Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty's Height

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

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.

 

 

 

We only have one model, regarding this line of analysis, Mike....the paths that are illustrated in Bill's Report. That model is the only one I have ever seen presented....and it is one that I agree with.

 

Bigfoothunter has his own idea, as far as where Jim and Patty walked relative to the debris pile....but his analysis seems to consist entirely within his own head. I have yet to see him put his analysis into an actual graphic...and also, show support for it.

 

At this point, it only consists of 'talk'.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The issue of Patty's height hasn't segued into "where McClarin walked"....it was the reason why Jim did  the walk, in the first place.  Where Jim walked, relative to Patty's path, is sort-of a KEY factor in making the height comparison between the two subjects. 

 

 

 

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? ;-)

 

 

I like the 'foot ruler' method also, Mike. :) In fact....I like both methods. Using 2 methods for determining Patty's height is better than one....because, ultimately, they will confirm each other's conclusions.

 

Taking it one STEP further....the 'Lens Size' analysis will also serve to confirm the conclusions of the other lines of analysis. The more ways that we can show Patty's height to be what it was...(somewhere around 6'3"...possibly a little taller).....the merrier. ;-)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter has his own idea, as far as where Jim and Patty walked relative to the debris pile....but his analysis seems to consist entirely within his own head. I have yet to see him put his analysis into an actual graphic...and also, show support for it.

 

At this point, it only consists of 'talk'.

 

It consisted of the measurements taken at the film site to various reference points. If you do not have "Meet the Sasquatch" - then get it and read it. The tracks were measured at thirty feet beyond the debris pile. This is not in my head, but in a detailed record published in Murphy's book, substantiated by John Green, substantiated by Dahinden's meticulous measurements at the film site. The link -  

starting at the 2:19 second mark shows Patty out on the sand beyond the first stump/log (?) and she is walking away at an angle from that structure. She then continued on like Dahinden's drawing shows on page 58 of Murphy's book.

 

The graphic you ask for is in Murphy's book - no need to draw another one IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It consisted of the measurements taken at the film site to various reference points. If you do not have "Meet the Sasquatch" - then get it and read it. The tracks were measured at thirty feet beyond the debris pile. This is not in my head, but in a detailed record published in Murphy's book, substantiated by John Green, substantiated by Dahinden's meticulous measurements at the film site.  starting at the 2:19 second mark shows Patty out on the sand beyond the first stump/log (?) and she is walking away at an angle from that structure. She then continued on like Dahinden's drawing shows on page 58 of Murphy's book.

 

The graphic you ask for is in Murphy's book - no need to draw another one IMO.

 

 

I do have the book, BH....and just checked Rene's measurement diagram. His diagram does not include any measurements relating to Patty's trackway.

 

Also, Rene was there at the scene in the early 70's....and Patty's tracks were long gone, by then. So, how could he have made any measurements related to Patty's tracks???

 

On page 59, Chris Murphy states that "the forset debris (debris pile) begins at over 30' from the creature's path"....but doesn't say where that measurement came from.

 

Do you know who made that measurement? :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
...

 

 

I like the 'foot ruler' method also, Mike. :) In fact....I like both methods. Using 2 methods for determining Patty's height is better than one....because, ultimately, they will confirm each other's conclusions.

 

Taking it one STEP further....the 'Lens Size' analysis will also serve to confirm the conclusions of the other lines of analysis. The more ways that we can show Patty's height to be what it was...(somewhere around 6'3"...possibly a little taller).....the merrier. ;-)

 

 

 

Yep,

 

I think that we must cross-validate with different approaches. Where results differ, it might be possible to get some idea of why they differed, at least in theory. If we have a consistent system, comprising various approaches, that all agree (within some statistical bounds), we should be standing on pretty firm ground I would think.

 

For me, the big issue is always going to be identifying the reason for, and as much as possible, quantifying uncertainty.

 

If we start with different assumptions, we may never converge to a common viewpoint I imagine.

 

What the heck, more entertaining than cross-word puzzles. This sort of thing is supposed to help stave off dementia - always a concern for us old guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Either Patty was 30' from TC-2, or 1-2' from TC-2.

 

Which was it?

 

How far were the footprints from TC-2?

 

Remember, your answer to the footprint question, does not have to match your answer to the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
... For me, the big issue is always going to be identifying the reason for, and as much as possible, quantifying uncertainty. ...

 

 

The thought has occurred to me that dealing with multiple types of uncertainty at various stages of input is what Monte Carlo simulation methods do. I have read about it, but have never been involved with such a study.

 

Anybody interested in or knowledgable about that stuff? Is it applicable or useful here, where we can estimate some things, with various levels of confidence and error bounds, but need to get some overall measure of bounds? Some of the simplistic approaches that I have thought of seem likely to vastly overestimate the uncertainty, making the bounds so big as to be very uninformative. I would really like to understand the thinking that has lead to others putting bounds for error on their estimates.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I do have the book, BH....and just checked Rene's measurement diagram. His diagram does not include any measurements relating to Patty's trackway.

