Jump to content
Guest Jack D

How Tall Is Patty?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Also, Jack...here is an overlay of Frame 72, with a later Frame (307), where Roger was on level ground with Patty....it shows a difference in how high Patty's head appears, relative to her body...

PattyCibaFR72FR307CompAG2Fade1.gif

If this is due to a difference in 'ground elevation' in Frame 72....then you might need to add a couple of inches onto Patty's height, to compensate for the 'vertical foreshortening'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Here you go, Jack..I pasted Patty's right foot, from Frame 61, into Frame 72...

FR72Frame61FootInsert.jpg

It looks like you didn't compensate quite enough, for the 'blooming' effect.

Here are the images, as they were scaled...and, from which I took Patty's 'right foot'...

FR61FR72CibachromeAG3A.gif

Looks pretty close to me SY. I can't put words in your mouth, but if your saying the foot is fr. 72 has bloom that make it larger than the foot in fr.61, then I agree. This assumnes that there is no bloom in fr. 61. If that's the case, the two are almost identical. In this photo cut, I placed lines in the fr. 72 foots allowing for bloom as before, then clipped out the right foot from fr. 61 and lowered it until the heel lines up with the line upper line. Now the toes line up very nicely with bottom linie. What could be better?

post-1451-034221100 1305439869_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jack D

Also, Jack...here is an overlay of Frame 72, with a later Frame (307), where Roger was on level ground with Patty....it shows a difference in how high Patty's head appears, relative to her body...

PattyCibaFR72FR307CompAG2Fade1.gif

If this is due to a difference in 'ground elevation' in Frame 72....then you might need to add a couple of inches onto Patty's height, to compensate for the 'vertical foreshortening'.

One thing abouty Patty and humans, too. Our joints are flexible and our posture in one place could be entirely different in another. She's looking down in frame 72. In the other frame you refer to (307) she appears to be looking up more and her back appears to be straighter, too. Posture changes and so does walking height. Her walking height may be taller in that frame, but that wouldn't change her erect height. It just means she raised her head and maybe straightened her back some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

OK, here we go. This image is not 100 ft away, but might be tricky due to the perspective. I'm the guy on the right. Your object for scale is my friend's left foot. He's a size 10.5 so that make that foot you see 10.81 inches. Now using your CAD method, see if you can figure out how tall I am...

PortRen3.jpg

kitakaze,

Interestin' question ? With camera bein' so low, makes it a little deceptive, but I'd have guessed over the 5'6". Got a straight on image ?

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I read The Munns Report yesterday, and enjoyed it very much. I also enjoyed viewing your analysis with Turbocad in attempting to calculate height by using a object of known size (Patty's foot). It is pretty tough to accurately calculate anything using a 2 dimensional photograph with so many unknowns. Obviously, the subject is neither at 90 degrees vertically nor horizontally to the camera, and we cannot be sure of the elevation of the camera vs. the center of mass of the subject. All of those things affect the perceived measurements. Are you looking slightly down at the foot? It will look slightly shorter if so. Every other view will be affected similarly.

I agree with Bill that Patterson used a 15mm lens, of that there can be no doubt. Instead of using something in the picture as a reference to calculate height, he used calculations from photogrammetry (lens size, focal length, distance to target), with which I am very familiar as it is a subfield of land surveying (I've been a surveyor for 20 years). On page 5 of the report is a 3 photo comparison, showing a frame from the PG film in the middle (not sure what #) scaled to size for a 15mm lens, a 6'2" man on the right scaled the same, and a man of the same height on the left scaled to size for a 25mm lens. All 3 figures have been cropped and aligned so that their feet are at approximately the same level. For the purposes of my analysis, I discarded the 25mm subject as I am convinced that Patterson used a 15mm lens. For reference, I also referred to page 33, which shows the results of Bill's calculations for Patty's height with the 15mm lens, from a distance (camera to subject) of 94' to 110'.

My one disclaimer before proceeding is that I just did a quick analysis for fun, and only used this one particular side-by-side photograph. There are so many unknowns and variables in just one of the side-by-side pics, let alone two of them, that no real and accurate estimate can possibly be made from one picture.

