Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Sweti,

 

I think this is where I remember finding it:

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

Gigantofootecus goes through his calculations, which I couldn't understand in three lifetimes, and then has a summary at the end. His 4th bullet point mentions the 18% standing vs walking height.

 

 

Thanks for the link, wiia. :) 

 

Yeah, I had trouble following a lot of Giganto's calculations, also. It's a shame he isn't still posting on the forum. He could really help a lot, with this. 

 

I am looking over his graphic where he derived the "18%" figure. 

 

40 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

When talking about height, to cut down on possible confusion, how about if we start using something along the lines of "w. height" for walking height and "st. height" for standing height. Or something similar.

I kept finding myself wondering which type of "height" was being referred to.  

 

 

That's a good idea, Okie. I'll do that. 

 

I am usually referring to Patty's 'walking height'....because, the 'height calculations' which others have made...(such as in Bill Munns' work, and the Jim McClarin height comparisons)....are usually making reference to Patty's 'walking height'.  

 

As I said to Twist, earlier...(before putting him on 'Ignore'  :) )....the first thing to determine, within a small range, is Patty's walking height....(as she is seen in the film). Once that is narrowed-down....we can then add several inches to it...to determine her full/true 'body height'. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

^^Sweaty, I could usually see you were  referring to "walking height" since you were discussing comparisons to Jim McClarin.

 

Is Patty more or less standing straight up in this still shot? It's hard to tell. I don't think the video will play but I used it just for the still shot.

Is Patty more or less standing straight up in this still shot? It's hard to tell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Solution? One HAS to go with Patty's walking height. That is what is on the PGF. Adding a few inches to that is an ambiguity that can never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Just go with the 'w. height' and let everything else go. And even that will be a slight variable- which everyone already knows. Why compound the issue with something that could notbe determined in a million years?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

The foot ruler methodology is the only one I can give any credence to at this point in time.    Because it is completely independent of camera location, distances, and camera lens in use,  all of which seem to be unknowns.    If the footprint found was Patties,  the film plainly shows the elevated foot,   a height calculation can be determined by determining how many multiples of the foot is Patties walking height.   There is however some error that creeps into the method just because of using a short object to measure anything causes error to be introduced every time the short object is used.    In other words, if you have something like a 12 inch ruler and measure something multiple times longer,  you are likely to get a slightly different result than if you use a 25 foot tape measure.  Also Patty was hunched over as she walked,    and not standing erect.       But that said,   anything to do with camera lenses,   and angles,  requires that it be known exactly where the camera was located relative to Patty so a distance can be determined to determine Patties height.         Roger shot from several locations as he tried to keep Patty in view, and I doubt that even the day of the event, they could determine exactly where Roger was when he shot the film.    Patties location could be determined from the footprints in the sand bar but Rogers filming location would be very difficult to determine,  unless he rested the camera on a log or something.       Somehow I doubt that the priority of two cowboys on that day was determining how to do trigonometry problems.  That is what we are talking about with lenses,  distances, and angles.   For all I know neither knew enough about trigonometry to even know what could be done and how to do it.  Believe me normal High School students in the 50s and 60s did not take trigonometry, because it was not required to graduate.     I was there,  I know.        Some effort was done later to compare Patty with tree features behind them but that methodology also requires knowledge of exactly where the camera was located because it is dependent on line of sight and angles.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
14 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

Sorry to say, MIB...but both of those sources of 'height calculations' you linked to are flawed....and have derived incorrect heights, for Patty.

 

The step distance measured on the creek bed and the leg positions as Patty walks point to a 7 to 7-1/2 footer, not a 6 footer.  Precision does not mean accuracy.  You've blown it somewhere along the way either in your measurements, your assumptions, or your calculations.  Garbage in, correctly or incorrectly processed, still means garbage out.    Until your numbers track with established field observations, either you're wrong or you've proven the film a hoax.   There's no third option.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

The step distance measured on the creek bed and the leg positions as Patty walks point to a 7 to 7-1/2 footer, not a 6 footer.  Precision does not mean accuracy.  You've blown it somewhere along the way either in your measurements, your assumptions, or your calculations.  Garbage in, correctly or incorrectly processed, still means garbage out.    Until your numbers track with established field observations, either you're wrong or you've proven the film a hoax.   There's no third option.

 

MIB

 

 

One thing you're missing, MIB....is that with a 'walking height' of 6'3"....after adjusting the height for Patty's crouched/zig-zag posture, by adding several inches to the 6'3" figure.....you end-up with a full 'body height' of about 6'9"....and possibly, a little taller than that....(if her 'walking height' proves to be a little taller).

 

So, I don't see an issue with the stride length of Patty's tracks....along with a full, standing body height of approx. 6'9". 

 

Some folks here seem to be having trouble understanding the fact that a subject can walk crouched down....and still have a skeletal structure that allows for lengthy steps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I'd say the real issue stems from someone using their own home-brew definition of height, or they cannot admit when they may be wrong so they begin the back peddle! lol  ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
17 minutes ago, MIB said:

Until your numbers track with established field observations, either you're wrong or you've proven the film a hoax.   There's no third option.

 

No surprise there MIB

 

Each and every gif Sweaty has posted in the past ten years 'proves' the film a hoax.

 

Sweaty just doesn't know it...

 

:596d4f9868d58_EmojiSmiley-05:

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
5 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

No surprise there MIB

 

Each and every gif Sweaty has posted in the past ten years 'proves' the film a hoax.

 

Sweaty just doesn't know it...

 

:596d4f9868d58_EmojiSmiley-05:

 

 

Hey now! That's not fair SMS, while not a gif, I hear the Patty vs. basketball players comparison he posted some time a while back is in peer review right now!  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 Sweaty, I could usually see you were  referring to "walking height" since you were discussing comparisons to Jim McClarin.

 

Is Patty more or less standing straight up in this still shot? It's hard to tell. I don't think the video will play but I used it just for the still shot.

 

Is Patty more or less standing straight up in this still shot? It's hard to tell

 

 

 

No, Okie....in those frames Patty still has the crouched posture. She never seems to fully straighten-out her legs....and she walks with a forward lean to her upper-body.  

 

Here is a good quality image, close to the frames you posted....and Patty has the forward lean....and her supporting leg appears to be bent, at the knee...

 

Patty_Mid_Sandbar_Image1.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

^^

You're correct; Patty is somewhat leaned forward in that shot. Isn't it amazing what you can get from a sharper, more clear image than from a blurrier one. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Sure is, Okie. :thumbsup: 

 

Makes me wonder why skeptics like to use the lowest quality images they can find. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Funny, I went back a few pages looking,  I don’t see a low quality image posted recently in this thread from a skeptic.  Oh wait, guess you just can’t pass up the opportunity to take a shot at skeptics.....here to interact or disrupt?  Lol. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, Twist said:

here to interact or disrupt?  Lol. ;)

 

Hey, that's my line LOL. But you can use it :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I’m assuming my use of your line in this instance isn’t unwarranted, hence your approval.  :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...