Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Page 7

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 05:13 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

No, we don't know if Patty's leg is going straight down vertically unbent. The leg is obscured.

Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical.

It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches.

In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image...

Skeptical Greg · 24th January 2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle..

You are clearly somewhere near the bottom of yours ..

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical.

It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches.

In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...i/PDVD_189.jpg

This would your "degree of error" hooey. You just said...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

So, there should actually be a 'minimum walking height', and a 'maximum walking height'...to be a little more precise about the matter.

One would think differences on the order of three inches would be important. Nevertheless, looking at the right leg in your image where Patty's left is obscured, we can easily imagine that lower leg could be at a significant angle.

Is there some reason why you ingored the following points 1 and 2 from my previous post?...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Notice how Sweaty evades Greg's point about the critical flaw in his statement. No, we don't know if Patty's leg is going straight down vertically unbent. The leg is obscured.

Further, I don't know what is supposed to be accomplished by...

1) Posting a comparison of Jim and Patty where Patty is on the foreward side of a ridge or mound of uneven ground behind a pile of wood debris while Jim is on the backside of the ridge with his legs half obscured.

2) Posting another LMS gif which again shows Patty's legs obscured by wood debris where her head goes down a bit. Maybe it's a change in posture, maybe it's a change of uneven ground which I can't see. Seeing neither her knees, feet, or the ground makes it impossible to discern.

What the heck is that?

Oh, I know. That's Sweaty looking for a distraction to quibble about rather than face the fact his inhuman proportions goop has been flushed.

Typical.

You keep doing that. Are you only able to handle one point per post or what? And do you have an actual point?

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:02 PM

Sweaty, any comment about the concept of BH implicating his friend and neighbour, BG?

Originally Posted by kitakaze

WP's given me a hand getting this screen capture. This is a little visual aid showing a satellite view of the street Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin live on. As you can see, they live literally nine houses from each other...

As we know Bob and Bob are still friends. BH is the only person ever to have claimed to have been Patty and as the DAZ and Poser 7 animations show, BH could fit Patty.

Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street?

I thought you might want to post your Yellow Submarine version of the cowboys photo, so I made a new on just for you...

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 06:07 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

So you have Kal Korff saying that Heironimus said something.

You don't have a direct quote and you're quoting a guy that we know makes $#!% up for his own agenda.

I see you're hoping that Bob didn't actually say that. A wise choice.

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I see you're hoping that Bob didn't actually say that. A wise choice.

I see you're ignoring the arguments and inferring what I hope or want as though it's a problem for me. A poor choice.

People utterly inept at debate do things like that. Why can't you deal with the arguments, Sweaty?

ETA: Here in bold is the essential arguments you ignored when you commented on what you think I hope...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

You mean Grover was wrong?

So you have Kal Korff saying that Heironimus said something. You don't have a direct quote and you're quoting a guy that we know makes $#!% up for his own agenda. That's OK, let's run with it. Korff is trying to account for the look back that Grover has famously said was the sign of an ape-like animal with an ape neck and shoulders.

Has it occured to you that whether or not Heironimus actually said the suit made it difficult to turn only his head, of course he is going to turn his whole body? How else are we going to get a money shot of the creature's ridiculous tummy rocks and face from a distance if bob doesn't do that?

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Quibbles n' bits. You're grabbing at straws. Pay attention to the bolded - allegedy. If if he did say that he was uncomfortable, if he said that, it still doesn't mean anything if his head was in an uncomfortable position for a moment. Go ahead and show me where Bob has only his head turned to the camera after the look back for a full 2 or 3 seconds. The look back is the money shot. Roger would have Bob focused on it. Roger is not going to be thinking about Grover's future observation, he just wants the tummy rocks and face on camera. Bob, himself, said the whole thing was uncomfortable. So Bob moves one way or the other and you're trying to make it into what you want. You try and quibble over things like this while ignoring the major indicators of hoaxing. You're desperate.

I see you're hoping you don't have to actually address those arguments.

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 06:13 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Are you only able to handle one point per post or what?

I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you.
Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you.

The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth.

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you.
Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you.

The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth.

No, you're not really engaging anyone in a meaningful and honest dialogue. Trying to clean up the BS for those interested in the truth? LOL

What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF. I guess Sweaty is only interested in helping people with some truth as he sees, not all of it.

That's a neat method of cleaning up what you call BS. Apparently your method involves the method of cleaning known as...

"What mess?"

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 06:27 PM

Cleaning up another one of kitakaze's Bits O' BS...

Quote:

b) The claim that the P7S' physics engine is malfunctioning in some completely basic way so as to render the software useless is absurd.

I've never stated, or implied, that any CG program has "malfunctioned", or is "defective" in it's design.

That's 100% kitakaze BS.

The computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs, though.

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 06:35 PM

More kitakaze BS...

Quote:

What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF.

All of the numbers that I've used in my analysis, in the following graphic, are displayed within it...

Everything in that graphic can easily be checked, re-measured, and adjusted/corrected....by anyone who wants to.

I noticed that YOU haven't been able to do any of that, kitakaze.

Patty's elbow-reach extends beynd Bob's elbow reach....pure and simple.

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you.

The one simple reason why Sweaty won't engage in a question and answer dialogue. He can't handle the questions...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Originally Posted by kitakaze

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?

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

Originally Posted by kitakaze

What's happening to reality here, Sweaty?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1354

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1355

Can you address that reality? Something messed is happening there. Is it the film or Patty's head?

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Simple question, Sweaty - is the P7S seen from behind that has the left elbow matching your Rorshach Patty's right elbow inhumanly proportioned? Yes or no.

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street?

This is from the guy who said he'd never refuse to answer questions regarding Bigfoot evidence.

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Cleaning up another one of kitakaze's Bits O' BS...

I've never stated, or implied, that any CG program has "malfunctioned", or is "defective" in it's design.

That's 100% kitakaze BS.

The computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs, though.

This is interesting. OK, so not including neltana and DAZ, when mangler is creating an animation with Poser 7, the software isn't going faulty and causing a humerus to change length or impossible foreshortening to occur, it's how mangler is using Poser 7.

1) Have you followed any of mangler's assistance to you to use Poser 7 for yourself so as to even begin to know what you're talking about? I can give you a tutorial on youtube if you like. I think you don't like.