I imported the picture into Autocad. I use Autocad with engineering and 3D modeling add-ons for my business. I scaled the pic so that the man, who's height is known to be 6'2" was 6.17' high. The man is a known and measured distance of 102' from the camera, which is a distance widely accepted to be that of the particular frame that Bill pictured, and it is in the middle of the range for which he provided figures. Once I had scaled the picture, I was able to measure Patty. Patty measured 8.03' HIGH, not TALL, as she is stooping forward in the pic, and one leg is bent significantly, while the other appears to be bent to some degree. I would expect that one could add 4"-6" if she were to stand erect, more or less proportionately by changing her height, but that is pure speculation.

Now, the tracks that Patterson found and cast were 14.5" long. In humans, our feet are approximately 15.8% of our height in inches. I have read (don't remember where) that sasquatch researchers have approximated the ratio in sasquatches to be a bit higher, more like 16.7%, which would agree with the 7'3" figure for Patty, and not with the 8.03'. What are the possible explanations for the measurement I got? I will list a few, and will welcome any you guys suggest.

1) Patterson somehow missed Patty's tracks & cast the wrong ones (doubtful to me)

2) The distance of 102' from the camera is not accurate (seems plausible, and looks even moreso when viewing the man & Patty side-by-side)

3) The picture used in the side-by-side comparison is somehow distorted, or does not line up as suggested (potentially true, I have no way of knowing)

Also of note, I drew lines from the crown of her head to her hip joint, down her thigh to her knee, and down to her apparent foot location (on both legs). I measured from her hip joint to dome peak at 4.0', her thigh at 2.1', and her lower leg at 1.98 feet. All of those measurements are very subjective, obviously, and subject to a wide margin of error, as is everything when dealing with an unknown creature in a 44 year old film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rod

It will be interesting to see what Bill has to add.

Nice work, Shawn.

I read The Munns Report yesterday, and enjoyed it very much. I also enjoyed viewing your analysis with Turbocad in attempting to calculate height by using a object of known size (Patty's foot). It is pretty tough to accurately calculate anything using a 2 dimensional photograph with so many unknowns. Obviously, the subject is neither at 90 degrees vertically nor horizontally to the camera, and we cannot be sure of the elevation of the camera vs. the center of mass of the subject. All of those things affect the perceived measurements. Are you looking slightly down at the foot? It will look slightly shorter if so. Every other view will be affected similarly.

I agree with Bill that Patterson used a 15mm lens, of that there can be no doubt. Instead of using something in the picture as a reference to calculate height, he used calculations from photogrammetry (lens size, focal length, distance to target), with which I am very familiar as it is a subfield of land surveying (I've been a surveyor for 20 years). On page 5 of the report is a 3 photo comparison, showing a frame from the PG film in the middle (not sure what #) scaled to size for a 15mm lens, a 6'2" man on the right scaled the same, and a man of the same height on the left scaled to size for a 25mm lens. All 3 figures have been cropped and aligned so that their feet are at approximately the same level. For the purposes of my analysis, I discarded the 25mm subject as I am convinced that Patterson used a 15mm lens. For reference, I also referred to page 33, which shows the results of Bill's calculations for Patty's height with the 15mm lens, from a distance (camera to subject) of 94' to 110'.

My one disclaimer before proceeding is that I just did a quick analysis for fun, and only used this one particular side-by-side photograph. There are so many unknowns and variables in just one of the side-by-side pics, let alone two of them, that no real and accurate estimate can possibly be made from one picture.

I imported the picture into Autocad. I use Autocad with engineering and 3D modeling add-ons for my business. I scaled the pic so that the man, who's height is known to be 6'2" was 6.17' high. The man is a known and measured distance of 102' from the camera, which is a distance widely accepted to be that of the particular frame that Bill pictured, and it is in the middle of the range for which he provided figures. Once I had scaled the picture, I was able to measure Patty. Patty measured 8.03' HIGH, not TALL, as she is stooping forward in the pic, and one leg is bent significantly, while the other appears to be bent to some degree. I would expect that one could add 4"-6" if she were to stand erect, more or less proportionately by changing her height, but that is pure speculation.

Now, the tracks that Patterson found and cast were 14.5" long. In humans, our feet are approximately 15.8% of our height in inches. I have read (don't remember where) that sasquatch researchers have approximated the ratio in sasquatches to be a bit higher, more like 16.7%, which would agree with the 7'3" figure for Patty, and not with the 8.03'. What are the possible explanations for the measurement I got? I will list a few, and will welcome any you guys suggest.

