Jump to content
Guest Bipedal Ape

Pattys Height

Recommended Posts

Guest

Kit, thanks for divulging your bombshell secret. So you think you've found THE suit? That certainly is face melting stuff. Of course I'll believe it when I see it. May I request that you start a new thread so we can discuss whatever else you are willing to divulge about it? Provenance perhaps?

Back OT, the location of Patty's elbow is pretty easy to determine actually. Look at the frames where the right arm is the most bent and note the intersection point of lines passing thru the humerus and radius. Forget about measuring anything at this point. Instead note where the elbow is relative to the hair patterns on Patty's right arm. She has lots of them including several rings all the way down the arm. Now go to a frame with the arm straightened and look for the same body marker. Voila. Now check whether the arm bones are proportioned correctly. If so, you are good to go.

Patty's elbow looks exceptionally low in a couple of frames because there is significant hair on the forearm flapping about. Even though Kit has denied this in the past, maybe now that he has access to the alleged Patty suit, check out the hair on the forearms. It would explain a lot. That said, the elbow still looks low relative to eye level in some frames. And it's the maximums we must test, not the frames where the limbs are foreshortened. All the "from behind" frames are problematic in that they don't show maximums except for the feet and torso, so they can't tell you much about the limbs & height. However, locating the elbows & knees are the key to whether Patty's dimensions are within "human" range. There were no elbow/knee extenders for the suit.

Trying to ascertain the height using a foot ruler requires more info than you think. First of all, if the shoe is foreshortened by 1", then that overestimates the height by 1/2 foot. As RF pointed out, if the shoe and its image are inaccurately measured by even 1", then that skews the height +/- 1/2 foot. Also, if the photo was taken only 10 feet from the camera and the shoe is 1 foot closer to the camera, then that underestimates the height over 7". How accurate is the cast length to Patty's foot length? How much distortion/bloom are we dealing with? What about walking versus standing height? This is clearly a case where all the variables must be accounted for before we can confidently determine the height with the foot ruler. These videos only confirm this.

Gotta get back to the grind. I'll check in later.

GF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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

This bear has a similar "seam"...

BrownBearAG1.gif

kitakaze wrote:

I like this one better...

It is a better gif, for the skeptics.......Frame 364....(the Frame I use, to show where Patty's arm bends)....only "shows" for about .06 seconds.....not long enough to see it.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

There looks like a line accross the top of the leg...

... Also, what is the flap looking thing sticking out at the front of the waist?...

... 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.

Welcome aboard! Sounds very familiar, same situation here. Once you see those things, you will see them over and over again, every time you watch various clips. It casts doubts just seeing those things. It casts even greater doubts when seeing the reactions to what you noticed. "Hey, hey, hey, those are all naturally occurring things, bears have suit creases, folds and wrinkles just like Patty does on her right upper thigh, down the back of her left hamstring and calf, poking out the lower belly, wrinkling off the front of the upper right thigh, poking out from the front of both armpits... There are a host of anomalies that start popping out if you look too closely, all of which will be responded to as perfectly natural. You choose what you think. Find them odd, and you are labeled a skeptic. Ignore them or say they are natural, and you get a pass.

Regarding post #3 above, which said, "3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is." Have you ever determined if you can even measure the alleged difference this would cause? How long would that calf be, as in how far behind the body at that angle could that foot possibly be? Two feet, 24 inches? Maybe three feet? How much would that have an effect at 100 feet away? I think I will run check that right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Nice video, Voodoosix! Covered a lot of points in it. I could list them all, but by far my favorite part is the pause at 3:35. To me, that speaks volumes! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Foot as ruler technique

I would like to clarify my concerns about the "foot as ruler" technique often used to try and calculate the PGF subject height.

I do not endorse any attempt thus far because I feel that all variables haven’t been properly accounted for, and a reliable analysis should account for those variables. This is a generalized description of concerns, since the foot as ruler method has been attempted many times by various people, using varying degrees of consideration in their analysis.

The following issues or factors are what I usually see lacking in such presentations:

1. The body angle relative to camera - Knowing this angle is a factor in determining length of all body parts which are bent or angled in some way, because those bends and angles must be corrected for to determine a standing erect height.

To determine this body to camera angle, one needs to first establish the subject walk path in the Bluff Creek site, so a line can be drawn to represent the body’s forward orientation. Then the subject location for the chosen frame (usually Cibachrome 61 or 72) must be designated.

Then the camera operator’s position in the Bluff Creek site must be determined, for the film frame being used (usually Cibachrome 61 or 72).

Then a line is drawn from camera to subject and this line, combined with the subject line of motion, together determines the body angle relative to camera view line of sight.

Any experiment with a human should first determine this angle and then replicate it in the demonstration filming. Failing to determine this angle, by some systematic method, leaves a major variable unaccounted for.

2. The camera distance to subject - Since the body is in a posture where the lifted foot may be behind the torso, the torso leans forward, and the head is drooping forward and low, clearly all the various body parts needed to constitute correct standing height are not on a true vertical perpendicular to the camera view line of sight.

How near or far the test camera is from the subject may impact upon the apparent size of these body parts, the closer ones (like the foot itself) may be closer to camera and thus appear larger, while the further ones, (especially the head) are farther and thus may appear smaller.

So knowing how far the PGF camera was from the PGF subject is a factor in determining if near/far body parts are enlarged or diminished in size, and correcting for such errors would be a part of the correct height calculation.

Has anyone yet determined the distance from camera to subject for either of the Cibachrome frames usually shown in the "foot as ruler" presentations?

If, as some people say, the PGF subject is about 6‘ tall or slightly taller, and if, as some people believe, the camera had a 25mm lens, then the PGF subject is somewhere in the approximate distance of about 150 feet from camera. (Note that I personally do not endorse these specifications).

Determining this distance from subject to camera is a second variable which should be factored into the analysis, and a study of how much body parts may seem larger or smaller, when the distance is considered, needs to be done. If it isn’t done, that leaves another variable unaccounted for.

3. Motion Blur - In a walk cycle, once the rearward foot lifts off the ground, it must accelerate to a motion faster than the gross body forward motion, to go from behind the body to in front of the body to plant the next forward step. So once lifted from the ground, the rear foot is potentially one of the fastest moving body parts, thus most suseptible to motion blur.

The foot must rise on a vertical vector (to be high enough to clear the ground), and then will peak, and once again lower to touch down in the forward position. But the foot must also move in the horizontal vector, back to front, and it’s fastest position is when the vertical vector peaks. So while there is a point where the vertical peaks at a fixed height, the horizontal is accelerating rapidly.

If the body is viewed from an angle (as the PGF subject is), then both motion on the vertical and horizontal vectors can be seen throughout the walk cycle, and so motion blur is potentially visible at all times, and must be accounted for.

So it is reasonable to ask of anyone who proposes a "foot as ruler" proof, what analysis was made and what methods used to determine if motion blur is a factor in the apparent size of the foot. If it isn’t done, that leaves another variable unaccounted for.

4. Image contrast bloom - When a photographic image is copied, contrast usually builds up. Areas that are pale may shift to more white, and areas that are dark may shift to more black. A pale sole of the foot, with pale sides of the sole, and a pale heel, may shift to an apparent solid white, making the foot seem larger than it actually is. Slight blur of a pale foot against dark fur or surroundings has the potential to create a halo effect which, with increased contrast, can also enlarge the apparent size of the foot.

So in a "foot as ruler" analysis, the actual image frame used (to define the foot and take measures from it) should have some analysis of the image contrast level as compared to the lowest known contrast copies, so there is consideration of the prospect of contrast bloom falsely enlarging the apparent foot size.

