Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^^

 

I do not know if the angle at which Green filmed the walk to that Roger had makes a difference or not. What I do know is that I copied and pasted Jim's response to me from our Facebook chat.

 

 

 

It didn't, BFH. Green's camera position was very close to Roger's. That hasn't been in dispute...but, if you can show that he was way off...feel free to do so. 

 

To show how close Patty was to the debris pile, at F352....here are some images....the first one, a gif showing how Patty changed the direction she was walking in, in mid-step...

 

PattyPivotsLeftAG2-1.gif

 

 

At the start of that step she is seen in a side view...and when her right foot lands, she is seen at a roughly 35-45 degree angle-of-view. She had to change direction fairly quickly...to avoid the debris.

 

 

This graphic shows how close Patty was to tree TC-1 when her right foot landed on the ground...only several feet away from it, and the edge of the debris pile...

 

F379-FootLands_zps42f7b742.jpg

 

 

Here is a graphic showing where Patty was, relative to trees TC-1 and TC-2...and the debris pile...shortly after turning away from Roger...

 

PattyAndJimsPaths14_zpsa7ae4f58.jpg

 

 

Here is a challenge for you, BH....can you draw a line on that graphic, showing what you think Jim's path was, from Frame 352 onward?   :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

A line isn't necessary in my view for I have noted some observations of my own aside from what McClarin has told me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk

 

I personally do not think Patty changed directions and that the twist of her body only made it look so. The link posted here has a place where the body twist is run back and forth for study purposes.  (see the 32 second mark and continue watching for the next minute or more for slowed down views are shown of the body twist)

 

The view of Patty after the body twist looks remarkably the same as it did just prior to the turn. That view continued on until Roger moved up to the log so to film her walking up the valley. When I watched her turn back so to give the camera more of a profiled view and then turned back - I was unable to see a cross over of her legs which I would have expected had she changed directions. I think what you have described is somewhat of an illusion.

 

McClarin said to me that he recalled there being around 20 or so tracks on the sandbar and after that the sandbar was more like gravel to where no tracks were noticeable. If one counts Patty's steps (or attempts to for the shaking of the film makes it difficult to do) - she has taken 20 steps or so by the time she looked back. So it is possible that McClarin got off the path after that point. We know that between Roger and Titmus - a dozen tracks were cast. McClarin said he stepped within an inch or so of the plaster residue that bordered the tracks that were cast.

 

I contend that if a height study is to be somewhat accurate .... I would conduct it at a time in the two films where McClarin knew he was next to prints.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Jim's turn or twist looks like about half the twist of Patty.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Green's location was to the right of Patterson's, so it makes sense that Jim didn't have to twist as much to look at Green as Patty did to look at Roger. Had Green of moved about 10 - 15 feet to his left, then more of Jim's backside would have been visible like Patty's was towards Gimlin and Roger.

 

When I get back to HHS in late March, I will try to find the transition comparision of the two lines of sight to you and others can see the shift take place.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 

A line isn't necessary in my view...

 

 

I didn't think you would want to draw-out Jim's path, from that point. 

 

I'll respond more, later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Patty before the walk?

 

 

We have great insight (considering the 1960's and the remote location) about the walk of Patty at Bluff Creek. 

 

What do we know about the Patty Before she started to walk away? At some point, was there ever an effort to see what she was doing at the creek bed where she was squatting down?  What do we know about it?  There must have been at least a few footprints that lead up to the point as Patty was not dropped there in a helicopter.

 

What do we know about this through Roger and Bob, Lyle L or anyone else for that matter?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

This thread is about Patty's height, Backdoc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

What do we know about the Patty Before she started to walk away? At some point, was there ever an effort to see what she was doing at the creek bed where she was squatting down?  What do we know about it?  There must have been at least a few footprints that lead up to the point as Patty was not dropped there in a helicopter.

 

 

According to Bob Titumus, there were no tracks that he could find indicating Patty walked to the sandbar any other way than directly across the creek itself. There were rocky banks on either side, which wouldn't leave any tracks. Titmus thinks Patty came to the river by walking along the old hard packed road. That wouldn't have left any tracks either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I didn't think you would want to draw-out Jim's path, from that point. 

 

Who really cares what path McClarin took after the tracks ran out. Like you said to Backdoc - we are talking about the height issue of Patty to McClarin, so I offered to share what Jim told me about him being certain that he was only an inch or so off the trackway where the plaster residue was still visible around the tracks that were cast. What I will do that I didn't think of at the time is to ask Jim if the track residue was visible in the area where he did the look back. After that he could have veered off and started walking for Willow Creek for all I care.

 

And I still stand behind my observation that Patty stayed the course for the reasons previously stated.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 

Who really cares what path McClarin took after the tracks ran out.

 

 

First off....I care....because it matters.

 

Secondly....what is in question here is Jim's path "after the 'look back'"....not "after the tracks ran out".

 

 

 

 

I was unable to see a cross over of her legs which I would have expected had she changed directions.

 

 

We don't see Patty cross-over her legs because she simply spun on her feet, when she changed directions.

 

 

 

 

 I think what you have described is somewhat of an illusion.

 

 

Can you elaborate on this "illusion" you're talking about?  I don't see any illusion, regarding Patty's pathway. She rotated to her right, in mid-step, to look back at Roger...took two steps...and then spun back to her left in mid-step.  

 

She did not just "twist her body"....she spun on her feet, to change direction. That is a fact...as clear as day. What evidence can you provide to the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 

First off....I care....because it matters.

 

Secondly....what is in question here is Jim's path "after the 'look back'"....not "after the tracks ran out".