2) Have you used an physical appropriate physical analog to demonstrate impossible foreshortening in Poser 7?

3) What is your suggested mechanism of failure on mangler's part?

kitakaze · 24th January 2010, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

All of the numbers that I've used in my analysis, in the following graphic, are displayed within it...

Hey, that's great. Simple question to start -

How can I know that 580 pixels equals 72 inches?

SweatyYeti · 24th January 2010, 07:03 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

How can I know that 580 pixels equals 72 inches?

Well, that's one piece of information that's not in the graphic.

I use the program 'Irfanview'. If the graphic is viewed in that program, it'll have the same number of pixels as it did when I made it.
It might also have the same number of pixels, when viewed in other programs.

As for the 72" figure....that was chosen simply because it's Bob's standing-height.

The comparisons of the elbow-reaches is a comparison of body proportions...so it isn't critical what body height figure you use, as long as both subjects are scaled to the same height.

The rest is all there, and simple enough to check.

kitakaze · 25th January 2010, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Well, that's one piece of information that's not in the graphic.

Ah, I see. So in terms of scientific verification of your measurements, when you said this...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

All of the numbers that I've used in my analysis, in the following graphic, are displayed within it...

...it was utterly meaningless. And in turn when you said...

Quote:

Everything in that graphic can easily be checked, re-measured, and adjusted/corrected....by anyone who wants to.

...that, too, was meaningless, as it depended on the following information that nobody had until I asked...

Quote:

I use the program 'Irfanview'. If the graphic is viewed in that program, it'll have the same number of pixels as it did when I made it.
It might also have the same number of pixels, when viewed in other programs.

Easily checked, huh? So we have to have that program you didn't tell us about and if we don't have that one, the numbers might not be the same. That's brilliant stuff, Sweaty. I think I'll stick to the method of body proportion percentages based on comparitive measurements in milimeters. All anyone needs for those is a tape measure and a calculator, and that I tell people up front.

Moving on...

Quote:

As for the 72" figure....that was chosen simply because it's Bob's standing-height.

Yeah, that's going to be a bit of a problem. You see, in the image you chose Bob isn't exactly standing straight up, perfectly facing the camera, with his arms out Jesus for you to make measurements on. He is back against his car, slightly at an angle, his head's a bit down... but that's really nothing, you see, because here's the big one, the critical flaw, the irrefutable fail in your graphic...

You fail to comprehend the inherent fallacy in scribbling 2D goober math on an image of a 3D subject. You're doing calculations on his arm like he's a stick man or a cardboard cutout.

Look at this image and you will see, Sweaty...

His arms aren't simply hanging at his side perfectly straight and parallel. They are arms, man, with shoulders that swivel and move in a vast range of motion. His elbows are back angled away from the camera which destroys any 2D measurement ranges you placed over a 90° arc. He moves his elbow forward and all that scribbling goes out the window.

That's why mangler's P7S overlay is an accurate reflection of what Bob's own bones will be positioned like in that photo of him against the car. That is why both DAZ and Poser software can place one skeleton in both Bob and Patty and get a fit. It's not like in making an animation with either program you're clicking on frames of Patty and causing the software to alter bone lengths to fit the limbs and body. That is exactly why the left elbow of P7S seen from behind was matching the right arm of your Rorschach Patty.

See, look for yourself...

That's the same Poser 7 skeleton from the Bob w/ car image, the same from the full Patty animation, and the same Poser 7 skeleton seen jumping around here...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

2D scribbles on 3D objects = *BZZT* FAIL. Next.

Correa Neto · 25th January 2010, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

...snip...You fail to comprehend the inherent fallacy in scribbling 2D goober math on an image of a 3D subject. You're doing calculations on his arm like he's a stick man or a cardboard cutout....snip...

Even if he were a stick man or a cardboard cutout and the images were taken with the same camera, sweaty's "analysis" would still be flawed, for it does not takes in to account perspective effects.

Flawed methods- bigfootery's trademark.

No, I am not sure about Hieronimus' claim of playing Patty at PGF. A prime suspect, of course, he is.

SweatyYeti · 25th January 2010, 09:17 AM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

That is exactly why the left elbow of P7S seen from behind was matching the right arm of your Rorschach Patty.

See, look for yourself...

Wrong, kitakaze.

Poopie7's left arm's elbow-reach measures a whopping 14"....the same as your 'average' REAL human being.....while REAL Patty's measures a paltry 19", uncorrected for the angle-of-view....which, when adjusted, comes out to approx. 21".

You can't accept REAL-ity, can you, kitakaze?

SweatyYeti · 25th January 2010, 09:52 AM

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

SweatyYeti wrote:

Quote:

Everything in that graphic can easily be checked, re-measured, and adjusted/corrected....by anyone who wants to.

...that, too, was meaningless, as it depended on the following information that nobody had until I asked...

Wrong again, kitakaze.

Checking the measurements in my graphics did not depend on knowing which program I used in making them.

This is yet another example of 100% Pure kitakaze BS.

It doesn't matter which image-editing program you view my graphics in. Regardless of how many pixels various programs apply to an image.....(which, actually, I think they'll all give an image the same number of pixels)...the relative lengths and proportions within the image will all remain constant...and so will the resulting measurements.

The only figure that would change is the "pixels/inch" figure...which doesn't matter. The resulting measurements, in 'inches', will all be exactly the same.

William Parcher · 25th January 2010, 11:27 AM

Green said that there were still some tracks visible when McClarin did the recreated walk. We know he didn't take the same path for at least some of the walk. This could be explained by a fake trackway made after the actual filming of the guy in the costume. Patterson may have decided that the tracks left by the costume feet weren't convincing enough or that they were poorly rendered because the sand didn't hold their shape to his liking. The actor may have chosen not to walk through moist or muddy areas even though this would give the best impressions.

If Heironimus is correct, P&G went back to Bluff Creek weeks after he had been filmed there. At that time (Oct 20th) the two guys could have made sure the fake trackway looked good for visitors and photographs. There would have been no compelling reason to make sure the trackway looked good and authentic back when BH was filmed because nobody had announced the filming of Patty yet. IOW, nobody would go to look for her tracks at the filmsite until the big announcement (Oct 20th).

Concerning measuring Patty's height from the film: If you believe the testimony of Gimlin, she had sunk deeply into the sand. Deeper than a human would, including McClarin. Additionally, the ground at her path is not necessarily flat and even. She could appear to gain or lose height inches as she walks over lumpy ground. This is also true for McClarin.

It is said that BH's height is 6' 1/2" (72.5"). Cowboy boots were the typical footwear for all these guys. BH would probably stand 6'3" (75") in his boots. I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume. There would also be some unknown thickness of the costume feet soles adding to his height. Then there is the domed headpiece adding height to his own head. Anyway, there would be some minimum and maximum height that would eliminate Bob Heironimus as being the person in the suit. Everyone is estimating the height of Patty from what they can see. Some estimates would rule out Heironimus simply because he would be too tall or too short to be the guy inside the costume. For example, if someone estimates Patty's standing height at exactly 6' (72") then it can't be Heironimus inside the suit. The headpiece alone would be adding inches to his own height.

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 12:27 PM

Quote:

If you believe the testimony of Gimlin, she had sunk deeply into the sand. Deeper than a human would, including McClarin.

Yep, in some frames Patty would appear to be 3.5" shorter due to sinking deeply into the soil, according to Gimlin in this interview shortly after the PGF incident.

Quote:

B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil.

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 12:30 PM

Now then, I would have cast a right and left 3.5" deep print as proof of the creature's great weight...

You'd think Titmus would have remarked on 3.5" deep prints, or cast them, or Laverty would have taken pics...or something...

3.5" deep tracks should get noticed...

But I digress...

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight?

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

W: What was the length of the stride?

R: Just pardon me, this was estimated on a fourteen and a half inch, excuse me a fourteen inch track and these tracks were fourteen and a half inches, which would, would add quite a considerable bit

So they initially used a 14" foot length for some reason, to estimate the height, and they got 81 inches tall (6'9").

81/14=5.7857.

So they had Patty 5.7857 "feet" tall. Presumably they did this with the film using a known foot length and Patty's image. Just like we have done.

Roger then says that they should have used a 14.5" foot length.

So 14.5X5.7857=83.9" tall, or just under 7 feet.

Changing Patty's foot to 14.5" gave Patty another 3 inches of height.

I am curious about the initial use of 14" for the foot length when they had the casts?

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 12:44 PM

Did they initially have 14" tracks and when the height estimate came out from the film, Roger came up with longer tracks to make Patty more impressive?

He says it would add "quite a considerable bit", but it actually only adds 2.9 inches.

Was he worried about the 6'9" height being unimpressive?

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 12:49 PM

Quote:

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

Why are they bothering to try to measure the soles of the feet in the picture when they have 2 nice 14.5" track casts, made at the time of the film? They were cast at the time of the film, weren't they?

RayG · 25th January 2010, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Well, Roger said that Patty stopped and looked back at him. So I guess we can't trust Roger, either...

Don't forget Dr. Meldrum says Patty looked back twice...

"glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..." Legend Meets Science, page 139.

RayG

kitakaze · 25th January 2010, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Wrong, kitakaze.

Poopie7's left arm's elbow-reach measures a whopping 14"....the same as your 'average' REAL human being.....while REAL Patty's measures a paltry 19", uncorrected for the angle-of-view....which, when adjusted, comes out to approx. 21".

You can't accept REAL-ity, can you, kitakaze?

Ah-ah-ah~

You are thinking 2D again, Sweaty.

1) You do understand that in my Pattystein that I created from P7S and your Rorschach freak that P7S' arm is swung forward (you know, in 3D). IWO, the elbow is not parallel to the body and thus not as far down as it would if it were. The elbow can easily match Patty's.

2) The exact location of the elbow in your blob-foot is not precisely discernable.

3) You say Patty's elbow reach is 19" uncorrected for angle of view. Again, you fail to account for the fact that Patty's elbow does not appear to be parallel to her body. But then again, this is the crap you're trying to pull numbers out of...

4) Despite what you claim, you can not give a single definitive measurement for Patty. Not her elbow reach, her collar bone, he shoulder width, anything. Go ahead and talk about tracks you can't confirm were made by Patty.

5) If we take an image, albeit terribly blurry, of Patty truly from the back and create a Pattystein with P7S, taking into account that the elbow of P7S is swung forward, we can still see that the elbows can match...

SweatyYeti · 25th January 2010, 05:26 PM

William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume.

It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend...

A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much.

Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's.

kitakaze · 25th January 2010, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that...

I, personally, was unable to find any quote of Bob's saying he wore cowboy boots under the suit. He did say this...

Originally Posted by Bob Heironimus

“….the legs of the suit…felt like they were hip boots or wading boots…”

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...esponse_si.htm

No mention of wearing cowboy boots in what felt like wading boots.

Quote:

....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend...

However much the feet may or may not bend, it no more rules out a fabricated suit than it does a living creature. Unless, of course the feet seem to be bending not at the toes, but impossibly in the middle of the feet.

Quote:

A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much.

Any boot or just cowboy boots? I have boots that bend that much. Say, how much are Patty's feet bending? be specific.

Quote:

Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's.

Almost like some constructed suit foot that defies anatomy and has no Achilles tendon attached to it.

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Don't forget Dr. Meldrum says Patty looked back twice...

"glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..." Legend Meets Science, page 139.

RayG

Is there any evidence of this first glance back? First I have heard of it.

Besides, Roger is talking about the film...I haven't seen Patty stop and look back on the film.

LTC8K6 · 25th January 2010, 06:56 PM

Gimlin is already across the creek by frame 352?

He must have been close to being in the shot with a 15mm lens...

Óðinn · 26th January 2010, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Roughly how far are they from the camera?

At frame 352 my estimate (thus far) is 133 ft for McClarin, 123 feet for Patty. I have the full frame scans for frame 352 and Green's equivalent which are correct in aspect. You must have full frames to use the lens eqn (or know the exact % of a full frame).

Here's a repost of the calculation:

Quote:

After looking at Green's footage some more I thought I would do a quick estimate of McClarin's distance from the camera using the 1 frame Bill provided. This frame matches closely with frame 352 of the PGF (the turn). I would have done this long ago if McClarin's full body was in full view. We know his standing height, which would have to be translated to his walking height. Then we could use him as a ruler and his distance from the camera could be tested against the focal length of the lens. Unfortunately, we have to derive any body measurements since his legs are not in view. But even an approximation should allow us to calculate ballpark distances from the camera, which can be compared to the models.

For starters, let's assume Green used a Wollensak lens with 1" (25.4mm) focal length. McClarin's standing height was 77" (6' 5"). He appeared to be a lanky individual, of average proportions. Other frames showing his full body could confirm this. If this was the case, then we should be able to get some decent estimates of his body dimensions by measuring someone of equal height. My height is 75", which should be close enough to get decent approximations of McClarin's body dimensions, especially if I add 1 to 2 inches to my measurements. Here is McClarin's image and the 2 vectors I have chosen as a ruler, ear to elbow to knuckles (EEK).

When I adopted the same body position and measured these 2 vectors on myself I got 20.5" (ear to elbow) & 15.5" (elbow to knuckle). Since McClarin's full arm span is approximately his height, I am going to add 1" inch to these 2 vectors bringing their sum to 37". Since this is a derivation, I'll be generous with an error estimate of +/- 2". Now we have a ruler to estimate his distance from the camera.

Here is the optical formula:

Vertical field of view for a 1" lens = 17.02 degrees
Ruler = 37" = 190 pixels (image above, EEK)
Full frame height (at McClarin's distance from camera) = 39' 7" = 2438 pixels

Distance from the camera = 37 / tan((190 / 2438 * 17.02 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 133 ft +/- 7 ft

Seems farther than current estimates by around 20 feet, but that's no reason to disqualify it. If we could accurately define these physical distances between body markers on McClarin, the derived distances to the camera could be within a foot of accuracy. That is if the lens is known, i.e. a 1" Wollensak.

Let's test this distance to the camera. If McClarin was 133 feet from the camera, then by most measures, Patty was about 10% closer to the camera. Let's say Patty was 123 feet from the camera in frame 352. Now we can refer to Bill's very useful graphic which compares the heights of Patty and McClarin against figures shot with a 25mm lens, where all 4 frames were scaled to a common frame height. So based on these new distance estimates, I re-scaled Patty and McClarin for a re-comparison with 1 of the figures.

How about the guy in the right-most frame? Does the EEK measurement work for him? Since he's 75" tall (same as myself) I repositioned my arm to match his and re-measured the ear-elbow vector (the elbow-knuckle vector remained unchanged). I found this vector increased by about 1.5".

Here is the formula for his distance to the camera:

Vertical field of view for 25mm lens = 17.26 degrees
Ruler = 38.5" = 121 pixels (image above, EEK)
Full frame height = 1154 pixels

Distance from the camera = 38.5 / tan((121 / 1154 * 17.26 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 101.5 ft

This is very close to his actual distance from the camera of 102'. For this case at least the EEK ruler works.

================================================== =
Now how about McClarin's distance from the camera for a 15mm lens?

Vertical field of view for a 15mm lens = 28.43 degrees
Ruler = 37" = 190 pixels
Full frame height = 2438 pixels

Distance from the camera = 37 / tan((190 / 2438 * 28.43 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 80 ft +/- 4 ft

And if this was the case, then that would place Patty ~70 feet from the camera (frame 352), which would have put her trackway in front of the nearest trees, instead of behind them, as was the case. Needless to say, if we correct McClarin's image to be 102 ft from the camera, it's apparent that a 15mm lens doesn't work here.

It appears that if we abandon the historical estimate of Patty being 102' from the camera for frame 352 then a dead-on-spec 25mm lens works perfectly. McClarin's estimated distance from the camera certainly supports this. Somehow, the investigators (except for Green) short-changed Roger's camera position by about 20 feet. But then I don't believe there was a consensus anyway. Triangulating the trackway using a 25mm focal length should nail it down. If this can be confirmed with refined estimates, then the lens issue gets resolved.

Skeptical Greg · 26th January 2010, 09:36 AM

Nice work Óðinn ...

I know you don't want to agitate the waters, but it seems that this information could be appropriately presented in one of the ' Munns' Report ' threads over at BFF ...

Perhaps it has. I haven't followed things too closely over there for a while ..

William Parcher · 26th January 2010, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend...

It makes no difference, though I'm not sure that he said it.

Quote:

A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much.

Not at all. You must not have experience with cowboy boots. I can bend mine just like that. They are very flexible at the ball.

Boots can bend even more than this shown here...

Quote:

Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's.

We don't know exactly where the actor's heel would be inside the fake foot. I thought I saw a boot heel print in a Titmus cast from Patty. I imagined a hard heel inside a rubbery fake foot. It could be pareidolia.

kitakaze · 26th January 2010, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much.

Not at all. You must not have experience with cowboy boots. I can bend mine just like that. They are very flexible at the ball.

Apparently, Sweaty thinks boots equates clogs. Though not cowboy boots, mine can bend as much, also...

Quote:

I thought I saw a boot heel print in a Titmus cast from Patty. I imagined a hard heel inside a rubbery fake foot. It could be pareidolia.

Wow. I don't know what else to say. I don't think that Bob was wearing boots inside the suit, but I don't need a red outline at all to see what clearly looks like a boot heel there. What's up with that? Could that be from Patterson or Gimlin faking the tracks?

Vortigern99 · 26th January 2010, 09:09 PM

The heel in that Titmus cast is raised and plain to the eye, but its shape is more rounded without Parcher's outline artificially squaring it. (Examine the lower right of the shape, the part in shadow: it's round.)

I don't see a boot under there, myself.

ETA: My two pairs of boots are flexible, too, as have been every pair I've worn or owned throughout my life. Sweaty's off base and misinformed for suggesting that a boot would/could never bend the way Patty's foot bends. They can and they do.

kitakaze · 26th January 2010, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

The heel in that Titmus cast is raised and plain to the eye, but its shape is more rounded without Parcher's outline artificially squaring it. (Examine the lower right of the shape, the part in shadow: it's round.)

I don't see a boot under there, myself.

Boot in a suit or boot on a flexible stomper, the heel should be rounded. Check this boot.

BTW, I went to look for images of the casts Titmus made and a found an old post from WP showing casts of what are obviously not the same foot...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...ostcount=16094

I had forgotten about that. What the heck is that?

LTC8K6 · 26th January 2010, 09:44 PM

Left cast from that earlier WP post also shows a hint of something at the heel that looks odd for what should be a live foot, imo.

Sorta' looks like a smaller foot was used to make the bigger track...

