Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty


Recommended Posts

wolftrax

I had a feeling you'd use this opportunity to jump in at the sound of the rallying cry.

Giganto, you and Roger are assuming too much. Personally I think you got really frustrated becasue I would keep showing how your measurements were skewed when you claimed foreshortening wasn't a factor. It's just a fact that if something is pointed away from you, like a limb, it's going to appear shorter, even a 100 feet away. Copying and pasting the same measurement from the same limb in one frame to another and cramming that measurement line crookedly into the limb isn't going to change that.

You assume I haven't measured anything, as this entire post of your is an assumpion. The truth is I'm not going to measure a few frames or notice something in one frame and then post it hapharzardly, and I am not required to, nobody is. You may not like it, but if you go and post claims quickly without checking it out, someone most likely is going to show how you're wrong, if they see it.

But go ahead, avoid the present issue and vent your anger.

The Poser figure/Bob H-Patty comparison I did, which I stated at the time, was to show the extremes Bob H's positions would have to be in. I knew at the time I would have to go through many more frames to check any measurements against each oher, and made it clear that this was just a positional comparison not a claim of measuremtns. And it's good I did that, because that frame 352 with the hand that was added/background debris moved into that position and darkened would and did throw me off.

The Bob H. walk compared to the PG walk gif I did post in response to Dfoot's assertions that Bob H's walk and Patty's walk were the same, and along those same lines it was showing Bob H wasn't hitting the extreme angles Patty was.

But, of course, I'm so biased that somehow I must have been trying to disprove Patty with that stuff instead of honestly showing the basis for why I diagreed with what Dfoot was saying, just as I've disagreed with you two. The funny thing is, your reactions are exactly the same as Dfoot's.

Gees, you contain your own contradictions in your accusation, Giganto.

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

In fact, now that I think about it, I did the Poser figure comparison first, then disagreed with Giganto about his matching up Bob H's and Patty's tibia and scaling from there to make a dramatically huge difference in scale, and hen after that posted the gif disagreeing with Dfoot that the Bob H walk matched the Patty walk.

You know, Giganto, you are actually proving that I am not biased.

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites

WT, I'm not angry in the slightest. I just like to point out fallacious arguments made by the debunkers. Sometimes even the proponents, if warranted. Patty's height for example. Measuring the film suggests her height was not over 7', but instead around 6'. But that doesn't change her proportions and all that foreshortening you speak of. But there's quite a few frames to get an average, which you seem to pick and choose.

I'm proving you're not biased? Right. If you've reached a conclusion at this stage, you're biased. All you've done is disagree with some measurements. How does that prove anything?

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights

Thanks GF. I just dropped in briefly to check out Bill Munns's articles. (MKD told me that Gimlin had seen them, so I wanted to read them.) I'll soon go back to beavering away on other things.

Edited by RogerKni
Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax
WT, I'm not angry in the slightest. I just like to point out fallacious arguments made by the debunkers. Sometimes even the proponents, if warranted. Patty's height for example. Measuring the film suggests her height was not over 7', but instead around 6'. But that doesn't change her proportions and all that foreshortening you speak of. But there's quite a few frames to get an average, which you seem to pick and choose.

I thought you just said I haven't done any measurements? How then could I be picking and choosing a few frames to get an average? Please show where I have done this.

I'm proving you're not biased? Right. If you've reached a conclusion at this stage, you're biased. All you've done is disagree with some measurements. How does that prove anything?

Please use the quote feature to show where I've reached this conclusion you speak of.

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see why you are arguing proportions of a man in a costume. The costume hides proportions of the mime inside. Don't make me bust out the RedKing photo again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights
The costume hides proportions of the mime inside.

Until he walks, at speed, and swings his arms widely, and bends his arm, and turns his head.

This is why we've seen the still photos of BH in his costume at Cow Camp (not too bad), but not the cine pictures.

Edited by RogerKni
Link to post
Share on other sites

It also doesn't help that if you are using 14.5" as the dimension of the foot, you are assuming that Patty left the footprints that were measured and cast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights
It also doesn't help that if you are using 14.5" as the dimension of the foot, you are assuming that Patty left the footprints that were measured and cast.

