Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

Twist
10 minutes ago, norseman said:

48 inch average.

 

 

 

At 48 inches, the height of a man would be around 9'6".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Fact check me but that’s supposedly what was measured at the film site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

That's what I thought as well Bill. Krantz had the stride at 81.5 inches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
14 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Notice the shadows.

JohnGreenJimMcClarin.jpg

Notice how quick we loose sight of McClarin's feet here.

 

 

This is a great example as to how uneven the sandbar was.Think about this .... the camera is elevated and looking downward and yet these two men's feet are not visible.So how much lower would the two men appear to be if filmed with the camera even lower to the ground - ???  The point is that if McClarin was a step closer to the camera and his feet atop of the ridge - Jim may look another six inches taller against himself. This is why these height comparisons cannot be reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

This is from a writeup about the 2010 Texas Bigfoot Conference where Bob G. spoke.

 

"Gimlin said the length of the stride from toe to heel varied from 42"-46" .

"Gimlin stated that, based on prints found at the site, the stride increased to over 60" in length shortly before ascending the embankment. Gimlin speculated that the creature started to run at this point". You are all capable of doing the math but let me say this anyway...that is a 5 ft. stride. All of these numbers were verified later by the likes of Bob Titmus, John Greene, et al."

By "all of these numbers", is it correct to assume the toe to heel step length of 42"-46" was also verified later?

 

The writer also added his own comment: "The stride length of the creature is the number one reason I believe the footage is genuine. Forget, for a moment, about ape suits, film speed, conspiracy theories, and everything else. Simply put, a man in a suit can't take strides of that length while walking as smoothly and fluidly as the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. It can't be done."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

 

"Gimlin said the length of the stride from toe to heel varied from 42"-46" .

 

 

I don't doubt this.  Did Gimlin bring a tape measure that day?  I am guessing he did.   

 

Also, do we know if it was ever claimed any of this measuring takes place on Reel #2?

 

Thankfully others arrived and took measurements so it is very likely these measurements are accurate.

 

I always wondered when news spread about the encounter why those who arrived later (other than Lyle L) did not bring a camera with them to take photos of the site when they arrived.  They are going there to see this reported sighting at Bluff Creek and go there with some expectation of tracks/ other traces there.  They really don't know what they might find.  Even in days where photography costs money someone brings a camera to the site and takes pics of the trackway. 

 

Makes me wonder why they didn't.  Even when they filmed the McClarin walk the next spring you would think they might take their cameras and snap a roll of film as well.  The tracks would be mostly gone save a few traces but the path could be photographed vs a hand drawn map.

 

Maybe in the end, they figured if Roger had got the sucker on film they saw no need to go there and take pics of the trackway while it was fresh.  I would think if they went to the trouble of checking the site out days later they bring their camera at minimum and maybe a movie camera.   

 

 

13 hours ago, PBeaton said:

The PGF subject moves quite fluidly an naturally in my opinion, clearly with a longer step/stride than 6'5" McClarin. I think it was Bill Munns who put the top two images together, I put the third/bottom image together roughly. If McClarin extended his stride to match hers, he'd get shorter, not to mention if he leaned his torso as well.

jimsasquatchwalkcomparison.jpg

 

I am sure some have posted on this but I have a Question:

 

Has anyone done any calculations to determine how many steps 6'5'' Jim takes to cover X amounts of distance vs Patty?

 

For example, If there is some distance between Tree A and Tree B and Jim takes 8 Steps to cover that distance and Patty takes 6, it would seem obvious regardless of camera speed Pattys stride would have to be much longer than Jim's in such an example.

 

I know there would be slight variances in such an appearance due to cameras being slightly off (apples to oranges).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

I don't think he/they did, but a lot of outdoor folks have other ways of measurin' things, be it a object like their boot/shoe, a knife or body part. I use ta measure my smallmouth bass with my elbow to finger distance. (But I'm not positive)

 

McClarin an company filmed the tracks an I believe him walkin' along them when he was there days later. When McClarin returned with Green an company in '68, to film the comparison walk, George Haas took a few dozen colour photos if I recall, the image I posted above of John an Jim lookin' down is one of those photos. There were others there with them studyin' the film site, they may have taken photos as well. There was another film of McClarin doin' the walk besides the one Green filmed that one day, June 23, '68.

 

I recall Titmus was said to have mentioned when he was there, there was evidence of three or four plaster casts bein' made, we know Roger an Bob made two, did they mess up one or two other ones, or had someone else made it too the site to document it or make casts ?

 

I've always thought there could be other photos/film that could still come to light to share more info.

 

Pat...

 

ps I believe the step/stride distance comparison has been brought up in the past.

