Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest Tontar

Oh no you don't, you can't rotate/cut/paste/spindle or mutilate the image to match up their orientations. At least that's what you told me.

No, that's not what I told you. You misrepresent what I did tell you in a different thread. I was commenting on excising a "portion" of an image and then rotating it at will. I said nothing about not rotating the entire image. You ought to fact check before you hit send. :-)

The only important criteria is whether their scales are correct. If they are in Sweaty's comparison, then Patty's arms are longer than Bob's. Deal with it. You don't need to reorient the arm, just measure the length. The million $ question is to what degree their armlengths are foreshortened? Your only defence is to claim that Bob's armlength is foreshortened and not maximal. Funny how that's always been the case..so far. ;)

You act as if they are even in the same pose, photographed at the same angle, from the same distance. Besides, it's kind of funny that you guys have once again derailed this topic into the Bob H. thread, just as soon as the opportunity presented itself. What does Bob H. have to do with reports similar to Patty? Give it a rest already...

But you know, it's straightforward to measure this. Draw standing height vectors from the top of Bob's head to hips to knee to the ground and measure that (on the screen with a ruler). Now measure from Bob's shoulder to his elbow to wrist, then approximate his hand length and add that to the armlength. Measure the same distance on your own arm and divide it by your height. If Bob's arm/height ratio is smaller than yours, then it is likely foreshortened. The difference in your ratios indicates the % of foreshortening. You can then "unforeshorten" Bob's armlength, THEN do your comparison, which will of course show us that Bob's arm is the same length or longer than Patty's. :)

Blah, blah, blah... Why not take the Bob H. comparisons back to the Bob H. threads where they belong. Then, you can demonstrate all of this pseudometric voodoo-grammetry to prove your point.... there.

How do you know Patty's arms are humanly proportioned? No comparison has ever demonstrated that. Not even Chabal. Only the minimally foreshortened frames can decide this anyway. We need to agree which frames those are. To make your claim, you require any human comparison that at least matches the arm length of Patty at her maximum length. Then you have to show how you scaled them. Good luck with that.

How do I "know" Patty's arms are humanly proportioned? I don't "know" any more than you "know" anything to the contrary. However, I have done my own multiple frame measuring, taking numerous frames form the film, measured the arm, leg, back and shoulder width points the best that I could, and am satisfied with the results. I didn't simply choose one frame, or a second frame that suited my own bias, then draw points where the joints are supposed to be which would not hold up to prior or subsequent frames that show the joints to be elsewhere. That's what Sweaty does, that's not what I did. So my measurements were done on a wide range of images, not just one or two, and the results held up consistently throughout. There are others that have done similar measurements, making sure that their joint positions held up over a wide number of frames, not just one or two cherry picked frames that provided the much needed ambiguity necessary to come up with distorted measurements. Similarly, but even more impressive is the digital model that does in fact check out to have human proportions, overlaid on the moving Patty in the film, not just one or two frames, but an entire motion series of frames. The joints match up, the hands, the feet, the hips, the knees and elbows. You do not like that animation because it conflicts with your opinion that Patty is not a man in a suit, and would likely argue with any animation, or any photographic comparison that conflicts with that belief. You also say that the only way to do it accurately involves specific methods, that you know of because you are a professional photogrammetrist, yet where is your photogrammetry example that does show a human scaled figure overlaid on Patty's moving image? You pick apart the work others do that conflicts with your superior sensibilities, yet you do not offer up anything better. What up with that? Offer something that works according to your rules if you are going to shoot down work others have done that you don't like.

Fake hands can move, but fake fingers don't articulate without a sophisticated mechanism, which a Morris suit did not have.

How did Morris get into this thread? Was the topic about how many other reports were attributed to Morris suits? Oh, and since you mentioned it, do you have some sort of evidence that Patty used Morris supplied hands that were extensions, and not gloves?

