Jump to content
Guest Bipedal Ape

Pattys Height

Recommended Posts

Drew

Drew:

GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is an enternal challenge to anything measured, or to any source data. It's a universal and never-ending source of debate. People define quality vs garbage data endlessly, so all you've provided is a vague generalization that doesn't advance this discussion.

Bill- in every mechanical endeavor, there is some error applied to measurements. A plane part in 1942 Germany might have had tolerances to +/- .001", whereas in 1942 Russia, a part would have a tolerance of +/- .01"

Here you have a video in which you cannot determine accurately 3 of the 4 parameters you have suggested as necessary.

This lack of accuracy leads to an error margin. This error margin would be far greater than a scenario where you have physically measured the variables with direct access to the components needing to be measured.

I don't see how you can deny the fact that you have guesstimates as the distance, lens size, and aperture size.

If you are confident in these measurements, you should be able to assign a nice, low margin of error to those measurements.

This would output a result with a low error margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

I'm not the one trying to solve the foot as ruler method. Take your concern about "gestimates" to the people who are.

I am simply raising questions and expressing concerns for why I don't endorse such efforts.

Every example of distance or lens focal length I offered was a hypothetical for demonstrating an example of process, nothing more.

There is no "margin of error" in a number given as a hypothetical example to demonstrate an example of process.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG

Drew,

you'd be providing so much ammunition for the nay-sayers that you'd be fighting your corner 'til the cows come home. I think you have to button up at least two or three of the variables before you start gettng involved in margin-for-error stuff, personally. I mean, as it stands, it is probably possible to say the height is between 6 feet and 7 feet according to this scale method and assuming all sorts........and where would that get us?

Once the basic geometry is sorted out..........camera positions, path of walk, distance to object, and the locations of all the major landscape features, then it should be possible to make a good 3D digital model, and measure the height pretty exactly. Until then, we can take some sophisticated guesses, but will always be open to attack about the assumptions made.

Mike

Edited by MikeG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill,

You posted the image measurement of Frame 72 as .0379. Could you post a chart of all of the measurements and corresponding frame#s you have measured? Also, have you used any methods to estimate the image measurements of Patty when portions of her image are blocked by the environment?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't know why the sudden onslaught on Patty here, after all, the suit has been found, a confession, irrefutable proof has finally come, what is the sense in arguing? Heck, Parn even adopted the face melt picture. Strange the need to bolster an argument claimed to be put to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Even stranger still....the LACK of celebrating by the hard-core skeptics.

The silence is deafening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Adding one additional consideration to the topic of the footas ruler analysis, and the question of whether there is any motion blur to be considered, a walk pattern may be different on level ground as opposed to walking down an inclined terrain path, because how the rearward foot (on higher ground) lifts to clear the ground may be different than on level ground, and from Cibachrome 61 to 72, Patty is definitely walking down an incline.

walkdown.jpg

The image above shows the down incline walk, and between 61 and 72, it's quite dramatic.

So when the raised rear foot peaks in it's lift cycle, and for how long, would need some additional analysis, as compared to assumptions about a walk pattern on level ground.

One more variable to consider.

Comncents:

I don't have all the Patty size in frame calculations done or readily available, and I'll likely review them after I do my Bluff Creek trip this year (finally) and finalize the subject and cameraman paths in the site.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Even stranger still....the LACK of celebrating by the hard-core skeptics.

The silence is deafening.

I hope I make another 35 years or so, to see whether the claim of stunning proof positive the PGF is hoaxed has the same staying power of the actual PGF. I'm thinking it (the claim of proof of the hoax) is more like its claimant, and comprised of voluminous, pages-filling hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guy's.. it was brought to my attention earlier today by a member, that things have been getting a little "heated" in here, and also turned somewhat personal.

I didnt have time to read through it earlier, but since I did so tonight I'm inclined to agree with that member.

PLEASE.. do me a favor- lets keep things on topic, keep our comments directed at the content, without adding in our little "barbs" intended to get under other's skin ?

There's no reason why this issue cant be discussed in an intelligent and polite manner.

Doing so will keep the thread open, and keep you from having to spend time in the "principals office" getting remedial lessons on proper posting etiquette !

Thank you....

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

In another 35 years, regardless of proof positive of the existence of a suit, the lack of a specimen will pretty much solve the question. If there's no bigfoot, there's no chance Patty was real. It works one way, and not the other. Patty can be fake or real, doesn't matter, there still could be bigfoots. But if there's no bigfoots (other than the PGF), then Patty automatically becomes a one off, suit situation. Proof doesn't have to be forth coming about the PGF being faked. The more time that passes with zero tangible evidence the species exists, the more likely it doesn't, and if the species doesn't exist, neither did Patty. You want to see Patty proven real, banking on nobody proving her fake is not going to do it. The only way to prove Patty real is to get a real specimen. A subject on film does not prove authenticity, unfortunately. The height is well within human range. I don't hear anyone really disputing that anymore. The film, what is being researched from it, does not put her in the above average human range. Patty could be a suit, no doubt about that. The lack of a suit doesn't prove authenticity, and it weighs a lot less than the lack of another bigfoot tends to prove there aren't any, and so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why would 35 years without a specimen prove something? The lack of a specimen proves it never existed? Consider me cornfused (thinly veiled corn whiskey reference).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Responding to this quote form above:

"Now the videos are deleted- how convenient."