1) Patterson somehow missed Patty's tracks & cast the wrong ones (doubtful to me)

2) The distance of 102' from the camera is not accurate (seems plausible, and looks even moreso when viewing the man & Patty side-by-side)

3) The picture used in the side-by-side comparison is somehow distorted, or does not line up as suggested (potentially true, I have no way of knowing)

Also of note, I drew lines from the crown of her head to her hip joint, down her thigh to her knee, and down to her apparent foot location (on both legs). I measured from her hip joint to dome peak at 4.0', her thigh at 2.1', and her lower leg at 1.98 feet. All of those measurements are very subjective, obviously, and subject to a wide margin of error, as is everything when dealing with an unknown creature in a 44 year old film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is no evidence Patty made the footprints that were cast.

There is no evidence for the 102' distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest .50 cal

A couple of years ago, I posted my work in the old BFF's showing how I measured Patty. At the time, few took me seriously. Since then, during my absence from the forums, I have enhanced, added to, and tested my work. I know Bill Munns is working on this from a different angle and It will be interesting to see how we compare. I could post my work here, again, but it is all on my website and much easier to post a link. The bottom line is Patty is between 5'11" and 6'2" standing erect, and I'm leaning toward ~6'1".

I welcome questions and constructive comments.

http://www.metalsmithpro.com/PGF%20CAD.htm

Thats interesting. All the other reports I've read have said he was taller than that. It's cool that you did that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest .50 cal

A couple of years ago, I posted my work in the old BFF's showing how I measured Patty. At the time, few took me seriously. Since then, during my absence from the forums, I have enhanced, added to, and tested my work. I know Bill Munns is working on this from a different angle and It will be interesting to see how we compare. I could post my work here, again, but it is all on my website and much easier to post a link. The bottom line is Patty is between 5'11" and 6'2" standing erect, and I'm leaning toward ~6'1".

I welcome questions and constructive comments.

http://www.metalsmithpro.com/PGF%20CAD.htm

Thats interesting. All the other reports I've read have said he was taller than that. It's cool that you did that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is no evidence Patty made the footprints that were cast.

There is no evidence for the 102' distance.

There is some evidence for both, we can just decide whether it we think it is valid or not. If someone saw a deer cross the road ahead of them, and they stopped, went up to the area where they thought it crossed and saw tracks, they would have a right to assume the tracks were made by that deer, and call the sighting of the deer running across the road evidence that it made the tracks, even if in reality they were wrong and the deer actually crossed 20' further down and left larger tracks that the person never saw. Same thing with distance assumptions. Although in the case of the PG film those assumptions were made by people after the fact, they were made based on evidence from the film. Even if their estimations are wrong, they based them on the evidence they viewed. They may have simply interpreted it wrong, if, in fact they are wrong (I could be wrong instead, who knows?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

A couple of years ago, I posted my work in the old BFF's showing how I measured Patty. At the time, few took me seriously. Since then, during my absence from the forums, I have enhanced, added to, and tested my work. I know Bill Munns is working on this from a different angle and It will be interesting to see how we compare. I could post my work here, again, but it is all on my website and much easier to post a link. The bottom line is Patty is between 5'11" and 6'2" standing erect, and I'm leaning toward ~6'1".

I welcome questions and constructive comments.

http://www.metalsmit...m/PGF%20CAD.htm

I came to pretty much the same conclusion based on using the foot as a ruler. It is somewhat subjective because I couldn't determine the errors involved in the measurements. I actually placed the foot into the cast and lined up the features at least on one of the casts so it gives me more confidence that it is probably about right. I assumed that she was slightly taller than 6 feet but that was her stooped height. She would probably be over six and half feet tall if you stood her upright. The foot ruler method makes me highly dubious of anything much larger than that. Someone would have to make a 7 foot plus Patty with her known sized feet fit into a three dimensional recreation for me to accept anything larger. Even if I was right, I still figured she was over 500 lbs based on my opinion of her apparent dimensions. She was a big girl even if her stooped height was only slightly over 6 feet tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
BFF Donor

I read The Munns Report yesterday, and enjoyed it very much. I also enjoyed viewing your analysis with Turbocad in attempting to calculate height by using a object of known size (Patty's foot). It is pretty tough to accurately calculate anything using a 2 dimensional photograph with so many unknowns. Obviously, the subject is neither at 90 degrees vertically nor horizontally to the camera, and we cannot be sure of the elevation of the camera vs. the center of mass of the subject. All of those things affect the perceived measurements. Are you looking slightly down at the foot? It will look slightly shorter if so. Every other view will be affected similarly.

