Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

IMG_0789.JPG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

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.)

 

In all that I have been doing, I am also talking about walking height. It's been several problematic attempts but I feel I am getting closer. I'm sure she is taller and that's why she doesn't look like a hobbit.

 

McClarin's walking height also differs from his standing height. He seem to go from 71" to 76" while walking, depending on where he is at in his stride. Arms out = 71", and leg locked and arm at his side = 76". With her compliant gait, I don't believe Patty's walking height changes much at any point in her stride.

 

I am working in Bill Munn's "McClarin Walk Composite" image (LINK) and will soon be able to show how far from the camera he is at nearly every point of his walk, assuming that his estimate of 144' from John Green's camera while behind tree TC2 (at 115') is close to being accurate. Does that change much if he's really 73-74" tall mid-stride at that point instead of 77"?

 

I don't think my effort will be good enough to nail down Patty's height, but I should be able to make a decent chart. The trick is to determine if she is closer or farther than McClarin from the camera's location as JG filmed him, and by how much.  It seems like JG is lines up pretty well with Patterson's camera but the height might be off a little. I don't know how to deal with that yet.

 

It no longer matters, but I think I can soon tell with greater confidence how wide TC1 and TC2 trees are. They are NOT 18".

 

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Thanks for putting in the effort, to work through the numbers, Redbone. Hopefully, you can continue to narrow down the potential errors, and Patty's 'walking height', also. 

 

Regarding Jim's and Patty's relative locations, within the scene....Jim was definitely further back...during the 'look back' segment, and immediately afterwards.

 

I think he was a good 15' further back at the F352 spot....(and possibly further). 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
7 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

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" .

 

 

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

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

 

Go back and look at Bob's use of the words.  He called the toe-to-heel distance "stride".    Whatever we do, we have to add Patty's foot length to Bob's measurement to get the distance between identical points on consecutive tracks.  46+14=60 inches.    It gets worse.

 

If that's really 60 inches for stride length, then her step length is only 30 inches which I can do, not comfortable anymore since I'm older and less flexible, but possible.    If that 46 inches is the between-step gap, 60 inches for step length using the common definition, we're looking at a 120 inch stride.  

 

Those variables in proper use of terminology change the picture a lot.  

 

It would be very useful to find out what the step / stride measurements were from some other source that might have used the terminology correctly or for someone who knows Bob to have him draw what he means, where he was measuring.

 

MIB

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
15 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

 

 

Go back and look at Bob's use of the words.  He called the toe-to-heel distance "stride".    Whatever we do, we have to add Patty's foot length to Bob's measurement to get the distance between identical points on consecutive tracks.  46+14=60 inches.    It gets worse.

 

If that's really 60 inches for stride length, then her step length is only 30 inches which I can do, not comfortable anymore since I'm older and less flexible, but possible.    If that 46 inches is the between-step gap, 60 inches for step length using the common definition, we're looking at a 120 inch stride.  

 

Those variables in proper use of terminology change the picture a lot.  

 

It would be very useful to find out what the step / stride measurements were from some other source that might have used the terminology correctly or for someone who knows Bob to have him draw what he means, where he was measuring.

 

MIB

 

 

In this trackway composite image, MIB...(taken from Bill Munns' website)....it doesn't look like almost 4' gaps between the footprints...

 

PGF_Trackway_Composite1.jpg

 

 

I don't see anything in Patty's stride in the film, or in the trackway, that indicates Patty's 'step length' was all that incredible. She did take some lengthy steps during the look back segment, but I don't know that those steps had to have been taken by a subject of 7' tall...or taller. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

This is what I was getting at in my comment about using numbers that fit your ideas. To me the only thing that is not ambiguous is the foot size,  the castings give us the most accurate and real number that can be used in assessing her dimensions. I don't believe that any of us who were not onsite during or shortly after the incident have any better idea of what numbers are more solid than another set of numbers.   I also have a hard time believing that a creature with a foot as big as hers is only 6'6" tall, now of course I'm basing that on human anatomy and proportions but at this point its my best frame of reference and I'm more than open to being wrong about that.  It's all part of the great mystery that brings us all back here ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Looking at the pictures, if her feet are 14 inches long, that looks like a 30 inch step.    (46+14)/2 ... 30.   That works if Bob's measure was from the tip of a right big toe to the heel of the next right track.   That could be.   It's not what I'd do understanding what step and stride mean, technically, but ... it could be.    I used to walk with a 30+ inch step and and I'm only 5'9".  If you've proven she could be my height, you've proven the PGF is a hoax.   Stick a fork in her, you've finished the scoftics' work for them.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

In this trackway composite image, MIB...(taken from Bill Munns' website)....it doesn't look like almost 4' gaps between the footprints...

 

PGF_Trackway_Composite1.jpg

 

 

 

 

How often do we see tracks that look like this?  I really don't have that answer and maybe they are more common than I know or hear about. 

 

Shouldn't we expect tracks that look really clear near water sources such as lakes, streams, and so on there would be more traces of Bigfoot looking a lot like this here?   We see Bear, Snake, Duck, or whatever traces around water.  Living animals need water and it is safe to say in the case of the PGF event our best guess is Patty was down there to look for food/water.

 

Even though Bigfoot is obviously thought to be a rare creature, shouldn't there be more tracks like this shown here in the PGF Trackway?  That is, tracks that are clearly either a very large foot or a fake very large foot?

 

I understand it takes a few factors. 1) The track maker walking near the creek 'beach' in order to make the track in the first place. 2) the person coming to that spot that in most cases would be expected to be very remote 3) the person getting there in time to see the track before the elements take it back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Again, I think that using a ratio when comparing shoulder width relative to height can also be used in regard to footprint size tostep length. We have the photos above of the trackway. it should be easy enough to calculate the step length from the known length of the foot prints: On screen= ~17mm footprint, ~40mm heel to heel step.

 

40 divided by 17= 2.35......2.35 x 15 inches= ~35.5 inch step heel to heel. So, about three feet heel to heel. Subtract 15 inches and the empty space between a toe and a heel is about 20-21 inches. Does this make sense?

 

It would mean that at 6 feet tall Patty's heel-to-heel step is half of her height. An average 6 foot Human male has a heel-to-heel step of around 30 inches.

 

One formula I read says to take a man's height in inches and multiply by .415. For a woman it would be height in inches multiplied by .413

 

Male- 72 inches x .415= 29.88 heel to heel.

Patty- 35.5/.413 (female) = 85.9 inches tall........but that would be for the height (almost 7 ft. 2 in.) of a Human female with that step length (35.5 in).

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

So, McClarin at 6ft. 6in. (78 inches) tall x .415 (Human male) should have an average flat ground heel-to-heel step length of almost 32.5 inches. Patty's step is three inches longer- and on uneven ground.    

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


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

 

This is what I was getting at in my comment about using numbers that fit your ideas. To me the only thing that is not ambiguous is the foot size,  the castings give us the most accurate and real number that can be used in assessing her dimensions. I don't believe that any of us who were not onsite during or shortly after the incident have any better idea of what numbers are more solid than another set of numbers.   I also have a hard time believing that a creature with a foot as big as hers is only 6'6" tall, now of course I'm basing that on human anatomy and proportions but at this point its my best frame of reference and I'm more than open to being wrong about that.  It's all part of the great mystery that brings us all back here ! 

 

 

So, I was wondering, Twist.....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:

 

The tracks could have been faked, correct? 

 

 

Quote

 I also have a hard time believing that a creature with a foot as big as hers is only 6'6" tall,

 

 

If Patty's 'walking height' was 6'6"....then her full, true body height would have been several inches taller.....approx. 6'11".  A subject of that height could very well have a foot 14.5" in length. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
39 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Again, I think that using a ratio when comparing shoulder width relative to height can also be used in regard to footprint size tostep length. We have the photos above of the trackway. it should be easy enough to calculate the step length from the known length of the foot prints: On screen= ~17mm footprint, ~40mm heel to heel step.

