Creature Suit Analysis - Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy

[Guest Remember November]

I must say, this might be the most important find yet Bill. How Vision Realm or anyone missed this is mid blowing. Good work, you will go down in history as the one who revealed the PG film subject to be not human.

So what are the possible explanations for this deformity in my opinion?

1. Scoliosis: the first image conjured by your charts of the skeletal lack of symmetry in my mind was Joseph Merrick. Does this not look similar?

The problem is the film subjects spine appears to be straight not curved like Mr. Merricks.

2. Compensation for weight: the apparent hernia in the right leg causes the

subject lift the left shoulder and compensate the weight.

The problem with this is the film subjects fluid motion and no real apparent limp.

3. Carrying something: The subject my have on object and is holding it slightly like a football.

The problem with this is the left arm swings freely in some frames.

Again, here is a picture of me from behind. Granted I'm lifting my left arm, but my right shoulder is drooping. We all favor a right or left side. This could be the answer.

[Drew]

Bill,

Is it possible that this percieved difference in shoulder heights could simply be an inconsistent application of padding?

[Bill]

Drew:

"Bill,

Is it possible that this percieved difference in shoulder heights could simply be an inconsistent application of padding?"

In the preliminary figure tests, where the shoulders were more level, I had trouble getting the far arm (the left on on Patty and the model) to line up when I had the right one okay. Shifting the shoulders so the right one drooped and the left one was raised gave a better alignment of both arms, so it wasn't just shoulder positions looking right (padding might help there) but the actual arm alignments were better, which padding wouldn't account for, in my opinion.

Bill

[Guest Apeman]

FWIW- I'm not seeing the shoulders nearly the same as you are Bill. I think you've significantly missed the right shoulder in that one frame, at least as I see it. I think it's actually a lot higher (and steeper) and the left is also lower, and therefore the shoulders aren't nearly as asymmetrical as you've suggested- and that doesn't even get into some of the optical issues. In addition, the other frames where we can better see the figure's back give little indication of any drooping shoulder.

Just my opinion.

Apeman

[Bill]

Apeman:

Thanks for the comment.

I am trying to get more frames from the later part of the film sequence which show the back and shoulders better, to further test this .

But as i noted above to Drew, part of the indicator of unbalanced shoulders is how the two arms align when extended, because they originate at the shoulder sockets. Those alignments seem, in my preliminary analysis, to support some type of drooping shoulder.

I do want to expand this study with more frames and a larger inventory of human figures of varied proportions, some with shoulders unbalanced, others with shoulders level, to refine this study.

Bill

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Here is a shot from the back, showing the shoulders pretty much even ..

[Guest Apeman]

But as i noted above to Drew, part of the indicator of unbalanced shoulders is how the two arms align when extended, because they originate at the shoulder sockets. Those alignments seem, in my preliminary analysis, to support some type of drooping shoulder.

I'm not totally following what you mean Bill (by "alignment" which could mean different things here) but would point out that any determinations of where the shoulder sockets are is, by nature, at least partially subjective in an exercise like this. And again, the effects (read imprecision) caused by optics and perspective shouldn't be fully discounted. I don't think it's ever been convincingly shown that the visual horizon (in terms of figure perspective) could NOT be anywhere from above the figure's head to below it's feet (slight exaggeration) and I suspect your model doesn't even incorporate perspective does it?

Have you seen Daegling and Schmitt's Skeptical Inquirer article somewhat related to this issue- the imprecision of comparative measurements and questions of perspective, foreshortening, etc? The article has some faults but is something of an eye-opener, in my opinion, in terms of limitations with the film because of the number of unknowns.

But please don't get me wrong. I applaud your effort (as always) and just want to throw a bit of caution in the mix. These things often get latched on to and I fear people will very quickly start saying that you've proven the figure has some major deformity.... to go along with many other unproven (and unfounded) legends like the thigh hernia, bullet wounds, third nipple, inhuman gait, etc.

-A

[Bill]

Apeman:

"and I suspect your model doesn't even incorporate perspective does it?"

Yes, my study did incorporate perspective and proximity of camera to subject as a factor. It wasn't presented in detail, and wasn't illustrated, above, but it was factored in.