The only thing clear is that Patty's arms are not the same length as Bob's in that animation. Try using a ruler (serious). They don't have to be in the same orientation, only similarly foreshortened. And are they scaled correctly? I'm not saying they are, but are they? Measure the film.

Why not take the bigfoot featured in the car commercials linked, and try to match your favorite guy Bob H. to it. See if you can do it. See if you can make Bob H. fit a known bigfoot costume. Certainly there will be frames within those videos that you can use to do that bit of comparison. And if you can't do it, should we rest our case that the car commercial used a real bigfoot, one that has really big feet?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Y3pRBh1ao&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL>'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Y3pRBh1ao&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Y3pRBh1ao&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fake fingers could actually appear to articulate as they will likely wiggle while the arm is in motion. This will depend on what was used to make the hands. I disagree that they need to be extensions however. I also don't think that we need to assume a fake "Patty" means Bob Heironomous was in the suit. If he admits to hoaxing he could be lying and that points been covered around here before.

Patty's fingers seem naturally extended thru much of her walk cycle. But at certain times they curl and flex.

handmove.giffingers.gif

Odd behaviour for gloves is all.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Tontar -

Not to jump into the middle of all of this, but I wanted to get your thoughts on hand extensions vs finger movement.

Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) Bob H claimed to have hand extensions during his donned suit filming, right?

Have you come across any information suggesting that the hand extensions were dexterous? Even in the slightest capacity? (perhaps some sort of rigging allowing all 4 fingers - sans thumb - to move together)

Additionally, I know what you think of sweaty's animations, and even taking into account the perspective angles and what-not, I do believe I see some finger moving.

What this shows in this discussion, I'm not 100% sure, but I'll take a stab - if Bob claimed to have inside info on the suit (he wore it for the filming, correct?), it may show that there is some creedence to the folks who say that the subject in the PGF isn't Bob.

Anyway...looking forward to your thoughts.

Thanks.

Edited to add: Boy, I sure feel like I'm late to this party (discussion).

Edited by Cotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

parn, no offense, but I don't think you know what you're talking about here and you are arguing from a position of incredulity. You know Bob was the guy in the suit and you're intent on making him fit. To hell with science! :D

That's kind of an empty criticism when you keep saying that there is science that will do the job, that you are just such the scientist that can do that job, yet you have not presented anything comparable to the Mangler animation, nor anything else (that I have seen) that would act as a convincing "example" to dispute the work you don't like. If you want to bash the Mangler video for inaccurate distances, improper triangulation, or whatever, then do a comparable piece that shows how a distorted figure would fit better. I think that you are also pretty adamant that Bob H. was not the guy in the suit, and to hell with anything that even hints at it, such as the idea that Patty has human proportions. You automatically expect the next step after human proportions to be Bob H., so you interject him into the threads without provocation. To hell with science, the Bob H. button gets pushed, and the thread gets derailed to talking about Bob H.

The reality here is that you are fully capable of putting your money where your mouth is. Post pictures of yourself or someone with known dimensions in the same pose as a minimally foreshortened frame of Patty from the PGF at approx the same distance from the camera and match Patty's armlength. But show us, don't tell us, otherwise, you are implying that there are no frames from the PGF that we can determine Patty's body dimensions. Which is it?

I thought that you claimed to be fully capable of putting your money where your mouth is. You say the answer lies in photogrammetry, that you can analyze and map out Patty that way, and if that's possible, why not do it and show the results? Build a digital model of Patty then, and animate it, and overlay it on top of the PGf. Show that your digital clone of Patty fits the film version of Patty, and that virtual Patty can then be scaled and compared to a human proportioned digital model, and we have some "science". Is that within your capabilities to do? You claim Patty is beyond human proportions, show us. The burden of proof is on you, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The finger flexing is much more probable as real than the arguments posed showing flexing to be simple angle of hand change. There was doll's hand posted in another forum that rotated to mimic finger flexing. However as clever as the idea was it paled in comparison to what we see in the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

parnassus mentions several suggest they see droopy or slowched(?) shoulders, how is that likely to be visible if there are fake rigid shoulder pads runnin' across the top of the shoulders ? I still think the idea of shoulder pads has yet to be explained, as I've mantioned on many occasion, they obscure the natural anatomy visible in the filmed subject.

Tontar,

As I've said, my opinion, most witness descriptions describe somethin' quite similar to what is seen in the film. Bipedal, hair covered, what's the average, a seven footer, shoulders 3-4 feet across, leanin' foreward at the waist, long arms, massive, barrel chested or as thick through as it is wide, that smooth gait is often described(if you think that animation is so good, how do you account for the animated human overlay bouncin' six ways from sunday? An the human is still to narrow/thin in my opinion, an joints are off half the time), pointed or peaked head, generally all around way to big to be a person. I can think of nothin' else in the woods that looks remotely similar to sasquatchs when described like that. Perhaps we do have a race of hair covered caricatures runnin' around the woods of North America ?

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Patty's fingers seem naturally extended thru much of her walk cycle. But at certain times they curl and flex.

handmove.giffingers.gif

Odd behaviour for gloves is all.

Personally I think the hands are just hands with gloves on them. Nothing tricky there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, that's not what I told you. You misrepresent what I did tell you in a different thread. I was commenting on excising a "portion" of an image and then rotating it at will. I said nothing about not rotating the entire image. You ought to fact check before you hit send. :-)

You mean this image?

P_BH1.gif

Note that the body vectors of Bob (particularly the arms) are the same length. The cutout rotations you speak of preserved the actual length of the arm vectors. That was the whole point. The adjustment was for comparison against Patty. More believable than posting numbers. Would you have believed it, otherwise? Oh wait, you don't believe it anyway, do you? :unsure:

You act as if they are even in the same pose, photographed at the same angle, from the same distance. Besides, it's kind of funny that you guys have once again derailed this topic into the Bob H. thread, just as soon as the opportunity presented itself. What does Bob H. have to do with reports similar to Patty? Give it a rest already...

Doesn't matter if they are in the same pose. Foreshortening is everything. Where is the shoulder/elbow/wrist relative to the camera? It's all about distance from the camera for these 3 points. Orientation along the film plane is irrelevant. How is the arm oriented in 3D?

Blah, blah, blah... Why not take the Bob H. comparisons back to the Bob H. threads where they belong. Then, you can demonstrate all of this pseudometric voodoo-grammetry to prove your point.... there.

I guess it must all sound like Greek to a Turk. ;)

How do I "know" Patty's arms are humanly proportioned? I don't "know" any more than you "know" anything to the contrary. However, I have done my own multiple frame measuring, taking numerous frames form the film, measured the arm, leg, back and shoulder width points the best that I could, and am satisfied with the results. I didn't simply choose one frame, or a second frame that suited my own bias, then draw points where the joints are supposed to be which would not hold up to prior or subsequent frames that show the joints to be elsewhere. That's what Sweaty does, that's not what I did. So my measurements were done on a wide range of images, not just one or two, and the results held up consistently throughout. There are others that have done similar measurements, making sure that their joint positions held up over a wide number of frames, not just one or two cherry picked frames that provided the much needed ambiguity necessary to come up with distorted measurements. Similarly, but even more impressive is the digital model that does in fact check out to have human proportions, overlaid on the moving Patty in the film, not just one or two frames, but an entire motion series of frames. The joints match up, the hands, the feet, the hips, the knees and elbows. You do not like that animation because it conflicts with your opinion that Patty is not a man in a suit, and would likely argue with any animation, or any photographic comparison that conflicts with that belief. You also say that the only way to do it accurately involves specific methods, that you know of because you are a professional photogrammetrist, yet where is your photogrammetry example that does show a human scaled figure overlaid on Patty's moving image? You pick apart the work others do that conflicts with your superior sensibilities, yet you do not offer up anything better. What up with that? Offer something that works according to your rules if you are going to shoot down work others have done that you don't like.

Isn't this all you are doing? Shooting down Sweaty? Show some rebuttal for a change. :D

How did Morris get into this thread? Was the topic about how many other reports were attributed to Morris suits? Oh, and since you mentioned it, do you have some sort of evidence that Patty used Morris supplied hands that were extensions, and not gloves?

I'm not allowed to throw in a reference to Morris? Good thing I'm the only one to go off topic. :rolleyes:

Why not take the bigfoot featured in the car commercials linked, and try to match your favorite guy Bob H. to it. See if you can do it. See if you can make Bob H. fit a known bigfoot costume. Certainly there will be frames within those videos that you can use to do that bit of comparison. And if you can't do it, should we rest our case that the car commercial used a real bigfoot, one that has really big feet?

Why should I do this?

Tontar, sorry but you don't seem to get that there is a formal way to measure film that conforms to the laws of voodoo photogrammetry and all that is holy. You don't have to believe it or like it but it's a fact and it's science. This stuff isn't new and I didn't invent it. Measure the film, it will set you free. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar -

Not to jump into the middle of all of this, but I wanted to get your thoughts on hand extensions vs finger movement.

Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) Bob H claimed to have hand extensions during his donned suit filming, right?

Thanks for asking. But I don't really know what Bob claimed as far as hand or arm extensions. I'm not a big Bob H. fan, I don't know what to think of him pro or con, and so quite honestly I don't really know what all he claimed about the hands. He may have been talking about hand extensions, or gloves, I have no idea. Sorry on that point! :-)

Have you come across any information suggesting that the hand extensions were dexterous? Even in the slightest capacity? (perhaps some sort of rigging allowing all 4 fingers - sans thumb - to move together)

Again, that questions hand extensions, and I have no information that any were used, or that B.H. said they were, or even knew what he was talking about. Sorry.

Additionally, I know what you think of sweaty's animations, and even taking into account the perspective angles and what-not, I do believe I see some finger moving.

Okay, so I have never been a proponent of hand extensions existing on Patty. Never have been. I don't think that any would be necessary to accomplish what we see in the film. I think that the arm length measures out to be human proportioned, and as such the hands would be in the right place for a human hand to do the job, if it were in act a person in a suit. I think it could be a person in a suit, and there's also the possibility that it is a real bigfoot. One or the other has to be true. But in either case, I believe the arms relative to the body length and the legs, measure out to fit a human's lengths. If it's a real bigfoot, we see its real hands. If it's a person in a suit, I think we see the actor's real hands, likely disguised with gloves, or simply makeup and hair. And so, I don't have a problem with hand or finger movement existing, because I have never proposed that if it were a suit, that it necessarily needed hand extensions.

What this shows in this discussion, I'm not 100% sure, but I'll take a stab - if Bob claimed to have inside info on the suit (he wore it for the filming, correct?), it may show that there is some creedence to the folks who say that the subject in the PGF isn't Bob.

Not quite sure what that means. Bob says he was the guy in the suit. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. maybe it wasn't even a suit. There are numerous possibilities that all can be argued for. It's possible Bob was in "a" suit, but not that suit. Bob may have been a preliminary step in a multiple step project. There has been talk of a different film that at least some people saw, which featured a guy in a suit, that wasn't the PGf that we know. If that's true, Bob could have been the guy in that suit. He doesn't say he was in two films as far as I know, so maybe he was in a test run film, and then not used for the PGf segment. I know that starts to get complicated, but hey, something went on, and there are conflicting stories, and so there are additional possibilities. People try to make it sound lie Roger was some hick and couldn't possibly make such a good film. I don't buy that. Not saying he did, but I don't buy the objection saying he wasn't capable. He was no hick, he was very creative and talented, and that was not the dark ages of technology or ideas.

So, if what you're talking about is Bob's claim that he had hand extensions, and that the film shows evidence that no hand extensions were used, then connecting the dots would mean Bob was not Patty, well, that's one route you could take, I suppose. But as for me, I'm not claiming Bob was Patty. If he was, and I suppose he very well could have been, his memory, his participation, his attention to detail, his involvement in the details may have not been good enough to make his story fit convincingly. He could have been to Bluff Creek and just didn't remember how to get there. Did Gimlin fare much better in knowing how to get back in there when he went back? I don't know. I just don't think it fair to dismiss Bob H. as a possibility based on slim comparisons to his shape or size, when there aren't enough good pictures of him to compare, and those that exist are of an old, withering man. I think that the digital animation shows well that a human body could easily fit within the boundaries of Patty, quite well in fact, and if that digital model is close to Bob's proportions, if he is an "average" shaped person, than that digital stand-in works pretty well for me.

Anyway...looking forward to your thoughts.

Thanks.

Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth. Could be real, could be fake, could be Bob, or could be someone else. Not really specific, eh? But considering that there have been no confirmable sightings or remains found, ever, other than the PGf, the the question of whether Patty is real kind of takes a back seat to the question of whether bigfoot is real. If bigfoot doesn't exist, if nobody can ever confirm it, then the likelihood that Patty is fake becomes pretty hard to deny. And at that point, lines drawn on sketchy images becomes kind of silly. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's kind of an empty criticism when you keep saying that there is science that will do the job, that you are just such the scientist that can do that job, yet you have not presented anything comparable to the Mangler animation, nor anything else (that I have seen) that would act as a convincing "example" to dispute the work you don't like. If you want to bash the Mangler video for inaccurate distances, improper triangulation, or whatever, then do a comparable piece that shows how a distorted figure would fit better. I think that you are also pretty adamant that Bob H. was not the guy in the suit, and to hell with anything that even hints at it, such as the idea that Patty has human proportions. You automatically expect the next step after human proportions to be Bob H., so you interject him into the threads without provocation. To hell with science, the Bob H. button gets pushed, and the thread gets derailed to talking about Bob H.

You really like to read between the lines Tontar. :D The Poser software is not setup to do the job, plain and simple. I know Mangler personally and I respect his animations, I just know that they don't measure anything. I write similar software to project 3D objects onto a 2D screen. I have not written software to animate a character with specific dimensions into a scene but I know how it's done. That's photogrammetry. Projecting a 3D object into a 2D scene. That's what video games and computer animations use. That's what Poser software uses, but it is not set up to measure anything. How far is the poser/skeleton from the camera? What are the ground conditions like? These are questions that Poser software doesn't address. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I thought that you claimed to be fully capable of putting your money where your mouth is. You say the answer lies in photogrammetry, that you can analyze and map out Patty that way, and if that's possible, why not do it and show the results? Build a digital model of Patty then, and animate it, and overlay it on top of the PGf. Show that your digital clone of Patty fits the film version of Patty, and that virtual Patty can then be scaled and compared to a human proportioned digital model, and we have some "science". Is that within your capabilities to do? You claim Patty is beyond human proportions, show us. The burden of proof is on you, isn't it?

I never said Patty had inhuman proportions. Wishful thinking on your part? I said that Bob H (or anyone compared so far) has not matched Patty's armlength. You can take that for what it's worth or show me otherwise. I never concluded anything from it..yet. It certainly isn't my job to produce a formal photogrammetric study using registered photos of the PGF to show anything. Sure, I claim I could do it, but are you gonna pay me? And are you gonna give me source material to work with? And even after I did it, are you gonna believe any of it? Let me know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

You mean this image?

No, I mean the image where an arm, or a leg, was cut in half, thus losing the true location of the joints along that limb. You know well what I was talking about. The image you just referenced was not sectioned in a way that lost the joints. I see what you are getting at, but you lost the basic problem.

Note that the body vectors of Bob (particularly the arms) are the same length. The cutout rotations you speak of preserved the actual length of the arm vectors. That was the whole point. The adjustment was for comparison against Patty. More believable than posting numbers. Would you have believed it, otherwise? Oh wait, you don't believe it anyway, do you? :unsure:

Pointless to respond to that.

Doesn't matter if they are in the same pose. Foreshortening is everything. Where is the shoulder/elbow/wrist relative to the camera? It's all about distance from the camera for these 3 points. Orientation along the film plane is irrelevant. How is the arm oriented in 3D?

I guess it must all sound like Greek to a Turk. ;)

Foreshortening is the default defense, even when it is ruled out via a moving animation.

Here's part of your problem. The images posted previously were to suggest hand or finger curling. The wrists were aligned as a pivot point, yet the entire body, the entire landscape even, was rotated about that fixed wrist point. Of course there would be apparent hand motion about an axis when the entire beast is also rotated about that wrist axis. Duh! Has nothing to do with Bob H., arm lengths, diaper butt, or anything else. You guys' problems is that you can't focus on one thing at a time, you jump around like a pinball machine. Deal with the hand or fingers flexing, since that was what the image in question was about. Not about Bob H.'s arm length. Freaking greased pigs in terms of discussion tactics.

Isn't this all you are doing? Shooting down Sweaty? Show some rebuttal for a change. :D

No. I was warned not to shoot down Sweaty because that is personal, but that I should attack his arguments or his data, which is what I did. All I asked was that he rotate the entire image to align the arms, since that would reduce the amount of "apparent" finger flexing he was proposing. Fix the "error riddled junk", and the result will appear different, and it will lessen the impact of his argument. That's nothing personal against Sweaty, just that he needs to fix his work a bit.

I'm not allowed to throw in a reference to Morris? Good thing I'm the only one to go off topic. :rolleyes:

I always wonder about people who roll their eyes. It's quite the teenage girl habit, wouldn't you say? Uh, like totally; duh!

Why should I do this?

You claim to be the pro. You shoot down good work while waving your professional credentials about. That naturally puts the burden of proof that the work is flawed on your shoulders. The question is, can you do what you say needs to be done? You give specific, although cryptic and terminology rich insults about something as cool as the mangler animation, yet you don't counter it with anything of substance. I give Sweaty more credit there, as he at least breaks out the crayons and draws lines and submits those. :-)

If you can't do the photogrammetry work to produce the dimensions of Patty, like you say needs to be done, then who else can do it? can you lean on them to do it, get them to produce the dimensions that you will agree to as correct? Then lean on someone else that has the ability to build a digital Patty model, get them to do an animation like the Mangler animation, show that a Patty model with non-human proportions can work the same as or better than the mangler animation? Can you do that? Is it even possible?

Tontar, sorry but you don't seem to get that there is a formal way to measure film that conforms to the laws of voodoo photogrammetry and all that is holy. You don't have to believe it or like it but it's a fact and it's science. This stuff isn't new and I didn't invent it. Measure the film, it will set you free. :)

Talk is cheap, at least that's what I've been told. You keep professing that there is a way. You have said that you are a professional in that field. Who better to produce voodoo than a voodoo priest?

As you said, I have measured the film. Not with your methodology, but using much more basic techniques. You don't like what I came up with. You don't like what others have come up with, So YOU should do something that you would accept, YOU do the measuring, YOU show your work, YOU present it here for peer review. We shall see who is set free. I feel pretty good. I am satisfied that the measurements I did. I am satisfied with the mangler animation. I have yet to see anything even in the same ballpark of either. Nothing even comes close from the naysaying camp.

You really like to read between the lines Tontar. :D The Poser software is not setup to do the job, plain and simple. I know Mangler personally and I respect his animations, I just know that they don't measure anything. I write similar software to project 3D objects onto a 2D screen. I have not written software to animate a character with specific dimensions into a scene but I know how it's done. That's photogrammetry. Projecting a 3D object into a 2D scene. That's what video games and computer animations use. That's what Poser software uses, but it is not set up to measure anything. How far is the poser/skeleton from the camera? What are the ground conditions like? These are questions that Poser software doesn't address. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Care to produce something to prove otherwise? Talk is cheap.

