show you anything about how I made them or established scale.

Quote:

He cannot SHOW, with real-world physical objects....or even with direct Patty-to-Bob comparisons....that Patty's and Bob's dimensions actually do match.

He cannot SHOW that Patty's and Bob's upper-torso widths match.....with anything, at all.....real, or computer-generated.
And, lastly....he cannot SHOW even ONE example of an 'average' human being....(scaled to Patty's height)....whose elbow-reach matches Patty's.

Sweaty can't show what Patty's elbow span is in any standard unit of measurement. He can just say it but nowhere has he shown it. Sweaty can't show how I measure my own elbow span so as to compare it to Patty.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:



And thank you for not refuting the elbow-reach measurements.

You can't!

Absolutely right. No I can't. Not at all. You won't allow me or anyone else to refute your measurements. You're not interested in replication and you're not interested in science. Verification is not in your vocabulary. You're interested only in maintaining to yourself that Patty really is a Bigfoot no matter what the cost and by using whatever intellectually dishonest tactic will allow you to elude actual debate.

I might as well just communcate with you in Japanese and say you can't refute any of my arguments.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by lucaschorak

I can call Bob H tomorrow.I think he doesn't like being called at night.

Hi, Lucas. I see you've joined us tonight. Did you get a chance to make that call to Bob today?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

He cannot SHOW precisely where, and to what extent, there are any errors in the measurements, in any of my graphics.

Oops for you, Sweaty. I have here a gobsmackingly obvious error in your measurements. In the following graphic you present Patty on the left as beeing seen from a 40° angle of view...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

But in this post you present a graphic showing Bob Heironimus seen at an angle much closer to profile yet tell us that is Bob is at a 40° angle of view. These images can not possibly both be a 40° angle and thus there is a significant error in Sweaty's measurement.

You want a little salt for that, Sweaty?

[Vortigern99]

Sweaty, please address my posts #108 - 110 in this thread before stating that your conclusions are "irrefutable". I have in fact refuted them employing simple logic, reason, a willingness to accept reality, and, oh yes, a working grasp of the principles of anatomy, foreshortening, and photography.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Oops for you, Sweaty. I have here a gobsmackingly obvious error in your measurements. In the following graphic you present Patty on the left as beeing seen from a 40° angle of view...



But in this post you present a graphic showing Bob Heironimus seen at an angle much closer to profile yet tell us that is Bob is at a 40° angle of view.

These images can not possibly both be a 40° angle and thus there is a significant error in Sweaty's measurement.

Thanks, kitty.....you did find an error in my 'Bob Angled View' animated-gif.....although, it wasn't an error in one of my measurements, it was an error in looking-up the angle, in the Trig Table Chart that I've been using...


http://www.sosmath.com/tables/trigtable/trigtable.html


Here is a corrected version of the gif...






Here is a copy of the chart.....I was in the wrong column...(the Sine column, instead of the Cosine column).....when I 'scrolled down' to the .64 figure.

The angle associated with that .64 ratio...(as measured in the 2 overlaid views of Bob)....is 50-degrees...

Quote:

You want a little salt for that, Sweaty?

No, thanks....I have no problem being an imperfect human being.


Now, keep up the good work, kitty....and find a significant error in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach!

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Sweaty, please address my posts #108 - 110 in this thread before stating that your conclusions are "irrefutable". I have in fact refuted them employing simple logic, reason, a willingness to accept reality, and, oh yes, a working grasp of the principles of anatomy, foreshortening, and photography.

In post 108, you wrote:

Quote:

4. If it's a suit, the extra width of the figure compared to Bob's more narrow frame is easily explained by padding and the nature of such costumes, as has been shown again and again by AMM and others.

Of course that's true....with regards to increasing a person's body-width.....but it's NOT true regarding the exceptionally long reach of a person's elbows....(as measured, laterally, from their backbone).

That 'extra length'...comparable to Patty's measured lengths....simply CANNOT be produced by padding a person's shoulders, or arms.....(at least, not in a suit replicating Patty.....a Barney or a Godzilla suit is a different matter, altogether.)

In fact....when you add padding...(on the order of 2-3" thick, to a person's side...and an inch around the arm)....you significantly reduce the gap between the person's side and the inside of their arm.

This is yet another indicator, which can be...(and has been )....measured, to reveal whether or not an exceptionally-wide subject is wearing a heavily-padded suit.............or not.


I will demonstrate this, with a foam-rubber upper-body re-creation 'suit', replicating Patty's upper-body dimensions......with detailed pictures, including all of the appropriate measurements.

[Vortigern99]

So, out of three posts directly refuting your assertions on a point-by-point basis, you select one single point, completely misunderstand the logic behind it, make a garbled would-be refutation, and entirely ignore all the other rather damning points I've made against your absurd assertions.

This, Mr. Yeti, is why I routinely declare that I'm done arguing with you. You don't debate fairly, you misconstrue well-reasoned arguments that you cherry pick to make some oblique and unprovable point, you ignore all arguments that destroy your own beliefs, and you promise to return to points with new numbers/images/scribblings that you claim will prove your point, but never do.

For the third and hopefully last time, I am done arguing with you.

[Michael Palin]Look, this isn't an argument![/Michael Palin]

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Thanks, kitty.....you did find an error in my 'Bob Angled View' animated-gif.....although, it wasn't an error in one of my measurements, it was an error in looking-up the angle, in the Trig Table Chart that I've been using...

(snip)

No, thanks....I have no problem being an imperfect human being.


Now, keep up the good work, kitty....and find a significant error in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach!

Yes, so when you made that bungle you said this load of fail...

Quote:

The number .64, in the comparison above, is the equivalent of the cosine of the angle-of-view.
Looking-up that figure in a Trig Chart tells us that the angle associated with it is 40 degrees.

(That angle, btw, is exactly what Grover Krantz estimated Patty's angle-of-view is, in the middle part of the film.)

Now....here is what happens when the angle-of-view of Mangler's Poser 7 skeleton changes ....from straight-on, to approximately 40 degrees...

NOTHING happens. It Violates a law of physics that REAL-world objects obey.

It's width doesn't fore-shorten, or compress.....as it would, if it accurately represented REALITY.

Yet again, the skeletons are SHOWN to conflict with, and contradict how REAL, physical objects behave.....in the REAL world.

Your attempt to invalidate the P7S overlays did a total faceplant. The whole premise of what you were trying to do was screwed.

But here, Sweaty, is why you are in La La Land and everyone can see the flailing of a desperate Bigfoot fanatic. Here is why your elbow span foo foo is in the proverbial garbage. Here is a list of your fail...

1) You can not provide a single verifiable measurement of Patty or show how you established it.

2) You can not tell us how long in cm or inches Patty's collar bone is with any certainty.

3) You can not tell us how long in cm or inches Patty's humerus is with any certainty.

4) You can not tell us in cm or inches how far Patty's elbow is from her spine at any point with any certainty.

5) You can not invalidate the overlays or show a faulty physics engine with fail math and scribbles on stills.

6) This is a biggy - you can not cope with the fact that two separate programs designed solely for the purpose of running three dimensional physics each in full animation show an average proportioned human skeleton fitting into Patty. They both have elbows that go where Patty's elbows go, shoulders where Patty's shoulders go, hands where Patty's hands go, a spine where Patty's spine goes, and knees where Patty's knees go. In full motion. Move them any which way you like. These programs don't both impossibly fail in some bizarrely coincidental same way.

Try dealing with the first five seconds of mangler's P7S animation. You can't. It destroys every desperate scribble you've made on any skeletal overlay of Patty. Try dealing with the 5 seconds of animation from 1:30 to 1:35 in neltana's JREF youtube video. You can't. It, too, anihilates all your goober graphics.