 

Jim said that he didn't see any tracks once the sandbar became covered with Gravel and is why its not important to me when considering his height to Patty's - which is what you told Backdoc the issue here was.

 

 

 

We don't see Patty cross-over her legs because she simply spun on her feet, when she changed directions.

 

With all due respect, I do not know of anyone who saw the trackway of ever claiming they saw footprints demonstrating Patty spinning on her feet. That would seem unique to me and not a word of it was mentioned of it ever happening - except by you.

 

 

Can you elaborate on this "illusion" you're talking about?  I don't see any illusion, regarding Patty's pathway. She rotated to her right, in mid-step, to look back at Roger...took two steps...and then spun back to her left in mid-step.  

 

She did not just "twist her body"....she spun on her feet, to change direction. That is a fact...as clear as day. What evidence can you provide to the contrary?

 

I do not have access to my normal computer or else I'd take the time to demonstrate why I say what I do. However, there is no reason that someone else can't do it.

 

So let me see if I can simply this for you. Just prior to the look back there is 'X' amount of her backside visible to Roger. Roger held his position and did not move to a different location during this time. I assume you watched the slow motion back and forth run through of her body twist and back like I did, so when Patty twist back so to continue on walking - the same amount of her backside is visible as it was the step before the look back. Logic tells me that had she of turned and headed off in a new direction - Roger would not have the same view "X" of her as he had before. So the long and the short of it is that Roger filmed at a fixed location just prior - during - and after the look back. This look back covered four steps if I remember correctly. If one does a side by side comparison of Roger's view to Patty one step before she turns and then one step after she turns - the same degree of visibility of her backside has gone unchanged, thus she continued on the same path as before the look back.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Has anyone even considered, that the tracks he was following were not the tracks left by Patty, but the tracks made by Roger 14.5", that he was making in the plaster pour scene?

 

This was the first scenario that popped in my head.

 

Why was he not even with Patty at the lookback frame, if he was following the plaster filled tracks ?  Because the plaster filled tracks were not Patty's tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe you can clarify what it is you are trying to say?

 

McClarin was at the film site soon after Titmas had been there. Jim saw where Titmus had cast a line of prints as plaster residue bordered the prints. When he went there again, but with Green, by then the tracks had seem to have lost their shape, but the plaster residue was still around the prints.  And by the way, Jim said the tracks that were cast by Titmus was early in the walking sequence for the creature's tracks continued on for a little ways beyond the prints that had been cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bigfoothunter wrote:

 

 

With all due respect, I do not know of anyone who saw the trackway of ever claiming they saw footprints demonstrating Patty spinning on her feet. That would seem unique to me and not a word of it was mentioned of it ever happening - except by you.

 

 

I know that Patty spun on her feet by watching the Film, BFH. The 'angle-of-view' of her body changes, as she turns towards, and as she turns away from Roger.

 

I've posted these two animations a few times already...each one shows Patty changing direction in mid-step....(these are  thumbnails...'click' to enlarge)...

 

th_PattyPivotsRightAG2.gif....th_PattyPivotsLeftAG2-1.gif

 

 

 

 

 

So let me see if I can simply this for you. Just prior to the look back there is 'X' amount of her backside visible to Roger. Roger held his position and did not move to a different location during this time. I assume you watched the slow motion back and forth run through of her body twist and back like I did, so when Patty twist back so to continue on walking - the same amount of her backside is visible as it was the step before the look back. Logic tells me that had she of turned and headed off in a new direction - Roger would not have the same view "X" of her as he had before. So the long and the short of it is that Roger filmed at a fixed location just prior - during - and after the look back. This look back covered four steps if I remember correctly. If one does a side by side comparison of Roger's view to Patty one step before she turns and then one step after she turns - the same degree of visibility of her backside has gone unchanged, thus she continued on the same path as before the look back.

 

 

Let me simplify this for you, BH....I agree. I have never said anything different. So, what are you disagreeing with???

 

 

When I talked about Patty changing direction...(to avoid walking into the debris pile)....I clearly stated that the 'change of direction' was after the F352 spot.  That is exactly what happened. Do you disagree with that?

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Your post makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe you can clarify what it is you are trying to say?

 

McClarin was at the film site soon after Titmas had been there. Jim saw where Titmus had cast a line of prints as plaster residue bordered the prints. When he went there again, but with Green, by then the tracks had seem to have lost their shape, but the plaster residue was still around the prints.  And by the way, Jim said the tracks that were cast by Titmus was early in the walking sequence for the creature's tracks continued on for a little ways beyond the prints that had been cast.

 

BFH,

 

Jim went to Bluff Creek with Green. This was in spring of 1968 I think.  Whenever it was, you are saying the tracks were still somewhat present (and he has seen them before) but becomes blurred out by time.  Makes sense so far. 

 

So if Jim could see traces of the plaster casts that alone would indicate he could walk close to the actually Patty path it would seem. Now when we add the fact some traces of the blurred out tracks were still available, if further makes me think Jim has some idea the path patty took.  It would then seem he came close to walking the same or similar path. Then the only main issue would be where Green's camera was when he was doing this walk. Was it in the same spot as Roger.  We know it was not. But as far as Jims walking path, it would seem Jim could come close to following the "bread crumbs"

 

Do I understand all of that correctly of am I missing something?  At least as far a JIm walking the Patty path, he has 3 things going for him:

1)  He had been there before early on

2)  There were still traces of the plaster to follow when he later went there with Green

3)  There were still traces of the blurred footprints blurred by the elements of time when he later went there with Green.

 

This seems to indicate Jim's path had a high % chance of being close to the path Patty took doesn't it?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...