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I wonder if there is a record of the length of each step in the trackway. It was be interesting to see if they changed much from the first one measured to the last one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Based on stride lengths and foot size it’s got to be a pretty safe bet that Patty would have to be in the 7’ range.  I’d say anything in the 6’ range just doesn’t make sense, IMO.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
43 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Backdoc,

 

I don't think he/they did, but a lot of outdoor folks have other ways of measurin' things, be it a object like their boot/shoe, a knife or body part. I use ta measure my smallmouth bass with my elbow to finger distance. (But I'm not positive)

 

McClarin an company filmed the tracks an I believe him walkin' along them when he was there days later. When McClarin returned with Green an company in '68, to film the comparison walk, George Haas took a few dozen colour photos if I recall, the image I posted above of John an Jim lookin' down is one of those photos. There were others there with them studyin' the film site, they may have taken photos as well. There was another film of McClarin doin' the walk besides the one Green filmed that one day, June 23, '68.

 

I recall Titmus was said to have mentioned when he was there, there was evidence of three or four plaster casts bein' made, we know Roger an Bob made two, did they mess up one or two other ones, or had someone else made it too the site to document it or make casts ?

 

I've always thought there could be other photos/film that could still come to light to share more info.

 

Pat...

 

ps I believe the step/stride distance comparison has been brought up in the past.

 

 

All well said.

 

As much as I want to see a linear photo of the pathway, I can see why there may not be one.  If someone arrived- and this is proven with Lyle L- the tendency would be to focus on the tracks themselves.   They would aim the camera down on each track/ footprint as those footprints are what brought them there.  Heck, the might have even saved a few pics back on the rare chance they might see Patty thinking she might still be in the area.

 

I guess it's like the Titanic researchers. They always want the photo of what was not taken since they already have the photo and considered it of what was already taken.

 

Share this post


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

Based on stride lengths and foot size it’s got to be a pretty safe bet that Patty would have to be in the 7’ range.  I’d say anything in the 6’ range just doesn’t make sense, IMO.  

 

 

A person in the 6 -to- 6 1/2' range can walk with a 46" step length. 

 

One thing to keep in mind, is that Patty's 'walking height' is several inches shorter than her full 'standing height'. So, if Patty's 'walking height' was 6' 4"...then, when standing straight up.....her actual/full body height would have been somewhere in the 6' 10" range. 

(Also...Patty has/had relatively long upper-legs. Therefore, her skeletal structure would allow for a lengthy stride.)

 

When I talk about Patty being "on the short side"....I'm talking about her 'walking height'....as seen in the film....with her legs bent, and her upper torso leaning forward. All of the methods of calculating Patty's walking height indicate that it is in the 6'+ range....possibly upwards of 6 1/2'. 

 

There is no solid analysis that indicates Patty's 'walking height' is as tall as 7'.

 

Thinka-Thunka's arbitrary scaling of tree TC-1 is not a solid height analysis, in the least.  It's kinda lame, actually. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
32 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

A person in the 6 -to- 6 1/2' range can walk with a 46" step length. 

 

One thing to keep in mind, is that Patty's 'walking height' is several inches shorter than her full 'standing height'. So, if Patty's 'walking height' was 6' 4"...then, when standing straight up.....her actual/full body height would have been somewhere in the 6' 10" range. 

(Also...Patty has/had relatively long upper-legs. Therefore, her skeletal structure would allow for a lengthy stride.)

 

When I talk about Patty being "on the short side"....I'm talking about her 'walking height'....as seen in the film....with her legs bent, and her upper torso leaning forward. All of the methods of calculating Patty's walking height indicate that it is in the 6'+ range....possibly upwards of 6 1/2'. 

 

There is no solid analysis that indicates Patty's 'walking height' is as tall as 7'.

 

Thinka-Thunka's arbitrary scaling of tree TC-1 is not a solid height analysis, in the least.  It's kinda lame, actually. :) 

 

There are no solid numbers for much of Patty’s dimensions other than the possible stride and foot length.  It’s all best guesses and I suppose based on your position the numbers can be manipulated in a way to fit your view, and that goes for all sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
31 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

There are no solid numbers for much of Patty’s dimensions other than the possible stride and foot length.  It’s all best guesses and I suppose based on your position the numbers can be manipulated in a way to fit your view, and that goes for all sides. 

 

 

Some numbers, and lines of analysis, are more solid than others, Twist.  TT's numbers would be among the least solid. 

 

Btw, what makes you think that the 'stride length' and 'foot length' are fairly "solid numbers"....strong enough to make "7 ft." a......."safe bet"?? :popcorn: 

 

Also....the 'Foot ruler' height calculation is every bit as solid as the 'foot length'....(and it indicates a 'walking height' of approx. 6' 5".)

 

 

One other 'body height' indicator which is pretty solid, is Bob Gimlin's height estimate. Whether it be the 'real' or the 'hoax' scenario....Bob G. would have no reason/incentive to under-estimate Patty's height. Bob estimated her height as a little over 6 feet. 

 

Given Patty's tremendous bulk, and body width....if her 'walking height' was 7', or taller.....Bob would have gotten that impression. He didn't. She wasn't. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×