Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

norseman

 

Thinker thunker body ratios, Bob vs Patty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Thinker Thuinker has the width of that tree at 18"....but, John Green had actually measured the width of it...and his diagram has it labeled as either 8", or 12" in diameter. I think it was 8". 

 

I just looked on-line for his diagram, but wasn't able to find it. I'll keep looking, and when I find it I will post his measurement. 

 

Btw, Patty was less than 7' tall. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Looking at the picture and the surroundings, I highly doubt those trees are only 8 inches in width. A smaller tree is going to exhibit branches and leaves lower on the bole of the tree. And I do not see any evidence for that in the frame. The naked boles go out of frame. Also looking at the larger evergreen trees in the frame, the deciduous trees look way bigger than 8 inches in width.

 

If you could find John Green’s notes that would be great.

 

 

664868D6-1D15-44EB-A9CF-01303FB1F6C9.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone

It's my "opinion" that she's 6'3" in walking posture. Based at my opinionated approximation, IF Patty was even with that tree then it's 15 inches across, based on the TT video.

I have no idea how far behind the tree she is, but Since she is behind it. this means the tree is smaller than 15 inches, in my opinion. 12 inches seems like a good estimate to me.

 

Knowing the distances from the camera to Patty and the tree would help clarify this tremendously.

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I think they are bigger than 12 inches as well.

 

Nothing adds up that she is 6’3” tall. I’m that tall and I have a 11”x4” foot. Patty is what 15”x6”?

 

Plus the McClarin comparison?

 

I have no problem believing she is 7 ft tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Was this what you were lookin' for SweatyYeti ?

 

 

 

That's it, Pat!  :thumbsup:   Thanks for posting it!  :) 

 

Now, I've got to look at those numbers closely...and see if I can tell exactly what John wrote. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Upon further review it looks like 18-12-8?.

 

They all look roughly the same size to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's what the numbers look like to me, too, Norse....but I don't think the measurement that looks like "18" is actually 18. 

 

The tree on the far right...(Tree TC-2 in Bill Munns' filmsite diagrams)....looks pretty definitively like it's marked as 8".  So, the tree to it's left...(which is tree TC-1 in Bill Munns' diagrams)....couldn't be more than twice the width of tree TC-2.  The two trees are only 12' feet apart...and close to the same distance from the camera.

 

I will post a graphic tonight, or tomorrow....illustrating what I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I agree in relation to the size of the two trees not being 10 inches apart. But those trees look more mature than 8 inches.

Also to clarify these trees are red alder and not quaking aspens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Looking at frame 352 though. If those trees are only 8 inches wide looking at Patty’s thigh being smaller? I think she becomes smaller than a human. Certainly smaller than me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, norseman said:

I agree in relation to the size of the two trees not being 10 inches apart. But those trees look more mature than 8 inches.

Also to clarify these trees are red alder and not quaking aspens.

 

 

Well, tree TC-2 looks like it was measured as 8" in width/diameter. That measurement is not really up for debate....or, for our own arbitrary adjustment. 

 

If that equates to a relatively short height for Patty...in the 6' range....then, so be it. There is no solid analysis which gives us a height for Patty of 7', or greater.

 

Re-capping a few other height indicators...

 

Bob Gimlin estimated Patty's height as a little over 6'...

 

The 'Frame 72 foot ruler' gives a height of approx. 6'...

 

The 'Lens Photogrammetry' equation...(using the 25MM lens)....gives a height of approx. 5 1/2' to 6'...

 

The 'Jim McClarin comparison' gives a height of roughly about 6', or a little taller....if Jim was significantly further back in the scene than Patty was, at the F352 spot...(somewhere in the 13-20 foot range, further back.)

 

Maybe Patty was on the short side....for a Sasquatch.  

 

I'll post something more regarding John's measurement diagram later today...with additional images/info on those trees. 

 

 

One detail worth noting, on John's diagram....it looks as though he drew the circles for the trees very roughly 'to scale'. 

