Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by parnassus

bleever.

Ouch!

[I Am He]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Even "over-scaled"....Tube's upper-arm is well-short of Patty's, in length...


Ouch.....stop playing so rough, Deacon...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...tyandCrew1.jpg



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...359AG5Fade.gif


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...PattyComp3.jpg

Please tell me again Sweaty, about that course in Human Anatomy you took?



I Am He

[parnassus]

don't be absurd; Sweaty is writing the textbook for Sasquatch Anatomy. It's subtitled:
"There is no Bigfoot, Yet I can describe its anatomy."

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Even "over-scaled"....Tube's upper-arm is well-short of Patty's, in length... [irritating smilies removed]
Ouch.....stop playing so rough, Deacon...

Really? Is this really what this is about? A vague and otherwise made-up 'incongruity' in some blurry 44 year old photos - photos of a known charlatan's version of the 'mythical' beast - somehow proves the supposed cosmic mystery of said beast's actual existence? Really? Apparently you were absent school the day they taught 'mythical'?

"It can't be a man in a suit, because it's a Bigfoot."

Without mentioning names <cough>, the most perversely interesting part to me (at this point) is neither the nauseating fervor with which you preach nor the simpleminded sophistication of your pathetic 'arguments', it's how so many seeming rational, reasonable and intelligent people here know what you're about (I think) yet still actively and regularly engage you.

They don't owe me an apology, but I want some answers damnit! (not)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I so doubt it.

If there's any consolation, with the 'law of unintended consequences' being what it is, you have thoroughly convinced me it could have also been Tube in the Patterson suit. Dare we ask where he was in, say, October of 1967? And don't say junior high!

I know. I know.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

....

Without mentioning names <cough>, the most perversely interesting part to me (at this point) is neither the nauseating fervor with which you preach nor the simpleminded sophistication of your pathetic 'arguments', it's how so many seeming rational, reasonable and intelligent people here know what you're about (I think) yet still actively and regularly engage you.
....

I find it puzzling that after all these years, I seem to be the only member of this group that has Sweaty on ignore .

In the spirit of the old saying about " What if they held a war, and nobody came.. ", I know I would find it perversely entertaining if Sweaty showed up, and no one responded to his posts..

Perhaps it's not too late.

[Thorax]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I find it puzzling that after all these years, I seem to be the only member of this group that has Sweaty on ignore .

In the spirit of the old saying about " What if they held a war, and nobody came.. ", I know I would find it perversely entertaining if Sweaty showed up, and no one responded to his posts..

Perhaps it's not too late.

Thanks. I put Sweaty on ignore, and I'm returning to the EBB (Easter Bunny Blog) where I've made some pretty good arguments as to why he doesn't exist either. Well, didn't really put him on ignore, it's too entertaining.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I find it puzzling that after all these years, I seem to be the only member of this group that has Sweaty on ignore .

Not quite...

RayG

[Deacondark]

Hey, I'm new around here, I didn't get the "ignore Sweaty" memo...

[parnassus]

Sweaty provides nice images that show the opposite of what he thinks.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I find it puzzling that after all these years, I seem to be the only member of this group that has Sweaty on ignore .

In the spirit of the old saying about " What if they held a war, and nobody came.. ", I know I would find it perversely entertaining if Sweaty showed up, and no one responded to his posts..

Perhaps it's not too late.

Now yer talkin!

[SweatyYeti]

Here is another comparison of Bob and Patty... ....highlighting one of Bob's short-comings...(his upper-arm')...






And...a more accurate scaling of Patty next to Roger, using the footprints...(this scaling accounts for the 'bloom' of Patty's left foot, in Frame 72)...







Considering how massive Patty's "padded" calf is....it's impressive how perfectly it replicates the action of real muscle... ...






Bonus....eyebrow movement...

..........

[Resume]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Considering how massive Patty's 'calf' is....is surprising how well...(perfectly well).....it replicates the action of a real, live calf muscle... ...

You understand that what you're actually seeing is a fold in the suit becoming exposed to the light, right?

As a matter of fact, almost all your images are tricks in the lighting.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I find it puzzling that after all these years, I seem to be the only member of this group that has Sweaty on ignore .

In the spirit of the old saying about " What if they held a war, and nobody came.. ", I know I would find it perversely entertaining if Sweaty showed up, and no one responded to his posts..

Perhaps it's not too late.

Sweaty who?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Resume

You understand that what you're actually seeing is a fold in the suit becoming exposed to the light, right?

No.


Here is the 'hip wader' version of the gif....showing how a hip wader does not perfectly replicate the action of real muscle...





Here is D-foot's F-suit N-not R-replicating the action of real muscle....neither... ...

Quote:

As a matter of fact, almost all your images are tricks in the lighting.

Here is another real cool 'trick of lighting'... ...






Patty's mouth moves....(tricky....ain't it?)...

[The Shrike]

Sweaty might have me on ignore. Otherwise how could he miss the information I've presented in recent posts:

1) There ARE NO VERTEBRATES with a longer humerus than radius/ulna. (I've even been checking Tertiary mammals - nada. Next I'll move on to some of those weird dinosaurs but so far, no dice. . .)

2) The one example that does jibe with Sweaty's claim for Patty's disproportionately long humerus is beautifully illustrated by guys in shoulder pads.

Boom. Done. Sweaty's arm length nonsense holds less water than a tuning fork.

[Drewbot]

Nice.
good job lining up the shoulders and using photos of all three people having their arms in a different plane.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Sweaty might have me on ignore. Otherwise how could he miss the information I've presented in recent posts:

1) There ARE NO VERTEBRATES with a longer humerus than radius/ulna. (I've even been checking Tertiary mammals - nada. Next I'll move on to some of those weird dinosaurs but so far, no dice. . .)

2) The one example that does jibe with Sweaty's claim for Patty's disproportionately long humerus is beautifully illustrated by guys in shoulder pads.

Boom. Done. Sweaty's arm length nonsense holds less water than a tuning fork.

Its an UNKNOWN species.

He fails to understand perspective, basic optics, basic image processing, basic ecology, basic FX creature costume building and workings and you want to understand anatomy?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

No.


Here is the 'hip wader' version of the gif....showing how a hip wader does not perfectly replicate the action of real muscle...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...lexCompAG1.gif


Here is D-foot's F-suit N-not R-replicating the action of real muscle....neither... ...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...ffpadding2.gif






Here is another real cool 'trick of lighting'... ...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...s-ArmComp1.jpg



Patty's mouth moves....(tricky....ain't it?)...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...73MouthAG5.gif

It's a guy in a suit.

[Correa Neto]

Prove it was not a woman!

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Prove it was not a woman!

You have me there.

[Deacondark]

In Sweaty's "More accurate scaling of Roger and Patty" he managed to make Patty's foot several inches longer (in scale) than the cast Roger is holding. And his picture of a hip wader flexing is just the same picture of a hip wader, turned to different angles! Ha!

Now I see what people mean by "Sweaty Logic"

[Skeptical Greg]

Did you miss out on Sweaty's " elbow span " calculations ?

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Sweaty might have me on ignore. Otherwise how could he miss the information I've presented in recent posts:

1) There ARE NO VERTEBRATES with a longer humerus than radius/ulna. (I've even been checking Tertiary mammals - nada.


Next I'll move on to some of those weird dinosaurs but so far, no dice. . .)

Meet Nada da Neandertal... ...

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Deacondark

In Sweaty's "More accurate scaling of Roger and Patty" he managed to make Patty's foot several inches longer (in scale) than the cast Roger is holding.

That's because, as I stated in my post...I adjusted the scaling for the 'bloom' (overexposure) of Patty's left foot.

Hence...the scaling is more accurate, than the scaling in parn's comparison.

Quote:

And his picture of a hip wader flexing is just the same picture of a hip wader, turned to different angles! Ha!

I'm glad I didn't have to 'spell that out', for ya', Deacon!! Good observation!

[Resume]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

That's because, as I stated in my post...I adjusted the scaling for the 'bloom' (overexposure) of Patty's left foot.

Hence...the scaling is more accurate, than the scaling in parn's comparison.






I'm glad I didn't have to 'spell that out', for ya', Deacon!! Good observation!

