Jump to content
hiflier

Patty's Shoulder Width

Recommended Posts

hiflier

If Patt'ys shoulders were really 4 feet across then for a Human to be in a suit we would have elbows where shoulder sockets should be. I personally think that, of all of the debates on body parts and sections regarding thighs, knees, feet , toes, elbows, and so forth, this shoulder width thing may end up being the new pivot point (see what I did there?) in the long running dialogue of what is within spec for a Human in a suit.

 

Care for a real world example? Well here it is: I'm 5'11 inches tall. I measured my total width shoulder to shoulder and got 19 1/2 inches fully across. I then pointed my elbows straight out horizontally side to side and got a measurement of 36 inches point to point.

 

So what I said about a Human's elbows inside a suit that was 4 feet across at the shoulders? Would look utterly ridiculous. Even at a suit's shoulder width of only 3 feet, only my forearms could stick out past the shoulder holes. In a 4 foot wide suit at the shoulders only HALF of my forearms would be showing. They would look like short sticks with gloves on the ends. My arms swinging naturally from the shoulder joints would be impossible to reproduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

WSA, you are hysterical. My world has been tough and tedious as of late and you've helped a lot to lighten things up. Thank you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I find this very intriguing, I’ve read up on some of the measurements of other body parts and have never been fully convinced enough to buy in.  Mainly due to what I feel is the ambiguity of determining joint locations and actual lengths/ratios of body parts.  This however, as stated by hiflier could be pretty convincing if the numbers can be verified and nailed down.  It’d be awfully hard to argue her shoulder width in relation to a normal mans in addition to where the arms are swinging in relation to the shoulders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

You know what's funny? I sent an email to my son telling him I'd thought of something interesting regarding the PGF but didn't tell him what it was. He said, "YOU FOUND THE ZIPPER!" So you see, even in my close family...........

 

I'll tell him eventually once things get firmed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

How do you pull 4 ft from a film that has no actual measurements?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

We know how big a person’s head would be, and the ratio of Patty’s head width to shoulder width. Using these, while factoring in the extra head width from the costume, you can get an accurate estimate of how wide her shoulders would be if she was a costume. 

 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Squatchy, after all this time? Seriously? After all of the debates on Patty's height? The scales, the rulers? Bob Hieronimus' claims that he was in the suit? His height and all? Again, seriously? Let me put it this way, if the shoulder width was such that a guy in a suit could allow the arms to hang and swing naturally? Then the ratio of shoulder width to height simply would be way off. Regardless of whatever reference measurements are used, the total shoulder width of the 'suit' is two thirds of it's height- no matter what scale one used because it's a ratio of two thirds width to three thirds height. Simple math.

 

That means that for a six foot Human the shoulder width to height would have to be four feet! Not on this planet! At six feet tall one can hope to see perhaps two foot wide shoulders on a body builder. But the ratio shoulder width to height of Patty is twice that. That means packing out the shoulders a full one foot on each side. What  happens then? a Human's elbows end up in the shoulder joints. Again, not on this planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Did a quick calculation on Bob Hieronimus' shoulder width to height ratio. Five units in height to 1.5 units in width. If he was 6 ft tall that means his total shoulder width wasn't more than 21 inches. Wide yes but not even close to 3 feet much less 4. It means that Bob Heironimus fails as being the person in the 'suit' if his arms are going to hang down and swing like the subject's arms do at  the total shoulder width that they are connect to. Utterly and completely fails.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Just off the top of my head, how wide do shoulder pads (circa 1967) measure side to side esp. on a 6' 1" man???

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Cant find measurements of 60's pads in quick google search, did find the patent for them however but it did not list dimensions. 

 

 Looking at images they do not appear to be vastly wider than the wearers shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Shoulder pads in 1967 (because I wore them) were more height than width and it depended on who wore them as to how they looked. On big guys they didn't look so big on little guys they did. Different manufacturers but mostly McGregor if I remember. Might have padded the outside of the shoulder by an inch or so.

 

So, I have to confess I read the scale wrong. Yes, I did. That's the bad news. I also remeasured Hieronimus' shoulder span at 19.8 inches. The scaling that I read wrong showed a much different total shoulder span for Patty: 30 inches. Big difference I'm embarrassed to say. The good side though is that it's still over 10 inches bigger than Hieronimus' shoulder span. So padding out the torso as well as the arms of a suit still makes a supposed wearer not fit the suit in a way that allows the hang or swing of the arms that I see in the stabilized version of the PGF.

 

The arms in the video do not swing in a circular motion around the torso like the shoulder span inside a suit was too small. I've seen large people move and their arms move more around their torsos. Not the case with Patty.They move straight ahead and back. Five extra inches on each side of a bulked out torso wouldn't allow the padding in the shoulders to move in conjunction with anyone's arms and look natural either. And definitely no moving musculature would be seen. So, still a fail. 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Can you show us how you arrived at a 30" shoulder span calculation, hiflier?  Given an approximate height of 6'5" (which I think is reasonable), I still have her shoulders calculated closer to 4 feet than 3 feet (at 42"+).  Even if she were 3 feet tall, her shoulder width would still be very non-human.  It's a good topic and one of the more obvious deal breakers for any honest skeptic of the Patterson-Gimlin Film.  Thanks!

 

shoulders.jpg

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

xspider1. I was staying on the conservative side after my initial faux pas so as not to compound my initial embarrassments. I have to say I like YOUR figures much better :) Now what I'm going to say is pretty critical. So far there have been several different measurements to Patty's full shoulder span. I'm certainly not the one who has th final say so I simply MUST leave it to those more expert at such matters. I hope you can understand that.

 

To answer you question as best I can though the measurement I came up with was from a ratio  based on height to width. I took Patty's height measurement on my screen and took her shoulder width in the same manner and created a ratio. I then to the ratio and sized it to 6 feet and the shoulder width at the 6 foot height fell into place. I have to say though, I like 42" much better than 30" but there has to be a firm number of the whole thing goes in a direction that I would rather not see it go.

 

This measurement, or someone's measurement needs to be nailed down and verified. I also noticed that your yellow vertical bar does not seem to reach all the way down to Patty's foot. That will change the ratio of height to width and I think when you do you may find things closer to 30". Certainly no more than 36"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×