 

40 divided by 17= 2.35......2.35 x 15 inches= ~35.5 inch step heel to heel. So, about three feet heel to heel. Subtract 15 inches and the empty space between a toe and a heel is about 20-21 inches. Does this make sense?

 

It would mean that at 6 feet tall Patty's heel-to-heel step is half of her height. An average 6 foot Human male has a heel-to-heel step of around 30 inches.

 

One formula I read says to take a man's height in inches and multiply by .415. For a woman it would be height in inches multiplied by .413

 

Male- 72 inches x .415= 29.88 heel to heel.

Patty- 35.5/.413 (female) = 85.9 inches tall........but that would be for the height (almost 7 ft. 2 in.) of a Human female with that step length (35.5 in).

 

Those are very similar to the numbers I was coming up with and hence my estimate that PG would have a 35-36” stride.

 

However I was wrong once he posted his number.  That, to me, shows the flaw in comparing Patty’s proportions to human proportions.  She only appears to be human like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

A few corrections or cautions here.

 

1. Jim told me he was 6' 4.25" tall in bare feet, so about 6'5" with walking shoes.

 

2. Please do not use the trackway composite for measurements of stride, because of the distortion of the lens filming the tracks. Depending on what frames are used to make the composite, and how the overlap areas are aligned, one can produce composite images of the footprints that are 6 inches more or less apart. So any composite is for illustrative purposes only, not precise measurements of step or stride when scaled to the plaster cast and setting it at 14.5". Until distortion tests are run on the lens on Roger's camera for the trackway, any composite made from frames will be a guess, nothing more. Please do not rely upon it for measurement analysis.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So, I was wondering, Twist.....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:

 

The tracks could have been faked, correct? 

 

The foot length I believe should be taken as a solid number, and probably the most solid number, due to the nature of a well cast track.  Within fractions of an inch you can make out heel to toe distance.  The stride length I believe is less solid but I have more faith in measuring or estimating a stride length give that it is on a plane that tends to show distance better than say measuring a tree width which as shown, can be skewed by curvature. 

 

I have no issue admitting it is all ambiguous I just have my own personal meter of what is more or less ambiguous than something else.  Its called forming an opinion, right or wrong its what I think, not know.   

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Twist wrote:

Quote

 I don't believe that any of us who were not onsite during or shortly after the incident have any better idea of what numbers are more solid than another set of numbers.  

 

 

The Lens Photgrammetry equation gives a pretty solid indication of Patty's height.  With a 25MM lens on the camera...(as stated in the rental agreement)....Patty's 'walking height' works out to be somewhere in the 6' range. Not 7 feet...or even close to it. 

 

Bill Munns got an exceptionally short height for Patty....using that formula....but the 'distance from the camera' figure he used may have been too short a distance. If Patty was a bit further away than the 103' that she was thought to be...then the equation could give a 'walking height' in the range of 6', or a few inches taller.  And, even though someone could then say that if she was much further away....then the equation could give a height of close to 7'.....that really couldn't be the case, because of the very small details visible on Patty's face. Those details simply would not be resolvable above 'film grain' noise....if Patty were much further away from the camera than 103'.  

 

Between the visible detail on Patty's face....limiting her potential distance from the camera.....and a 25MM lens....limiting her potential height.....we have a pretty solid, and limited, range of height, that Patty would have to be somewhere within.  

 

15 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

The foot length I believe should be taken as a solid number, and probably the most solid number, due to the nature of a well cast track.  Within fractions of an inch you can make out heel to toe distance.  The stride length I believe is less solid but I have more faith in measuring or estimating a stride length give that it is on a plane that tends to show distance better than say measuring a tree width which as shown, can be skewed by curvature. 

 

 

 

You seem confused, Twist. ;)   The casts are casts of footprints....not feet.  

 

The footprints could have been faked....correct?  If so, then the 14.5" figure, for Patty's foot.....is not so solid....wouldn't you agree? 

 

And hence, my question...again....

 

So, I was wondering, Twist.....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: 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×