Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

^^^

Kit,

Not bad, but out of context as they are not same perspective and not from same spot on uneven ground where 2 feet can make a difference. Perhaps posting Mk Davis overlap video or others will tell the full story. Nah, you wouldn't do that as that would fail to stirr the pot.

What am I saying? you think it is 6feet 1 inch Bob H anyway, so I can see the need to cherry pick a picture.

Can you save us the further back and fourth and just tell us how tall You think the figure is?

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I've always thought Patty was shorter than McLaren.

 

I don't even see an argument otherwise.

 

You can see McLaren walks further back from Patty in the clips i've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

For your consideration:

 

 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Look at the first Mclaren position and the last, those are the only two where they are in the same foot path.

 

The middle three positions, Patty is closer to the camera than McLaren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Jeff Pruitt doing it while working on his Patty suit...

 

DfootSuitWalkingAG3.gif

 

 

 

Letters From the Big Man doing it...

 

 

Those are not strokes of luck. That is what human legs do in big feet. 

 

 

Actually....LFTBM not doing it... :) ...

 

LFTBM-LowerLegVertical-Comp1_zps509cc7fb

 

 

In most, or possibly all, of the so-called "re-creations" of Patty's gait that I've seen...the person straightens-out their supporting leg, as they concentrate on the 'high lift' of the trailing 'lower leg'. Note Dfoot's supporting leg, in the animation above....it's vertical.

 

That results in the person's 'forward motion' slowing, or stopping, as they lift their lower-leg up high. As a result, their walk doesn't look as smooth/graceful as Patty's....instead, it looks 'choppy'.

 

 

This shows Patty's lower-leg angling forward as her trailing lower-leg lifts up, to that steep angle...(and the torso moving smoothly forward)...

 

LegLift-AG2_zps4941e7fe.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Look at the first Mclaren position and the last, those are the only two where they are in the same foot path.

 

The middle three positions, Patty is closer to the camera than McLaren.

 

 

That is basically correct, Drew. I'm not sure of the starting positions, but for most of the walk shown...Patty is closer to the camera than Jim is.  She is closing-in on, and maybe crossing Jim's path towards the very end of the animation.

 

But, even at that...after adjusting for Patty's more angled posture....her height still appears to be just about the same as Jim's height. :)

 

 

At this point in their walks, they may be very close to the same distance from the camera....so, this may be an accurate straight-up comparison of their heights...(except for Patty's more angled/bent posture)...

 

JimPatty-HeightComp3_zpse0ea0788.jpg

 

 

In this middle segment, Patty is significantly closer to the camera, and appears taller than Jim...

 

JimPatty-HeightComp4_zps2e025a25.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Kit,

Can you save us the further back and fourth and just tell us how tall You think the figure is?

Backdoc

 

 

While you're at it, Doc....why don't you ask kit why he "thinks" a teeny-tiny iris inside Patty's right eye is a meaningful observation....(it blew him away, when he first "saw" it).....while he allegedly "thinks" that Biometric measurements/comparisons involving Patty are all "fabricated non-reality"?? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have always thought one of the values of the JIm McClarin video is a reference to detail on Jim McClarin himself. That is, we know Jim is Jim. We can tell he is wearing a T Shirt and so on. Thus, we have a point of ref on what we can actually see on Jim and use that to get an idea of what we can see on Patty.  If we can't see very well if Jim is wearing a Belt or a Watch or whatever, then we cannot overstate what we really can see on Patty.  If we cannot see Jims Eyes then can we see Patty's?

 

On the Patty v. Jim, it is my understanding Jim is doing the best he can on the following spring.  Also, the camera is placed the best it can in the assumed spot of Roger. Many of the photo guys and camera guys have the knowledge to tell what is significant about this and what is not.

 

It is possible Patty and Jim cross paths and various points but mostly are walking 2 separate paths.  Thus distortion issues and so on need to be considered.  Not my area of expertise. 

 

I wonder if there is an number both Skeptics and Believers accept for the height of our bent-legged Patty and what is the basis for that.

 

Finally remember if you can't see it on JIm you probably can't see it on Patty as a general rule of thumb.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Kit, I think the smoothness of the motion is what is convincing about Patty. The other clips, as SW points out don't seem to have that.

 

After all this time, the least likely to have done it right due to no resources (Patterson) is still the most convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

 

I wonder if there is an number both Skeptics and Believers accept for the height of our bent-legged Patty and what is the basis for that.

 

Finally remember if you can't see it on JIm you probably can't see it on Patty as a general rule of thumb.

 

Backdoc

 

 

Backdoc

I think you will find that most will put Patty at between 6' and 6'4

 

The McLaren footage clearly rules out a 7' Patty.

for Dr. Meldrum to be using that number, and attributing it to Bill Munn's work is a sad state for Bigfootry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

You can't see an eye much less the iris. IDF doesn't come close to comparing it to PGF. Patti's smooth gait in sand over uneven terrain clinches it for me. Heigth 6'5-6'7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Drew I would agree into the 7' thing. I know at one time Bill had stated 7ft plus on TV. Yet, Bill has since changed that position as most reasonable people do when presented new information.

 

If I watch a NFL show where an offensive lineman is say 'just' 6' 3'' tall that lineman is still massive. It is the Massive issue Bob Gimlin talks about. He has more or less stated that the massive nature of Patty caused him to say a tall number for the height.  Gimlin seems flexible of the height as a non issue in these interviews but is insistent on the massive nature of Patty. This assumes Gimlin can be believed, naturally.  Some of those who are 6'2'' or whatever but skinny look small while a 6'2'' defensive lineman in football will look Massive.

 

It would be nice if there could somehow be some agreement in many issues with the PGF so the focus of the discussion is not on those things. As an example, whatever the film camera used is pretty well accepted.  Yet we don't know the setting on speed and camera lenses for certain.

 

I am surprised as much is know as there is about this encounter.  As an example, Lyle L coming to the site the next day or so.  Jim McClarin seeing slight traces of the some of the steps after the winter and so on.

 

Oh well, there will be more to argue.  I guess I can just leave it at Gimlin thinks it was massive and muscular.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

Patty's height is generally calculated in the area of just over 6 ft. With a foot size of 14.5 inches, that is most certainly disproportionate...

 

 

And, in Frame 72...(the Frame you posted)....the left foot is most certainly overexposed....appearing larger than it actually was...

 

F72-MiddleFrame-LeftFootComparisonAG1_zp

 

 

 

In the later Frame, the left foot appears smaller relative to the body, than it does in F72...

 

F72-M_zpsf384259c.jpgMiddleFrame-03_zps764afde3.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Drew I would agree into the 7' thing. I know at one time Bill had stated 7ft plus on TV. Yet, Bill has since changed that position as most reasonable people do when presented new information.

 

 

 

Exactly, I have no problem with Bill retracting his 7' + estimate, but I don't think the foremost Bigfoot Speaker, Dr. Meldrum should still be touting that Bill's research has shown that Patty is over 7' tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

^^ This seems interesting to me. Can you post a link showing where he (Dr. Meldrum) has done this recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...