Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

xspider1

^ Wow!  That looks very close.  And again, they appear to be nearly the same height.  8 )

 

Thx for the reference, roguefooter.  I have watched some of those MK videos many times and they are fascinating.  Do you notice that in that snap-shot from the video, Patty appears much closer in height to McClarin than in the first snap-shot you posted?  The differences in the two camera lenses, the distances from the cameras to subjects, the differences in elevation, etc. make comparisons of Patty vs McClarin all over the chart, imo.  Whereas, the foot as a ruler method may seem too convenient but, it makes perfect sense.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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-

 

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

 

 

Here is another 'foot ruler' measurement....this time, using a known 14'5" foot/cast, to measure Roger's 'body height'...

 

Roger-CastFootRuler3_zps4571029b.jpg

 

 

It also produces a height a little short of the subject's actual height.

 

 

In the case of the 'Frame 72 foot-ruler'...there are 3 or 4 factors which require correcting for, in order to get an accurate result for Patty's height.  

 

Here they are, from my post (#3)...in the other "Patty's Height" thread...

 

 

1) The 'Bloom' of the left foot. (Due to overexposure...the foot appears larger than it actually is.)

2) Patty's right upper-leg is not straight vertical...it's angled.

3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is.

4) 'Vertical foreshortening' of Patty....(due to Roger being on a lower level of ground than Patty is.)

 

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

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^I think the composite was scaled by matching the land features. MK Davis (yeah I know) did a good video composite of the two:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r97G-nugi9w

 

The second half of the video is a close up. For the most part they walk slightly different paths, but at the point where he stops the video they're just about at the same point.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, rogue...that can't be the case. Here is a diagram that shows how Patty's and Jim's paths compare....working backwards from the earliest point where their paths could have converged...tree T-C2...

 

KrantzTrackway30B_zpsa1fb67d0.jpg

 

 

It's pretty self-explanatory....but, working back from Tree T-C2....Jim's path was very nearly straight left-right...(parallel to the plane of the camera)....and therefore, he must have been approximately 12-14 feet further back in the scene than Patty, at the F352 spot. 

 

If their paths didn't converge until some point after tree T-C2, then Jim was even further back in the scene than Patty, at F352. And there is evidence that indicates that to be the case....(the elevation of the ground they are walking on).

 

 

One note...the brown circle on Jim's path represents approx. where he turned to "look back"....he turned at an earlier spot than Patty did....('click' to enlarge)...

 

th_McClarinPatty-F352HeightComp9_zps7156

 

 

 

Also, a correction to my previous post...in this statement...

 

 "....using a known 14'5" foot/cast, to measure Roger's 'body height'..."

 

...I meant to write 14.5"

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^How did Krantz map out those two paths? Didn't Green say that McClarin followed the remnants of Patty's footprints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is another 'foot ruler' measurement....this time, using a known 14'5" foot/cast, to measure Roger's 'body height'...

 

Roger-CastFootRuler3_zps4571029b.jpg

 

 

It also produces a height a little short of the subject's actual height.

 

 

In the case of the 'Frame 72 foot-ruler'...there are 3 or 4 factors which require correcting for, in order to get an accurate result for Patty's height.  

 

Here they are, from my post (#3)...in the other "Patty's Height" thread...

 

 

1) The 'Bloom' of the left foot. (Due to overexposure...the foot appears larger than it actually is.)

2) Patty's right upper-leg is not straight vertical...it's angled.

3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is.

4) 'Vertical foreshortening' of Patty....(due to Roger being on a lower level of ground than Patty is.)

 

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

The one thing you have to remember is distance from the camera. This is filmed at a distance of about 12 feet I'd say and that is far different then patty filmed at about 100 feet. The rate of distortion in this picture would be far greater then in the film roger took.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, rogue...that can't be the case. Here is a diagram that shows how Patty's and Jim's paths compare....working backwards from the earliest point where their paths could have converged...tree T-C2...