I agree with Bill that Patterson used a 15mm lens, of that there can be no doubt. Instead of using something in the picture as a reference to calculate height, he used calculations from photogrammetry (lens size, focal length, distance to target), with which I am very familiar as it is a subfield of land surveying (I've been a surveyor for 20 years). On page 5 of the report is a 3 photo comparison, showing a frame from the PG film in the middle (not sure what #) scaled to size for a 15mm lens, a 6'2" man on the right scaled the same, and a man of the same height on the left scaled to size for a 25mm lens. All 3 figures have been cropped and aligned so that their feet are at approximately the same level. For the purposes of my analysis, I discarded the 25mm subject as I am convinced that Patterson used a 15mm lens. For reference, I also referred to page 33, which shows the results of Bill's calculations for Patty's height with the 15mm lens, from a distance (camera to subject) of 94' to 110'.

My one disclaimer before proceeding is that I just did a quick analysis for fun, and only used this one particular side-by-side photograph. There are so many unknowns and variables in just one of the side-by-side pics, let alone two of them, that no real and accurate estimate can possibly be made from one picture.

I imported the picture into Autocad. I use Autocad with engineering and 3D modeling add-ons for my business. I scaled the pic so that the man, who's height is known to be 6'2" was 6.17' high. The man is a known and measured distance of 102' from the camera, which is a distance widely accepted to be that of the particular frame that Bill pictured, and it is in the middle of the range for which he provided figures. Once I had scaled the picture, I was able to measure Patty. Patty measured 8.03' HIGH, not TALL, as she is stooping forward in the pic, and one leg is bent significantly, while the other appears to be bent to some degree. I would expect that one could add 4"-6" if she were to stand erect, more or less proportionately by changing her height, but that is pure speculation.

Now, the tracks that Patterson found and cast were 14.5" long. In humans, our feet are approximately 15.8% of our height in inches. I have read (don't remember where) that sasquatch researchers have approximated the ratio in sasquatches to be a bit higher, more like 16.7%, which would agree with the 7'3" figure for Patty, and not with the 8.03'. What are the possible explanations for the measurement I got? I will list a few, and will welcome any you guys suggest.

1) Patterson somehow missed Patty's tracks & cast the wrong ones (doubtful to me)

2) The distance of 102' from the camera is not accurate (seems plausible, and looks even moreso when viewing the man & Patty side-by-side)

3) The picture used in the side-by-side comparison is somehow distorted, or does not line up as suggested (potentially true, I have no way of knowing)

Also of note, I drew lines from the crown of her head to her hip joint, down her thigh to her knee, and down to her apparent foot location (on both legs). I measured from her hip joint to dome peak at 4.0', her thigh at 2.1', and her lower leg at 1.98 feet. All of those measurements are very subjective, obviously, and subject to a wide margin of error, as is everything when dealing with an unknown creature in a 44 year old film.

Perhaps the most convincing argument, for me, that Patty is real is her ASH (armspan to height) ratio. Gigantofootecus made extensive measurements back in 2005 when he started a thread about this issue. I'd be curious what you calculate that ratio to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Perhaps the most convincing argument, for me, that Patty is real is her ASH (armspan to height) ratio. Gigantofootecus made extensive measurements back in 2005 when he started a thread about this issue. I'd be curious what you calculate that ratio to be.

From the same picture, I got an arm ratio of 41.5% of the height in inches. Of course, like everything else, that is subjective. Where exactly is her shoulder joint? Where exactly does her arm bend? Where does her hand end, and is it bent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
BFF Donor

From the same picture, I got an arm ratio of 41.5% of the height in inches. Of course, like everything else, that is subjective. Where exactly is her shoulder joint? Where exactly does her arm bend? Where does her hand end, and is it bent?

Surveyor, my fault. I should have better explained how that ratio is calculated as you likely did not see that thread so many years ago. To simply measure the arm length of Patty, in proportion to her height, would fail to consider something quite dramatic. The expanse of her back.

The ASH ratio measures the length when someone extends both arms out straight to their sides. The measurement would be from fingertip of the extended left arm to the fingertip of the extended right arm.

Human females generally have an ASH ration of ~104%. That means the arm span is 104% of the height. To measure Patty's ASH ratio you will need to measure both arms and her back width then compare it to your calculated height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...