Jump to content
TD-40

Patty The Conehead

Recommended Posts

Guest

Pat,

 

Perfect examples of the word 'variables'. Other examples would also be Patty's posture and other small things like exactly how much of her 'cone' is hair or bone on the top. Etc. We just don't know.

 

Nobody is going to nail Patty's height down to the inch. It just isn't doable. 

 

Edit. Just to point out for future clarification, McClarin was 6ft 6 inches with his boots on.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Giganto, were you part of hte Falcon Project?

 

What are your credentials?  How can I find a Photogrammetrist, if I don't know what type of person I need to hire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Edit. Just to point out for future clarification, McClarin was 6ft 6 inches with his boots on.

 

Not to mention that Patty had what a[[ears to be several inches between the base of her foot to where the hair of her leg started. Because the sandbar was sp uneven with high spots littered on it - one would need to find a frame where the hide of her foot would be visible so to make a better estimate as to how much of her foot is into the substrate.

 How can I find a Photogrammetrist

 

Have you bothered to do a Google search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I've tried to hire a Photogrammetrist. 

 

They want the original film.  In both cases, that is the first thing they asked for.  I said I didn't have it, and they said they couldn't help me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pat,

 

Perfect examples of the word 'variables'. Other examples would also be Patty's posture and other small things like exactly how much of her 'cone' is hair or bone on the top. Etc. We just don't know.

 

Nobody is going to nail Patty's height down to the inch. It just isn't doable. 

 

 

That's o.k., though...Neander.  We don't need to know Patty's exact height....because, if it turns out that it's shorter than 7'....it will be in the 'moot point' range. A 'body height' that's under 7-feet isn't going to point in either direction...towards the 'hoax' or the 'real' scenario.

 

But I think we should try to narrow-down the range for her height...(to within a range of 2-3")...to see whether it is over 7', or below it. I think there is a need to determine that, especially since National Geographic aired Bill Munns' incorrect finding...that Patty was over 7' tall.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi Pat,

 

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 ?

Absolutely. We need a known physical ruler to measure Patty's BODY LENGTH, not her walking height to determine a photogrammetric measurement of the distances from the camera. Not the other way round. This is where Bill ran into trouble. He tried to make the photogrammetric solution fit the site measurements, when it should be the other way round.

If you believe the PGF shows a real sasquatch then you also believe that Patty's feet were 14.5" long. This is an incredibly accurate ruler which can resolve Patty's BODY LENGTH to within a couple of inches. Bill used the "shirt" ruler to measure McClarin's distance from the camera. Same deal. 

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 ?

You are not alone Pat, this is where everyone seems to get hung up. We are not measuring the walking height, we are measuring body length on an articulating frame. Here are the height vectors of Patty:

armrulerhgt_zps394498ba.png

Think of the height vectors in frame 352 as 3D connected lines that either tilt away or towards the camera to some degree. The tilt of the height vectors shortens their appearance to the camera, which is called foreshortening. We can estimate the amount of foreshortening for each height vector and lengthen the vectors accordingly. Then we can measure Patty's true body length (standing height). 

 

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.

Again, "height" is being misrepresented here. You are referring to walking height, which varies by 9% in most humans. Patty's walking height varies by less than 9% because she walked compliantly. However, the difference between her walking height and her standing height (body length) was upwards of 17% which proves that she walked compliantly.

 

Cheers

GF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Giganto, how do you calculate the 186 number?  Do you need to see the bottom of the foot, or the ankle joint to know where to stop counting pixels?

 

That seems like a guess there.  Am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Giganto, were you part of hte Falcon Project?

 

What are your credentials?  How can I find a Photogrammetrist, if I don't know what type of person I need to hire?

No on the Falcon Project, but I have been approached a couple of times to participate in BF projects but I declined because I seek no notoriety and bigfoot is my hobby. I`m just a sideline photogrammetrist that has spent too much time studying the PGF. What can I say, the film has always fascinated me since the 1st time I saw it. I am among the few photogrammetrists to have bothered to study the film because the original is not available and/or it is too much like work for them.

I doubt many photogrammetrists advertise they are "for hire" on the web. Have a look on LinkedIn. They are usually hired as staff on forensic crime units or they are contractors that work in geography and geomatics for land surveys, inventories, etc. This is my background. Most photogrammetrists work with geographic information systems (GIS) to create ortho-maps from aerial or satellite imagery. This is called remote sensing or long range photogrammetry. Rectifying ortho-imagery is far more complicated than measuring objects in photos (image metrology). This is also known as close range photogrammetry. Photometrology is a subsection of photogrammetry, which is a subsection of geomatics.

So what kind of work do you need a photogrammetrist to do for you? I can let you know if it's doable. But you probably won't like my rates. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Gigantofootecus,

 

Thanks !

 

Cheers !

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Giganto, how do you calculate the 186 number?  Do you need to see the bottom of the foot, or the ankle joint to know where to stop counting pixels?

 

That seems like a guess there.  Am I right?

Good question! The bottom of the foot is not visible so I derived that position using the following graphic:

P_BH_elbow.gif

If Bob was Patty then that would have been the bottom of his foot. I used him as a surrogate measuring tool. I personally think 186 should be more like 176 or less. Patty has short shins. But if I did that, then Bob's height vectors would not match Patty and he could not have fit into the suit.

IOW, I assigned Patty human height vectors to give her the benefit of the doubt. This is known as testing a maximum threshold. If Patty fails to meet the max threshold then we can assume that the measurement is less than the maximum. Hence my claim that Patty is < 6'5". But if you want to shorten her tibia, then her arm gets longer because we have to scale her image up to keep her the same height. You certainly don't want that, do you? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Good work, as usual, Giganto. :)

 

Here is an overlay using F308....it's a pretty good indicator of the length of her lower-leg...(as you said, it's a bit shorter than what you gave it)...

 

Giganto-HeightVectors%20F308OverlayAG1_z

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's o.k., though...Neander.  We don't need to know Patty's exact height....because, if it turns out that it's shorter than 7'....it will be in the 'moot point' range. A 'body height' that's under 7-feet isn't going to point in either direction...towards the 'hoax' or the 'real' scenario.

 

 

 

 Yes you are right. We don't need to know Patty's exact height (not that we ever will). It's her body proportions that are far more important. Anyway sasquatch in the 6ft to 7ft range have been reported. They aren't all born at 7ft plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

As well as the weight factor determined by the evidence on the sandbar. That also speaks volumes when one doesn't start making up ridiculous scenarios to account for it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

^^

 

As well as the weight factor determined by the evidence on the sandbar. That also speaks volumes when one doesn't start making up ridiculous scenarios to account for it.

 

The weight factor? You mean the story that the Bigfoot tracks were deeper than a horse track?

That is one part of the story that I find completely unbelievable.

 

Do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The weight factor? You mean the story that the Bigfoot tracks were deeper than a horse track?

That is one part of the story that I find completely unbelievable.

 

Do the math.

 

 

1) What kind of math is needed when you say'do the math'  involving the tracks? 

 

2) What do you think is so unbelievable about the tracks?  Are you saying the tracks being deeper than a horse is in some way unbelievable?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...