Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

Guest

If you believe that Patty created the trackway then you have a phenomenal ruler to measure Patty's standing height. We just need to account for all the foreshortening created by different camera views of Patty's body.

For example, by using a surrogate with a known height and 14.5" foot length we can scale Patty to the same size and compare their foreshortened heights. It turns out that a person's standing height gets reduced by 17% for frame 72 of the PGF. Therefore Patty definitely scales in the 6' range.

Soarwing-1_zpsdc808234.jpg

For a more accurate estimate we need to derive the "arm ruler". The idea is to measure Patty's arm using the foot ruler then we can measure the height in frame 352 using the arm ruler. The standing height is measured using connected height vectors.

For example, Matt Crowley's shoes were 12.25" long making his standing height vectors total 6'2", which was his exact standing height.

tube_6ft2in_1225in_shoe.gif

You can also use someone's known height to measure their arm length in a photo. In the following example Bob H has an arm length of 128 / 430 = 30% of his 6'2" standing height = 22", which was correct.

parnsbob.png

So what is Patty's arm length and her standing height? First measure her foot length in pixels for frame 61 in the image below = 123 pixels = 14.5". Now use the foot ruler to measure the right arm = 222 / 123 x 14.5" = 26.2".

armrulerhgt_zps394498ba.png

But the right arm must be foreshortened (bent relative to vertical) to some degree. According to frame 352 the foreshortening is 16 / 222 = 7%. This means that the arm length is actually 27.8" (compared to Bob H's 22").

Now use the arm ruler (27.8") to estimate the standing height 640 / 236 = 2.7 x 27.8" = 6'3" +/- 2"

When we accept that Patty was only 6'3" in height then we can derive her distances from the camera along the trackway and her step length, as well as the size of the lens and focus on her limb proportions instead. Patty's elbows were at least 3" lower down her arm than Bob H's. And don't get me started on her ASH (Arm Span 2 Height) ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Giganto,

 

Interesting post.  I will watch it unfold by poster who know their photography and so on.  I like the effort.

 

One Q which may or may not have any connection:

 

We assume we know Patty's   1) number of steps between any two points on the PGF.   2)  The distance between the footprints in the soil from step to step (or at least an average).

 

Do these things factor into determining Patty's height via any formula?  I understand you are taking her height and then using it to determine step length. Does it work the other way around?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Fantastic Gigantofootecus!

 

I am in the middle of writing a paper, perhaps better called a monograph, on Patty and four common anthropometric indicies: intermembral, brachial, humerofemoral, and crural. To do this, I need estimates of the relative measurements for humerous, radius, femur and tibia. I need good data sets. I need to know how the numbers were derived. I need to know the bounds of confidence to put on the numbers. I need to know that those taking the measurements had an adequate handle on their trade.

 

I will be running statistical tests on these - in fact I have done some preliminary work reported on the thread I started on measurement "Biometrics And The Ontological* Status Of Sasquatch." The title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but the intent is more serious.

 

In the monograph I am discussing issues around image and film measurement, image quality, image distortion, foreshortening, data quality, confidence and error bounds, procedures used, statistics, the underlying science, and so on. Some is outside the bounds of my training and experience, but some is certainly within my area of competence. I think I can describe the main issues in a fashion that would alert the naive reader that data quality and usage issues do exist, and give some direction on how to assess the impacts. Interested readers can pursue the topic further in the literature if so inclined. My concern is not that I am complete, but that I am correct in my main points.

 

I am also looking for better data sets, and have a few possibilities beyond Green's work, and the Vision Realm Entertainment Work, but that is also a work in progress. I am trying to line up my ducks now. If I can not get good data sets, the project is crippled badly, The most than I will be able to do is point out the issues, the current deficiencies and a hope for better numbers in other studies.

 

Preliminary results do make it clear that the indicies are outside of human range, frequently by many standard deviations, but I have also found some anomolous results in the anthropological literature on idicies that have given me pause, e.g., Japanese intermembral index values over 90. I have asked for clarification on this from a specialist, and I hope that he gets back to me and helps me to understand what benchmark figures are going to be considered the most correct.

 

Today, I plan on setting up a formal list of interview questions for those who have taken measurements, to make sure that the promise and the limitations of the numbers are well understood.

 

The various posts made by you and others on measurement are invaluable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks Mike,

 

My analyses are always informal, which is why they keep getting dismissed. Only the skeptics want a 6'3" Patty because they think Bob H fits right into the suit, but he actually doesn't by a long shot. We need error analyses like you are attempting to do, so Godspeed!