One of my goals in taking it further is exactly to go into far greater detail, with illustrations, of how this is factored into the study.

Bill

[Guest BIGMICKOZ]

Great analysis guys, very enjoyable and informative. Could the 'wonky' gait be attributed to the compensation of thick thigh padding if indeed it is a costume. The section of film that concerns me is when Patty walks away the (left thigh/hamstring) area seems to artificially change size (pull and stretch) as if the costume is loose fitting there - has this been analyzed? conclusions?

Personally the Patty footage has been enough that what Im seeing is extraordinary, seeing this as a youngster in the early 70's to now it still evokes a feeling that we have stumbled onto one of natures deep secrets - this footage is like some kind of 'disturbance' that keeps me on edge - truly a great mystery!

Edited August 30, 2008 by BIGMICKOZ

[Bill]

Bigmickoz:

"Could the 'wonky' gait be attributed to the compensation of thick thigh padding if indeed it is a costume. "

No. I've worn costumes as well as built them, and any padding inside patty, if a suit, isn't substantial enough to impose any type of walk or gait on the wearer. The wearer would walk as he or she chooses.

Bill

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Actually, there are any number of frames that show the subject holding the arms out, as if there is some padding under the arms ..

Don't have any handy, but I will post later ..

[Guest Apeman]

Yes, my study did incorporate perspective and proximity of camera to subject as a factor.

That's really cool that your program can do that. But at what horizontal plane are you assuming the camera is compared to the figure? And do you or anyone else know if there are any accurate guesstimates for how the two things relate and how much they change and fluctuate over the course of the film as both Patterson and the figure traverse uneven terrain? It actually never occurred to me before how much this perspective (horizontal plane) fluctuates and what that means for the figure as captured on film. I wonder how much that could explain a number of features- like the fact that we can all get a pretty wide range of intermembral indices throughout the film even within the context of measurement imprecision??? I think we like to discount this effect because of the overall distance and geometry involved, but that's one the things Daegling and Schmitt convincingly showed shouldn't be underestimated- as I recall.

-A

[Bill]

Apeman:

"That's really cool that your program can do that. But at what horizontal plane are you assuming the camera is compared to the figure? And do you or anyone else know if there are any accurate guesstimates for how the two things relate and how much they change and fluctuate over the course of the film as both Patterson and the figure traverse uneven terrain? "

What i am doing now is working through a method which quantifies how much discrepancy in the apparent figure pose might occur if the camera distance 9and it's perspective view0 shifts from say 100' away to 130' away.

I can also study how the apparent pose of the figure )Patty) might be different based on a level shoulder view, as compared to a lower view (of a figure on higher ground).

So I am working through a method to determine how much difference is in thoat range of camera positions and then that can be factored into the analysis.

It'll take awhile to finish, so i can lay out the methodology in detail for others to examine and verify or critique.

Bill

[Bill]

Apeman:

This is a follow-up to the above.

Your question about not level ground raised a variable I had not anticipated, but will incorporate into the expanded study.

But I did a quick check, out of curiosity, to see how much distortion of pose might occur if Patterson were on level ground with Patty, as compared to if Patty were on a slightly higher ground and so Roger's eye level (to the true horizon) were about at patty's feet, meaning she's on ground with an elevation about 6' higher than Roger is.

I did expect some distortion comparing those two viewing angles, and did a quick test to see how much.

These results, keep in mind, are preliminary, and I need to document the whole set-up to render more precisely. But I basically found, to my surprize, that even setting the camera at Patty's shoulder level, and then setting the camera at patty's ankle level, resulted in posed figure renders which varied in any body part position about 3 pixels for a body height of 1200 pixels, meaning a body distortion apparent position of 0.25% of body height. For a 6' tall figure, that's a discrepancy of only about 3/16ths of an inch.

I will be documenting the entire process in far more detail, and a full explanation of the process used to determine the resulting numbers, so others can check my methods and my math. Might take awhile to get it done, but it is in the works.

Bill

[Drew]

Bill- do you have a running total of your margin of error estimates ?

Edited September 2, 2008 by Drew