It's a guy/girl in a suit.

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

That's because, as I stated in my post...I adjusted the scaling for the 'bloom' (overexposure) of Patty's left foot.

Hence...the scaling is more accurate, than the scaling in parn's comparison.






I'm glad I didn't have to 'spell that out', for ya', Deacon!! Good observation!

I'm a photographer, and I see no "bloom" in that photo. It's not overexposed by that much. I do see a little graininess caused by the excessive blow up though.

If the image is so poor that you feel you can subtract several inches from Pattys foot on account of it, then you have just voided all of your arguments about eyebrow and mouth movement. Once again, thank you Sweaty, we appreciate your efforts on our behalf.

[Óðinn]

Hey all you Sweaty lovers, I just wanted your unbiased opinions. Tell me if my elbow placement is ok, and if not, where should it go? The linked lines represent the body length of Bob in/out of the suit. They are exactly the same lengths & orienations. I assume that Bob is looking out the left eyehole of the mask. The shoulder pads don't affect the distance from the eyes to the elbow/hands and they don't make the arms hang lower. The question is whether Bob's right arm is foreshortened out of the suit. IMO, his arm is the correct length in proportion to his height and therefore not appreciably foreshortened. Measure it for yourself.



So if Bob's right arm is not foreshortened then we are seeing it at its maximum length. The position of his elbow must also be at a maximum. Patty has been scaled to just barely fit Bob in the suit (with lots of extra padding around the legs and torso). If I scaled Patty any bigger the arms just get longer. Any smaller and Bob wouldn't fit into the suit. Bob's body orientation is almost identical in both photos, as close as any poser has been placed. It IS Bob in the suit after all, right? However, if I scale them to have the same eye to elbow distance I get this.



If that was Bob's elbow in the suit, then he could never have fit into it. I'm not suggesting this demonstrates that Patty's a sasquatch. I never have. This is only to test whether Bob was the guy in the suit. To all you Bob H apologists, just fit him in the suit, don't shoot the piano player.

[BravesFan]

Are you freakin kidding me? I finally got some escape from these technicolor nightmares on the BFF a few weeks ago and I join over here to find them again? ARGHHHHH!!!!!!!


let it go, nobody is buyin what yer sellin.

[Skeptical Greg]

Óðinn

Quote:

If that was Bob's elbow in the suit, then he could never have fit into it. I'm not suggesting this demonstrates that Patty's a sasquatch. I never have. This is only to test whether Bob was the guy in the suit. To all you Bob H apologists, just fit him in the suit, don't shoot the piano player.

One small problem; why should we assume you have accurately located the elbows of Bob or the person in the suit..
Particularly, the elbow in the suit ..
This ain't Kansas ...

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Hey all you Sweaty lovers, I just wanted your unbiased opinions. Tell me if my elbow placement is ok, and if not, where should it go? The linked lines represent the body length of Bob in/out of the suit. They are exactly the same lengths & orienations. I assume that Bob is looking out the left eyehole of the mask. The shoulder pads don't affect the distance from the eyes to the elbow/hands and they don't make the arms hang lower. The question is whether Bob's right arm is foreshortened out of the suit. IMO, his arm is the correct length in proportion to his height and therefore not appreciably foreshortened. Measure it for yourself.

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

So if Bob's right arm is not foreshortened then we are seeing it at its maximum length. The position of his elbow must also be at a maximum. Patty has been scaled to just barely fit Bob in the suit (with lots of extra padding around the legs and torso). If I scaled Patty any bigger the arms just get longer. Any smaller and Bob wouldn't fit into the suit. Bob's body orientation is almost identical in both photos, as close as any poser has been placed. It IS Bob in the suit after all, right? However, if I scale them to have the same eye to elbow distance I get this.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16..._eye2elbow.png

If that was Bob's elbow in the suit, then he could never have fit into it. I'm not suggesting this demonstrates that Patty's a sasquatch. I never have. This is only to test whether Bob was the guy in the suit. To all you Bob H apologists, just fit him in the suit, don't shoot the piano player.