 

Also, Rene was there at the scene in the early 70's....and Patty's tracks were long gone, by then. So, how could he have made any measurements related to Patty's tracks???

 

On page 59, Chris Murphy states that "the forset debris (debris pile) begins at over 30' from the creature's path"....but doesn't say where that measurement came from.

 

Do you know who made that measurement? :)

 

Murphy:  "He measured the distance from the camera to the wood fragment, which he could identify in the film frames.  He came up with 102.8 feet.  I don't think he knew how to use decimals fractions, so he likely meant 102 feet 8 inches.  Whatever, it does not make much difference because .8 feet (or 80% of 12 inches) is 9.6 inches.

All of this is in three books."

 

Dahinden took a measurement from the camera location to the embedded wood fragment that Patty appears to have stepped on in the film. Rene measured it to be 102.8 feet from the Roger's camera location. On page 62 it shows the distance from Roger's camera location to the log at 36'. Take that 36' line Murphy made and double it (which is 72') and it takes us beyond the debris pile. Now just off the top of my head and to keep things simple .... 102' - 72' = 30'.

 

Now at the time the creature stepped on or very near the embedded stick on the sandbar, Patty was walking away at an angle from Roger's position. Am I the only one with the exception of Murphy, Steenburg, Green, etc., etc., who can see the amount of sandbar that is visible between Patty's feet and the log pile in the foreground?

5530a63c-f08d-43b4-8abf-93559dac348f_zps

 

By the time she has completed her body turn she is dwarffed by logs in the pile which according to the laws of "perspective" this means she has moved even further away. And before someone says the stick may have been moved before Rene took his measurements - you may recall my mentioning having done some transparancy overlay work of Green's film and Roger's which demonstrated the shift in camera locations. The embedded stick had not moved an inch that I could tell.

 

Then there is my talking with McClarin about this so-called wood pile that would have been in the way of the walk.

 

McClarin:  "OK, the trail of track (and the path I walked) was not impeded by any accumulation of debris. No obstacles whatsoever."

 

So I stand by my findings.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

I like the 'foot ruler' method also, Mike. :) In fact....I like both methods. Using 2 methods for determining Patty's height is better than one....because, ultimately, they will confirm each other's conclusions.

 

 

Sweaty, others who are competent in the area of tracking, casting, and the Patty footprint casts, I could use some help in answering a number of questions. This is the first of a serious of similar posts. In the end, it will become part of a document I am preparing - perhaps only for myself - on the use of the footprint as a ruler. It really will serve as a case study.

 

Measurement of Track Size to Calibrate the Ruler

 

How confident can we be that Patty's foot is 14.5 inches? What bounds should we put on this, e.g., “We can justify to 95% certainty that the track is 14.5 +/1 1%, for the following reasons .... .â€

 

Has this been done elsewhere? I suspect that I may have quickly glanced at threads where this was discussed, but don't know what they said if I did.

 

So I have a number of observations and questions that will probably seem naive to those more experienced with casting, tracks and Patty in particular.

 

Potential Sources of Error, as Far as I Can See

 

  1. toes flex and extend, splay out

  2. foot may slide in the soil

  3. soil will not record impressions with perfect fidelity

  4. foot dynamically interacts with the soil

  5. casts may have some measure of change from track dimensions

  6. some imprecision in measured value due to the location of the ruler end points on track or cast

  7. some imprecision in reading a scale value

 

Discussion

 

It looks to me as if the cast shows toes extended, as I think more probable for a full foot print. If we are comparing this to the image with Patty's foot in the air, where I would expect her toes to be more flexed, is the potential difference something we should attend to? How?

 

In some circumstances, a foot may slide in the soil, making the track a little longer than the actual. Do we know if this has happened here? Does it matter?

 

Some types of soil will not record impressions with perfect fidelity I believe. Is this an issue here?

 

A foot dynamically interacts with the soil, spreading, sliding, partially registering. Is this an issue here?

 

I am under the impression from something I undoubtedly read in passing, that casts may have some measure of change from track dimensions. Did I get it right? Is it important here?

 

There is always some imprecision in measurement due to the positioning of the ruler endpoints, whether on track or cast or image. Should we expect this to be big enough to concern us?

 

There is always some imprecision in reading a scale value, if it is something analog like a ruler. Parallax alone can give error. Is this likely to be enough to concern us?

 

Even if all of these errors are tiny, is there cumulative effect going to be big enough to concern us?

 

Do the various errors distribute pretty much around the centre, or would we expect them to bias the measure in one direction or another? Can we know?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Yep,

 

I think that we must cross-validate with different approaches. Where results differ, it might be possible to get some idea of why they differed, at least in theory. If we have a consistent system, comprising various approaches, that all agree (within some statistical bounds), we should be standing on pretty firm ground I would think.

 

 

Sure Mike, there are at least 3 methods of determining Patty's height....and one new one that I'll post something about, sometime soon...and, eventually they will all indicate the same height for Patty....although, probably with differing degrees of certainty. 

 

 

 

For me, the big issue is always going to be identifying the reason for, and as much as possible, quantifying uncertainty.