Two programs, fully animated, same results, verified and replicated. Your made up numbers and scribbles mean nothing at all.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

So, out of three posts directly refuting your assertions on a point-by-point basis, you select one single point, completely misunderstand the logic behind it, make a garbled would-be refutation, and entirely ignore all the other rather damning points I've made against your absurd assertions.

Yes, as we see time and again this is par for the course with Sweaty. Sweaty always does this. Whatever he can't handle he simply pretends it isn't there, starts quibbling, and hopes people don't notice that he's not addressing the arguments presented to him. When he does this you simply have to take the points he is ignoring, put them back in front of his face, and don't allow him to sidetrack you with irrelevant hooey. Usually, what you get in the end is a one sentence reply effectively expressing his disinterest and in no way addresses the point. "Thans for the info! " Sweaty is simply incapable of participating in debate with sincerity and intellectual honesty where Bigfoot is concerned.

[kitakaze]

For Óðinn or anyone with a mind to make a P7S/Patty back view overlay, here in the middle is P7S from the back...



And Patty from the back...



Regardless of the blur blob there, any fool can see that there is no inhuman "elbow span" (possibly the stupidest term I have heard in quite some time) and that P7S would have no problem fitting it's elbows to Patty's. There is simply no reason why that could not be a person with a headpiece and shoulder pads under a costume.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Originally Posted by lucaschorak

I can call Bob H tomorrow.I think he doesn't like being called at night.

Hi, Lucas. I see you've joined us tonight. Did you get a chance to make that call to Bob today?

I don't know what the deal is with Lucas but what I do know is that he has logged in today several times since the night before last when he wrote that and I made my request. Each time he's gone right to this thread and made no response. Not a "sorry, I was busy today," or an "I'll call him later," or anything. What I do know is that we have a young man coming here and telling us he is in regular communication with Bob Heironimus, yet showing no indication of doing anything to confirm that fact.

I would very much like to believe Lucas' claim, but I find myself in doubt based on his lack of response while remaining present.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You are quite right, Óðinn. If you measure the humerus in both images, the result is not the same. Why is this? Why does the arm overlayed on Patty appear to be longer than it is overlayed on Bob if they are the same Poser 7 model with no errors happening in the physics engine of the program? Óðinn, if you watch again neltana's JREF crew youtube video that I included, you will see that that specific issue is addressed. Poser 7 shows it and DAZ Studio shows it.

I'm familiar with both applications and the algorithms that generate the images. This isn't a problem with the software. It's that there are an infinite number of solutions to arrange a poser if the body parts are foreshortened. You need to know the exact body orientation in 3D to know whether the poser fits. Plus the distance from the camera. Foreshortening gives you too much leeway. As the following diagram demonstrates:



In this scenario, the poser's leg would appear to fit perfectly from the back view.

IMO, this approach is backwards anyway. You can't tell if a "normal" human could have fit in the suit until you first measure the figure over a sequence of frames, then derive a CGI model. And not a loosey goosey fit either. This also requires using more than a few frames of dubious origin.

Quote:

BTW, did you download mangler's Poser 7 animation? Once again, same thing - an average human skeleton can fit Patty. And in that case it is a moving Patty. The idea at the core here is simply that Patty does not have inhuman proportions and that a man in a suit can not and has not been eliminated as a possibility.

Would you state that an average human can be eliminated as being Patty?

Nope, but the poser animations don't demonstrate this.

Quote:

For Óðinn or anyone with a mind to make a P7S/Patty back view overlay, here in the middle is P7S from the back...

The problem with this is that the view of the back is meaningless. We don't really know if the oblique view is a good enough fit to transpose the image to the back view. So unless you can do the same for Patty's image, what's the point?