 

You will need to work with at least a 1st gen copy of the PGF (hint..hint..Bill Munns) and know the aspect ratio and frame dimensions of the original stock footage to establish the discrepancies between the 2 or else you will get into the same photogrammetric problems as Bill Munns.

 

I will always be available to critique.

 

Cheers

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

You can also use someone's known height to measure their arm length in a photo. In the following example Bob H has an arm length of 128 / 430 = 30% of his 6'2" standing height = 22", which was correct.

 

I thought Bob H was 5' 10" .... maybe 6' in his cowboy boots.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

On the height issue:

 

In the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960's we used the best photo experts at the time to look at the B/W photos of shadows and some magnifying glasses and said, "those look like missiles."

 

They applied the best methods at the time. 

 

I there a way we can take the images and apply space age stuff to these images of Patty?  Seems there should be a way to use some modern method to scan the image along with the field data and come up with some hard number.  Instead it just feels like we are taking an image and applying Cuban Missile Crisis methods to its' analysis. This is not to insult any effort.  It just always seems in the PGF and in Bank Robbery Footage seem to be the only 2 times where there are images and we cannot tell much of anything. 

 

I am hopeful we will have some break through where all could at least agree on what we are looking at and have a solid confident basis for it.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

Some of you may or may not be familiar with the NASI report which was a Scientific study of the PG film subject by J. Glickman. I found an abrigded version on the BE site and it's still very interesting reading, even if some of the info has been called into question. At the very least, it shows the various types data gathering that one can explore. 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I pretty much understand your analysis, equations and conclusion

Gigantofootecus. Beautiful work. I think your figures, using the givens are probably dead on. What fascinates me is even if your post was gobble-de-**** and the numbers and reasoning completely undecipherable to me, the visual impact of those joints and those arms still scream to me that the images are not those of a person, of whatever height, or whatever the true length of the feet, or what or whomever made the tracks or what kind of camera recorded the images or the personal character or financial status of the people, or any of the ins and outs of whatever it took to get those pictures put before the public to see and study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Great topic and post, Gf!  The torso, limb sizes and proportions of the animal in this image are striking: 

 

 post-131-0-88141500-1421213416.jpg

 

And then the PGf 'moving pictures' show that the inhumanly proportioned individual above moves in a very smooth and very natural fashion which is indicative of absolutely no costume ever.  I agree with your 6'3" height estimate and that her width (and/or, ASH ratio) is the kicker!  8 ^).  thx!

 

 

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Good work in your opening post, Giganto. 

 

A little off, on the 'arm proportion'...but that's o.k.....it doesn't have much effect on measuring Patty's height. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I also did this same analogy using patty's foot as a unit of measure and come up with similar finding that the figure was far shorter then is commonly believed. I posted this on here about a month ago here is the info from my post that I derived.

(According to all I have heard and read the footprints were 14 1/2" in length, if you use this common image of patty that shows the foot well and her total height it is quite easy to see that either the figure is not as tall as has been reported or the foot length is off. The patty figure is just under 4 1/2 lengths of her foot tall which equals about 64" or 5' 4" tall. I will give you that the figure in the frame is not standing totally erect and so, to make up for the bent knee and somewhat slouched posture I would say a total height of 5'10" would be a maximum height. that’s a far cry from the 7'4" that has been reported in the many films I have seen on it. I'm not saying this is not a film of a real Bigfoot because I do think it is with all the other points this film makes but I can't see a over 7 foot tall Bigfoot here.

bigfoot2_zps685058f0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustCurious

The full Glickman report is available on Photek Imaging's website HERE: http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

I do think it would be interesting if Bill Munn's were able to obtain that scanned copy of the film to compare with what he currently has in his inventory.  It sounds as though the scan used was from film that had been in storage for 25 years and that was back in 1993/1994.  What I noted was that the 953 frame count was present in this first generation copy made one month after the film was made.  In that case, it would have been made before much of the subsequent showing of the original film done by Patterson and Dahinden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I also did this same analogy using patty's foot as a unit of measure and come up with similar finding that the figure was far shorter then is commonly believed.

 

Krantz did a similar thing and got a totally different figure. Grover then fell under harsh criticism from Dahinden to which Rene's point was correct. One cannot simply get an accurate measurement by assuming that the vertical blurred image of the foot represents 14.5 inches and then think that all one needs to do is stack the foot lengths up in the image to get the creature's height, which your conclusion has it being as short as Patterson.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Yeah that method doesn't work. Tom Pate tried the same thing with Patty, and was shown why it didn't work using his own example-

 

yz880.jpg

 

He is 6 ft tall and his shoe is 12". If you use his shoe as a ruler then he only comes to about 5'3" tall.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29514-pattys-height

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...