Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
12 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Always a pleasure to hear from you Pat.

You are always respectful. Never dismissive to me and my beliefs. 

 

The film subject has calves I am very envious of. I Am very muscular. The calves of the film subject look twice the size of mine.

 

I Have a very long torso. Again the subject is very different. Appears much longer. 

 

Thanks for agreeing we are both 7 footers. I think it takes one to know one. 

I know our dimensions are very different. I Am not sure how the creature was created so life like. I spend a lot of time In the gym  The film subject is bulkier than me. 

 

 

Im not picking on you, but your contradicting yourself.

 

If you believe that Patty has calves twice the size of yours, and your a muscular 7’1” frame? In 1969 who in the h**l was wearing that costume?!

 

In my mind at least? This would prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Patty is real. Maybe she was the last of her kind and she died of a heart attack three days after her picture was taken in the wilds of northern California? But she has to be real IF her calves are twice as big as yours.

 

You are in the one percentile for size for a male of your species in the whole world!

 

Or Patty isnt that big or that muscular and its all an illusion. Janos Prohaska who was the foremost authority on Ape costumes in Hollywood? Did not think so.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Im not picking on you, but your contradicting yourself.

 

If you believe that Patty has calves twice the size of yours, and your a muscular 7’1” frame? In 1969 who in the h**l was wearing that costume?!

 

In my mind at least? This would prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Patty is real. 

 

Basically, norse….Patterson-Gimlin is saying that Patty..."looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck.....but isn't a duck". 

 

That type of thing is commonly known as 'playing a game'....(to put it nicely). 

 

That is why I have him on 'Ignore'. I don't play along with games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
49 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

I look to a gorilla in the zoo for a better guess on Patty's traits.  One mature Zoo Gorilla was listed at 440lbs after it was shot and killed (a child got into his enclosure).

 

1) It must have been male, right?

 

2) Did they list a height for the gorilla?

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

.......Remember, if her 'walking height' was 6'3"...then her 'full standing'/true body height would have been right around 6'10".

 

I think your deduction is about as accurate as it gets. Giving or taking 3” places her at 6’7-7’1”, and 6’10” is a good medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
13 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

.......The film subject has calves I am very envious of. I Am very muscular. The calves of the film subject look twice the size of mine.......

 

.........The film subject is bulkier than me. 

 

Even more impressive than the bulk of the calves are the bulk of the ankles. Clearly, those ankles are way out of human norms, and they work flawlessly in the film.

 

I’m also intrigued with her biceps. They are like mine. When I lifted weights (in the Art Jones strategy), they got big and round. When I stopped lifting yet continued in heavy blue collar work, they ended up like hers. Now that I’m retired, but still occasionally doing ranch type work, they still appear like hers, but are beginning to shrink from lack of work.

42 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

Basically, norse….Patterson-Gimlin is saying that Patty..."looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck.....but isn't a duck". 

 

That type of thing is commonly known as 'playing a game'....(to put it nicely).........

 

I think it’s more like “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck.....but isn't a duck, because ducks don’t exist.

 

I think it’s similar to what Dr. D.W. Grieve wrote in 1971:

 

.......Grieve notes that his "subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to

one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."......

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
16 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Always a pleasure to hear from you Pat.

You are always respectful. Never dismissive to me and my beliefs. 

 

The film subject has calves I am very envious of. I Am very muscular. The calves of the film subject look twice the size of mine.

 

I Have a very long torso. Again the subject is very different. Appears much longer. 

 

Thanks for agreeing we are both 7 footers. I think it takes one to know one. 

I know our dimensions are very different. I Am not sure how the creature was created so life like. I spend a lot of time In the gym  The film subject is bulkier than me. 

 

Patterson-Gimlin,

 

The pleasure is all mine my friend, best skeptic out there haha !

 

I think I understand your dilemma, as a scientist, one who relies on definitive evidence, it's not there. Be it the subject itself or the film. Yet the PGF is a complete conundrum, the subject filmed defies logical explanation...based on what you see an based on your knowledge...you're left with a question answered by an opinion an not fact.

 

As for the folks who question your sincerity, pay it no mind Patterson-Gimlin, it is what it is.

 

"So, I don't see a problem with a 6' to 6'5" 'walking height' for Patty. 

Remember, if her 'walking height' was 6'3"...then her 'full standing'/true body height would have been right around 6'10". "

 

So if there's no problem with 6'5" walking height, a 7' standing height shouldn't be a problem either.

 

Pat...

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thank you for the kind words and understanding my position. 

 

I Have never tried to explain away the film and what it contains. 

