Patty Filming Site Digital Recreation

[Bonehead74]

Interesting video recreating the PGF location. 

https://youtu.be/I6I2SpixPv0?si=CKxDjpzqKWPw8w_2

[cromag]

I just watched that earlier.....kinda surprised how wide open it was. From the filming angle the trees, shrubs looked a bit more dense. Really cool recreation!

[langfordbc]

Very cool. Thanks.

[Northern Lights]

Um, this video has really challenged some of my very ingrained biases and I'm not quite sure how I fell about it.  The last few minutes talks about the IM index and I've been under the impression that Patty was way outside of the human range, only to hear that based on this video, she is well within human range.  Additionally, they seem to almost gloss over that particular revelation like it is no big deal.  I need to noodle on this for a while.

 

Interesting. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thank you very much for sharing. A six foot human proportional film subject does not diminish the complexity of the aledged suit. 

 

[idlehour30]

7 hours ago, Northern Lights said:

Um, this video has really challenged some of my very ingrained biases and I'm not quite sure how I fell about it.  The last few minutes talks about the IM index and I've been under the impression that Patty was way outside of the human range, only to hear that based on this video, she is well within human range.  Additionally, they seem to almost gloss over that particular revelation like it is no big deal.  I need to noodle on this for a while.

 

Interesting. 

 

It's maybe less interesting than it first appears. It's posted by a channel called Lazy Cowboy whose entire reason for being seems to be to debunk the PGF. Take a look at some of his other videos. He's basically the anti-ThinkerThunker, where he attempts to pour scorn on TT's findings by - ironically I assume - using the same flawed methods. He tries to prove that upper arm proportions can be made bigger with football shoulder pads by drawing massive dots on the joints and connecting with lines. It's all pretty dumb.

 

I need to watch this a few times, but there is an air of respectability about this which tries to disguise the sweeping conclusions they are jumping to - it's quite unnerving. They toss in buzzwords like Lidar, but there seems no scientifically calibrated way this was interpreted, used and adapted. It's all a bit smoke and mirrors. 

 

I posted in a different thread how I think their height is wrong. How they think they deduce it was a smooth sandy surface without obstructions nearly 60 years ago, based mostly on a single photo from years later escapes me. 

 

I'll do a proper review in due course, but I'm not fooled by the veneer. 

 

[Doug]

I believe they put the elbow on the model in the wrong place. I too, felt that in at least the body measurement section was eluding to a more human range Patty, however, I did enjoy the recreation of the site.

[xspider1]

Thanks for sharing that, Bonehead74.  It’s an interesting and sophisticated presentation.  However,  I too feel like they glossed over several of the most important points.  
 

Like how they determined an exact? height of 6’ based on shadows?, how they decided that the trackway was flat and free of any obstructions??  And, the IM thing.  Their digital representation of Patty is cool, it just doesn’t seem as accurate as perhaps they think it is..

 

 

[idlehour30]

I also like the part where they strip away the skin of Patty to reveal muscle, flab, bone etc. They notably don't include Bob's jeans and wallet, waders and huge amounts of padding 

 

Also - the model of Patty used. They're accurate here too in the heavily sloping cranium after the brow ridge. As with all realistic ape costumes, there's no place for Bob's big ol' forehead and cranial cavity, let alone the football helmet. With a perfectly proportioned head section, there's simply no space for Bob or any other human in there.