SweatyYeti · 27th January 2010, 10:42 AM

William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

We don't know exactly where the actor's heel would be inside the fake foot. I thought I saw a boot heel print in a Titmus cast from Patty. I imagined a hard heel inside a rubbery fake foot.

That's true...to an extent. Don't forget that Patty's heel extends back further than a human's does...

....so Bob's boot-heel wouldn't have been able to make an impression at the very back edge of Patty's footprint.

Also, Bob simply couldn't have made the trackway, in his alleged "walk as Patty", because he's not nearly heavy enough to have made impressions that deep into the ground.

River · 27th January 2010, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

William Parcher wrote:

That's true...to an extent. Don't forget that Patty's heel extends back further than a human's does...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...tyToesGif8.gif

....so Bob's boot-heel wouldn't have been able to make an impression at the very back edge of Patty's footprint.

Also, Bob simply couldn't have made the trackway, in his alleged "walk as Patty", because he's not nearly heavy enough to have made impressions that deep into the ground.

Still waiting to hear what you have to say about footprint depths and such. ;-)

LTC8K6 · 27th January 2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

That's true...to an extent. Don't forget that Patty's heel extends back further than a human's does...

There's no evidence of that whatsoever. Not even in the PGF. Not even in the PGF where it looks like a poorly fitting suit foot slips backwards on the actor's foot.

24th January 2010, 05:13 PM	#241
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: No, we don't know if Patty's leg is going straight down vertically unbent. The leg is obscured. Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical. It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches. In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image...
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th January 2010, 05:16 PM	#242
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Quote: Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle.. You are clearly somewhere near the bottom of yours ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

24th January 2010, 05:29 PM	#243
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical. It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches. In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...i/PDVD_189.jpg This would your "degree of error" hooey. You just said... Originally Posted by SweatyYeti So, there should actually be a 'minimum walking height', and a 'maximum walking height'...to be a little more precise about the matter. One would think differences on the order of three inches would be important. Nevertheless, looking at the right leg in your image where Patty's left is obscured, we can easily imagine that lower leg could be at a significant angle. Is there some reason why you ingored the following points 1 and 2 from my previous post?... Originally Posted by kitakaze Notice how Sweaty evades Greg's point about the critical flaw in his statement. No, we don't know if Patty's leg is going straight down vertically unbent. The leg is obscured. Further, I don't know what is supposed to be accomplished by... 1) Posting a comparison of Jim and Patty where Patty is on the foreward side of a ridge or mound of uneven ground behind a pile of wood debris while Jim is on the backside of the ridge with his legs half obscured. 2) Posting another LMS gif which again shows Patty's legs obscured by wood debris where her head goes down a bit. Maybe it's a change in posture, maybe it's a change of uneven ground which I can't see. Seeing neither her knees, feet, or the ground makes it impossible to discern. What the heck is that? Oh, I know. That's Sweaty looking for a distraction to quibble about rather than face the fact his inhuman proportions goop has been flushed. Typical. You keep doing that. Are you only able to handle one point per post or what? And do you have an actual point?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

24th January 2010, 06:02 PM	#244
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Sweaty, any comment about the concept of BH implicating his friend and neighbour, BG? Originally Posted by kitakaze WP's given me a hand getting this screen capture. This is a little visual aid showing a satellite view of the street Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin live on. As you can see, they live literally nine houses from each other... As we know Bob and Bob are still friends. BH is the only person ever to have claimed to have been Patty and as the DAZ and Poser 7 animations show, BH could fit Patty. Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street? I thought you might want to post your Yellow Submarine version of the cowboys photo, so I made a new on just for you...
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

24th January 2010, 06:07 PM	#245
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: So you have Kal Korff saying that Heironimus said something. You don't have a direct quote and you're quoting a guy that we know makes $#!% up for his own agenda. I see you're hoping that Bob didn't actually say that. A wise choice.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th January 2010, 06:12 PM	#246
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti I see you're hoping that Bob didn't actually say that. A wise choice. I see you're ignoring the arguments and inferring what I hope or want as though it's a problem for me. A poor choice. People utterly inept at debate do things like that. Why can't you deal with the arguments, Sweaty? ETA: Here in bold is the essential arguments you ignored when you commented on what you think I hope... Originally Posted by kitakaze You mean Grover was wrong? So you have Kal Korff saying that Heironimus said something. You don't have a direct quote and you're quoting a guy that we know makes $#!% up for his own agenda. That's OK, let's run with it. Korff is trying to account for the look back that Grover has famously said was the sign of an ape-like animal with an ape neck and shoulders. Has it occured to you that whether or not Heironimus actually said the suit made it difficult to turn only his head, of course he is going to turn his whole body? How else are we going to get a money shot of the creature's ridiculous tummy rocks and face from a distance if bob doesn't do that? Originally Posted by kitakaze Quibbles n' bits. You're grabbing at straws. Pay attention to the bolded - allegedy. If if he did say that he was uncomfortable, if he said that, it still doesn't mean anything if his head was in an uncomfortable position for a moment. Go ahead and show me where Bob has only his head turned to the camera after the look back for a full 2 or 3 seconds. The look back is the money shot. Roger would have Bob focused on it. Roger is not going to be thinking about Grover's future observation, he just wants the tummy rocks and face on camera. Bob, himself, said the whole thing was uncomfortable. So Bob moves one way or the other and you're trying to make it into what you want. You try and quibble over things like this while ignoring the major indicators of hoaxing. You're desperate. I see you're hoping you don't have to actually address those arguments.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 Last edited by kitakaze; 24th January 2010 at 06:18 PM.

