Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 11, 2012 Voodoo six shows the height of the creature in a no nonsense video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-3ENUhnzg How tall was bob heironimous again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,117 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) In the Frame 72 'foot ruler' calculation....there are 4 'error factors' which need correcting for, in order to get the correct height, from the left foot... 1) The 'Bloom' of the left foot. (Due to overexposure...the foot appears larger than it actually is.) 2) Patty's right upper-leg is not straight vertical...it's angled. 3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is. 4) 'Vertical foreshortening' of Patty....(due to Roger being on a lower level of ground than Patty is.) When all those error-factors are corrected for....Patty's 'full standing height' comes out much taller, than what it first appears to be. Edited March 11, 2012 by SweatyYeti Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 11, 2012 I don't know I think believers want the figure to be taller than it is to fit their preconceived idea of what Bigfoot should be like. Unfortunately like all other videos the figure is well within average human range. Where are the videos of the 9 and 10 footers? Im sure there will be some wild excuse for that. Always human sized = always man in suit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roguefooter 1,374 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Yep, nothing like a good instigation for an argument. Those silly believers and their wild excuses..jeez. The video uses a picture of Patty with her forward knee in a bent position, and she's hunched forward. That right there should tell you the video is not even in the ballpark for accuracy. Edited March 11, 2012 by roguefooter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kitakaze 1,112 Posted March 11, 2012 BA, this is how Roger envisioned and depicted male Bigfoots... Roger was extremely small and he in his mind had these things as just true giants. What you will find in Bigfootery time and again is people consistently either unwilling or unable to effectively think like hoaxers. It's a problem. We can put ourselves in Roger's shoes and think about the challenges he will face to get Bigfoot on film and have it be dramatic and unique and memorable. Now if he's going to depict these things on film and include footprints, he immediately is faced with the size issue. He can't make the big 10 ft giants he wants because no one is that tall. Could he make a juvenile? Yes, sure, but this is Roger and he's going for impact. He is already fascinated with the idea of female Bigfoots. The first article he read about Bigfoot featured an account and illustration of a ladyfoot that he like so much, he plagiarized the art for his book and the Patty encounter matches it almost verbatim... Learn more here... http://orgoneresearc...99s-plagiarism/ So making a female does a number of things... You bring the size into human doable territory. You can cover the chest area of the gorilla suit you modified with furry breasts that darn it, you shuld have not made furry. You provoke credulity and make people go OMG, it must be Bigfoot, because who would think of breasts? You account for the non-aggressive, non-territorial behaviour when she just cooly ambles away. Now about the face, that face you see in the giant male? He likes that face and it works for him. Check his '66 book cover and Patty... Now Patty fans when they see that obviously hate it and say who cares, they don't look similar, or OK, they look similar, but coming from descriptions of Bigfoot, the should. Well, Roger could have depicted the face lots of ways. He could have depicted it the way William Roe's daughter did at her father's description instead of the freehand that Morton Kunstler took with the story... What doesn't work, though, is that flat head. Not in the suit version. You need something to break up the human form and add height. Remember, Roger was generally envisioning Bigfoots as American yetis. What is the typical and classic depction of yetis? Here... So you take your female physique from William Roe and you take care of your human height, you take the caveman face and the yeti scalp and there you have your recipe for Bigfoot hoax success. Remember, there's nothing about Patty's proportions you can do with a suit... However, since this explanation, while perfectly logical, does not involve any real Bigfoots, it will be summarily dismissed by those who do not want to have Patty be anything other than what Roger Patterson wanted them to believe. The video uses a picture of Patty with her forward knee in a bent position, and she's hunched forward. That right there should tell you the video is not even in the ballpark for accuracy. It's an excellent video that directly address the number jacking against what was shown on the receipt for the camera Patterson swiped from Sheppard's Camera addressing Munns' abandoned 7'4" in which throughout he factors for Patty's bent posture. Using the same method he was easily and accurately able to determine his own height. Is there a foot bloom? Not enough to jack it up 2 ft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roguefooter 1,374 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Just to show you how inaccurate the method is, i'll do the exact same thing with his own example- Suddenly he's only about 5' 3" tall - and that's standing upright with his leg in a straight locked position. He refers to this as being "scientific"? Edited March 11, 2012 by roguefooter 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeG Posted March 11, 2012 Well done Roguefooter. I must say I looked at this picture earlier and thought that it was some sort of bizarre own-goal. Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 11, 2012 Just to show you how inaccurate the method is, i'll do the exact same thing with his own example- Suddenly he's only about 5' 3" tall - and that's standing upright with his leg in a straight locked position. He refers to this as being "scientific"? Rogue - very good. You made a clear demonstration that the spacing between the lines for the foot was not carried over properly to show the height. And to Sweaty's point 3 because the foot is forward from the plane of the body a foot is really not a foot but more like 14 inches or so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweatyYeti 2,117 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) kitakaze wrote: Remember, there's nothing about Patty's proportions you can (you meant...'can't'....I think) do with a suit... A look at where Blevin's Beastly Elbows are actually located... And....where Patty's arm.....actually bends... kitakaze wrote: However, since this explanation, while perfectly logical, does not involve any real Bigfoots, it will be summarily dismissed by those who do not want to have Patty be anything other than what Roger Patterson wanted them to believe. Speak for yourself. Edited March 11, 2012 by SweatyYeti Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xspider1 1,070 Posted March 11, 2012 Good catch above, roguefooter. That foot ruler is way off. It looks like hoax tinted lenses might be skewing some of the scientific results again. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 11, 2012 sweaty, what are you showing? the elbow joints look in the same place, even if they are 1 pixel different that means nothing... the point is the pgf is well within human in a suit range, and the height is also in human range Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knCw4n-nORE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 11, 2012 Didn't Roger have like a 7 foot tall friend? Why wouldn't he just use that guy instead of BH to make Patty look more giganterrific?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kitakaze 1,112 Posted March 13, 2012 A look at where Blevin's Beastly Elbows are actually located... Can we please have an image of Patty folding her arms up from behind? Otherwise your comparison means nothing. Showing them moving their elbows the same way and in the same position is much more helpful... And....where Patty's arm.....actually bends... I like this one better... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Arm%20Comparisons/forearmBW1.gif Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 13, 2012 Wow, watching that graphic is interesting. There looks like a line accross the top of the leg, almost makes it look like a seam or where two pieces of a costume could meet. Also, what is the flap looking thing sticking out at the front of the waist? I have never noticed this before, very interesting. Maybe it is just the graphic and the repeated motion but watching it for a while makes me wonder like never before. If this turns out to be a hoax, I will be totally bummed out. Even though I have been wondering more and more due to the back story, I have always thought the image/video on its own looked fairly real, now doubts are moving in. Cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