 

The lack of documentation before and after is a problem. 

I completely understand why they said or think I simply dismiss the subject. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Thank you PG for always having an open mind and NOT playing games.   You and I have similar views on the PGF and yet completely polar opposite views on BF as a whole.  You have always been a fair and honest critic of the BF subject.     You bring a healthy skepticism to the subject.    

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Basically, norse….Patterson-Gimlin is saying that Patty..."looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck.....but isn't a duck". 

 

That type of thing is commonly known as 'playing a game'....(to put it nicely). 

 

This is a very bigoted view by SY...(to put it nicely)   

Edited by Twist
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
14 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

This is a very bigoted view by SY...(to put it nicely)   

 

I have SY on ignore. Not because we dont see eye to eye 90 % of the time....

 

Its because he is the self appointed bouncer of the PGF section. If you do not toe the party line, which is to say his line? He attempts to drum you out. Its like a turf war. He doesn't participate anywhere else on the forum but here. With that said I do respect has knowledge of the subject. Its just that I can only take his dogmatic approach in small doses.

 

PG as Ive said before is my favorite skeptic, always very polite, and very considerate. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I have SY on ignore. Not because we dont see eye to eye 90 % of the time....

 

Its because he is the self appointed bouncer of the PGF section. If you do not toe the party line, which is to say his line? He attempts to drum you out. Its like a turf war. He doesn't participate anywhere else on the forum but here. With that said I do respect his knowledge of the subject. Its just that I can only take his dogmatic approach in small doses.

 

That is an inaccurate representation of what I've been saying/proposing...regarding ignoring scoftics.  

 

I'm not asking people to agree with my thinking, on the subject.....instead, I'm simply trying to encourage people to ignore the folks who contribute nothing to the discussions, and analysis. That would be the closed-minded scoffers.....(just about every skeptic here)....the BS Artists....(those who claim to have "confessions", yet don't)....and theTrolls of the Internet Discussion world. 

 

I don't express my opinions, and interpretations of the analysis very much, here. I mainly do some analysis....and post it, in the form of images and animations.  Showing what is on the film, beats endless 'talking wars' about what is on the film.....period.  :) 

 

 

Quote

Its like a turf war.

 

That's right, norse. There is a battle going on, on this Bigfoot forum.

 

But, this is a Bigfoot forum....not Jref.  It doesn't really need scoffers, to serve it's function/purpose.  

 

 

  • Sad 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

"So, I don't see a problem with a 6' to 6'5" 'walking height' for Patty. 

Remember, if her 'walking height' was 6'3"...then her 'full standing'/true body height would have been right around 6'10". "

 

So if there's no problem with 6'5" walking height, a 7' standing height shouldn't be a problem either.

 

Pat...

 

I'd agree with that, Pat.  :)

 

If Patty's 'walking height' was 6'5", then her actual body height would be about 7 to 9" taller.  

 

But from what I've seen, with a few height calculation methods....her 'walking height' seems to be a little shorter than that. 

 

Looking at the Photogrammetry method again... .a 25MM Lens gives a 'walking height' of only about 5 feet....(using a 'distance to camera' figure of 102').

 

Since that 102' distance is an unreliable figure....determined by Rene Dahinden, years after the film was shot......there is a reasonable probability that Patty could have been closer to the camera than 102'. If she was 10 feet closer, then the photogrammetry equation would result in a taller 'walking height'....approaching 6'.

 

Also, it is very unlikely that either Roger, or the camera shop owner would have switched-out the standard 25MM lens for a 20MM lens....(the only other alternative).

 

The camera shop owner wouldn't have done that, since that would result in customers making home movies in which people appear more distant than they should appear....and could result in having dissatisfied customers.

 

And, neither would Roger have switched-out a 25MM lens with a 20MM lens....since that also would have made the filmed subject appear smaller, and more distant, in the resulting film footage.

Why would Roger have wanted to 'zoom out', away from a Sasquatch....when he was trying/hoping to prove it's existence??? 

 

10 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I think it’s more like “looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, acts like a duck.....but isn't a duck, because ducks don’t exist.

 

I think it’s similar to what Dr. D.W. Grieve wrote in 1971:

 

 

That's right, Hunster. ;) 

 

It's a case of people having closed minds. Instead of accepting what they are seeing...they automatically dismiss the details, for their pre-conceived notions. 

 

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Many people accept what they see. They accept what they hear and they accept what they read. A scientist should accept none of that but instead works on the empirical side to prove that what they are seeing, hearing , or reading is true. The PGF has difficulty with the height issue as we have all seen here on these threads. Why so much time and effort is spent on the issue is beyond me. There are other factors that nail the truth of the PGF down without pages and pages of what amounts to little more than opinion on height.

