Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

 

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

 

 

One problem with your figurin', Doc....Jim's path has a distinctly different contour than Patty's.

 

How could he be "very close" to Patty's trackway, when Patty's path turned 40-degrees immediately after the 'look back', and Jim simply walked straight-ahead, for several steps?

 

Do you see a discrepancy there? 

 

 

Btw, your 'No. 3' is wrong...

 

"3)  There were still traces of the blurred footprints "

 

 

The footprints were mostly gone by June, '68.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
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

 

Jim said that he walked the trackway within inches of the plaster debris that had bordered the tracks when he was there the year before and when the tracks were still visible. On his next trip with Green - while the track impressions were no longer defined .... Jim said the plaster debris was still on the ground where the once defined tracks had been. But keep in mind that only 12 tracks were cast - 2 by Roger - 10 by Titmus.In other parts of the path Jim guessed by where he thought they had been before when he saw them.

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?

 

I do not believe the debris pile was ever on the path that she took. I believe she was walking left to right and away from Patterson the whole time and the she was not that close to the debris pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

So it sounds like the only track impression left by the time Jim and Green went back was just the faint plaster traces.   That makes sense as I would not expect any traces of the actual footprints would remain once the elements beat them down. 

 

Thanks BFH and Sweaty.  

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

I do not believe the debris pile was ever on the path that she took. 

 

 

Was the debris pile on the path Patty was walking during the 'F352 step'...if she continued walking straight ahead in that direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

The debris pile was nowhere near Patty and has been common knowledge for some time.

 

Meet The Sasquatch by Chris Murphy / in association with John Green and Thomas Steenburg

 

Page 58, 59  The Film Site Model

 

"There is an old saying that "cameras never lie." While this saying is true, cameras do something just as bad, they deceive."

 

"The most evident deception is the position of the three trees directly in front of the creature in frame 352 together with the forest debris in the frame foreground. In the film, it is seen that the creature goes behind the first tree, in front of the second tree, and then behind the third tree.

 

The first tree is about 48-feet/14.6m away, directly towards the camera. The second tree is about 10-feet/3.1m further back from the creature's path. The third tree is about 39-feet/11.9m away, again directly towards the camera. The forest debris begins at over 30-feet/9.1m from the creature's path. The first and third trees are in the debris. Roger Patterson was just 5-feet, 2-inches/1.6m tall and we believe he crouched down or was perhaps still on his knees after stumbling when these frames were filmed. As a result of the low camera height, forest debris in the foreground concealed the space between the debris and the creature."

 

Page 60, 61, 62 show the Bluff Creek Film Site Measurements - External and Internal points.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^

 

The debris pile was nowhere near Patty and has been common knowledge for some time.

 

 

That is absolutely wrong, BFH....and it has been common knowledge to a few people who have studied the matter in-depth...such as Bill Munns, Gigantofootecus, and myself...that Patty walked very close to the debris pile, and walked right behind tree TC-2.

 

 

Here is Bill's take on it...

 

 

 

If the measurements are reasonably correct (say within a foot), then Patty can't be more than about 104-108' from Roger's camera at F352, because tree TC2 is about 110-111' from Roger and Patty literally brushes against it as she goes behind it.So as she emerging from behind TC2, she's about 117' from Green's position, and thus about 113-112' from Roger's camera, and she is on an angle away from her F352 position to get to tree TC2, meaning she's closer at F352 than passing the TC2 tree.

The measurements have to be totally screwed up for her to be 122 feet away.

The single most certain thing about Patty's position, in the entire film, is her brushing almost against tree TC2, because of the TC1 and TC2 shadows on her. There's simply no way I can model the optics, sunlight, shadows and such to produce any other conclusion. If I'm wrong, I welcome anybody doing so and showing me how the trees, the sun, and Patty's path can allow her to be far away from TC2.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2428-the-munns-report/page-168

 

 

And, Giganto's response to Bill's post...

 

 

 

Bill, I agree. If Green's measurements are to be trusted, then your model is correct. Below is a graphic that looks at the TC-1->TC-2->Camera triangle. Check the numbers and let me know. But based on Green's measurements, there is no other way for Patty to be any farther than a couple of feet from TC-2 at frame 426.

 

 

 

In this physical model of Chris Murphy's, he has Patty placed much further back than she actually was...

 

Murphy-Physical-FilmsiteModel1C_zps9078b

 

 

I highlighted Patty's position at tree TC-2 with the yellow dot. The dot should actually be right behind the tree, but I placed it where it could be easily seen.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

BigfootHunter, you should ask Jim McLarin if he remembers whether Patty's path was all wonky, or if it was basically a straight line.

 

I thought Munns had Jim and Patty walking a fairly straight line, whilst Krantz and Titmus had Patty walking straight as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

That is absolutely wrong, BFH....and it has been common knowledge to a few people who have studied the matter in-depth...such as Bill Munns, Gigantofootecus, and myself...that Patty walked very close to the debris pile, and walked right behind tree TC-2.

 

Munns and Gigantofootecus came up with a 1.5'+ difference in Patty's height between their two formulas, so you want to tell me they got it right on how close Patty was to the debris pile - no thanks! Instead, I relied on the ground measurments taken at the film site using inches and feet to said landmarks. I believe Dahinden actually used both a surveyors tape and a scope. Anyone who knew Rene was aware that he was a fanatic for accuracy.