(Note, the 61 and 72 Cibachromes are contrasty)

A person attempting a "foot as ruler" analysis should demonstrate some knowledge and consideration of the issue and should know how to reference the image used to the lowest contrast image versions of the landscape, to demonstrate that contrast bloom was factored into said analysis. If it isn’t done, that leaves another variable unaccounted for.

5. There is a final consideration which should be considered. That is the question of whether the person doing the "foot as ruler" analysis is arguing from a premise that the filmed subject made the 14.5" footprints that were subsequently cast, or whether the trackway and casts were derived from some falsified trackway.

There are frames which show the foot with apparent bending of the toes (Note I am not arguing a mid-tarsel break, just a normal bend of toes relative to the ball of the foot), and artificial "stomper" type foot devices cannot bend as such. So the film reasonably shows that the filmed subject was not wearing any kind of rigid foot device.

An artificial foot, worn as part of a costume, and made with flexible materials is unlikely to make the necessary prints that were cast and measured to be 14.5" long, because the artificial toes, being flexible, don’t make a very powerful toe impression in the ground.

So there is the curious issue that if you say the feet seen in the PGF made the footprints that were cast and measured, then they were real feet, because hard stompers can’t bend and soft artificial feet can’t make the proper footprint impressions.

If, on the other hand, you say hard stompers were used to make the footprints , subsequently cast and measured to be 14.5", then the 14.5" measurement isn’t reliably applicable to the foot seen in the PGF, and maybe the PGF foot is larger or smaller?

I would consider any "foot as ruler" analysis to consider this matter and show that it was also factored into this theory.

These are the reasons why I do not endorse any effort thus far trying to use the "foot as ruler" concept" as proof of the PGF subject height. The method may work, if all the variables are shown to be properly considered and factored into any conclusion. But I haven’t seen the variables accounted for and so I don’t personally endorse any conclusions along this line.

For the record, I do not have a height estimate that I do endorse at this time. My original estimate, using the lens formula and a 15mm lens specification, has been reconsidered and work is in progress on a revised analysis, since the 15mm lens specification does not reconcile with the Green/McClarin footage, and I have described this matter in considerable detail in my Report work, specifically on the papers discussing how to compare the Green/McClarin footage with the PGF.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

here, i made an updated version since i realized that people dont read the notes or descriptions.

You stated in your original video that when you did the foot measurement on yourself that it came out about right with your height- that was the whole point of your comparison. All of a sudden you're claiming there were notes and details that nobody saw to cover your tracks?

Now the videos are deleted- how convenient.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Hehe the opening post and thread claim reminds me of this:

when-social-media-marketers-stumble.jpg

Talk about slipping on your own banana skin.

The video in the OP is worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BrownBearAG1.gif

I see an obvious subduction that cannot possibly occur in nature! :D

Regarding post #3 above, which said, "3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is." Have you ever determined if you can even measure the alleged difference this would cause? How long would that calf be, as in how far behind the body at that angle could that foot possibly be? Two feet, 24 inches? Maybe three feet? How much would that have an effect at 100 feet away? I think I will run check that right now...

I was addressing Voodoosix's videos regarding closeness to the camera. Patty was far enough from the camera to make this effect neglible. All her body parts were commonly scaled. However, this makes comparisons with objects too close to the camera invalid.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Voodoosix

ya it couldnt possibly have anything to do with me maintaining my channel page and putting eveything into one video instead of having 3 in a row covering the exact same thing.

i do appreciate Bill's honest reply above although ive shown that i can overcome those obstacles in testing.

Edited by grayjay
1A, an using symbols for profanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

BrownBearAG1.gif

SweatyYeti,

I agree, look at the change in the neck as the fur seperates, not to mention in other places, it's what hair/fur does. Sayin' it's natural an likely expected on another hair/fur covered animal...a sasquatch, I don't see the problem.

Tontar,

Your wrinkles along left leg, my opinion, simply the way the light plays off the hair/fur as I've said occours on other animals. Simply look at the variations on the griz, look at the variation above the rear leg along the back, notice all the changes on the back right leg because of the movement. Is that line that appears to be runnin' up vertically from the back of leg when the leg is forward an anomally, or simply variation in the hair/fur do to movement ? When the leg is forward, we also see somethin' pokin' out from it's belly area. For the life of me, I've still not figured what looks strange at her armpits, that keeps gettin' mentioned.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Pat, I will likely point out the armpit anomalies at some point in time, but I'm not in a big hurry to hear you say that it looks perfectly natural and normal and that you don't have a problem with it. Thing is, both left and right armpits protrude forward the same way a wetsuit does, a wetsuit that is sewn with the arms out, so when the arms are down at the sides there is a visible fold. Patty shows something that looks a lot like that. Unless you can find a picture of a bear, or possum, or centipede that has protruding folds from the front of the armpit that mirrors what is happening with Patty's, the normal and natural and no problem thing will just have to be stated, not supported. :-)

Until I get around to posting a link to a cropped and enlarged version, you should be able to see it happening in any of the decent MK videos online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BTW, welcome to the BFF V6. I for one appreciate your videos for expressing your opinion and giving us graphical examples. I also appreciated your updating them after you got feedback. That's how it should be done. However, the bottom line is that you have oversimplified the foot ruler argument. The estimation of Patty's height has been hammered to death and Bill Munns stopped advocating the 7'4" estimate when he abandoned his 15mm lens hypothesis. Like you did, Bill refined his opinions in light of new information. Why he gets so much flack from (some) skeptics is beyond me. Plus the 7'4" estimate was based on the optics of a 15mm lens, an unknown distance from the camera, and a conversion from walking to standing height. Using the same formula with a 25mm lens, Bill put Patty's height under 5'. This is why an alternative lens was considered. However, IMO, the more likely source of error comes from the distances from the camera. We have to assume that all the site measurements were accurate including exactly where Roger was standing for each frame of film that's measured. What are the odds of that being true?

The foot ruler has its own issues, but there are several frames of the foot in various positions. Frames 61 & 72 are the best, especially 61. And those frames are over 140 feet from the camera. It's fortunate that each foot was at a transition point to minimize the motion blur. We can actually see toes in frame 61. All this business about no motion blur in frame 72 is dispelled by the fact we can't see the toes. They are blurred out. They are overexposed too. We can't be sure exactly how long the foot ruler is. Then we also have to assume that the feet are 14.5". And if this was a hoax and the actor did not leave the tracks that got casted, then all bets are off. Why do you assume that Patty's feet were 14.5" anyway?

That said, I'd estimate that with all the available frames showing the feet we can get a decent average foot to body length ratio. I found it to be approximately 20% the body length (standing height). So if the foot ruler was 14.5" do the math. But it's not the height that matters here anyways. It's the body proportions that count. Elbows and knees. However, matching "from behind" frames of Patty are problematic. Her entire body was foreshortened to various degrees, especially the limbs.

To illustrate this, if we could view Bob H from directly behind (left of view, 100+ feet away) the following 2 images would look exactly the same. You would also swear that his body proportions were exactly the same. This is the problem with image overlays where body parts are foreshortened. We need to somehow restore the 3rd dimension (rectify) the images before we can compare them and know whether they actually match. Not sure if V6 provided enough info about his own body dimensions and distances from the camera, but I doubt that he matched all the variables of Patty. And even if he did, how would we know? IMO, we need to compare unforeshortened body parts to advance this discussion.

Distorted_BH.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bigblevins4.jpg

Tontar,

Since you say infront of both armpits, an we can't see the left armpit, I take it you are not actually talkin' bout the armpit, but the pectorals above the breasts. Would that be correct ?

Pat...

ps: Sorry ta go off track, but I'd like to hear more Tontar, just at the appropriate thread.

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

...

I like this one better...

http://i172.photobuc.../forearmBW1.gif

the subluxing boundary looks like an M in that gif.

24cfcdg.png

I would also call attention to the persistent projection in the "belly button" area which is suspect is a fastener of some type.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...