24th January 2010, 06:13 PM	#247
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: Are you only able to handle one point per post or what? I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you. Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you. The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th January 2010, 06:25 PM	#248
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you. Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you. The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth. No, you're not really engaging anyone in a meaningful and honest dialogue. Trying to clean up the BS for those interested in the truth? LOL What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF. I guess Sweaty is only interested in helping people with some truth as he sees, not all of it. That's a neat method of cleaning up what you call BS. Apparently your method involves the method of cleaning known as... "What mess?"
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

24th January 2010, 06:27 PM	#249
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	Cleaning up another one of kitakaze's Bits O' BS... Quote: b) The claim that the P7S' physics engine is malfunctioning in some completely basic way so as to render the software useless is absurd. I've never stated, or implied, that any CG program has "malfunctioned", or is "defective" in it's design. That's 100% kitakaze BS. The computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs, though.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th January 2010, 06:35 PM	#250
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	More kitakaze BS... Quote: What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF. All of the numbers that I've used in my analysis, in the following graphic, are displayed within it... Everything in that graphic can easily be checked, re-measured, and adjusted/corrected....by anyone who wants to. I noticed that YOU haven't been able to do any of that, kitakaze. Patty's elbow-reach extends beynd Bob's elbow reach....pure and simple.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

24th January 2010, 06:37 PM	#251
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you. The one simple reason why Sweaty won't engage in a question and answer dialogue. He can't handle the questions... Originally Posted by SweatyYeti Originally Posted by kitakaze 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? No, I don't. Patty's 'elbow-reach' measurements will be verified outside of Jref. Originally Posted by kitakaze What's happening to reality here, Sweaty? http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1354 http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=1355 Can you address that reality? Something messed is happening there. Is it the film or Patty's head? Originally Posted by kitakaze Simple question, Sweaty - is the P7S seen from behind that has the left elbow matching your Rorshach Patty's right elbow inhumanly proportioned? Yes or no. Originally Posted by kitakaze Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street? This is from the guy who said he'd never refuse to answer questions regarding Bigfoot evidence.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

24th January 2010, 06:45 PM	#252
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti Cleaning up another one of kitakaze's Bits O' BS... I've never stated, or implied, that any CG program has "malfunctioned", or is "defective" in it's design. That's 100% kitakaze BS. The computer animations are subject to errors, or distortions, created by the operator of the programs, though. This is interesting. OK, so not including neltana and DAZ, when mangler is creating an animation with Poser 7, the software isn't going faulty and causing a humerus to change length or impossible foreshortening to occur, it's how mangler is using Poser 7. 1) Have you followed any of mangler's assistance to you to use Poser 7 for yourself so as to even begin to know what you're talking about? I can give you a tutorial on youtube if you like. I think you don't like. 2) Have you used an physical appropriate physical analog to demonstrate impossible foreshortening in Poser 7? 3) What is your suggested mechanism of failure on mangler's part?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 Last edited by kitakaze; 24th January 2010 at 06:57 PM.

24th January 2010, 06:51 PM	#253
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti All of the numbers that I've used in my analysis, in the following graphic, are displayed within it... Hey, that's great. Simple question to start - How can I know that 580 pixels equals 72 inches?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

24th January 2010, 07:03 PM	#254
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: How can I know that 580 pixels equals 72 inches? Well, that's one piece of information that's not in the graphic. I use the program 'Irfanview'. If the graphic is viewed in that program, it'll have the same number of pixels as it did when I made it. It might also have the same number of pixels, when viewed in other programs. As for the 72" figure....that was chosen simply because it's Bob's standing-height. The comparisons of the elbow-reaches is a comparison of body proportions...so it isn't critical what body height figure you use, as long as both subjects are scaled to the same height. The rest is all there, and simple enough to check.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

25th January 2010, 03:15 AM	#256
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,175	Originally Posted by kitakaze ...snip...You fail to comprehend the inherent fallacy in scribbling 2D goober math on an image of a 3D subject. You're doing calculations on his arm like he's a stick man or a cardboard cutout....snip... Even if he were a stick man or a cardboard cutout and the images were taken with the same camera, sweaty's "analysis" would still be flawed, for it does not takes in to account perspective effects. Flawed methods- bigfootery's trademark. No, I am not sure about Hieronimus' claim of playing Patty at PGF. A prime suspect, of course, he is.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

25th January 2010, 09:17 AM	#257
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: That is exactly why the left elbow of P7S seen from behind was matching the right arm of your Rorschach Patty. See, look for yourself... Wrong, kitakaze. Poopie7's left arm's elbow-reach measures a whopping 14"....the same as your 'average' REAL human being.....while REAL Patty's measures a paltry 19", uncorrected for the angle-of-view....which, when adjusted, comes out to approx. 21". You can't accept REAL-ity, can you, kitakaze?
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

25th January 2010, 09:52 AM	#258
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	kitakaze wrote: Quote: SweatyYeti wrote: Quote: Everything in that graphic can easily be checked, re-measured, and adjusted/corrected....by anyone who wants to. ...that, too, was meaningless, as it depended on the following information that nobody had until I asked... Wrong again, kitakaze. Checking the measurements in my graphics did not depend on knowing which program I used in making them. This is yet another example of 100% Pure kitakaze BS. It doesn't matter which image-editing program you view my graphics in. *Regardless* of how many pixels various programs apply to an image.....(which, actually, I think they'll all give an image the same number of pixels)...the relative lengths and proportions within the image will all remain constant...and so will the resulting measurements. The only figure that would change is the "pixels/inch" figure...which doesn't matter. The *resulting measurements, in 'inches',* will all be exactly the same.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

25th January 2010, 11:27 AM	#259
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Green said that there were still some tracks visible when McClarin did the recreated walk. We know he didn't take the same path for at least some of the walk. This could be explained by a fake trackway made after the actual filming of the guy in the costume. Patterson may have decided that the tracks left by the costume feet weren't convincing enough or that they were poorly rendered because the sand didn't hold their shape to his liking. The actor may have chosen not to walk through moist or muddy areas even though this would give the best impressions. If Heironimus is correct, P&G went back to Bluff Creek weeks after he had been filmed there. At that time (Oct 20th) the two guys could have made sure the fake trackway looked good for visitors and photographs. There would have been no compelling reason to make sure the trackway looked good and authentic back when BH was filmed because nobody had announced the filming of Patty yet. IOW, nobody would go to look for her tracks at the filmsite until the big announcement (Oct 20th). Concerning measuring Patty's height from the film: If you believe the testimony of Gimlin, she had sunk deeply into the sand. Deeper than a human would, including McClarin. Additionally, the ground at her path is not necessarily flat and even. She could appear to gain or lose height inches as she walks over lumpy ground. This is also true for McClarin. It is said that BH's height is 6' 1/2" (72.5"). Cowboy boots were the typical footwear for all these guys. BH would probably stand 6'3" (75") in his boots. I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume. There would also be some unknown thickness of the costume feet soles adding to his height. Then there is the domed headpiece adding height to his own head. Anyway, there would be some minimum and maximum height that would eliminate Bob Heironimus as being the person in the suit. Everyone is estimating the height of Patty from what they can see. Some estimates would rule out Heironimus simply because he would be too tall or too short to be the guy inside the costume. For example, if someone estimates Patty's standing height at exactly 6' (72") then it can't be Heironimus inside the suit. The headpiece alone would be adding inches to his own height.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