 

KrantzTrackway30B_zpsa1fb67d0.jpg

 

 

It's pretty self-explanatory....but, working back from Tree T-C2....Jim's path was very nearly straight left-right...(parallel to the plane of the camera)....and therefore, he must have been approximately 12-14 feet further back in the scene than Patty, at the F352 spot. 

 

If their paths didn't converge until some point after tree T-C2, then Jim was even further back in the scene than Patty, at F352. And there is evidence that indicates that to be the case....(the elevation of the ground they are walking on).

 

 

One note...the brown circle on Jim's path represents approx. where he turned to "look back"....he turned at an earlier spot than Patty did....('click' to enlarge)...

 

th_McClarinPatty-F352HeightComp9_zps7156

 

 

 

Also, a correction to my previous post...in this statement...

 

 "....using a known 14'5" foot/cast, to measure Roger's 'body height'..."

 

...I meant to write 14.5"

Unless the 2 subjects were in the exact same spot and the same  camera was in the same spot it is useless to try to do size comparisons off these 2 shots. In the shot above where the two are super imposed over each other, if they are in the exact same spot, it looks to me that Jim is about a half a head taller then the Patty creature. This confirms my findings that patty was at best 6ft tall if the 14.5 foot print is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Didn't Green say that McClarin followed the remnants of Patty's footprints?

There were no tracks left when Green went to the spot the following June. He did say there were depressions left from track castings but none in the area where the clear frames of the footage were taken.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^How did Krantz map out those two paths? Didn't Green say that McClarin followed the remnants of Patty's footprints?

 

 

I should have noted in my graphic, rogue...Grover's work was for Patty's path only. I had made (another version of) the original graphic months ago...and just added Jim's path to it last night.

 

Grover explains the method he used for how he determined the distances Patty moved...(to the right, and away from the camera)...in his book "Sasquatch Bigfoot Evidence".

I'll post it here sometime soon....either by writing it out myself, or posting a scan of the page....along with a scan of his graphic, with the path/triangles. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

If you mean the leg vectors, then refer to my prev image and do the calculations, legs / height x 27.8". Then compare that to your own legs. Note that the 2nd leg vector includes the foot (tibia+foot). The femur vector is well established but the tibia (+foot) is derived in frame 352 because the endpoint is not visible. The extrapolated end point is based on matching a human's proportions, which is probably wrong. But this would imply that Patty's tibia/femur ratio was non-human and surely, you don't want that?

 

Isn't that what I said? Standing hgt = 17% more than compliant walking hgt. Humans = 9%.

 

 

So for the legs you say it should be 346/640 x 27.8"  ?  15" long?

 

Did u give me the correct formula? legs/height x 27.8 ?

 

Help me out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

IMO, this is the most compelling comparison between McClarin and Patty. They were within a few feet of each other in this part of the trackway.

 

PGF_Green2.gif

 

So Patty looks to be the height of McClarin with her knees bent and leaning far forard while Jim is walking erect with straightened legs. Am I missing something? If I measure my height with knee buckled and leaning forward - my standing height drops down quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

So Patty looks to be the height of McClarin with her knees bent and leaning far forard while Jim is walking erect with straightened legs. Am I missing something? If I measure my height with knee buckled and leaning forward - my standing height drops down quite a bit.

 

 

This has been my thinking as well. I know there have been some pretty smart minds addressing this height issue. 

 

It seems to be whatever we think of Patty's height, the height fully standing would have to be 4 or more inches higher.  This comes from 1) The bent leg 2) the flexed or slumped posture.  If a person gets in front of a mirror and slumps they will loose a couple inches in height. The same applies for bending the knees.

 

One example of this would be the Jim McClarin Standard.  If we would use a hypothetical and said "Let's pretend on the side by side pic of Patty and Jim the are both 6'5''.  That is what Jim's standing height is.  Yet, we  know Patty is 1) Slumped  2) is walking bent knee.   This should account to adding at least 4 inches to the standing height of Patty.  That would -based on this hypothetical --- put Patty at 6'8''-6'9'' tall when we add the slouch and the bent knees if not a little more.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So for the legs you say it should be 346/640 x 27.8"  ?  15" long?