Your comparison will only work if both pictures were shot with the same focal length lens, and from the same distance. You can use a known device (such as a casting of a foot) to make a measurement, and scale the overall height of a subject, but the different focal lengths will make the ratios of things like limbs and distances and +ahem+ "elbow reach" entirely different.

[The Shrike]

Credit where it's due: Sweaty is correct about Neanderthal arm proportions. No, seriously - he's right!

My mock-up used a reconstruction of a Neanderthal that demonstrated equal-length humerus and radius/ulna, just like humans, gorillas, orangs, and chimps. Sweaty's challenge used a Neanderthal skeleton, and his measurements indicated a longer humerus. That surprised me so I did some digging. For one, I was concerned that skeletal measurements and fleshed out reconstructions were apples and oranges comparisons, so I went to the literature to see what we really know about Neanderthal limb proportions.

It turns out that "distal abbreviation" is described in Neanderthal. In other words, the radius/ulna is indeed shorter than the humerus. (The attached paper examined this relationship as a potential adaptation to decrease overall limb length in these cold-adapted creatures. The author concludes, however, that distal abbreviation in Neanderthal was more likely an adaptation for power movements in the arms.)

Sweaty, I'm sorry to have made a point without doing this extra work beforehand to make sure I had it right. Good on ya for leading me to track down better information.

Of course, distal abbreviation shortened the arms of Neanderthal and Sweaty's claim is that it is lengthening of the humerus, rather than shortening of the radius/ulna, that we see in Patty. Moreover, the guys in the football pads are still a much better match for what we see in Patty. Still, we do have evidence of a really unusual limb proportion in the Homininae, so the precedent in presumably closely related species is established. If, as some suggest, "bigfoot" is relic Neanderthal, then a limb showing distal abbreviation might even be something we'd expect to see in bigfoots.

[Deacondark]

Here is a simplified explanation of Lens Compression and Distortion. I suggest anyone who want's to draw lines on pictures familiarize yourself with this. It might come in handy. http://www.focusonottawa.com/wordpress/?p=477

[Skeptical Greg]

Was her elbow to eye distance changing, or was that my imagination ?

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Was her elbow to eye distance changing, or was that my imagination ?

Not imagining anything! lol While possible to keep the overall height of the subject the same, points in between will change, based on focal length. This is why all of Sweaty's line drawing arguments are completely moot.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Hey all you Sweaty lovers, I just wanted your unbiased opinions. Tell me if my elbow placement is ok, and if not, where should it go? The linked lines represent the body length of Bob in/out of the suit. They are exactly the same lengths & orienations. I assume that Bob is looking out the left eyehole of the mask. The shoulder pads don't affect the distance from the eyes to the elbow/hands and they don't make the arms hang lower. The question is whether Bob's right arm is foreshortened out of the suit. IMO, his arm is the correct length in proportion to his height and therefore not appreciably foreshortened. Measure it for yourself.

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

So if Bob's right arm is not foreshortened then we are seeing it at its maximum length. The position of his elbow must also be at a maximum. Patty has been scaled to just barely fit Bob in the suit (with lots of extra padding around the legs and torso). If I scaled Patty any bigger the arms just get longer. Any smaller and Bob wouldn't fit into the suit. Bob's body orientation is almost identical in both photos, as close as any poser has been placed. It IS Bob in the suit after all, right? However, if I scale them to have the same eye to elbow distance I get this.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16..._eye2elbow.png

If that was Bob's elbow in the suit, then he could never have fit into it. I'm not suggesting this demonstrates that Patty's a sasquatch. I never have. This is only to test whether Bob was the guy in the suit. To all you Bob H apologists, just fit him in the suit, don't shoot the piano player.

You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

Old men tend to have creaky joints and substantially less muscle and tone and strength. It would be expected that he would assume a less extreme stance. How exactly do you think he could spontaneously copy a position from 40 years previous?? Seriously.

You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

Nobody is shooting you but I have previously mentioned these things, so you get a certain amount of derision for completely ignoring them AGAIN. I have better things to do than research your posts to prove or disprove your claims about what you have or haven't said about Sasquatch. (I'll assert without an actual cite that you have made such a suggestion, by coming up with impossible dimensions for a human). But when you call someone an apologist, (not to mention "rookie") that's coming with guns blazing, so don't pretend you're a messenger. Would you agree? or why do messengers call names?