25th January 2010, 12:27 PM	#260
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Quote: If you believe the testimony of Gimlin, she had sunk deeply into the sand. Deeper than a human would, including McClarin. Yep, in some frames Patty would appear to be 3.5" shorter due to sinking deeply into the soil, according to Gimlin in this interview shortly after the PGF incident. Quote: B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 12:30 PM	#261
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Now then, I would have cast a right and left 3.5" deep print as proof of the creature's great weight... You'd think Titmus would have remarked on 3.5" deep prints, or cast them, or Laverty would have taken pics...or something... 3.5" deep tracks should get noticed... But I digress...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 12:41 PM	#262
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Quote: W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight? B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches. W: What was the length of the stride? R: Just pardon me, this was estimated on a fourteen and a half inch, excuse me a fourteen inch track and these tracks were fourteen and a half inches, which would, would add quite a considerable bit So they initially used a 14" foot length for some reason, to estimate the height, and they got 81 inches tall (6'9"). 81/14=5.7857. So they had Patty 5.7857 "feet" tall. Presumably they did this with the film using a known foot length and Patty's image. Just like we have done. Roger then says that they should have used a 14.5" foot length. So 14.5X5.7857=83.9" tall, or just under 7 feet. Changing Patty's foot to 14.5" gave Patty another 3 inches of height. I am curious about the initial use of 14" for the foot length when they had the casts?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 12:44 PM	#263
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Did they initially have 14" tracks and when the height estimate came out from the film, Roger came up with longer tracks to make Patty more impressive? He says it would add "quite a considerable bit", but it actually only adds 2.9 inches. Was he worried about the 6'9" height being unimpressive?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 12:49 PM	#264
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Quote: B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches. Why are they bothering to try to measure the soles of the feet in the picture when they have 2 nice 14.5" track casts, made at the time of the film? They were cast at the time of the film, weren't they?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 04:38 PM	#265
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Well, Roger said that Patty stopped and looked back at him. So I guess we can't trust Roger, either... Don't forget Dr. Meldrum says Patty looked back twice... "glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..." Legend Meets Science, page 139. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

25th January 2010, 04:38 PM	#266
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti Wrong, kitakaze. Poopie7's left arm's elbow-reach measures a whopping 14"....the same as your 'average' REAL human being.....while REAL Patty's measures a paltry 19", uncorrected for the angle-of-view....which, when adjusted, comes out to approx. 21". You can't accept REAL-ity, can you, kitakaze? Ah-ah-ah~ You are thinking 2D again, Sweaty. 1) You do understand that in my Pattystein that I created from P7S and your Rorschach freak that P7S' arm is swung forward (you know, in 3D). IWO, the elbow is not parallel to the body and thus not as far down as it would if it were. The elbow can easily match Patty's. 2) The exact location of the elbow in your blob-foot is not precisely discernable. 3) You say Patty's elbow reach is 19" uncorrected for angle of view. Again, you fail to account for the fact that Patty's elbow does not appear to be parallel to her body. But then again, this is the crap you're trying to pull numbers out of... 4) Despite what you claim, you can not give a single definitive measurement for Patty. Not her elbow reach, her collar bone, he shoulder width, anything. Go ahead and talk about tracks you can't confirm were made by Patty. 5) If we take an image, albeit terribly blurry, of Patty truly from the back and create a Pattystein with P7S, taking into account that the elbow of P7S is swung forward, we can still see that the elbows can match...
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

25th January 2010, 05:26 PM	#267
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	William Parcher wrote: Quote: I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume. It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend... A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much. Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's.
SweatyYeti Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,027	__________________ The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." Last edited by SweatyYeti; 25th January 2010 at 05:50 PM.

25th January 2010, 06:37 PM	#268
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that... I, personally, was unable to find any quote of Bob's saying he wore cowboy boots under the suit. He did say this... Originally Posted by Bob Heironimus “….the legs of the suit…felt like they were hip boots or wading boots…” http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...esponse_si.htm No mention of wearing cowboy boots in what felt like wading boots. Quote: ....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend... However much the feet may or may not bend, it no more rules out a fabricated suit than it does a living creature. Unless, of course the feet seem to be bending not at the toes, but impossibly in the middle of the feet. Quote: A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much. Any boot or just cowboy boots? I have boots that bend that much. Say, how much are Patty's feet bending? be specific. Quote: Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's. Almost like some constructed suit foot that defies anatomy and has no Achilles tendon attached to it.
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

25th January 2010, 06:54 PM	#269
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Originally Posted by RayG Don't forget Dr. Meldrum says Patty looked back twice... "glancing back once when Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback", and, "the second glance... the most publicized from from the film (frame 352)..." Legend Meets Science, page 139. RayG Is there any evidence of this first glance back? First I have heard of it. Besides, Roger is talking about the film...I haven't seen Patty stop and look back on the film.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

25th January 2010, 06:56 PM	#270
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,661	Gimlin is already across the creek by frame 352? He must have been close to being in the shot with a 15mm lens...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

