hiflier

"Patty" Is Real

59 posts in this topic

Wow, I didn't know he was that tall. Heironimus is 6'2 I understand. All of a sudden I feel like a bit of a shrimp LOL. I know you a big guy too. Shoulder span? Not anything personal, right? Good grief, is this what happens to Bigfoot researchers when they don't mind their own business? Anyway, thanks for the photo. Here's one of Bob Heironimus back in the day. It's the one I used to scale the height/shoulder width ratio:

Bob Hieronimus Bigfoot 2.PNG

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled this from a shoulder pad sizing image. This guy has 18 inch shoulders (as determined by the tape measure) and the widest part of the shoulder pads calculates to 24.46". I started with a pretty low resolution images so calculations could be subject to some amount of error, but (in my opinion) the calculated width is pretty close.

Shoulders to Pads Compared.gif

Edited by Redbone
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, RB, I've been watching football highlights to observe football players as they walk. Their arms move- the padding on top of the shoulders do not. So no the rotation in the upper arm is seen like on the PGF. Your image looks like it adds about 3 inches to the outside of each shoulder in the style of shoulder pads used. That would bring a person with a 20 inch span to 26.5 inches if the same shoulder pads were what was claimed to be used in 1967. It still wouldn't allow the upper arm to be seen moving like in the PGF which also shows fur movement directly behind the shoulder joint itself.

mk_davis_pgf.gif

Something that wouldn't occur with shoulder pads. They're pretty rigid really.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoulder pads are probably a bit different today than they were 50 years ago (the last time I put on pads was mid-70's). I would think that you have to go back and see what was "state of the art" back then for linemen. Also, players were not nearly as big as they are now which throws the sizing off a bit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ In 1970, 220 pounds was probably about average for a down lineman at most D1 schools.

Edited by Yuchi1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know what you mean VAfooter. It still begs the question of how Patty's arms swing so naturally with elbows in the proper location on the arms if someone in the 'suit (Bob Hieronimus?) has only a 20" total shoulder span. It means that from the body's centerline (spine) the 'suit' wearer's outside measurement to the shoulder is only 10 inches which is 5 inches short of reaching the outside of Patty's shoulder. If it was a man in a suit his elbows would end up way to high- only about 9 inches down on the arm as opposed to the normal 14.5 average inches or so and would not hang down straight and swing naturally.

 

5 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

^^^ In 1970, 220 pounds was probably about average for a down lineman at most D1 schools.

 

In the mid-60's my high school varsity team had two starting tackles that each weighed in about 220 and both were 6 foot 4. I weighed about 150...........I always had a LOT of bruises LOL.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick with this subject is to never stop digging and to think of every way possible to attack an issue. Well, that's what I've done. Lo, and behold I came across this from here: http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2012/01/biped-zoo-gorilla-throws-light-on.html

 

"Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders, which (after deducting 1" for hair) he estimated at 28.2 inches, or 35.1% of its full standing height of 78", or a higher percentage of its 72" "walking height," which was a bit stooped, crouched, and sunk into the sand.[36] The creature's shoulders are almost 50% wider than the human mean. (For comparison, André the Giant had a typical human ratio of 24%. Wide-shouldered Bob Heironimus (see below) has 27.4%. Only very rarely do humans have a shoulder breadth of 30%.) Krantz argued that a suited person could not mimic this breadth and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film."

 

So, HAH! Why didn't someone tell me that Dr. Krantz had already covered this aspect. DANG! I should've been an anthropologist ;) I thank everyone for the pats on the back but, in light of this, I can no longer take the credit. What is nice though is to be corroborated by someone of such high standing and respect. I'm humbled by this guy.
 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly anyone who has looked at all the evidence and break downs of the PGF and comes to a conclusion

it's a guy in a monkey suit just doesn't  want to believe in the existence of these creatures .

 

It has nothing to do with the PGF  , some people for what ever personal reasons are just like that.One could knock on their  front door and they would say they must 

have imagined it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably right but I still think this approach is is a fine one to take. And not just for the hardcore skeptics either. It has certainly put things in a new light for me- and I'm a proponent. I still say go for the hard numbers on this and have no doubts that it will stand up against everything thrown at it. It's a good renewed path for the experts in math and graphic imagery to stay on.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

You're probably right but I still think this approach is is a fine one to take. And not just for the hardcore skeptics either. It has certainly put things in a new light for me- and I'm a proponent. I still say go for the hard numbers on this and have no doubts that it will stand up against everything thrown at it. It's a good renewed path for the experts in math and graphic imagery to stay on.

Oh absolutely and by no means am I implying anything else . It's that I know people like that and no matter what kind of evidence you try to show them 

they will always think it's a guy in a monkey suit or just that the creature  has always been fiction and never existed .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 6'3" and my shoulders span 27".  33" however is gigantic!  I have always believed Patty is real.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiflier, how did you measure Patty's shoulder width?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a similar analysis a couple of years ago starting with a foot length of 14.5 inches based on the footprints found and using a handful of images from the film scaled the shoulder width to greater than 24.3 inches and probably right at 25.0 inches if you take in to consideration my rough estimate of the angle tilt of the image that best shows a squared off shoulder view to the camera.

 

The idea that this a man in a suite wearing football shoulder pads is preposterous.  You would see that immediately in the film.  It is either a real BF or Bob Heironimus wearing the worlds greatest female bigfoot suit both then and now.  

 

Gig - If I remember correctly you did a similar study roughly the same time frame I completed mine.  What do you get for shoulder width?

 

 

Edited by NCBFr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites