Jump to content
Guest Bipedal Ape

Pattys Height

Recommended Posts

Guest MikeG

No chance of sticking to the topic, Parn?............Patty's height, remember.

Edited by MikeG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 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 ?

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

Point me in the direction of the right thread, and I'll meet you there! Until then, let's agree on the area. Not exactly the arm pit, as that would be under the arm, right? Not exactly the pectoral either, because that spans the entire chest. So it would be the point where the pectoral muscle inserts into the arm, the conjunction between the pectoral insertion, the deltoid and the origin of the biceps. Slip a pencil under your arm, horizontally. Lift it up snug, hold your arm down tight to support that pencil, and where that pencil exits from under your arm, from the armpit, that's where the fold extends forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar,

Reason Not To Hoax yada yada thread, just posted image.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Is it possible Patty's height might be compromised by a leg injury? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Bill,

the foot is not moving very fast (if at all) in the directions (up/down) to create motion blur relevant to measuring the foot length in frame 72. This basically obviates the issue of motion blur affecting apparent length in this frame. Velocity is what creates blur; acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time.

2ceofhf.png

Giganto,

Perhaps we can approach the other potential errors in the method, and perhaps then use error analysis to come to a better idea of the probable range of results.

the angle at which we are seeing the foot and leg, and the lack of any angulation in the ankle joint from this perspective, make it quite unlikely that the foot is foreshortened by anything near an inch:

in order to foreshorten a 14.5 inch foot length by an inch, the plane of the sole would have to be angled by about 22 degrees in the relevant plane. This would be immediately apparent, since, by the oblique perspective, we can see the lack of angulation in the two principle relevant directions of foot angulation, that is, dorsiflexion/plantar flexion and leg rotation. The other direction of movement in the ankle joint is side to side tilt, which would not affect apparent foot length in this view. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that the foot is foreshortened by an amount approaching an inch. Would you agree? Given what we see, I don't see how the a foreshortening angle could be much more than 5 degrees, but even at 10 degrees the error would only be a quarter inch. I would suggest that is the max expected error due to foreshortening.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

voodoo six:

Your determination to resolve this matter, and your willingness to consider the concerns of others, is to be commended.

Contrary to some of the gossip in other discussions, I’m not the enemy. I admire science and attempts to resolve matters scientifically and methodically. But as much as I admire good science and reliable results, I’ve grown weary of poor science and results that just add to the confusion instead of the solution.

I offer these ideas to you in a good faith effort to see if they will help you find a reliable and factual solution that helps solve the mystery. There are no tricks, to traps, no "gottcha" questions, and no effort to derail your effort.

If you attempt to prove the foot as ruler method is reliable by demonstration on a human of known dimensions, you will need to reconcile your work with the lens forumla that I and some other researchers have applied to this problem, because the lens formula is one of the most reliable scientific methods and a foundation for the optical sciences and photography. If you’ve not familiar with it, it has four values, and knowing three can solve for the fourth.

Those values are: (1)The distance from filmed subject to lens optical center, (2) the lens focal length, (3) the measured vertical or horizontal size of something in the scene (say, the human doing the demonstration) and finally, (4) the measured size of the image of the aforementioned object on the actual film.

Now one of the four numbers is reasonably certain, and that is the object size on film, for the PGF subject. If you use Cibachrome 72 as your PGF reference image, the subject "Patty" is 0.0379" high on the film, as posed, in that frame, based on a true rectified full frame scan of the film. So we have one number, size of object image on film. (note since we can’t see the sole of her foot on the ground, we may allow a 1% margin of error for this measure)

If you film a demonstration with a human for comparison, you need to set a distance from that person to place your camera. If you just arbitrarily put the camera anywhere you feel like doing so, you have already made your experiment useless, because you have failed to establish an arguably correct perspective. So to film a demonstration for comparison, you must commit to a specific distance, and you should have some reasoned justification or foundation for selecting that distance and not some other distance. I noticed in your discussions with another interested person in another venue that the distance of 100‘ was being considered, to calculate the margin of error in a foot 1‘ closer to camera than the torso. So simply for an example of the concept I am discussing, let us say you have decided to do your demonstration filming a person from a 100‘ distance, based on the assumption that is also the PGF camera to subject distance. You have now established the second input number for the lens formula, distance from lens to subject.