One bit of evidence that supports the idea that Patty made the prints is frame 72, shown on p. 247 of Murphy's Bigfoot Film Controversy. The sole is completely embedded in the sand, to a depth of at least an inch. So P&G would have had to erase those tracks (which might leave suspicious sweep marks) and them impress new tracks, taking care to use a different foot-length for the fake impressions. It seems unparsimonious to prefer that explanation.

(And that sand is not white, fluffy beach sand, as BH has contended. It's structure and substance is different, and it doesn't displace deeply under the weight of a human.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just let the rain wash that one away. Maybe BOBG didn't cover that one with Bark.

Is there any evidence that the one alleged print in frame 72 is the one that Roger Patterson cast and used for a measurement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought you just said I haven't done any measurements? How then could I be picking and choosing a few frames to get an average? Please show where I have done this.

I never said that YOU took an average, only that it can be taken.

Please use the quote feature to show where I've reached this conclusion you speak of.

Come on, who are you trying to convince? Use the quote feature to one of your posts that doesn't show that you've reached this conclusion. You said yourself that your Bob H & Patty gif was to refute Dfoot (after his hoax), not to show that Bob H wasn't in the suit. Otherwise, you're clearly a PGF debunker.

I still don't see why you are arguing proportions of a man in a costume. The costume hides proportions of the mime inside. Don't make me bust out the RedKing photo again.

Red King herring, you mean? As RogerKni points out, you need to show the suit in motion. Show it in motion without the obvious foreshortening of the limbs. Can you post a pic of someone in an ape suit that effectively hid their joints? Knees and elbows are tricky to hide. Most creature suit makers aren't worried about hiding such detail. Show a suit in motion and we'll see how disproportioned it is.

It also doesn't help that if you are using 14.5" as the dimension of the foot, you are assuming that Patty left the footprints that were measured and cast.

There is a strong argument to be made that Patty did leave the tracks. If her feet were actually any smaller than 14.5" she would scale too small. This is providing Glickman is correct re Hodgson's son(?) being approx. 6' 1.75".

HodgsonScaled2Foot1x.gif

Would it make any sense to replace tracks that were the same size and shape as the costume feet? Perhaps to make them deeper I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax
Come on, who are you trying to convince? Use the quote feature to one of your posts that doesn't show that you've reached this conclusion. You said yourself that your Bob H & Patty gif was to refute Dfoot (after his hoax), not to show that Bob H wasn't in the suit. Otherwise, you're clearly a PGF debunker.

I see, so if I don't conclude the PGF is the real deal than I must be concluding that it is a hoax, in your opinion, if I'm not with you I'm against you.

Let me ask you this, what is wrong with a person expressing doubts about this film?

Edited by wolftrax
Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Knights
Or just let the rain wash that one away. Maybe BOBG didn't cover that one with Bark.
Another point which I and others have mentioned in other PGF threads, and which Murphy mentioned in MTS, p. 43: "In that part of Bluff Creek, there is a ... type of soil [that] holds footprints remarkably well for a long period of time." Dan Perez gave me a small baggie of it. It's much crunchier and grittier than sand--I get the impression (reinforced by vague recollections of what I've read) that it would "give" much less than sand if walked upon (thus not being muddied by subsequent human or equine travelers over the terrain), and that it is so porous it would "drain" very well. (I.e., it wouldn't hold puddles that would tend to erode it.)

Patterson may have had similar impressions of the sand's quality in the back of his mind.

Also, the tracks held up for months thereafter, and the vague impressions were still there a year later.

Is there any evidence that the one alleged print in frame 72 is the one that Roger Patterson cast and used for a measurement?

Not that I'm aware of. But so what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax
I never said that YOU took an average, only that it can be taken.
But there's quite a few frames to get an average, which you seem to pick and choose.

So what did you mean then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see, so if I don't conclude the PGF is the real deal than I must be concluding that it is a hoax, in your opinion, if I'm not with you I'm against you.

Let me ask you this, what is wrong with a person expressing doubts about this film?

Nothing at all. I don't feel you're against me. You're just against any and all opinions that may support the authenticity of the film. Sometimes without merit, IMO.

So what did you mean then?

Only that you select individual frames to base your arguments, and never averaged measurements. That's all.

Also, the tracks held up for months thereafter, and the vague impressions were still there a year later.

Very significant point. Rain obviously wouldn't have obliterated the tracks. Degraded them perhaps. But this wasn't beach sand, which implies that Bluff Creek sand was less compliant and more weight would be required to sink into it.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...