Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 1

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

1) In your Patty graphic, if I was to to place the blue dot where you are guessing Patty's shoulder joint to be an inch to the right, why would I be wrong and you be right in the choice of placement?[/img]

The shoulder, and the 'end of the hand'...are not key measurement points, because they can be affected/altered/disguised by a suit, and padding.

In the graphic with the blue dot on the shoulder, I did not use that point as a measurement point...I used it only as a pivot point, for Patty's arm...to adjust the location of the elbow-joint.

If you really want to place that blue dot an inch to the right, kitakaze.....please, go right ahead and DO SO. :D Patty's elbow will still end-up at the same location, vertically.

You seem to have omitted the part where I said...

1) In your Patty graphic, if I was to to place the blue dot where you are guessing Patty's shoulder joint to be an inch to the right, why would I be wrong and you be right in the choice of placement?

2) Arms and shoulders are capable of a wide range of movement in three dimensions.

I can change the distance from my elbow to my eyes easy as pie. Can't you?

shoulder_shrug.jpg

See, there was a #1 and a #2. Numbering things makes it easier to keep track of what isn't being addressed, I find. #2 specifically addresses a flaw in you attempts at finite measurements...

The vertical distance between the eyes and elbows, whether in profile or viewed head on, is not constant. The human body moves in countless ways that can alter the distance.

One example...

250_Ragdoll---Modified-III.jpg

Another...

Go to your bathroom mirror. Turns sideways. Do funky chicken. Observe distance vertically between eyes and elbows.

It's not constant then, nor is it when simply walking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What if the measurements are consistant over multiple frames?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

What if the measurements are consistant over multiple frames?

Some consistency would be a helpful start. Posting images of Patty that actually show her lower legs and feet would be even better, but there aren't any here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

SY - I think those comparisons are excellent and seem to lend itself more to BH not being Patty than the other way around. I am not convinced the aspect ratio has been taken out of the equation here but I don't know how it would be. Here are my reasons for questioning BH being Patty: 1. the glass eye - it sounds too outragious and I don't believe what I see in the images is an eyeball either real or fake. 2. the stinking red horse hide - at one time it was the suit and now it is only the mask or the face - ok. 3. I agree with Crow - the bulk or lack thereof of BH back then seems to be problematic. Like I have said many times I am not convinced it is not a suit, I am still in the "I don't know" camp because I have problems on both sides of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

This frame does not show a knee, let alone show a foot on Patty...

I'm sorry, but this simply isn't any manner of science, IMO.

I suggest, Sweaty, if you think it is science, you choose your favourite graphics, hit CNTRL+P, pop them in an envelope, and mail them to you nearest university for analysis. Save the stamp if you like and just email them.

If your evidence is so good, surely people outside of a Bigfoot or skeptic forum should be seeing it.

kitakaze

I suggest you take another look at SweatyYetis post #1, last image where he actually mentions where the feet should be. The bend in the subjects leg would suggest to most with even a basic understanding of anatomy...the rough location of the knee...wouldn't you agree? I reckon you'll say sorry, you missed that. You could always say..."oops, sorry".

As for SweatyYeti thinkin' it science, an you apparently not.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge) is a enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

Based on that deffinition, sounds like SweatyYeti is doin' a fine job of tryin' ta come up with measurable differences between the two subjects. Huh ! Measurements between the two subjects...to compare, to test the likelyhood if one has compareable skeletal structure to match the other. Sounds like science to me, but that's just my opinion. I don't recall you mentionin' lookin' into this subject scientifically kitakaze, but I'll go with the science over some guy sayin' "it was me" any day.

Keep up the fine work SweatyYeti.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

SY,

Not to say that the scale is off, but let's try to make their butts line up, shall we?

You really do need to study the shoulder movements. Get a Grant's textbook; then take a little kinesiology, and try moving your shoulder around, up, back, forward, down, up. I think you will understand the problems with trying to compare elbow position. Not to mention the foreshortening problems.

Then spend some time around football players, til you can figure out where the shoulder joint is in someone wearing shoulder pads.

2ymbpxu.jpg

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze

I suggest you take another look at SweatyYetis post #1, last image where he actually mentions where the feet should be. The bend in the subjects leg would suggest to most with even a basic understanding of anatomy...the rough location of the knee...wouldn't you agree?

Thank you for pointing that out, Pat... :)

As you're basically saying, there wasn't anything lacking in my opening post, that was necessary, in order to see the bottom line....that Bob's body dimensions....do....not....match....Patty's. :D

In that OP graphic, it is perfectly clear that Patty's feet don't line-up with Bob's....but, just for the fun of it...here is what Patty's leg would look like, with her feet nicely 'matched-up' with Bob's...

PattyLongLegs1A.jpg

As for SweatyYeti thinkin' it science, an you apparently not.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge) is a enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world.

Based on that deffinition, sounds like SweatyYeti is doin' a fine job of tryin' ta come up with measurable differences between the two subjects. Huh ! Measurements between the two subjects...to compare, to test the likelyhood if one has compareable skeletal structure to match the other. Sounds like science to me, but that's just my opinion. I don't recall you mentionin' lookin' into this subject scientifically kitakaze, but I'll go with the science over some guy sayin' "it was me" any day.

Keep up the fine work SweatyYeti.

Pat...

Thank you very much, Pat! :D I plan on continuing the analysis...and hammering away on poor ol' Bob... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It would be easy to prove that Bob H was Patty, all that has to happen is for measurements to be taken that show any of the critical physiological ratios of Bob H are even close to that seen in the PGF.