 

Even though I was involved in some of the 'what is her height' dialogue I gave up on it once I understood that her height is useless to pin down. Fun yes, and maybe something will come along that does show a definitive figure for height but I do not see it happening. A scientist will look at all of the issues to see what hard numbers ARE available though and that is where the focus should be. Has been in the past and so should still be now. And there ARE numbers available. What this community does with those numbers and where they take them is indicative of how much it really wants science to get involved. There is enough data to get science involved but the question remains about how much knocking on science's door is actually being done by anyone? What will it take?

 

I have tried to do that- knock on science's door (Jane Goodall Primatology Institute and several others). It doesn't open. So anyone have any ideas? Citizen science (hate the term myself) hasn't moved this forward in 51 years. Sure there have been sort of official studies and expeditions have been launched but Patty still hasn't been invited to the scientific party. And she never will be as long as she lives only on a Bigfoot thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 The PGF has difficulty with the height issue as we have all seen here on these threads. Why so much time and effort is spent on the issue is beyond me. There are other factors that nail the truth of the PGF down without pages and pages of what amounts to little more than opinion on height.

 

Even though I was involved in some of the 'what is her height' dialogue I gave up on it once I understood that her height is useless to pin down. 

 

 

I have to disagree, hiflier. :) 

 

There are a couple of film frames....(Frame 72...and a frame from the middle sequence of the film)….in which a 'foot ruler' measurement has been made.....and in both cases, it indicates a 'walking height' for Patty of just slightly over 6'. 

 

Making relative height/length measurements of a subject within a single image is scientific analysis. (It's certainly not artwork.) 

 

The difficulty here is in people accepting what they are seeing......not in the scientific analysis, itself.  Many folks on this forum seem to have a pre-conceived notion that the PGF subject had, or should have, a 'walking height' of  7 feet…..and hence, they have trouble with this line of analysis.

 

But, nonetheless.....the two 'foot ruler' measurements are simple, and clear.....in what they show. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team
33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Even though I was involved in some of the 'what is her height' dialogue I gave up on it once I understood that her height is useless to pin down.

Sometimes you have to learn the hard way. I went through several methods thinking for some reason I could do it, only to find that there are flaws built into every method I tried, especially dealing with comparison photos from different cameras. One thing I'm sure of, that the Thinker Thunker method of measuring the trees, as was shown in the OP, is just as flawed as other methods.

 

At this point, I'd eliminate comparisons to McClaren because of potential depth of field problems that I'm not smart enough to work out.

The best shot at accurate height (in my opinion) is the foot ruler method, heel ruler (as shown in the vid I linked earlier), and the stick ruler from the same Vid and from Daniel Perez.

I also attempted a step ruler that may or may not be valid because it used average step length with no way of knowing if THIS step was longer or shorter than average.

 

I started out convince she was 6'3" (walking height). I now think very close to 7 feet is the answer.
 

I'm looking for Bill Munns or Daniel Perez with their ongoing efforts to give us the answers once and for all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
On 12/3/2017 at 9:49 AM, Redbone said:

I'm working on the math today, but before I get too far, I wanted to post this screen capture.

Thinker Thunker's tree is not 18 inches across, according to his own measurement. In this one image alone it varies from 16 to 17 inches. He has 2" of measuring tape hanging out on the left side.

This can mess up all of the math, BUT since his math roughly added up to his own known height, the section of tree he used may have really been 18 inches. I'd look closer but it's not too relevant now.

 

TT also assumes she's within 5-10 feet of that 12" tree, but JG's diagram says the trees are 60 feet apart. She could be 30 feet or more from that tree.

 

16-17 inch aspen.jpg

If I read the JG sketch correctly, TC 1 is 105', TC 2 is 115' and the 12" tree is 167'. I think this puts both front trees at about 8 inches across (but a lot of potential for error).

I think the left tree was really 8 on JG's diagram and the rest of that is some other scribble.

 

Patty 'might' be 121 feet in the very frame we're looking at if the look back frame was what JG was diagramming here.

ALL of this should be enough to get a decent height number, if I can only determine where her feet are. I'm working on it.

 

Personally, I can't stand Thinker Thunker's videos.  They are filled with forced alignments that actually don't even align, he just says they do and moves on.  I too noticed the tape discrepancy.  But it's the norm in his videos...

 

I for one do not believe you have enough data in the film nor from the location to determine Patty's height.  Nor do I think it's necessary to determine it in the first place.  The stride and musculature are more viable pieces of evidence. imho anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×