You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

not to mention that you can't locate the eye or the elbow.

Oh, did I mention You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

If it weren't for those 5 problems, you might be close. Bring us "a message" when you've licked those. Thanks,

yer old pal,
p.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Deacondark

Your comparison will only work if both pictures were shot with the same focal length lens, and from the same distance. You can use a known device (such as a casting of a foot) to make a measurement, and scale the overall height of a subject, but the different focal lengths will make the ratios of things like limbs and distances and +ahem+ "elbow reach" entirely different.

Only a very short focal length would make any difference and that was not the case for either photo. The photo of Bob out of the suit was taken closer to the camera than Patty was. That means that Bob's right arm is OVERSCALED. IOW, it gives him a bit of an edge on arm length relative to his body. Yet he still comes up short.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Óðinn

One small problem; why should we assume you have accurately located the elbows of Bob or the person in the suit..
Particularly, the elbow in the suit ..
This ain't Kansas ...

You shouldn't assume I located them correctly. That's why I was asking your opinion. However, IMO it's a given that the arms are longer. So it's either hand extensions or elbow extensions. AFAIK, there are no such thing as elbow extenders so it must be hand extensions. In which case, the elbow should be located the same distance from the eyes in/out of the suit. I invite you to match them up.

[Óðinn]

Now for you old pal..

Originally Posted by parnassus

You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

Simple test for you. What is the variance of the distance from eyes to elbow/hands as you rotate thru this "unknown twist" you keep talking about? I'll bet you the "twist effect" has negligible effect on this distance over a relatively large rotation angle. What twist angle difference do you estimate will allow Bob to match himself in the costume anyway?

Quote:

Old men tend to have creaky joints and substantially less muscle and tone and strength. It would be expected that he would assume a less extreme stance. How exactly do you think he could spontaneously copy a position from 40 years previous?? Seriously.

Are you making a case for shrinkage?

Quote:

Nobody is shooting you but I have previously mentioned these things, so you get a certain amount of derision for completely ignoring them AGAIN. I have better things to do than research your posts to prove or disprove your claims about what you have or haven't said about Sasquatch. (I'll assert without an actual cite that you have made such a suggestion, by coming up with impossible dimensions for a human). But when you call someone an apologist, (not to mention "rookie") that's coming with guns blazing, so don't pretend you're a messenger. Would you agree? or why do messengers call names?

But you are a Bob H apologist. You have an excuse for every single one of his discrepancies. This has nothing to do with whether the PGF is a hoax. When it comes to being skeptical about Bob H, you're a full out bleever.

Quote:

not to mention that you can't locate the eye or the elbow.

Didn't Bob look thru the eyehole in the mask? Of course he did. So why can't I assume the eye position is near the eyehole? As far as the elbow goes, that's why I asked. Reposition it for me. And why don't you give Bob a bit more twist into your desired orientation and fix the graphic?

Quote:

Oh, did I mention You can't define shoulder position vis a vis the trunk/neck/head, or body twist, or lean in the z plane. His left arm appears shorter also, compatible with less twist.

See above.

Thanks for the effort bud.

[Deacondark]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Only a very short focal length would make any difference and that was not the case for either photo. The photo of Bob out of the suit was taken closer to the camera than Patty was. That means that Bob's right arm is OVERSCALED. IOW, it gives him a bit of an edge on arm length relative to his body. Yet he still comes up short.

Are you sure you and Sweaty aren't the same person?

You have no way of knowing at what distance/ focal length either photo was taken. Therefore, your argument is completely invalid.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Deacondark

Are you sure you and Sweaty aren't the same person?

You have no way of knowing at what distance/ focal length either photo was taken. Therefore, your argument is completely invalid.

If you say so. But here's a hint. The image height relative to the frame height indicates the distance from the camera. Neither photo was close enough to the camera to make a difference. Why don't you measure the length of Bob's arm relative to his height and see if it's foreshortened? Then you can stop complaining that Bob's not getting a fair shake eventhough it can only give him an arm-up advantage out of the suit.