That leaves lens focal length or subject height as posed.

One of the people helping you is rather insistent that the PGF filming camera has a 25mm (commonly rounded to a 1" ) lens on it. ( I disagree, but for the sake of demonstrating this methodology, let’s use that 1" lens as an example).

Using a 1" lens on the PGF camera, you now have three input numbers, and can calculate the fourth, the subject height as posed. based on these input numbers, "Patty" would be 3.79‘ tall,

If you calculate her to be closer to 6‘ tall, your method is refuted by the lens formula, and your proof is ruined.

Let’s take a different approach, since the lens formula allows any three input numbers, so let’s leave out the lens focal length, and instead input a hypothetical result you might get, of 5‘ 6" (66") as height as posed (legs bent and hunched over a bit).

Using that number and solving for the lens focal length, you get a lens of 0.57" focal length, which translates to about a 14.35mm lens. That won’t reconcile with the Green/McClarin filming test, as I found out myself the hard way.

You can take another approach, if you are confident something in the PGF film frame has a measurable known dimension ( a 14.5" foot, for example.) Using that, you could either specify a distance, and solve for a lens, or specify a lens and solve for a distance.

If you would like, show me exactly where you measure the foot to define the 14.5" dimension, and I can calculate for you the image true dimension on a rectified true full frame of the PGF. Then, using that, you can select a distance and solve for lens, or select a lens and solve for distance.

The bottom line is that your proof, at some point will need to be validated by the lens formula, so you may as well start running your numbers through it and see if they validate your height measure results.

I do cooperate with people who disagree with my conclusions and findings, as long as the dialogues are respectful here and elsewhere. If you’d like to work this through on that basis, I am more than ready to do so as well.

Bill

parnassus:

"the foot is not moving very fast (if at all) in the directions (up/down) to create motion blur relevant to measuring the foot length in frame 72."

And you determined this scientifically how? Please show some analysis, data, method, etc.

That's the point of my concern. How is your statement scientifically determined? I don't know how much, if any motion blur is in that image, and I'd like to see someone determine if so, and how much, by some scientific method we can study, not just :"because I say so".

I'm asking a question, not stating a conclusion. My question is, has motion blur been condisered and factored into the analysis, and if so, how, and if not, why not?

It is you, stating a conclusion "The foot is not moving very fast, if at all" who should prove how your conclusion is scientifically arrived at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Bill, using the lens formula, and alternating the two possible fixed focal length lenses, and using an estimated walking height of 5' 6", what do the resulting distances come out to? If you say that it was possible that a 25mm lens was used, and we guess that the posed height was 5.5 feet, what is the distance from camera to subject? And if it were a 15mm lens, same problem, what is the resulting distance? I would think that the formula would at least provide a variety of options to sort through. I think you've done this before, but I don't recall what figures were arrived at, if it was in fact figured out.

Additionally, to satisfy the option that it may have been a person in a suit, if the walking height comes out as 5.5 feet, does the foot calculate out to 14.5 inches? because if the theory is that it was a suit, it doesn't automatically follow that the suit feet made the 14.5" prints. The feet could be any size. So calculating the size of Patty's feet against whatever her potential standing height might be would be an interesting thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Tontar:

What frame are you asking about?

Bill

Voodoo Six:

Just remembered a question for you.

Are you filming with a video camera, and if so, what's the model and shutter speed of the sensor. I was just specing out a 60 fps video camera and saw a 1/8000 shutter speed on it, and made me wonder if you are not getting motion blur on your film tests because of a high shutter speed. With film cameras, we can usually estimate shutter speed as half of filming speed, allowing for the shutter to be open 50% of the shutter rotation, so a film speed of 16 fps means a shutter speed about 1/32 second. but video camera shave shutter speeds faster than filming speed, based on the electronics of the sensor.

