hiflier Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Wow, I didn't know he was that tall. Heironimus is 6'2 I understand. All of a sudden I feel like a bit of a shrimp LOL. I know you a big guy too. Shoulder span? Not anything personal, right? Good grief, is this what happens to Bigfoot researchers when they don't mind their own business? Anyway, thanks for the photo. Here's one of Bob Heironimus back in the day. It's the one I used to scale the height/shoulder width ratio: Edited October 25, 2017 by hiflier
MikeZimmer Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 5 hours ago, Redbone said: Found this at http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/pattersongimlin-film-gallery.html Personally I think she was 75 inches tall, not 80, in walking position, but that doesn't change this scaling much. These look a lot like the images and measurements that the late John Green put into one of his books. 1
Redbone Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) I pulled this from a shoulder pad sizing image. This guy has 18 inch shoulders (as determined by the tape measure) and the widest part of the shoulder pads calculates to 24.46". I started with a pretty low resolution images so calculations could be subject to some amount of error, but (in my opinion) the calculated width is pretty close. Edited October 25, 2017 by Redbone
hiflier Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 Thanks, RB, I've been watching football highlights to observe football players as they walk. Their arms move- the padding on top of the shoulders do not. So no the rotation in the upper arm is seen like on the PGF. Your image looks like it adds about 3 inches to the outside of each shoulder in the style of shoulder pads used. That would bring a person with a 20 inch span to 26.5 inches if the same shoulder pads were what was claimed to be used in 1967. It still wouldn't allow the upper arm to be seen moving like in the PGF which also shows fur movement directly behind the shoulder joint itself. Something that wouldn't occur with shoulder pads. They're pretty rigid really.
VAfooter Posted October 25, 2017 Admin Posted October 25, 2017 Shoulder pads are probably a bit different today than they were 50 years ago (the last time I put on pads was mid-70's). I would think that you have to go back and see what was "state of the art" back then for linemen. Also, players were not nearly as big as they are now which throws the sizing off a bit.
Yuchi1 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) ^^^ In 1970, 220 pounds was probably about average for a down lineman at most D1 schools. Edited October 25, 2017 by Yuchi1
hiflier Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Yes, I know what you mean VAfooter. It still begs the question of how Patty's arms swing so naturally with elbows in the proper location on the arms if someone in the 'suit (Bob Hieronimus?) has only a 20" total shoulder span. It means that from the body's centerline (spine) the 'suit' wearer's outside measurement to the shoulder is only 10 inches which is 5 inches short of reaching the outside of Patty's shoulder. If it was a man in a suit his elbows would end up way to high- only about 9 inches down on the arm as opposed to the normal 14.5 average inches or so and would not hang down straight and swing naturally. 5 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said: ^^^ In 1970, 220 pounds was probably about average for a down lineman at most D1 schools. In the mid-60's my high school varsity team had two starting tackles that each weighed in about 220 and both were 6 foot 4. I weighed about 150...........I always had a LOT of bruises LOL. Edited October 25, 2017 by hiflier
hiflier Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) The trick with this subject is to never stop digging and to think of every way possible to attack an issue. Well, that's what I've done. Lo, and behold I came across this from here: http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2012/01/biped-zoo-gorilla-throws-light-on.html "Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders, which (after deducting 1" for hair) he estimated at 28.2 inches, or 35.1% of its full standing height of 78", or a higher percentage of its 72" "walking height," which was a bit stooped, crouched, and sunk into the sand.[36] The creature's shoulders are almost 50% wider than the human mean. (For comparison, André the Giant had a typical human ratio of 24%. Wide-shouldered Bob Heironimus (see below) has 27.4%. Only very rarely do humans have a shoulder breadth of 30%.) Krantz argued that a suited person could not mimic this breadth and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film." So, HAH! Why didn't someone tell me that Dr. Krantz had already covered this aspect. DANG! I should've been an anthropologist I thank everyone for the pats on the back but, in light of this, I can no longer take the credit. What is nice though is to be corroborated by someone of such high standing and respect. I'm humbled by this guy. Edited October 25, 2017 by hiflier
7.62 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 Honestly anyone who has looked at all the evidence and break downs of the PGF and comes to a conclusion it's a guy in a monkey suit just doesn't want to believe in the existence of these creatures . It has nothing to do with the PGF , some people for what ever personal reasons are just like that.One could knock on their front door and they would say they must have imagined it. 1
hiflier Posted October 26, 2017 Author Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) You're probably right but I still think this approach is is a fine one to take. And not just for the hardcore skeptics either. It has certainly put things in a new light for me- and I'm a proponent. I still say go for the hard numbers on this and have no doubts that it will stand up against everything thrown at it. It's a good renewed path for the experts in math and graphic imagery to stay on. Edited October 26, 2017 by hiflier
7.62 Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, hiflier said: You're probably right but I still think this approach is is a fine one to take. And not just for the hardcore skeptics either. It has certainly put things in a new light for me- and I'm a proponent. I still say go for the hard numbers on this and have no doubts that it will stand up against everything thrown at it. It's a good renewed path for the experts in math and graphic imagery to stay on. Oh absolutely and by no means am I implying anything else . It's that I know people like that and no matter what kind of evidence you try to show them they will always think it's a guy in a monkey suit or just that the creature has always been fiction and never existed .
SasquatchWookie Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 I'm 6'3" and my shoulders span 27". 33" however is gigantic! I have always believed Patty is real.
gigantor Posted October 26, 2017 Admin Posted October 26, 2017 hiflier, how did you measure Patty's shoulder width?
NCBFr Posted October 26, 2017 Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) I did a similar analysis a couple of years ago starting with a foot length of 14.5 inches based on the footprints found and using a handful of images from the film scaled the shoulder width to greater than 24.3 inches and probably right at 25.0 inches if you take in to consideration my rough estimate of the angle tilt of the image that best shows a squared off shoulder view to the camera. The idea that this a man in a suite wearing football shoulder pads is preposterous. You would see that immediately in the film. It is either a real BF or Bob Heironimus wearing the worlds greatest female bigfoot suit both then and now. Gig - If I remember correctly you did a similar study roughly the same time frame I completed mine. What do you get for shoulder width? Edited October 26, 2017 by NCBFr
Recommended Posts