Use the BEST possible calibrated frames of the PGF to build the 3D poser model. Overlay the model PRECISELY over each frame. The distances from the camera must be accurate (to correctly scale the poser). Refine the model. When you've achieved a best fit, then you can examine the poser from the back view.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I'm familiar with both applications and the algorithms that generate the images. This isn't a problem with the software.

On this we agree. I find the notion utterly absurd that two separate programs designed to run three dimensional physics are malfunctioning in the same way when you take a human skeleton and manipulate it in various ways.

Quote:

It's that there are an infinite number of solutions to arrange a poser if the body parts are foreshortened. You need to know the exact body orientation in 3D to know whether the poser fits. Plus the distance from the camera. Foreshortening gives you too much leeway.

As the following diagram demonstrates:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16.../legangles.gif

In this scenario, the poser's leg would appear to fit perfectly from the back view.

IMO, this approach is backwards anyway. You can't tell if a "normal" human could have fit in the suit until you first measure the figure over a sequence of frames, then derive a CGI model. And not a loosey goosey fit either. This also requires using more than a few frames of dubious origin.

Óðinn, I always find it refreshing to debate with you.

If I understand correct what you're saying, the argument you are presenting applies to the original scenario with the first P7S overlays. What it does not address is the full animation that we now have. It is not over a few frames, but rather a significant portion of the film, as well as being shown in more than one angle.

I see no reason to abandon this as proof that an average human could fit Patty's proportion.

Quote:

Nope, but the poser animations don't demonstrate this.

I'm still wondering if you downloaded mangler's animation. If not, I might be able to pass it along to you.

OK, putting aside for a moment the animations, unlike Sweaty, you are not stating that it would be physically impossible for a normal human to fit Patty. Would you say in terms of proportions there is any good reason for myself or anyone to consider a real animal over a man in a suit? If not, why?

Quote:

The problem with this is that the view of the back is meaningless. We don't really know if the oblique view is a good enough fit to transpose the image to the back view. So unless you can do the same for Patty's image, what's the point?

Use the BEST possible calibrated frames of the PGF to build the 3D poser model. Overlay the model PRECISELY over each frame. The distances from the camera must be accurate (to correctly scale the poser). Refine the model. When you've achieved a best fit, then you can examine the poser from the back view.

IMO, mangler's animation reasonably achieves what we are talking about. I think it is of central importance to Sweaty's "elbow span" hooey that we can take an image of Patty from behind and a poser skeleton that fits Patty over many frames and show that there is no inhuman width or inhumanly long humerus bones. If you think it's pointless, that's cool, but I do not.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

On this we agree. I find the notion utterly absurd that two separate programs designed to run three dimensional physics are malfunctioning in the same way when you take a human skeleton and manipulate it in various ways.

Yes, the programs are working fine, except they render the poser too close to the camera to be accurately overlaid on the PGF.

Quote:

Óðinn, I always find it refreshing to debate with you.

Ditto.

Quote:

If I understand correct what you're saying, the argument you are presenting applies to the original scenario with the first P7S overlays. What it does not address is the full animation that we now have. It is not over a few frames, but rather a significant portion of the film, as well as being shown in more than one angle.

But mangler just overlaid the skeleton/poser onto a sequence of frames. He didn't build a model and averaged the proportions over the sequence to get a best fit. Some frames didn't fit very well at all. Like I say this was done backwards. A "normaly proportioned" poser shouldn't have been force-fit onto Patty. Not unless you achieve a perfect fit would it be meaningful. Which it wasn't.

Quote:

I see no reason to abandon this as proof that an average human could fit Patty's proportion.

Trust me, this ain't proof.

Quote:

I'm still wondering if you downloaded mangler's animation. If not, I might be able to pass it along to you.

No I got it. See my comment above.

Quote:

OK, putting aside for a moment the animations, unlike Sweaty, you are not stating that it would be physically impossible for a normal human to fit Patty. Would you say in terms of proportions there is any good reason for myself or anyone to consider a real animal over a man in a suit? If not, why?

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin. But until then...

Quote:

IMO, mangler's animation reasonably achieves what we are talking about. I think it is of central importance to Sweaty's "elbow span" hooey that we can take an image of Patty from behind and a poser skeleton that fits Patty over many frames and show that there is no inhuman width or inhumanly long humerus bones. If you think it's pointless, that's cool, but I do not.

I'm not so sure about the elbow span thing either. My preference is to measure the limbs, head and body and build a model. Also, I'll give you hint. Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Yes, the programs are working fine, except they render the poser too close to the camera to be accurately overlaid on the PGF.

OK, if I accept this argument and had Poser 7 or DAZ Studio, exactly how would I fix this situation? Exactly what distance would I be setting the camera to accurately overlay the skeleton?

Quote:

But mangler just overlaid the skeleton/poser onto a sequence of frames. He didn't build a model and averaged the proportions over the sequence to get a best fit. Some frames didn't fit very well at all. Like I say this was done backwards. A "normaly proportioned" poser shouldn't have been force-fit onto Patty. Not unless you achieve a perfect fit would it be meaningful. Which it wasn't.

Let's talk about the frames that you think don't fit very well at all. If we were to take those exact frames and digitally alter the skeleton to make the fit perfect, would we be creating an inhumanly proportioned skeleton? I am absolutely sure that this would not be the case. The reason I am sure is the sample base I've made and testing I've done.

I think Patty's just a bit over 6 ft tall but I can't get mired down in trying to be precise cm/inch measurements where no one else has succeeded with certainty. What I am interested in is proving that proportionally Patty is not outside of average human range, and that the often heard claim that it is impossible for Patty to be a human is simply bunk. The method of measurement I've chose is one that any person participating can replicate. I'm basically using a measuring tape and calculator to measure mm's and make percentages. I take Patty, myself, and several human skeletons and measure bones for proportions. I show in percentages where various human proportions equal or exceed Patty's. No single measurement of Patty's has exceeded a human's. That includes her shoulder width relative to height and length of humerus relative to height separately or in combination with each other.

Sweaty will say that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately" yet he will not do anything at all to show how he arrived at that measurement or allow people to repeat his process. Nor has he created a sample base with which to establish that this "elbow span" exceeds average human measurements.

Quote:

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin. But until then...

Right, but I think when it comes to measurements of the film subject, we've reached a point of finality where we can say that there is no good reason to rule out a human in a suit. I think that brings us to getting away from looking at Patty and the film and going into the circumstances around it.

There's only ever been one guy to say that he was Patty, and that man has a proven connection to the people who made the film. BH is friends with BG, we know that. We've got to talk with these people and find out what's going on. Why won't BG talk to BH publicly? Why won't BG talk to skeptics who know the inconsistencies and the indicators of hoax? I think we know the answer to those questions.

Quote:

I'm not so sure about the elbow span thing either. My preference is to measure the limbs, head and body and build a model. Also, I'll give you hint. Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

It's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whenever I see something stupid, I think it would be fitting to exclaim "elbow span!"

That's interesting to know about the aspect ratio being screwed up. Personally, I think that's just another thing to throw on the pile. I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Regardless of the blur blob there, any fool can see that there is no inhuman "elbow span" (possibly the stupidest term I have heard in quite some time) and that...


P7S would have no problem fitting it's elbows to Patty's.

Thanks for posting the Pooper7 skeleton, kitty.


The skeleton's elbow reach is well short of Patty's...(as is typical)...





Pper7 would, in fact, find it impossible to place it's elbows in the same position, relative to it's backbone....as Patty's elbows were able to reach.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

I think that brings us to getting away from looking at Patty.......and the film and going into the circumstances around it.

I understand why you would not want to look at Patty, kitty.....it's painful for you to look at the measurements of Patty's elbow-reach, and be completely helpless to do anything about them, other than to throw BS at them.

