Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Bob Gimlin had always talked about how "Massive" Patty was.  We all know guys who are only 6'2'' tall but look massive because they may be 295 lbs of muscle. Just look at any NFL lineman. 

 

Oakland Raider John Metuszak was thought to be 6'8'' 300 lbs.     I would bet Patty would be heavier than 300lbs  (by looking at gorillas who died in the zoo as a reference of weight).  I would put Patty at John's height 6'8'' probably at a maximum.  That is just a little taller than Jim McClarin who was 6'5'' and is our only loose comparison. Patty to me looks a little taller than Jim but could end up being the same height depending on camera angles and so on.

 

My friendly bet is more of a gut feeling of 6'5''-6'8'' range.  The key though is the 'Massive' impression Gimln had.  Remember Gimlin even went against Rogers estimate on Patty's arm length thinking Rogers was getting a little excited.

 

I would bet against Patty being near 7ft tall but have nothing at all to back that up. 

 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

The 'Frame 72 foot-ruler' measurement backs that up, Backdoc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Oh yeah that is true. On the other hand, people's walking heights are lower than people's standing heights so I'm guessing it would the same for sasquatch. I would say it's a reasobale guess that Roger would have seen Patty at her maximum height when she was standing by the creek rather than when she was walking away. I still have the opinion that Patty was between 6.5 and 7ft. No shorter.

 

Like Krantz, I believe they stand with the upper body leaning slightly forward and in a bent knee'd posture for the same reason they must walk that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

I don't know how to measure pixels like folks here, but my gut tells me she is taller than McClarin as well.

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 

 

My friendly bet is more of a gut feeling of 6'5''-6'8'' range. 

 

I would bet against Patty being near 7ft tall but have nothing at all to back that up. 

 

 

 

 

 

Is't 6ft 8 iches near 7ft tall? Its only 4 inches shy.

Anyway we are never going to know to the inch or two how tall she was.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^Why not? Photogrammetricly speaking, Patty was 6'3" tall +/- 2", standing height (body length). Forensic metrology uses a vertical ruler next to the exit in convenience stores to determine the height of a person of interest. However, they don't draw a horizontal line against the ruler to determine the standing height, they use it to equate X pixels = Y inches. Then they can measure the length of any body part with a digital ruler which they can rotate in any direction. Each body length vector can then be corrected for foreshortening to determine a very accurate estimate of a subject's standing height, within a couple of inches. Photometrology is a forensic tool and a well established science.

 

The problem is that it is complicated enough that you have to either learn it to believe it or accept it on faith. This will forever be the rub to accepting that Patty's height can be determined within a couple of inches. Trust me, there are more than enough frames to resolve Patty's standing height. As a photogrammetrist that has studied this film in detail, it is my informed opinion that Patty's STANDING height does not exceed 6'5". The only time McClarin appears shorter than Patty is when he is 134" from the camera very near where Patty was in frame 352. So was Patty that far from the camera in frame 352? By all accounts NO. So her image was overscaled compared to McClarin's. Here is how their images would compare if they were the same approximate distance from the camera.

 

post-337-0-41448100-1432967474.jpg

 

The numbers say Patty was NOT taller than McClarin. However, every comparison graphic you see is meaningless unless we know distances from the camera. Let's get 1 fundamental principle straight, the size of an object in an image is inversely proportional to its distance from the camera. So how can ANY of the comparisons of Patty and McClarin be meaningful unless we know how far away from the camera they were? You can't use your gut, you must use science. Measuring objects in photos is proven science.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Didn't like that one? We are quibbling over a few inches here. It is the relative body proportions that matter anyway. However, if we can determine Patty's height within a few inches we can calculate her distance from the camera within a few feet. Using a full frame from the PGF, if Patty was 6'3" then she was 123' away from the camera at frame 352 for a 25mm lens. McClarin was 134' from the camera at frame 352. Keep in mind McClarin was not trying to step ON the trackway, he walked a few feet beyond it so he would not obliterate what was left of it. There were only a few prints left for him to follow anyway. It is no wonder that McClarin crossed the trackway and walked beyond it. This put him farther from the camera than Patty, so his image was relatively smaller.

By all accounts, Green filmed McClarin a few feet farther back than Roger. Also, McClarin walked beyond Patty's trackway, guaranteed. IMO, this represents the distance discrepancy between 123' calculated photogrammetrically versus 102' measured from Green's position to Patty's exact track for frame 352. Green obviously didn't get Roger's position correct, so how the heck did he know which track represented frame 352? What does that track look like anyway?

All my calculated distances are based on the assumption that Roger used a Kodak Cine Ektar 25mm lens and Green used a 1" Wollensak Cine lens on their respective cameras, which IMO is most likely. Otherwise, all bets are off.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

^Why not? Photogrammetricly speaking, Patty was 6'3" tall +/- 2", standing height (body length). ....

 

The problem is that it is complicated enough that you have to either learn it to believe it or accept it on faith. This will forever be the rub to accepting that Patty's height can be determined within a couple of inches. Trust me, there are more than enough frames to resolve Patty's standing height. As a photogrammetrist that has studied this film in detail, it is my informed opinion that Patty's STANDING height does not exceed 6'5".

 

 

I found it worthwhile to go over Gigantofootecus's calculations and write it up my own way. I does not involve any advanced mathematics, just arithmetic - and a soupçon of introductory algebra.  It is on the Foot Ruler thread.

 

I also looked at the possible sources of uncertainty and enumerated them.

 

I do not remember any substantive objections to Gigantofootecus's work, and no responses to mine. It is worth it, in my mind, to go back to the original thread a try to follow it.

 

Patty's height using the foot ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^Why not? 

 Way too many variables to nail it to the inch or two. I've already spoken about this before. I don't share your confidence in narrowing it down precisely.

 Here is how their images would compare if they were the same approximate distance from the camera.

 

attachicon.gifMcClarin_Patty_10.jpg

 

The numbers say Patty was NOT taller than McClarin.

 

Yes but look at the body position Patty is in compared to McClarin. Her legs are bent and her torso is hunched over. McCLarin is almost ramrod straight.

 We are quibbling over a few inches here. It is the relative body proportions that matter anyway. 

 

Now that is something I can most definitely agree on. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

7 pages about Patty's height and we still don't know what Patty's height was.

 

There is data missing that can't be explained away with a 'trust me'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

There will be many more pages, Squatchy....and slowly, but surely....we are 'narrowing down' the range of her 'body height'. 

 

 

You know what is really out-of-whack....kitakaze has "gotten...(and 'not gotten')...three confessions" from "creators of the PGF"....yet does not know who "wore the suit", or who "made the suit"... :wacko:

 

How is that possible??? Do you have any ideas, on that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

7 pages about Patty's height and we still don't know what Patty's height was.

 

There is data missing that can't be explained away with a 'trust me'

 

.Its ok, Squatchy ....... the height doesn't prove or disprove Patty being real or not. Other things do however show her to be real, but the skeptic responses can't seem to address them without silly claims of deep hand dug trackways or the 160lb Patterson wearing fake feet.that other much heavier men couldn't come close to achieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I rest my case. Face it, you need to be a peer to evaluate and accept or reject any photogrammetric analysis of the PGF. I am constantly seeing the "bent legs" and "hunched over" reference over and over. This tells me that you don't follow how standing height is measured on film.

So what variables are not known that would prevent us from measuring Patty's height? The relevant variables are not a secret and they have all been accounted for. This isn't rocket science and simple geometry and algebra is all that is required to measure Patty's height on film. The "suit" does not affect the measurements because the body length is the same with or without a suit. And there is no missing data, only a mistrust of the science of photogrammetry by proponents and skeptics alike. This is the reason I have not bothered with a formal photogrammetric analysis of the PGF. Lots of work to be dismissed because of a lack of peer review. The p-skeptics certainly won't endorse ANYTHING unless it favours their views. Seems to be the same for the proponents. Always frustrating to say the least. But if you don't trust the experts, who you gonna call?

At least Mike Zimmer has taken the time to become informed so he can attempt his own analysis. The main task of an image analyst is to identify and account for the error of uncertainty for all measurements. This establishes the range of error and formalizes and legitimizes any analysis. Unfortunately, a bigfoot forum is not the best place to post a photogrammetric analysis of the PGF since there is too much bias and non-receptiveness on both sides of the fence. Instead we continue to spin our wheels when there is so much more to learn if we trust the science and move on. Disappointing, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Gigantofootecus,

 

I can appreciate your opinion on her height based on your knowledge of photogrammetric analysis, something I couldn't begin' to understand. So with my lack of knowledge in the matter, I hope you'll forgive me if I ask a few questions if you don't mind.

 

It's my understanding the distances between camera an subjects aren't definitive, is that correct ? 

With the image you use in post #112, McClarin is in mid stance phase of the walking gait which would maximize his own walking height by inches, compared to the sasquatch, was the gait phases taken into account ? Although I mentioned distance, it should also be recognized the likely variation in substrate levels could account for variations in height. These are just a couple things that come to mind.

 

Note the difference in McClarin's height in first image.

 

Pat...

post-279-0-98166400-1433133271.jpg

post-279-0-71939100-1433133408.png

post-279-0-89356300-1433133799.jpg

post-279-0-76363400-1433134977_thumb.jpg

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...