Jump to content
Guest Bipedal Ape

Pattys Height

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Actually, no. I saw the original notes. I have a youtube channel and I added that video to my channel. Both the notes and the video acknowledged a margin of error with the way he was doing it and that it could be refined. He did that.

The night of March 12th I pointed out voo's error. March 13th he replaced his original video with a revised version that he posted in this thread on page 1. That was his first post commenting on his video. Your immediate response was to infer those notes didn't exist and that he deleted his video to cover those notes not existing. In the video first posted here he said himself that he was making a ballpark estimation and it wasn't definitively accurate. That was right here from the beginning.

I ask you...

1) Was he being dishonest in stating in his video that he was not being definitively accurate and stating it in his video comments section?

2) Was he dishonest to replace his video with a revised video improving the accuracy after people noted the margin of error?

3) He used a 12 inch shoe. 12 x 6 is 72 inches, otherwise known as 6 ft. Is using the foot as a ruler in that experiment an inaccurate way to establish height of a subject and if so, why?

4) Knowing that he acknowledged the measurements were not definitive in that video, is your accusation of him being dishonest fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Kit,

I'd like to verify what you just posted, but unfortunately everything has been deleted.

Once again I will say that being completely normal and forthright on the JREF has nothing to do with this forum- I do not follow the JREF and nobody here has that obligation. So why do you keep bringing it up as if people should have read it? What was posted on the JREF is completely irrelevant to this forum and the conversation going on here.

To infer deception is completely justified, especially when he admits no mistakes here and then accuses his opponents of all blame as he deletes any evidence to verify his claims.

3) He used a 12 inch shoe. 12 x 6 is 72 inches, otherwise known as 6 ft. Is using the foot as a ruler in that experiment an inaccurate way to establish height of a subject and if so, why?

Show me where this is an accurate scientific measurement as he described in his video. He made the claim of it being "scientific", he has that burden of proof- not me.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

He was normal and forthright on the BFF in the very first post in this thread when Bipedal Ape posted his video in which he used the exact words "ballpark figure" and "not definitely accurate." He also said it was a quick demonstration. He has since revised it. You not only watched the video yourself, you took a screen capture from that, so it's not like you can say that you didn't watch the video.

1) So was he dishonest when in his video he said it was not definitively accurate?

2) I still have in my photobucket shots from the first experiment using Spider-Man as a physical analog for Poser 7 to prove that the foreshortening in both is the same and does not violate physics due to the angle of view for the poses...

Bigposerspidey4.jpg

Two errors were taking the photo by hand and not from a fixed position and also not at the same plane as the figure. In the second experiment I removed those variables...

Bigposerspideysetup.jpg

So if I go and delete the shots of the first experiment because it's redundant and unnecessary to have, am I dishonest? What voo did is exactly the same. There was never any point in time where he was deceptive and not forthright about the flaws of that first experiment.

Do you feel like you're in that place where you're treating that person fairly, or do you kind of realize you're infering deception and dishonesty where none existed.

Show me where this is an accurate scientific measurement as he described in his video. He made the claim of it being "scientific", he has that burden of proof- not me.

I'm so enthusiastic about doing this for you...

test.jpg

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

1) So was he dishonest when in his video he said it was not definitively accurate?

The error comes in the claim of debunking a measurement by using a known innacurate measurement.

He made claims against both Monster Quest and Bill Munns that he cannot show proof of, only a guesstimation.

I'm so enthusiastic about doing this for you...

test.jpg

That's not my example but I know where you're going with it. I made it pretty obvious that I was using his own logic to debunk his own claim. At no point did I make a claim about anything scientific or even suggest it.

Edited by Art1972
: to remove 1A violation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Some time ago Giganto and others assembled images using foot as ruler and body segments that indicated that PattyBob's foot was 20% of standing height. Can someone repost that material?

and by the way, I have already copyrighted all conceivable names for a documentary, so kitakaze will have to go through me. My favs: "Roger, Over and Out©." "The Junk in his Trunk©" and my Johnny Cochrane special: "If you need the costume, it must be exhumed©"

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The dishonesty comes in the claim of debunking a measurement by using a known innacurate measurement.

He made claims against both Monster Quest and Bill Munns that he cannot show proof of, only a guesstimation. Is that honest?

First, correction on voo's part, but I think he meant American Paranormal, not MonsterQuest.

Second, he specifically said that there is absolutely no way Patty was 7'4" or anywhere even in the neighbourhood. He did a quick mockup video to show how that was the case and he was completely forthright that he was making a ballpark estimate. The entire point was to show that no way, no how was Patty 7'4".

Was he honest? Absolutely, yes, without a doubt I can say with full confidence that you watched the video of a man who was being completely honest and did not have a shred of deceit in his heart or mind.

How do you feel about your ability to be fair today?

That's not my example but I know where you're going with it. I made it pretty obvious that I was using his own logic to debunk his own claim. At no point did I make a claim about anything scientific or even suggest it.

Wait a moment, you just asked me, "Show me where this is an accurate scientific measurement as he described in his video."

Did I not just do that providing his own revision?

Also, do you feel you're being successful in making voodoosix appear to be a dishonest and deceitful person?

Personally, I find the accusation distasteful and would really like to focus on the revised demonstration and allow the man the courtesy of being able to revise the process. Should we not allow him that and focus only on the first rough demonstration? Do you have a good reason for why we should behave that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

PSA:

if anyone has tried to use a sleazy download that "melts" images, and ended up with a sleazy search bar called My Web Search, I can tell you how to get rid of it.

p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

and by the way, I have already copyrighted all conceivable names for a documentary, so kitakaze will have to go through me. My favs: "Roger, Over and Out©." "The Junk in his Trunk©" and my Johnny Cochrane special: "If you need the costume, it must be exhumed©"

p.

Seriously, that's pretty morbid.

Was he honest? Absolutely, yes, without a doubt I can say with full confidence that you watched the video of a man who was being completely honest and did not have a shred of deceit in his heart or mind.

Welcome to the world of opinions.

How do you feel about your ability to be fair today?

100%

Wait a moment, you just asked me, "Show me where this is an accurate scientific measurement as he described in his video."

Did I not just do that providing his own revision?

Once again I ask- show me where this is considered a "scientific measurement".

Also, do you feel you're being successful in making voodoosix appear to be a dishonest and deceitful person?

I stated my points and I stand by them - take them or leave them. How you or anyone else decides to view them is not my issue.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Some time ago Giganto and others assembled images using foot as ruler and body segments that indicated that PattyBob's foot was 20% of standing height. Can someone repost that material?

and by the way, I have already copyrighted all conceivable names for a documentary, so kitakaze will have to go through me. My favs: "Roger, Over and Out©." "The Junk in his Trunk©" and my Johnny Cochrane special: "If you need the costume, it must be exhumed©"

p.

Ahem..

Lastly, why are you assuming Patty's feet were 14.5"???

Well?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Well, 14.5 does not exactly possess consistency, does it?

TitmusCasts1-1.gif

That aside, what manner of dolt hoaxes Bigfoot on film and Bigfoot tracks to go along with it and does not have the length of the tracks match the length of the foot you make?

It's as if one will get cooties for thinking like a hoaxer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Rogue:

All measurements of size are approximations and thus inaccurate. Certainly all approximations of PattyBob's size are inaccurate.*

it's as scientific as any method that just uses multiplication and division eg the lens equation, and has the advantage of being more transparent than some, and having less steps, and in that sense more elegant and less subject to compound error. If you don't think he is accurate within the limits he states (which are pretty wide), then why don't you show us why? To compute accuracy, there is no gold standard to compare to other than a consensus, which at the moment is quite near what he comes up with.

Science is about thinking, and secondarily about math. To anyone who really wanted to approximate PattyBob's height to a reasonable accuracy, ie to find out if it could be a human or even Bob H., the foot as ruler is the obvious way to do it.

giganto,

what was the ahem for?

how do I know the foot was 14.5 inches?

I don't, but I'm giving Roger Patterson the benefit of the doubt by saying it could have been. If it isn't, then the film is a hoax. If it is 14.5 inches, then there is a chance that the film is authentic and a chance that the film is a hoax (disregarding for arguments sake some stuff that kitakaze is working on), and the foot as ruler (or any size determination) can only rule out Bob H (but seems not to). There are humans and (supposedly) "bigfoots" of all sizes, so almost no result will rule out a human or a sasquatch.

*There is only one that I know of that is likely to be exactly correct: Pattybob is exactly the height of Bob Heironimus in a certain custom costume in 1967.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here's a total waste of my time..

post-337-0-53313900-1331939632_thumb.png

This is using V6's footlength (which was maximal) and a foot ruler approx. 1" smaller. This would account for some bloom from overexposure and motion blur. This is an error analysis with the given info. The resultant error renders this estimate useless. We must refine the estimates to narrow the range of error. Use several frames showing the foot to refine the foot/height ratio. Also, determine the walking versus standing height with better precision (this one is easy, actually). The object here is to reduce the relative error. After that, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

parnassus wrote:

Science is about thinking, and secondarily about math.

And "PattyBob" is all about "belief"....or, the "science" of "overlooking GAFFS"......take your pick.....parn... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, 14.5 does not exactly possess consistency, does it?

TitmusCasts1-1.gif

That aside, what manner of dolt hoaxes Bigfoot on film and Bigfoot tracks to go along with it and does not have the length of the tracks match the length of the foot you make?

It's as if one will get cooties for thinking like a hoaxer.

**** you for making me do this.. :D

post-337-0-98096900-1331940610_thumb.png

Kit, even if this was a hoax, don't you think Roger would have kept the bigfoot "stamps" consistent? I mean, come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Not perfectly, no. That's because when Al and Roger paid a visit to the Ray Wallace School of Bigfoot Hoaxing and got some tips and materials to make the tracks at Bluff Creek like he did only a month before, Roger decided to get creative and use his hands to customize the soles...

Bigpgfkillshota.gif

But if Wallace could fool Don Abbott, Patterson can have fooled believers even better. Meldrum even thinks they are the same and he was duped by Wallace too!

What's he talking about, G?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...