 

Did u give me the correct formula? legs/height x 27.8 ?

 

Help me out here.

 

Whoops, I meant legs / arms x 27.8 = 344 / 236 x 27.8" = 40.5"

 

But this is the length from the Hip>Knee>Bottom of Foot (BOF). For example, the femur length is 158 / 236 x 27.8" = 19"

 

For the tibia, estimate where the ankle is (~10% from BOF) and apply the same formula.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The one thing you have to remember is distance from the camera. This is filmed at a distance of about 12 feet I'd say and that is far different then patty filmed at about 100 feet. The rate of distortion in this picture would be far greater then in the film roger took.

Correct. For example, if Roger was 20 feet from the camera and he held the cast 1 foot closer to the camera you would need to add 5% to his height estimate. 5' + 5% = 5'3"

 

Unless the 2 subjects were in the exact same spot and the same  camera was in the same spot it is useless to try to do size comparisons off these 2 shots. In the shot above where the two are super imposed over each other, if they are in the exact same spot, it looks to me that Jim is about a half a head taller then the Patty creature. This confirms my findings that patty was at best 6ft tall if the 14.5 foot print is correct.

 

Correct, however, I think that Patty was still a few feet closer to the camera than McClarin in that GIF, which means she's overscaled. I think that McClarin only crossed Patty's trackway once and that was near the end of Green's footage. Otherwise, he walked on the outside of the trackway and was farther from the camera. This is even after the camera positions were synchronized by matching up the field of view for both images.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So Patty looks to be the height of McClarin with her knees bent and leaning far forard while Jim is walking erect with straightened legs. Am I missing something? If I measure my height with knee buckled and leaning forward - my standing height drops down quite a bit.

We just can't use comparison photos of Patty and McClarin to estimate Patty's height because we don't have a ruler the same distance from the camera as Patty. We are also working with walking heights which are variable. Here is another comparison:

jimpat5.gif

Corrected for posture:

PatJim.gif

Close maybe but if they weren't the same distance from the camera then no cigar.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is another 'foot ruler' measurement....this time, using a known 14'5" foot/cast, to measure Roger's 'body height'...

 

RP_casts.gif 

 

It also produces a height a little short of the subject's actual height.

Sweaty, I have rescaled Roger as if he was filmed >100 feet from the camera. This is the only way you can use the casts as rulers to measure his height. This is why you got a low estimate. Add 5% to your height estimate to compensate for the closeness of the object to the camera.

 

In the case of the 'Frame 72 foot-ruler'...there are 3 or 4 factors which require correcting for, in order to get an accurate result for Patty's height.  

 

Here they are, from my post (#3)...in the other "Patty's Height" thread...

My apologies to the starter of that thread. Maybe this thread should be renamed "Patty's Height and the Foot Ruler". Mods?

 

1) The 'Bloom' of the left foot. (Due to overexposure...the foot appears larger than it actually is.)

The "bloom" of the foot in frame 72 can be estimated by comparing it to frame 61.

RP_holdingcasts_scaled2Patty.png

 

2) Patty's right upper-leg is not straight vertical...it's angled.

You mean angled in frame 352? Patty could be upside down in frame 352 and her legs would not be foreshortened. She was walking parallel to the camera plane at the time. In frames 61 & 72 yes, but not 352.

 

3) Left foot is closer to the camera than the body is.

The "closeness" becomes negligible for objects filmed >100 feet from the camera. 1 foot difference means 1% distortion at 100 feet from the camera.

 

4) 'Vertical foreshortening' of Patty....(due to Roger being on a lower level of ground than Patty is.)

You must mean the "tilt" of the camera which affects the scale of the images by the cosine of the angle of tilt, which is negligible in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Whoops, I meant legs / arms x 27.8 = 344 / 236 x 27.8" = 40.5"

 

 

Coincidentally, in Long's book he gives the waist to ankle distance of Bob H. as 40"

 

Not saying BobH was in the suit, but that is a funny coincidence.

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...