Definitely can hear this being said with the Church Lady accent and attitude! And it seems appropriate to hear it that way.

Here's the deal. Kit says something every so often, "can't win for losing!". How true that is here. A guy posts videos proposing something. Some people complain about their accuracy. He redoes the work, fixing or addressing the inaccuracies, getting rid of what has been called faulty work, providing only the good, sound work. So what happens? People don't acknowledge what the good work demonstrates, they complain that there's something deceptive about the old work. This is the best possible argument against what was presented? That he took down what you guys found confusing?

Pathetic...

What innacuracies are you referring to? Can you be more specific? He never admitted to making mistakes- he accused his opponents of not paying attention to something he wrote, which he then deleted so nobody could verify.

If you make mistakes admit to them- don't blame your opponent for it. If you're going to make accusations against your opponent- don't delete the evidence.

Make sense?

It has nothing to do with "can't win for losing", this is simple common sense.

dont blame me for your lack of paying attention, im not here to hold your hand. if you **** around and miss the bus that's your fault not the bus driver's.

As you can see Tontar he's still blaming the opponent, even though you yourself observed faults were made. This is the kind of attitude that's pathetic, but you can look at it however you want.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I don't know why the sudden onslaught on Patty here, after all, the suit has been found, a confession, irrefutable proof has finally come, what is the sense in arguing? Heck, Parn even adopted the face melt picture. Strange the need to bolster an argument claimed to be put to rest.

Because in your innate sense of fairness, you understand that irrefutable proof has not come to the public, that the manner in which I do so will be as a documentary, I have zero plans of using a Bigfoot Internet forum as a means to reveal anything while I am still working on it, and that I still have a long way to go before I can say I am finished. That same innate fairness allows you to give me the same consideration that you will give to Bill Munns, Melba Ketchum, Steve Streufert, and any other Bigfooter that has sensitive projects in the works that they don't invite Internet forums into to watch as they work on them.

Are you OK with this or do you find being fair too much to ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.

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.

What innacuracies are you referring to? Can you be more specific? He never admitted to making mistakes-
There is, BTW, a problem with the scaling of the red lines as shown in the thread. I took a ruler and found discrepancies ranging from 1-2 mm in spacing with those lines.
i know they weren't perfect, they were done manually which is why in the video i said it wasnt definitively accurate and only a ballpark estimation and gave such a huge margin of error. i wish i would have used thinner lines as well. id like someone with better software than mine to check my work.
I've done the same thing with just Paint and working with Ray Wallace tracks and casts. I just keep a ruler handy. If you have Gimp you can use the measuring tool, which is convenient and easy. Here is an example of criticism your video got from the PGF fans...
Just to show you how inaccurate the method is, i'll do the exact same thing with his own example-

(pic snip)

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"?

@LogicFail, i do admit that the scale in that shot isnt perfect but RF's measurement of my foot isnt correct either, throwing his rebuttal off track as well.

i think there is a workaround though, instead of trying to measure to scale im just going to just cut, copy and paste the foot itself and let it give the measurement.

i cant post pics yet so here is a url to what im talking about.

i165.photobucket.com/albums/u80/voodoosixx/bigfootstack(dot)png

(pic added)

bigfootstack.png

Rogue,

1) Did voodoosix do something disgenuine in refining and replacing his video after errors were pointed out to him?

2) Did he do something disgenuine in deleting the original one after making a revised version?

3) On a scale of one to ten, how fair do you think you were to infer deception on his part?

I think it's about a 1, or highly unfair to infer deception. I am open to an explanation why that is in fact fair if you would like to make one.

Also, voodoosix has not posted here since that last quoted post above. meanwhile, he has been completely normal and forthright in acknowledging the margin of error in his original video.

Edited by Art1972
:to remove quote from "Logicfail".../1A violation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Kit,

All of your questions can be answered in my previous post which you are obviously ignoring- the accusations he made and the actions he took in regards to said accusations.

When errors were pointed out to him he admitted none, rather he accused his opponents of not paying attention to something he wrote. He then deleted everything so nobody could verify his accusations. That is both disingenuous and deceptive.

Posting quotes from JREF to cover his tracks now?

Notice that he admits mistakes on the JREF and blames everything on his opponents here. Being completely normal and forthright on the JREF has nothing to do with this forum. If you can't see the problem with that then you clearly have tunnel vision.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...