I never said Patty had inhuman proportions. Wishful thinking on your part? I said that Bob H (or anyone compared so far) has not matched Patty's armlength. You can take that for what it's worth or show me otherwise. I never concluded anything from it..yet. It certainly isn't my job to produce a formal photogrammetric study using registered photos of the PGF to show anything. Sure, I claim I could do it, but are you gonna pay me? And are you gonna give me source material to work with? And even after I did it, are you gonna believe any of it? Let me know. :D

You condemn any work that says Patty does have human proportions, and you get all giggly with the guys who says she doesn't. That may be reading between the lines, but it seems pretty clear to me. You defend some seriously shoddy work that supports a particular position, and immediately jump all over some excellent work that conflicts with it. While you may say you have never stated that Patty had inhuman proportions (and I am not about to go looking to verify that), you indicate your support for it by selectively condoning and condemning the efforts presented.

Now we see how things digress. Am I going to pay you? Give you source material to work with? Registered photos? Now we're getting really silly. I give. I say uncle. You win out of sheer persistence and avoidance. I wish I had a copy of the playbook you guys seem to take strategies from. Dodging, weaving, changing the subject, avoiding answering direct questions. It would be a fun read. No doubt that no matter how bad a debate might be getting, there's always that final saving retort, "I know you are, but what am I!" :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

The proportions of the proposed person to have played the part do not match that of the subject in film.

Wookie73, I don't believe this is the jref forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, I mean the image where an arm, or a leg, was cut in half, thus losing the true location of the joints along that limb. You know well what I was talking about. The image you just referenced was not sectioned in a way that lost the joints. I see what you are getting at, but you lost the basic problem.

Make up your mind. You mean this image?

P_BH_elbow.gif

Same images as the last one I posted. What are you talking about?

Foreshortening is the default defense, even when it is ruled out via a moving animation.

Foreshortening is not a defense, it's a fact and it's science.

Here's part of your problem. The images posted previously were to suggest hand or finger curling. The wrists were aligned as a pivot point, yet the entire body, the entire landscape even, was rotated about that fixed wrist point. Of course there would be apparent hand motion about an axis when the entire beast is also rotated about that wrist axis. Duh! Has nothing to do with Bob H., arm lengths, diaper butt, or anything else. You guys' problems is that you can't focus on one thing at a time, you jump around like a pinball machine. Deal with the hand or fingers flexing, since that was what the image in question was about. Not about Bob H.'s arm length. Freaking greased pigs in terms of discussion tactics.

Get a grip. I think everyone can decide who has the problem here.

No. I was warned not to shoot down Sweaty because that is personal, but that I should attack his arguments or his data, which is what I did. All I asked was that he rotate the entire image to align the arms, since that would reduce the amount of "apparent" finger flexing he was proposing. Fix the "error riddled junk", and the result will appear different, and it will lessen the impact of his argument. That's nothing personal against Sweaty, just that he needs to fix his work a bit.

JMO, but I think tho protests too much.

I always wonder about people who roll their eyes. It's quite the teenage girl habit, wouldn't you say? Uh, like totally; duh!

Seemed to work on you.

You claim to be the pro. You shoot down good work while waving your professional credentials about. That naturally puts the burden of proof that the work is flawed on your shoulders. The question is, can you do what you say needs to be done? You give specific, although cryptic and terminology rich insults about something as cool as the mangler animation, yet you don't counter it with anything of substance. I give Sweaty more credit there, as he at least breaks out the crayons and draws lines and submits those. :-)

All I've ever said is that I am a photogrammetrist and I know how to measure photos. Been doing it for over 15 years. Take it for what it's worth. I let my posts do the talking, not my credentials. If you can refute what I claim based on my posts then do so. Otherwise.. :)

If you can't do the photogrammetry work to produce the dimensions of Patty, like you say needs to be done, then who else can do it? can you lean on them to do it, get them to produce the dimensions that you will agree to as correct? Then lean on someone else that has the ability to build a digital Patty model, get them to do an animation like the Mangler animation, show that a Patty model with non-human proportions can work the same as or better than the mangler animation? Can you do that? Is it even possible?