 

He drew a larger circle for the 12" tree.....drew smaller circles (about the same size) for trees TC-1 and TC-2....and drew very small circles for the two trees he labeled as "smaller trees", on either side of the "Big Tree"....(which he drew the largest circle for.)

 

That pattern in his drawing would seem to indicate that trees TC-1 and TC-2 are close to the same diameter....and smaller than the 12" tree. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
13 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Well, tree TC-2 looks like it was measured as 8" in width/diameter. That measurement is not really up for debate....or, for our own arbitrary adjustment. 

 

If that equates to a relatively short height for Patty...in the 6' range....then, so be it. There is no solid analysis which gives us a height for Patty of 7', or greater.

 

Re-capping a few other height indicators...

 

Bob Gimlin estimated Patty's height as a little over 6'...

 

The 'Frame 72 foot ruler' gives a height of approx. 6'...

 

The 'Lens Photogrammetry' equation...(using the 25MM lens)....gives a height of approx. 5 1/2' to 6'...

 

The 'Jim McClarin comparison' gives a height of roughly about 6', or a little taller....if Jim was significantly further back in the scene than Patty was, at the F352 spot...(somewhere in the 13-20 foot range, further back.)

 

Maybe Patty was on the short side....for a Sasquatch.  

 

I'll post something more regarding John's measurement diagram later today...with additional images/info on those trees. 

 

 

Well it is up for debate. Because we can both agree there isn’t a 10 inch difference between the two front Alder. So is it 18-12-18? Or is it 8-12-8? The left tree is written as 18. So maybe the 1 isn’t a 1, but some sort of line. Or maybe it is a 18 and with the right tree he forgot to write down a 1 in front of the 8. Because based on the frame observation there is no way it is 18-12-8.

 

Either way the left tree was written down as 18. IF the tree is 18 inches wide? Then thinker thunker nailed it. As that is the tree he bases his hypothesis on at 18 inches. He must have had access to this same diagram, because that’s the exact size of Aspen he chose for the test.

 

I do not think Jim McClarin was off track much at all. But obviously Green could not have known exactly where Patterson had been standing. I think the deviance of the two films comes from the camera position more so than the film subject. But whatever, I think Thinker Thunker’s comparison is the better of the two if the tree width of 18 inches is correct.

 

And I see no way to reconcile a “short Sasquatch” with the size of the tracks, the length of the stride and the depth of the print. Nor can I reconcile an 8 inch Alder that appears in the frame to be wider than Patty’s thigh! Runway models don’t leave 15 inch tracks with 40 some inch strides. Something has to give here....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Well it is up for debate. Because we can both agree there isn’t a 10 inch difference between the two front Alder. So is it 18-12-18? Or is it 8-12-8? The left tree is written as 18. So maybe the 1 isn’t a 1, but some sort of line. Or maybe it is a 18 and with the right tree he forgot to write down a 1 in front of the 8. Because based on the frame observation there is no way it is 18-12-8.

 

Either way the left tree was written down as 18. IF the tree is 18 inches wide? Then thinker thunker nailed it. As that is the tree he bases his hypothesis on at 18 inches. He must have had access to this same diagram, because that’s the exact size of Aspen he chose for the test.

 

 

 

 

One major problem with the "18-12-18 inch" theory, Norse.....is, how could a 12" tree....many feet further away from the camera, appear to be the same width.....as two closer/"larger" trees, which are supposedly "18"" in width???...

 

Green_Site_Diagram_Trees_Labeled1.jpg

 

 

Filmsite_Trees_Labeled1.jpg

 

 

The tree which is furthest back...(of the 3 trees)....is clearly labeled in Green's diagram as 12" in width.

 

Since trees TC-1 and TC-2 are significantly closer (to the camera) than the 12" tree...and appear the same in width.....that would mean that those 2 trees would have to be less than 12" in width. Does it not? 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×