That or a single, consistent, cohesive and coorobated hoax theory that holds water.

Or the suit.

It would be easy, so easy in fact, one might think it would already have happened over the past 15-20 years, if it were true, but it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Has anyone ever asked to look at BH's forehead? I mean, the pic of Patty shows her eyes, brow ridge above.. then the slope back of the top of her head.

If someone, anyone, including BH was wearing a mask. Wouldn't that mask have to include space for the forehead to fit?

I just don't see it. I don't believe it's possible to fit BH's head in the area of the head provided in the pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

you can put up all the yellow dots and lines you like.hedid take and pass two polygraphs.and am sure he would pass another one.

Then where's the hole, demon?

All a polygraph proves is that a person is nervous or not nervous. A great deal also depends on the examiner (expertise, technique, etc). That's why ultimately it was ruled unreliable as evidence in court.

On Bob/Patty comp pics, could someone find and repost that comparison that was done showing Bob in the god-awful red costume vs Patty where the eyes didn't line up and the shape of the head was all wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Then where's the hole, demon?

Excellent. You continue to ask this. You must be ready then to finally select one of the three names from the following...

Byrne. Dahinden. Green. Three men documented the site back then. Which one was instructed to or thought of looking for a hole or depression in the vicinity that would be spoken of until three and a half decades later?

If you can not select one of those three names, I invite you to explain exactly how your question makes sense logically, because I do not see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Excellent. You continue to ask this. You must be ready then to finally select one of the three names from the following...

http://bigfootforums...dpost__p__26060

Byrne. Dahinden. Green. Three men documented the site back then. Which one was instructed to or thought of looking for a hole or depression in the vicinity that would be spoken of until three and a half decades later?

If you can not select one of those three names, I invite you to explain exactly how your question makes sense logically, because I do not see it.

I think the point is that none of the people who investigated or photographed the site ever mentioned a hole anywhere, whereas Bob H. claims to have jumped into one at the end of his walk sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit, do you think that if there were a hole, large enough for the PGF subject, with a trackway or evidence of passage leading up to it, and not beyond it, ANYWHERE in the site of what was at that time an extremely exciting event, that Byrne, Dahinden or Green would have simply ignored it?

And we are the ones being accused of special pleading.

I would like to think that a truly skeptical mind would see the signs of confabulation when it occurs, and nearly everything Bob H has said screams confabulation to me (I have a teenager, so I am exposed to confabulation nearly daily).

While the skeptics say we should not put too much weight into hundreds if not thousands of individual and group eye witness accounts, apparently we should take the word of one broke cowboy as gospel, even though it changes nearly every time it is told. See the story of Joseph Smith's telling of the origin of the Golden Plates of Nephi and his 'translation' efforts for a textbook example (with apologies to any LDS, as I have good friends and family who are LDS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

You seem to have omitted the part where I said...

See, there was a #1 and a #2. Numbering things makes it easier to keep track of what isn't being addressed, I find.

#2 specifically addresses a flaw in you attempts at finite measurements...

The vertical distance between the eyes and elbows, whether in profile or viewed head on, is not constant.

The human body moves in countless ways that can alter the distance.

One example...

250_Ragdoll---Modified-III.jpg

Guess what, kitakaze.....the Upper-Arm moves in Limited Ways....with a very Small Variation in it's 'Reach'....when measured in the following manner...

BobElbowRangeAG1.gif

In this graphic, I've measured the lengths that Bob's elbow reaches...horizontally, from the 'vertical center-line' of his body...and vertically, from the 'horizontal level of the eyes'.

The 'total length' associated with the position/reach of the elbow-joint...when measured both vertically, and horizontally....stays within a very limited range, with it's maximum length occuring at an arm-angle of 45-degrees.

And, as I've been saying...these 'measurement points' are all independent of any potential padding within a suit...so, if Bob was Patty, then Patty's elbow-joint should measure within this same (very limited) range....with a 'total Reach' of no more than 34"....(give or take an inch.)

I'm still working on the graphic for Patty...but from what I've measured so far....the 'total length' for Patty's 'Elbow Reach' measures approx. 41" Well beyond the 'maximum figure' for Bob. :)

kitakaze wrote:

Another...

Go to your bathroom mirror. Turns sideways. Do funky chicken.

Observe distance vertically between eyes and elbows.

It's not constant then, nor is it when simply walking.

kit....go to your bathroom mirror. Turn sideways. Do funky chicken. And sing the following...

NO NO NO NO NO NO....NO....... :D

NO NO NO NO!!!

Bob Heirony wasn't it...

NO NO NO NO!!! :D

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

SY,

Not to say that the scale is off, but let's try to make their butts line up, shall we?

You really do need to study the shoulder movements. Get a Grant's textbook; then take a little kinesiology, and try moving your shoulder around, up, back, forward, down, up. I think you will understand the problems with trying to compare elbow position. Not to mention the foreshortening problems.

Then spend some time around football players, til you can figure out where the shoulder joint is in someone wearing shoulder pads.

Careful what you wish for. Here are BH & Patty scaled so that the distance from their eyes to their butts are the same. I used the markers on their butts that you provided. This should hold if you think BH was in the suit. Your shoulder/humerus placement looks off to me. It should be just south of the chin, if it was BH. Shoulder pads don't enter into it.

bobpatbutt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...