Like I said before - the debris pile looks close to Patty just like the wood line in Cibrachrome 61 and 72 caused people to think Patty was very close to the forested hillside - that was an illusion. The ground measurements in my view are more reliable than someone looking at a flat 2D image and guessing distances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

That is a great point. Ground measurements have a pretty good chance of being accurate.  The trees and things don't move.  Even years later we have traces of some PGF landmarks.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Munns and Gigantofootecus came up with a 1.5'+ difference in Patty's height between their two formulas, so you want to tell me they got it right on how close Patty was to the debris pile - no thanks! Instead, I relied on the ground measurments taken at the film site using inches and feet to said landmarks. I believe Dahinden actually used both a surveyors tape and a scope. Anyone who knew Rene was aware that he was a fanatic for accuracy.

Like I said before - the debris pile looks close to Patty just like the wood line in Cibrachrome 61 and 72 caused people to think Patty was very close to the forested hillside - that was an illusion. The ground measurements in my view are more reliable than someone looking at a flat 2D image and guessing distances.

 

Actually Bill Munns Came up with 4'9 and 7'4 that is more like 2.5' difference, before he recanted his claim.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

Bill Munns went where he thought the evidence took him. He took the evidence and accurately applied it. He did not put his thumb on the scale one way or the other. Then when other information came to light, he pulled back from his earlier estimation. Why do you think he did that?  He did that because 1) he is not driven by an agenda but driven by applying the information as properly as possible.  2) He goes where the facts take him.

 

Seems to me that should be commended. 

 

To read more on this, Bill covers this in the book WRMP.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Actually Bill Munns Came up with 4'9 and 7'4 that is more like 2.5' difference, before he recanted his claim.

 

As usual you have it wrong, Drew. But at least you are on consistent.

 

Munns came up with those heights based on the two lens options that was available to Patterson's camera - this has been posted before. Only one allowed the reference points in Rogers film to come into alignment and that is how Bill knew which lens Roger shot the film with. Then Bill later learned of another lens made by another manufacturer that could be used on a camera like Roger had rented. While there is no evidence that Roger rented such a lens or even knew about there being such an option, Munns felt that to be scientific, he would need to pull back his findings and conduct yet another test on the third lens option so to show it was ruled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

^^^

 

That is a great point. Ground measurements have a pretty good chance of being accurate.  The trees and things don't move.  Even years later we have traces of some PGF landmarks.

 

Backdoc

 

 

I am a bit bemused by all of this discussion on the path taken by Jim McLaren. I only recently started paying attention to this type of analysis.

 

We seem to have differing accounts from SwetiYeti, BigfootHunter with Jim McLaren, Bill Munns, Gigantofootecus (maybe, although I missed it) andBigfootHunter with Rene Dahinden. Perhaps others have also done this type of study. Several of these represent very different approaches.

 

As far as I can tell, the issue of Patty's height seems to have segued into where did McClaren walk with respect to Patty's path, and can we use this to establish Patty's height.  I don't know how these various reports, and apparently conflicting findings can be resolved. I would think that we will need to have a solution that incorporates the Dahinden measurements. Perhaps some have already; I may have misread.

 

I kind of like the foot ruler myself; it at least has the virtue of being simpler. Gigantofootecus seems to have decided the approach was futile, just as I was starting to get my head around it.

 

I will stay tuned, although it does make me brain 'urt.

 

Did I mention that I like the foot ruler? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

What does the foot ruler say about Jim's height.    Does he end up being 6'5''?   Just curious.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

What does the foot ruler say about Jim's height.    Does he end up being 6'5''?   Just curious.

 

Backdoc

 

 

We would need to reverse engineer his foot size I guess. We then could go forward and see how it works to measure him. I think that we have a known height for him don't we? Do we have a good view of the foot? Do we have a non-foreshortened view, with his side to the camera?

In the original post, there is an analysis of someone - Tube  maybe - that would be the sort of approach to follow.

 

There were a number of issues with the original foot ruler that Gigantofootecus tried to solve. The first was that the image with the best view of the foot (frame 61 I think) had arms that were foreshortened. He could translate pixels into inches for that frame, and then move to the side view frame (352 maybe?) and determine the amount of foreshortening existing in his original arm measurement. There was some tricky stuff there about scaling from one frame to another , and I am not clear on how he did it. Once he had that,  he still had to make a guestimate as to where Patty's right foot started, since both feet were behind debris. He apparently used the ratio of a human to determine the length of the obscured lower limb. This would tend to give a taller height than you might expect for a shorter legged creature. After that, he measured the vectors from foot to top of the head and added things up. You can see that there are a few areas that might be grounds for contention - it is not the method, but some of the specific problems that might be of concern.

 

I have not really looked at Jim much yet, concentrating on Patty, and trying to make sure that I have understood the details of the method - pretty much there now, but there are some open questions still. Scaling from one frame to another is one of them. How Giganto made his +/- estimate is another. How solidly based the foot size is. I think it came from a cast, but did not pay much attention when I first encountered the information.

 

I think that error analysis methods are a huge issue for me, and I have not discovered the answer to some key questions on how error estimates interact. I do know what types of error can creep in at each stage, just not always sure how to quantify things.  For example, you will have some imprecision in placing the ruler, and some more in estimating foreshortening. How do these thing interact?

 

In a previous thread, you suggested that measurements taken by many individuals could be averaged to get a better estimate. I have thought about it, and agree that this is often the case. Where it breaks down is when you have a systematic bias, that applies generally to everyone making the measurements. The numbers may group very well, but they will miss the target. If the errors are distributed randomly about the average, the mean, this certainly will work. However, I do not yet understand how you determine bias, in the general case.

 

All of this would apply to measurements of Jim McLaren as well.

 

I am trying to transfer my knowledge in measurement and statistics to a brand new arena, and it is a lot of work. This is nothing I ever had to address in a previous life.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...