Sure it's possible and I would be glad to do it. But I have no influence and I am not willing to do it without pay and source materials. In the end, I doubt anyone would buy it anyways, no matter how persuasive it was.

Talk is cheap, at least that's what I've been told. You keep professing that there is a way. You have said that you are a professional in that field. Who better to produce voodoo than a voodoo priest?

Talk is cheap..tell me about it.

As you said, I have measured the film. Not with your methodology, but using much more basic techniques. You don't like what I came up with. You don't like what others have come up with, So YOU should do something that you would accept, YOU do the measuring, YOU show your work, YOU present it here for peer review. We shall see who is set free. I feel pretty good. I am satisfied that the measurements I did. I am satisfied with the mangler animation. I have yet to see anything even in the same ballpark of either. Nothing even comes close from the naysaying camp.

Your biased measurements notwithstanding, focus on the frames that show maximums. Then justify your choice. It's all there for the taking, if you have the copyright go ahead.

we have proved you to be wrong on the jref on SEVERAL occasions Sweaty. Yet you keep carting these tired old gifs out. Seriously? You ARE WRONG STOP DOING IT, STOP POSTING THEM, IT'S ANNOYING.

What part is wrong?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

His elbow depiction is wrong, his statements about the fingers is wrong. His comments about the calf is wrong. (I have walked in jeans and had them do the exact same thing in the exact same way). His strange idea that the mouth moves can be explained by the grain of the film. and is thus not quality evidence (as other things of similar size also appear to move on the film) The butt moves just as it would with a person wearing a suit with something padding their butt would move,making this also bad evidence.

In fact, the blown up pictures themselves make the case for a hoax. Everything looks off and can be explained as a person in a suit. there is nothing there that is unique to a new creature. With this informatio one must conclude that the most likely scenario is a hoax.

This doesn't mean Squatchy ain't real. But it does cast a lot of doubt on the film. (and that stinks cuz I always liked that film and wanted it to be real :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

He is the son of Ukrainian immigrant parents. They lived on a farm in the boonies of Manitoba. He was at home during break from school and had the encounter while chopping wood. I believe he said they had no television but I will check that. In any case it would have been a time and place where there was significantly less media coverage of sasquatch topics.

He also made a point of describing the lack of grace in walking but I will have to refer to the recording for actual words. He brought it up, I didn't.

My purpose in talking with Archie was to get details from an encounter and report that occurred prior to the PGF. I am attempting to get copies of his original notes and drawing. He said he saw a program about sasquatch on Outdoor Living Network last year and was aggravated by the facts presented and conclusions drawn. He retrieved his 50 year old notes and took them to the local paper with the idea he could straighten some things out.

I am glad I went through it again. He said they got electricity in 1959, didn't have television but that he had heard of 'Bigfoot' prior to the encounter from a farm association newsletter published out of Calgary, Alberta. He thought such things were on the west coast but couldn't possibly be as far east as Manitoba. He said there was nothing around there at that time but arboreal forest Crown lands. Said there were very few families living out there at the time.

Archie made a point of telling me (no questions out of me) that the animal he saw 'wobbled' and 'lumbered' as it walked. He didn't think it could run very far or very fast. He said in no way could it run down a deer or such. He said the waist was the same size as the upper chest and shoulders. "Thick Bodied". He said it spent most of the time of the encounter eating choke cherries.

He added a characteristic I have never heard: he said the ears appeared to be like modern human ears as the forward portion of the ears were visible. The trailing portions of the ears, however, seem to get lost in hair. If I got it right, he said hair was growing from the ears and essentially covered the lobes. No hair on face from chin to forehead, brown skin, face like a human, lips identical to human but "teeth are broader". Nose flat and wide, all dark eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...