26th January 2010, 09:08 AM	#271
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599	Originally Posted by GT/CS Roughly how far are they from the camera? At frame 352 my estimate (thus far) is 133 ft for McClarin, 123 feet for Patty. I have the full frame scans for frame 352 and Green's equivalent which are correct in aspect. You must have full frames to use the lens eqn (or know the exact % of a full frame). Here's a repost of the calculation: Quote: After looking at Green's footage some more I thought I would do a quick estimate of McClarin's distance from the camera using the 1 frame Bill provided. This frame matches closely with frame 352 of the PGF (the turn). I would have done this long ago if McClarin's full body was in full view. We know his standing height, which would have to be translated to his walking height. Then we could use him as a ruler and his distance from the camera could be tested against the focal length of the lens. Unfortunately, we have to derive any body measurements since his legs are not in view. But even an approximation should allow us to calculate ballpark distances from the camera, which can be compared to the models. For starters, let's assume Green used a Wollensak lens with 1" (25.4mm) focal length. McClarin's standing height was 77" (6' 5"). He appeared to be a lanky individual, of average proportions. Other frames showing his full body could confirm this. If this was the case, then we should be able to get some decent estimates of his body dimensions by measuring someone of equal height. My height is 75", which should be close enough to get decent approximations of McClarin's body dimensions, especially if I add 1 to 2 inches to my measurements. Here is McClarin's image and the 2 vectors I have chosen as a ruler, ear to elbow to knuckles (EEK). When I adopted the same body position and measured these 2 vectors on myself I got 20.5" (ear to elbow) & 15.5" (elbow to knuckle). Since McClarin's full arm span is approximately his height, I am going to add 1" inch to these 2 vectors bringing their sum to 37". Since this is a derivation, I'll be generous with an error estimate of +/- 2". Now we have a ruler to estimate his distance from the camera. Here is the optical formula: Vertical field of view for a 1" lens = 17.02 degrees Ruler = 37" = 190 pixels (image above, EEK) Full frame height (at McClarin's distance from camera) = 39' 7" = 2438 pixels Distance from the camera = 37 / tan((190 / 2438 * 17.02 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 133 ft +/- 7 ft Seems farther than current estimates by around 20 feet, but that's no reason to disqualify it. If we could accurately define these physical distances between body markers on McClarin, the derived distances to the camera could be within a foot of accuracy. That is if the lens is known, i.e. a 1" Wollensak. Let's test this distance to the camera. If McClarin was 133 feet from the camera, then by most measures, Patty was about 10% closer to the camera. Let's say Patty was 123 feet from the camera in frame 352. Now we can refer to Bill's very useful graphic which compares the heights of Patty and McClarin against figures shot with a 25mm lens, where all 4 frames were scaled to a common frame height. So based on these new distance estimates, I re-scaled Patty and McClarin for a re-comparison with 1 of the figures. How about the guy in the right-most frame? Does the EEK measurement work for him? Since he's 75" tall (same as myself) I repositioned my arm to match his and re-measured the ear-elbow vector (the elbow-knuckle vector remained unchanged). I found this vector increased by about 1.5". Here is the formula for his distance to the camera: Vertical field of view for 25mm lens = 17.26 degrees Ruler = 38.5" = 121 pixels (image above, EEK) Full frame height = 1154 pixels Distance from the camera = 38.5 / tan((121 / 1154 * 17.26 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 101.5 ft This is very close to his actual distance from the camera of 102'. For this case at least the EEK ruler works. ================================================== = Now how about McClarin's distance from the camera for a 15mm lens? Vertical field of view for a 15mm lens = 28.43 degrees Ruler = 37" = 190 pixels Full frame height = 2438 pixels Distance from the camera = 37 / tan((190 / 2438 * 28.43 / 2) / 12 / 2 = 80 ft +/- 4 ft And if this was the case, then that would place Patty ~70 feet from the camera (frame 352), which would have put her trackway in front of the nearest trees, instead of behind them, as was the case. Needless to say, if we correct McClarin's image to be 102 ft from the camera, it's apparent that a 15mm lens doesn't work here. It appears that if we abandon the historical estimate of Patty being 102' from the camera for frame 352 then a dead-on-spec 25mm lens works perfectly. McClarin's estimated distance from the camera certainly supports this. Somehow, the investigators (except for Green) short-changed Roger's camera position by about 20 feet. But then I don't believe there was a consensus anyway. Triangulating the trackway using a 25mm focal length should nail it down. If this can be confirmed with refined estimates, then the lens issue gets resolved.
Óðinn Muse Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 599

26th January 2010, 09:36 AM	#272
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Nice work Óðinn ... I know you don't want to agitate the waters, but it seems that this information could be appropriately presented in one of the ' Munns' Report ' threads over at BFF ... Perhaps it has. I haven't followed things too closely over there for a while ..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

26th January 2010, 10:36 AM	#273
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,504	Originally Posted by SweatyYeti It would be better for the skeptics if Bob hadn't said that....considering where, and by how much, Patty's foot was able to bend... It makes no difference, though I'm not sure that he said it. Quote: A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much. Not at all. You must not have experience with cowboy boots. I can bend mine just like that. They are very flexible at the ball. Boots can bend even more than this shown here... Quote: Also, keep in mind that Patty's heel extended approx. 2-3 inches further back than Bob's heel would have....if his foot were inside Patty's. We don't know exactly where the actor's heel would be inside the fake foot. I thought I saw a boot heel print in a Titmus cast from Patty. I imagined a hard heel inside a rubbery fake foot. It could be pareidolia.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

26th January 2010, 08:09 PM	#274
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by William Parcher Originally Posted by SweatyYeti A boot would have quite a bit of trouble bending that much. Not at all. You must not have experience with cowboy boots. I can bend mine just like that. They are very flexible at the ball. Apparently, Sweaty thinks boots equates clogs. Though not cowboy boots, mine can bend as much, also... Quote: I thought I saw a boot heel print in a Titmus cast from Patty. I imagined a hard heel inside a rubbery fake foot. It could be pareidolia. Wow. I don't know what else to say. I don't think that Bob was wearing boots inside the suit, but I don't need a red outline at all to see what clearly looks like a boot heel there. What's up with that? Could that be from Patterson or Gimlin faking the tracks?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

26th January 2010, 09:09 PM	#275
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,016	The heel in that Titmus cast is raised and plain to the eye, but its shape is more rounded without Parcher's outline artificially squaring it. (Examine the lower right of the shape, the part in shadow: it's round.) I don't see a boot under there, myself. ETA: My two pairs of boots are flexible, too, as have been every pair I've worn or owned throughout my life. Sweaty's off base and misinformed for suggesting that a boot would/could never bend the way Patty's foot bends. They can and they do.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes Last edited by Vortigern99; 26th January 2010 at 09:11 PM.

26th January 2010, 09:34 PM	#276
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 The heel in that Titmus cast is raised and plain to the eye, but its shape is more rounded without Parcher's outline artificially squaring it. (Examine the lower right of the shape, the part in shadow: it's round.) I don't see a boot under there, myself. Boot in a suit or boot on a flexible stomper, the heel should be rounded. Check this boot. BTW, I went to look for images of the casts Titmus made and a found an old post from WP showing casts of what are obviously not the same foot... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...ostcount=16094 I had forgotten about that. What the heck is that?
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6