Just curious if you had that data, as it may explain the presense or lack of motion blur in your tests. Worth considering.

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Frame 74. I'm watching your video analysis, which is great, but at the point where frame 74 is shot, there must be an estimate of the distance from camera to subject, based on height and or camera lens size. If the height is estimated at 5.5 feet, one lens would result in one distance, while the other lens would result in a different distance. Or, conversely, if the distance was pretty well estimated, the height remaining at 5.5 feet, then the final number would end up being the lens size, which hasn't been satisfactory, right?

It just seems like what is actually known, any of the three necessary numbers, don't seem to be "known". I was just going to go outside and take some photos of foot sized panels, spaced between 24-36 inches apart, one in front of the other so one would be 24-36 inches closer or further from the camera, and shot them at some particular distance that might approximate the distance between the camera and Patty, to see how much foreshortening might occur. But I wasn't sure whether to put it at 90, 100, or 110 feet, or something else completely different. That's why I was wondering what the possible distances might be, based on the foot being roughly 14 inches long in frame 74, or, based on Patty being 5.5 feet tall (with whatever sized feet that ended up resolving), and so on. I just wanted to test the effect of foreshortening at a reasonable distance, but didn't know what distance(s) to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Tontar:

for frame VFC-2 074 (Cibachrome 72), Patty's height as posed is about 0.0379" on the film. If she were 5' 6" tall as posed, she'd be about 145 feet or so away from camera with a 25mm lens.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This bear has a similar "seam"...

interesting, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

forearmBW1.gif

BrownBearAG1.gif

Neck.gif

Slowmotionleg.gif

turtle.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wow, I've never even seen this kind of detail in clips before, it is a lot to take in. It is interesting to see the work and examination people have put into this footage, it's almost like I don't want to voice my opinion because I've done none of the work. Far too easy for me to sit here and say it looks like this or that when others are far more versed in the data. But wow, all this info shines a new light onto the PGF for me, I'm all over the place on it now. :)

Ah, it was so much simpler seeing it on TV years ago, and then heading to the library to read everything I could.

Cheers

Edited by summitwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I know how you feel, SW. I used to believe the film was real as well before losing that belief and eventually finding out it was a hoax. The problem for me was that even when I was a believer I had problems with Patty's appearance and squaring it away with a real animal. My mental process at the time was to kind of just ignore it, sweep it away, and rationalize it with what I felt was the strength of the evidence for Bigfoot in general. All of those things eroded away when I opened my mind to the uncomfortable possibility it might not be real and gave it the best critical scrutiny I could.

That obvious look flap and separation of the top and bottom of the suit? You can see it not just there. The cibachromes have the best detail available to us and it is visible there as well...

Bigsuitflaws.jpg

And again...

Bigpattymouth6.gif

Definitely that is not the background. This may be it here as well, but it is possible it might be the background...

Bigelbows6.gif

Patty looks quite a lot like a suit when you get a good look at her...

Bigpattynotsohot.jpg

That squarish shape at the bottom of the but us not the butt. I think it's the log behind. The upper buttocks is very angular and unnatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

interesting, thanks.

actually the bear doesn't have a similar "seam". The apparent seam in the bipedal PattyBob costume is in the upper thigh. The bear, a quadriped, is rubbing his butt against the back of his leg, in the vicinity of the knee, and he has a big layer of fat from his abdomen falling over his leg.

Bill,

I explained it in the posts above. Sorry if you can't understand it. The leg is at its peak height. The angular velocity of the leg slows to zero at the peak height as the direction of the movement changes from up to down. That is just math and physics. The velocity vector in the y direction is tangent to the arc at that point, thus vertical, and goes to zero. There may be horizontal movement, which would could blur the lines between the toes a bit. But the foot length is oriented vertically, so a little horizontal blurring won't change the apparent length.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...