Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

wiiawiwb
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

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. 

 

I've always thought the 41" average step length in the trackway was generally accepted as being accurate. If so, that is exceptionally long for a human in a suit to repeat and repeat and repeat. For a sasquatch, it's probably pretty normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
17 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

Twist wrote:

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

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: 

 

???????

 

Holy smokes...... if your willing to throw the most tangible trace evidence we have of the event under the bus? Then all you have left Sweaty is a 6'2" man in a monkey suit.....how tall is Bob H again!?

 

The whole story collapses IF that trackway is fake.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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: 

 

Your darn right I'm confused friend. 

 

I don't know if Patty is 6' tall or if Patty is 7' tall.  I don't know if Patty is the real deal BF or if Patty is a person in a suit.  I don't know if Patty is even a real female BF or a real male BF with moobs.   I've stated before, I don't know what Patty is but I'm very curious about Patty and the subject of BF.  

Edited by Twist

Share this post


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

 

Your darn right I'm confused friend. 

 

I don't know if Patty is 6' tall or if Patty is 7' tall.  I don't know if Patty is the real deal BF or if Patty is a person in a suit.  I don't know if Patty is even a real female BF or a real male BF with moobs.   I've stated before, I don't know what Patty is but I'm very curious about Patty and the subject of BF.  

 

 

So, I am 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: 

 

 

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

???????

 

Holy smokes...... if your willing to throw the most tangible trace evidence we have of the event under the bus? Then all you have left Sweaty is a 6'2" man in a monkey suit.....how tall is Bob H again!?

 

The whole story collapses IF that trackway is fake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're misunderstanding my thoughts on the subject, Norse. :) 

 

I'm not promoting/endorsing the 'faked trackway' scenario, at all. I am 100% certain that the PGF trackway is legit.  It is obviously a legitimate trackway, of Patty's footprints.

 

I am simply questioning Twist on what he has proposed. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Im with Twist.

 

I think your trying to explain away the trackway because it doesnt fit your calculations.

 

I think your backwards.

 

The trackway and its trace evidence are not up for debate. Its the most tangible evidence of the film. Its the foundation by which everything else rests.

 

Your hypothesis is too short. Its unworkable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The proof of patty's biological reality (as an entity exactly as she appears, not a human in a costume) is independent of both her height and the trackway.

 

Regardless of what her height finally proves to be, she is real.

 

Regardless of the connection to the trackway or any possible disconnection from it, she is real. 

 

I'm sure some may disagree, but that is the reality that a final solution will affirm. my confidence in this is 100%

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
30 minutes ago, norseman said:

Im with Twist.

 

I think your trying to explain away the trackway because it doesnt fit your calculations.

 

I think your backwards.

 

The trackway and its trace evidence are not up for debate. Its the most tangible evidence of the film. Its the foundation by which everything else rests.

 

Your hypothesis is too short. Its unworkable.

 

 

 QFT

 

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

The proof of patty's biological reality (as an entity exactly as she appears, not a human in a costume) is independent of both her height and the trackway.

 

Regardless of what her height finally proves to be, she is real.

 

Regardless of the connection to the trackway or any possible disconnection from it, she is real. 

 

I'm sure some may disagree, but that is the reality that a final solution will affirm. my confidence in this is 100%

 

Bill

 

Tha'ts certainly not out of the realm of reality, but personally, I'm not there yet in regards to Patty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself but check this out.

The pink line is where I believe McClarin's boot sole to be.

McClarins height is calculated based on his posture (arm position) and the height of his shirt.
Patty is scaled to fit (I actually scaled so TC1 is the same width in pixels in the same spot - I feel I can be more precise as I proceed further)

Patty is rotated slightly and lined up with some wood pile features (not all shown in this animation)

 

It'll still be awhile before I finish the big picture and explain all the math. I feel better about this than any attempts to date.

Patty McM measured.gif

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Redbone, I can definitely appreciate and respect the work you have put into this, that being said, if I've been understanding posts from both Bill and OM, lining up the two photos and scaling them  will never give us a true comparison unless details about both photos were known and lined up.  Details such as lens, distance from camera, path taken etc.... 

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ plussed.  This is my understanding as well, Twist.  I'm confident enough in the "foot as a ruler" method (which relies on the casts being real) to estimate her fully upright standing height to have been about 6'5".  That accounts for some image bloom in the best image we have of the bottom of her foot, that foot being a bit closer to the camera than the rest of her body, her bent knees and her crouched posture.  And, I'm perfectly ok with her being of fairly normal height.  Her width (as hiflier recently pointed out), is plenty non-human enough for me.  After many years of following this subject, it doesn't seem like any better estimate of her height can be made without knowing the exact camera specifics and her distance from the camera, neither of which, if I'm not mistaken, may ever be known for sure.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

^ plussed.  This is my understanding as well, Twist.  I'm confident enough in the "foot as a ruler" method (which relies on the casts being real) to estimate that her fully upright standing height to have been about 6'5".  That accounts for some image bloom in the best image we have of the bottom of her foot, that foot being a bit closer to the camera than the rest of her body, her bent knees and her crouched posture.  And, I'm perfectly ok with her being of fairly normal height.  Her width (as hiflier recently pointed out), is plenty non-human enough for me.  After many years of following this subject, it doesn't seem like any better estimate can be make without knowing the camera specifics and her distance from the camera, neither of which, if I'm not mistaken, we may ever know.

 

I have no argument that of all methods of finding Patty's height, the "foot as ruler" method seems the most logical in getting a good estimate.  It is using a rather likely accurate measurement, the casting, as a reference point.   The one downside is her slouched walking posture.  I still have a hard time believing that with that big of a foot and that long of a stride, that she is on the small side of 6'.  Her width also appears to me to be to wide for her height. She does not appear as short and stocky as what I would imagine at that shorter height.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

So, what's your best guess, Twist?  (Sorry if you posted that already and I missed it.)

 

Edit to Add:   Bill:  Do you think we will ever know her true height within say a 5% tolerance?

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Thought I'd toss this up in case someone wants to do a height vs. heel to heel step ratio. Might prove at least interesting It looks to me that her step is only a fraction less than her walking height: a ratio of what I think is 2.2:1. Puts her walking height at 77 inches and change because I'm sticking to the 35.5 inch heel to heel step. McClarin at 6' 4.25" (revised down to a step length 31.5) Puts Jim and Patty's walking height at about the same. Either way I look at this Patty in the film with forward lean and compliant gait as being 6ft. 5in. Not what I would call a short girl by any means when standing fully erect. Fits pretty well with her not so petite 14.5 'shoe size' too. Buying slippers for the gal would put me in the poor house but if she really wanted them I'd find a way :) 

Patty's Step vs. Height.PNG

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
3 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

So, what's your best guess, Twist?  (Sorry if you posted that already and I missed it.)

 

Edit to Add:   Bill:  Do you think we will ever know her true height within say a 5% tolerance?

 

I'd have to venture a guess at 7' or a shade over.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

So, I'm guessing that at over 7' tall and with relatively short legs, you would say that she looks very much non-human, right?  8  D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×