Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Somebody put something in somebodys cheerios... If he is going to make ridiculous statements like that no wonder people blow the guy off. I thought he was reasonable... huh. Anything with a 14.5 in print that can be easily figured out in height should be able to promote something within the ball park on mass. Guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 If he is going to make ridiculous statements like that no wonder people blow the guy off. I thought he was reasonable... huh. I guess I got lost somewhere in this thread. What guy are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) I guess I got lost somewhere in this thread. What guy are you talking about? Here is the deal Blackdog, J Glickman in his report regarding the Patty film states that Patty would be over seven feet and weigh in at 1957lb. Now, he might be a great guy and all, but my understanding was her prints were approx 14-14.5 in long. (Now I am presuming she is a real breathing creature which you might well have issues with, and I understand that, I do not know where you sit there) Regardless, if she was real and if she is a primate, can you tell me straight faced that at 7 feet she would probably weigh 43 pounds less than a ton ? THAT Doesnt make sense to me. Edited January 18, 2011 by treeknocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 J Glickman in his report regarding the Patty film states that Patty would be over seven feet and weigh in at 1957lb. ... THAT Doesnt make sense to me. Glickman calculated the value you are discomforted by. Which, if any, of the input variables in his calculation do you object to? Or, do you object to his model? If you object to an input variable or the model, what do you propose to use as a substitute? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked if forward progress is desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric45 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) From the link: Substituting the chest circumference in centimeters, the estimated mass of the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film is 887 kg or 1,957 lbs. An error analysis has not yet been undertaken. RayG Just for comparisons sake, animals tend to scale to the cube of their dimensions, so a person twice as tall will usually weigh (or mass if measuring in kg) 8 times as much, (This assumes the proportions stay the same, in reality its not quite true, but still good for a approximation.) So if the Patty figure was built like a human, (Say a typical human is 6 feet or 182.88 cm tall, and 180lb/81.64 kg) a 887kg normally proportioned human would be about 13.288 feet tall/405.03 cm.) Basically since 887kg is 10.86378 times as much as a typical human, 2.214762^3=10.86378, so 2.214762 times 6ft/182cm = 13.288 feet/405.03cm. Now if Patty were built like a gorilla things would be different. "Average" height and weight for gorillas vary quite a bit, (plus they have a lot of undigested plant food in the gut), most of the records are concerning extremely large specimens. But a height of 5'7"/170.18cm and a weight of 330lbs(150kg mass) would suggest a 887kg Gorilla would be about 10.0965ft, or 307.74cm tall. For perspective, King Kong in the Island scenes in the original 1933 movie was 18ft tall, (They made him bigger for the NY scenes.) He would have weighed about 17 tons. Edited January 18, 2011 by Eric45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Ptero: Q1 If her foot is 14-14.5 inches and you divide that into her height, do you get seven feet ? Q2 Lets say that she actually IS 7 feet (which I would like an explanation for given her 14 in foot) do you really believe she weighs a full ton ? I dont. Now in time, I might be able to understand the thinking for this but I do not believe that her stature as compared to that of Jim McClarin is of that bulk. JMHO particularly noting Glickman stands alone on that issue. (At least I think so, if others can point me to similar opinions and calculations that equal this, I am all eyes and ears.) Edited January 18, 2011 by treeknocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric45 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Saskeptic, (or any professors out there) if you are reading this thread, you might have access to the following article. Body mass in comparative primatology Richard J. Smith and William L. Jungers Its a 1996 article with better information on primate size. Captive Gorilla's might be a tad, um, chubby compared to their wild brethren, but I don't have direct access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 This is why I don't think Patty is as tall/heavy as some of the estimates: RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 This is why I don't think Patty is as tall/heavy as some of the estimates: RayG Thanks for bringing my visualization to illustration. I do not see her seven feet. Even if she was nine feet I do not see 1957lb out of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) This is why I don't think Patty is as tall/heavy as some of the estimates: RayG Roger was 5 feet tall? I see the point though! Some analysts have brought up that in this particular frame of the film the foot suffers from alot of over-exposure, making it seem quite abit larger than it really was. It has also been brought up that the foot was at a odd angle to the camera and the figure was hunched over quite alot. I remember hearing Jeff Meldrum covering this in length, but cannot remember exact details If I am not mistaken most all estimates for weight, regardless of height, were 600-800lbs though, Grover fell somewhere in that range as well. Edited January 18, 2011 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Xion, I'm confident I've read somewhere that Roger was 5'3". So the cast comparison is a bit off on both pics. Chris B. Edited to add: Unless the section of toes added to the top cast in Roger's pic is 5" in length. 4 casts at 14.5" = 58" if Roger was 63" tall, the toe section at the top would have to be 5" in length. Edited January 18, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY Edited to add 5" toes part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Right, so either the casts have to be reduced in size slightly, or Patterson increased slightly. I suspect the same for Patty. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Chris, I think you were right. Xion, 800 or less I can live with. Probably less than that. Glad you brought that aspect up Ray. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Xion, I'm confident I've read somewhere that Roger was 5'3". Wow. He was as short as my little sister. That's really short. Even Mrs. Huntster is taller than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Believe Bigfoot Exists, But Have Never Seen One. Why ? This thread was started by Lesmore. It has 19 responses on it. There are 900 members or thereabouts on the BFF. That means 880 people have no comment or do not participate. THAT doesnt make sense to me either lol. Vewy vewy qwiet. Just to answer your query. It doesn't make sense to me that after all this time of searching, no one has produced a living or dead body. I have seen bears, deer, moose, wolves, coyotes, elk, mountain sheep and smaller mammals hit by a vehicle or dead at the side of the road, but no sasquatch. Just doesn't add up to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts