Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Patty's Arms And Hands

Recommended Posts

xspider1

Still catching up here but, there's definitely some good stuff above.  Thx!  Looks like you guys have the hip and knee joints pinned pretty much to a tee and, of course, that makes the PGf Mime-in-a-Suit theory more impossible that ever.    :locomotive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Gigantofootecus,

 

I don't know the lens on my camera, so will have to investigate that. Getting a 100 foot distance means going outdoors. Since the mannequin is only 12 inches, is it not going to be ridiculously small in the image? I have a high def camera, but will it be able to resolve sufficient detail?

 

What do you use as a green screen? Will green Bristol Board do?

 

I wanted to put the mannequin on a turntable calibrated in degrees so I could investigate different known angles.

 

The mannequin is cheap, with no ability to change the dimensions. I toyed with making one from plastic pipe, but that seemed to be overly difficult, with some technical solutions required that I have not thought through. Telescoping pipe would work, it I could find the right diameters - a snug slip fit. Also, I am not sure on how to hinge things - ball and socket especially.

 

Mike

Hi Mike,

It's probably a good thing that your mannequin is small. No problem, just create a 1/6th scale model. You can scale it up when you are ready. But you want to stage your mannequin against a green screen (any solid colour background will do, which represents the "mask" colour. Then you can easily remove the background to isolate and overlay your mannequin over Patty. Pain to do without a green screen).

The lenses on most digital cameras these days have a standard ~25mm focal length (have a look on your lens). Stay away from your zoom. Best of all you can probably film inside because you only have to place the mannequin 1/6th the distance from the camera. Place the mannequin ~17 feet from the camera to keep everything 1/6th scale.

Make sure to post your methodology/results and good luck!

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Hi Mike,

...

Make sure to post your methodology/results and good luck!

GF

 

Thanks Gigantofootecus. It will probably be some time before I get to that set of experiments. I found a thread with Cibachromes!

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is exciting to see the making of an experiment that could blow Bob Heironimus out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^

 

Bob Heironimus walks on water. He didn't even get his feet wet while crossing the 12ft wide Bluff Creek. To him it was dry. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Bob H. needs to do some studying, to get 'up to speed' on the PGF, Neander. ;)

 

Maybe I'll send him a copy of 'Meet The Sasquatch', for Christmas...  :ph34r: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

...

 

I applied it to Bill Munns' model, for a single frame only, and it still gave good results. I have posted a snapshot below, but if the moderators believe it inappropriate, please remove it. It is nothing that you would not see on any beach of course. I hope that Bill does not mind me using a bit of his work, in the name of research.

 

I will be writing up a description and explanation at some future date.

....

 

For those interested in this approach (my guess is a vanishingly small number :lol: ) I have started a new topic on my work, "Measuring Patty - Flesh and bones."  I attempt to explain how the centre of rotation methods work, and many other related things. See: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50858-measuring-patty-%E2%80%93-flesh-and-bones/  For the general description of my method above, in post #1240, of this thread, see post  #4 of my new thread.

 

I have identified some problems with my application of the method above. First, I used a small cheat, when I set the angle of the rear leg construction lines to match the construction lines on the front leg. I think that this is defensible. Secondly, I should not have set the radial length of the verticies of the construction lines to be equal based on an assumed centre, before I independently calculated the centre. This amounts to geometrically begging the question. However, I think that I can get around it by using the fold behind the knees as my point from which to calculate a radius. I am still working on it. The third problem is that the left and right hip joints may not be perfectly perpendicular to the plane of the camera. This is also true of Bill's methods, but of little consequence there. In the case where a more accurate location of the hip joints is necessary, it will introduce additional error if the hips are not aligned. The amount of error will be some function of the amount of rotation around a vertical axis of the pelvis. There might also be some lateral tilt to the pelvis.

 

Nothing is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

I have just posted another study on how to find joints with geometry. I am still working on the hip, but can move to the shoulder at any time. I demonstrate a method for using two frames and tangents with angle bisectors to identify the centre of rotation around a joint. I am anticipating doing some work with Cibachromes in the near future. I do not yet know if they will be suitable for providing a definitive result but time will tell.

 

See "Estimates and Absolutes" post  #8, in the topic "Measuring Patty - Flesh and Bones." Critical but fair analytical comment would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

I applied it to Bill Munns' model, for a single frame only, and it still gave good results. I have posted a snapshot below, but if the moderators believe it inappropriate, please remove it. It is nothing that you would not see on any beach of course. I hope that Bill does not mind me using a bit of his work, in the name of research.

 

I will be writing up a description and explanation at some future date.

 

Correction to previous post #1240 in this thread.

I noticed an error in my construction, due to circularity in my thinking. Here is my attempt at correction.

 

The problem is that the front (anterior) line of the model’s left thigh is not visible. I decided to go with a reasonable approximation, and make the angle between the posterior and anterior lines on the left thigh the same as on the right thigh. I think that this is a justifiable move. However, that still leaves the exact position of that left anterior/posterior vertex undefined. I originally set it to be on the circumference of a circle from a reference point, which was meant to verify the construction after it was done. However, this is circular thinking. What I have done in my corrected method is to place the vertex on the left leg the same distance from the back of the left knee as the right vertex is from the back of the right knee. I believe this to be justified.

 

Old Construction

 

 

bill-munnss-model-single-frame-rotationa

 

 

Corrected construction

 

 

corrected-munns-model-single-frame-tange

 

 

It did not change things all that much - can't see a difference by eye. I have not compared the coordinates.

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Correction on Hip on MK Davis Frame 352

new-frame-352-single-frame-tangent-angle

 

 

The same error that I created in a previous post on Bill Munns’ model hip location was also in the MK Davis false colour frame 352 hip location using the single frame tangent angle bisector method. I measured from the intersection of the angle bisectors on the rear and front lines, and made not just the posterior/anterior angles identical, but the distance from the intersection of the angle bisectors to the posterior/anterior vertices. I don’t think that is begging the question of where the centre is, and is justified. The end result is incredibly close to the result shown by Gigantofootecus in his work on the foot ruler. I don't know how he arrived at his placement.

 

I won’t go into too much detail, but point D is where the posterior/anterior angle bisectors intersect. Curiously, it also seems to be almost the same point as the intersection of the tangent angle bisectors. I think that this is a coincidence, and find it surprising.

 

 

gigantosfootecus-frame-352-hip-placement

 

 

Gigantoofotecus' Hip Placement

Edited by MikeZimmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Mike you are one smart guy , im bad at math

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Sorry if this has been discussed already, I didn't want to go through all 60+ pages, though I did go through several. Maybe my question could be answered fairly quickly.

 

My question is regarding the wrist flex that Patty shows. My impression was that mechanical extensions to lengthen the arms in a fur suit and still allow the person in the suit to flex the wrist in a realistic fashion was not available back in 1967. Or at least not very sophisticated.

Is this correct? Or is my thinking wrong? Were crude ones available?

 

And how about artificial flexing of fingers; was that available in suits in 1967?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Pattys Arms:

 

I found this quote and am confused as to what is the basis of these conclusions.

 

"Esteban Sarmiento

Esteban Sarmiento is a specialist in physical anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History. He has 25 years of experience with great apes in the wild. He writes,[205] "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."[206] His most original criticism is this: "The plantar surface of the feet is decidedly pale, but the palm of the hand seems to be dark. There is no mammal I know of in which the plantar sole differs so drastically in color from the palm."[207] (But see Meldrum, 170–71.) His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."[208]"Body proportions: ... In all of the above relative values, bigfoot is well within the human range and differs markedly from any living ape and from the 'australopithecine' fossils."[209] (E.g., the IM index is in the normal human range.) And: "I estimate bigfoot's weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs."[210]"

 

 

 

Putting aside the nonsense of his finding the weight of the PGF figure to be only 190-240 lbs, I am curious how he arrived at his IM index.  I thought is was pretty well agreed upon the measurements of the Patty figure where in the range of the IM index Meldrum and others have proposed.  We can still argue if Patty is a man in a suit or real and we still will.  I just have heard the nearly accepted story Patty's arms are at least 10% longer than the highest range for a man and  so on. 

 

Now here comes Dr. S saying the body proportions of Patty and IM index are of a normal range?.  Can someone tell me what I am missing here?  That is, where is he getting this idea from. Where is his work to show me. I am open minded to consider what he is saying.

 

BD

 

 

(on another thread I mentioned how silly it is to make an issue of the diff color hands and feet when Dr. S should know 1) the soil at bluff creek is light grey and would be on the bottom of those feet  2) this assumes a suit maker would run out of spray paint and keep the hands and feet a diff color by design).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

I remember reading a write up by Jeff Glickman where he talked about the IM index. I didn't know what an IM index was so I tried to get more educated about it. I don't know if he was accurate or not since I didn't know much about it but if I remember right, he said the IM index for Patty was outside human IM indexes.  Not certain but I think he said human IM indexes are in the mid to upper 70's and Patty's IM index was in the mid 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

My understanding via Meldrum is this index is between man and ape.  I could have that wrong.  That is, Patty was between man and ape on his measuring scale using man and ape as ref.

 

I like to hear both sides of the argument but I have to believe this IM index is a bit like eye glasses.  The Rx should not be much different no matter who is making the glasses.  I am not equating the precision of eye glass Rx (which is down to the millimeter) to the gross attempted accuracy of taking measurements from a blown up image of film.  The general principle applies though.

 

How does Dr. S arrive at his conclusions?  I would like to know as I can learn from this.

 

 

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...