 

If we start with different assumptions, we may never converge to a common viewpoint I imagine.

 

 

We don't really need to know Patty's exact height...simply narrowing it down to within a small range should suffice. The main thing that needs to be settled, definitively...is whether Patty's height was over 7' tall....or under 7 feet. I think that will be accomplished, before too long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Either Patty was 30' from TC-2, or 1-2' from TC-2.

 

Which was it?

 

 

Patty was definitely within a few feet of tree T-C2, Drew. 

 

I think I may be able to provide a physical proof of that. The keys to the proof are the shadows of both trees T-C1 and T-C2.

 

The shadow of T-C1 falling on Patty's back a couple of steps after she's passed behind it, tells us the (approx.) angle of the sunlight, relative to Roger's line-of-sight.....and that, in turn....tells us that Patty has to be extremely close to T-C2, in order for the shadow to fall on her back immediately as she is seen coming out from behind that tree. 

 

I'll put together a physical model, to demonstrate what I'm talking about. :)

 

 

 

How far were the footprints from TC-2?

 

Remember, your answer to the footprint question, does not have to match your answer to the first question.

 

 

I don't think anyone ever measured that, Drew.

 

But, logically...given the complexity and realism of Patty's trackway....if it were faked...it would be hard to imagine the person creating such a trackway placing it a significant distance away from where the subject actually walked.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Bill Munns, in your book WHEN ROGER MET PATTY you say the following:

 

All current research back in 2008 stated Roger had a 25mm standard lens on his camera, and several researchers who’d been at this for many years before me had estimated
that Patty was 102 feet away from Roger at the lookback point. So we had three numbers. We had enough to calculate Patty’s height.

 

 

Who were the several researchers that estimated Patty was 102' away from Roger?

Are you referring to Dahinden (with the stick thing)?  and who else?

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

With the information that Dahinden took the time to get by measuring distances to several reference points - Photogammetry should be able to tell the distance to the creature at any given point in time - including her height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

This is the first of a serious of similar posts. In the end, it will become part of a document I am preparing - perhaps only for myself - on the use of the footprint as a ruler. It really will serve as a case study.

 

Measurement of Track Size to Calibrate the Ruler

 

....

 

This is the second post on error margins in the use of the foot ruler. Still looking for critical assessment. Anyway, writing things up for public consumption focuses the mind.

 

I decided this morning to put the calculations into a spreadsheet, with some error parameters as inputs, and brute force estimates under various scenarios. This afternoon, I may decide that is a really dumb idea - way to much work.

 

Measuring the Foot Image

 

How confident can we be that the image of Patty's foot is measured correctly? What bounds should we put on this, e.g., “We can justify to 95% certainty that the image is 14.5 +/1 1%, for the following reasons .... .†All measurements in all steps will be in pixels, not inches. They can be converted to inches by calibrating against the measurement of the foot cast.

 

Here I have a number of observations which may seem naive to those more experienced with image measurement and Patty in particular.

 

Potential Sources of Error, as Far as I Can See

 

  1. Foot perspective and foreshortening due to angle

  2. Distortion due to image bloom, overexposure

  3. Distortion due to motion blur

  4. Limits to film resolution

  5. Imprecision, judgement about location of endpoint for ruler placement

  6. Bias with averaging

 

Discussion

 

We cannot measure the foot in frame 356, so we have to measure in another frame. Gigantofootecus looked at frames 61 and 72. Not being a student of the film itself, I have no idea what other possibilities exist.

 

The image in frame 61 appears not to have a significant tilt with respect to the plane of the film in the camera to the my untutored eye. The foreshortening would seem, on the face of it, to be fairly small. The image in frame 72 was averaged with frame 61 by Gigantofootecus to try to get a more accurate estimate. How well did this work? People more experienced in this area may be able to comment more accurately.

 

There does not appear to be significant image bloom in frame 61, which I am informed is due to overexposure, but I would have to defer to the experts in image analysis to comment on that.

 

Also, I do not personally see that there is distortion due to motion blur, but I will defer to the experts in image analysis.

 

I can not see that we are really running up against limits to the resolution of the film in making these measurements. Of course, some fine detail is lost, and it makes it a little harder to land mark and figure out where to put the end points of our ruler.

 

We can use averaging to assess our own consistency in measuring anything, or group consistency. If we took ten measurements, independently, not cheating, we could find out how grouped our numbers were. We can use the mean as a better estimate, and also get an estimate of how far off we would be on average. This will not eliminate bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

It took me a long time to understand just why Giganto's calculations on the foot ruler should work. I do not claim to be brightest star in the sky but I know that at least one other had the same issue. Anyway, I recast them using explict reference to ratio and proportion. This is what Giganto was using implicitly, but he is good enough that he can just do it as a quick sketch. My calculations are the same. They might be clearer for some although they certainly are embarassingly verbose. I have not hit on a happy medium.

 

See https://viewfromsitchamalth.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/estimating-pattys-height-with-the-foot-ruler/

 

Estimating Patty’s Height with the Foot Ruler

 

A Case Study in the Systematic Use of Ratio and Proportion

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...