But, I have to tell you this, sir......these measurements will NEVER go away......they'll NEVER be refuted.

In fact, I will continue to build on them.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

Her Creator.

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

Quote:

Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

Grover Krantz, in his book "Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence", gives his calculation of Patty's 'shoulder-width' as 27-28"....with a 'walking height' of about 6'0-6'1".

And those figures amount to the same body proportion as what's seen in the LMS version of the film...and are the same figures that I've been working with, also.
Also, Grover was using a good quality copy of the film, at the time....I believe....not LMS.


From his book...

"A more complicated calculation was made that depended on measuring the image width in the clearest frames and correcting these according to the angle from which it was viewed.

Seven such measurements were obtained from the seven largest and sharpest images. They represented different angles of observation, each of which was separately calculated.
These all averaged 28.7", or 27"...depending on which of two designs of shoulder shape that was presumed.

In my opinion, the 'angled shoulder reconstruction' is a little more accurate than the method using rear views... even if it is more complicated."


In Honor of Grover......







Note: kitakaze prefers using the fuzzier rear-views of Patty....and Half-Bob's, for his comparisons.

(I guess he figures that is the best way to get to the TRUTH.)

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Thanks for posting the Pooper7 skeleton, kitty.

The skeleton's elbow reach is well short of Patty's...(as is typical)...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...7ERCompAG1.gif

That is hilarious! You have just created a Rorschach of a Patty blob seen at an angle and not straight on from the rear and stuck scribbles on it as if it had any imperical meaning at all. That is some of the most dazzling Sweaty fail I have seen for quite some time. You don't happen to smell burnt toast, do you? Even for you that is particularly epic. It's like you're running on 6 year old logic.

Tell me, Rorshach, why is P7S' left elbow lower than Patty's right?

How about telling me how you know that 6.7 pixels equals one inch?

How about telling me why the elbows fit in full animation? Why are you still scribbling on still? You need to refute a fit in full animation and explain that.

How about trying your scribbles on the image where Patty is actually seen from the back instead of making Rorschach monsters? Use their left arms and see how much win you come up with there.

Wow. Really, Sweaty, this is bad even for you.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:



I understand why you would not want to look at Patty, kitty.....it's painful for you to look at the measurements of Patty's elbow-reach, and be completely helpless to do anything about them, other than to throw BS at them.

But, I have to tell you this, sir......these measurements will NEVER go away......they'll NEVER be refuted.

In fact, I will continue to build on them.

Post #135. Post #143.

Concept: science = replication

You said that Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately. I want to check your work. How can I do that? How did you establish a basic unit of measurement for Patty? What determined the scale? If you say Patty's elbow in an image is 21-22" away from her backbone, I want to know how you determined what sets an inch.

Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of verification and repeatability?

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of verification and repeatability?

No, I don't. Patty's 'elbow-reach' measurements will be verified outside of Jref.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

No, I don't. Patty's 'elbow-reach' measurements will be verified outside of Jref.

You are a piece of work. Look at that, Sweaty is outright refusing to answer a question regarding Bigfoot evidence. Do you have any concept of what you look like right now?

HAHAHA! My measurements are irrefutable! No one will ever be able refute them! HAHAHA!

Sweaty, can you show us how you made the measurements so we can attemp to reproduce them, confirming or disproving their veracity?

HAHAHA! Nobody at the JREF will get that information but I am going to continue to post here and tell people about my irrefutable numbers! HAHAHA!

Wow, Bigfoot enthusiasts have it hard enough without people like you making it harder for them. If you have no intention of engaging in allowing people at the JREF to know the methods of your measurements and try and verify them, what is the point of coming here and shooting your mouth off about them. What the heck is that?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

Her Creator.

Just one of the many issues with the PGF that Sweaty will not address...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin.

What last nail in what coffin?

What are the other nails that are already in this coffin that you speak of?