Jump to content

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty


Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor

Oh............I would, xspider. Not Human at all, for a LOT of reasons. Sorry for jumping in. I'll go away now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define non-human?  I'd say if a white background with a shadow version of patty walked by, I would say it was very human like if not a human with an odd gait.  She could very well be real and have different ratios and proportions to humans when the numbers are broken down but be human like.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

You're good, hiflier!  8  )   I meant "non-human" as in not a human, Twist.  If someone google's up images of very tall (7+ feet you said), extremely wide people with almost no neck, fully covered in long hair with almost no ears and a sagittal crest, I will be surprised.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the definition of non-human vs. human like etc is very subjective so I tried to give a point of reference to what I was getting at. A silhouette of sorts of Patty walking  by could easily be taken as human like, and would not definitively be described as non human, at least in my opinion. ;)  Unless everything and everywhere is squatchy to you lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 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?

xspider1:

 

Yes we will know Patty's exact height (within an inch or so) one day. I know what needs to be done to reach a truly scientific and factual determination, and while the task is substantial, it will be done. I need funding and hope my own work in my other business will provide same. Some experts in specialized fields are needed to replicate the work and verify it's integrity. But it can, and i am sure, will be done. 

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
50 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

I meant "non-human" as in not a human, Twist.

 

And I see Twist's viewpoint as well. I've seen quite a few reports in John Green's database that carry the impression 'Human-like' and let's face it, without splitting hairs, two arms, two legs, walking upright, hands and feet? If one was walking in shadow at night down a sidewalk? Yeah, it would be very Human-like, big time. In full daylight, though, Human-like would be as far as it gets. Human-like yes, but not Human. If there's one thing we Humans know it is our Humans. Patty just isn't us. In fact I think Patty and her kind are true freaks of Nature. A hodgepodge of two or more different primates. A throwback. Something that didn't quite make it but survived nonetheless. I honestly don't know what to make of her. Beautiful yet monstrous at the same time.  

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
3 hours 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

 

I disagree.

 

You cannot hang a giant foot on a small figure, and it be workable. Also, when I watch the PGF? Her foot looks proportional to her body.

 

I’m glad your confident that everything will come out in the end. I have always been a proponent of the film.

 

But if I’m asked to believe that a 6’ tall creature made that track? I’m not going to buy it. 

 

 

E79AFBD0-A801-48E7-ADEC-9F9C1D820159.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A part of any truly scientific solution is that it strives to address all related concerns, in a factual and logical way. I expect all related concerns to be addressed and explained. No guarantee everyone will like the explanations, but they will be based on evidence and logical analysis.

 

My apologies i cannot discuss this further. I want to have all the proverbial ducks in a row before saying more.

 

Thanks for understanding

 

Bill

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

 

I disagree.

 

You cannot hang a giant foot on a small figure, and it be workable. Also, when I watch the PGF? Her foot looks proportional to her body.

 

I’m glad your confident that everything will come out in the end. I have always been a proponent of the film.

 

But if I’m asked to believe that a 6’ tall creature made that track? I’m not going to buy it. 

 

 

Who has asked you to buy that, Norse?? 

 

As for what I have said.....all of the height indicators I have seen indicate that her 'walking height' is somewhere in the 6' to 6 1/2' range. When you then account for Patty's bent posture...(bent legs and leaning torso)....and add a good 5-6 inches....you end-up with Patty's full standing body height somewhere in the 6'5" to 6'10" range.

 

And a 6'9" person/primate could very easily have a foot that is 14.5" in length.

 

 

Bill Munns wrote:

Quote

Yes we will know Patty's exact height (within an inch or so) one day. I know what needs to be done to reach a truly scientific and factual determination, and while the task is substantial, it will be done

 

 

I'd like to make a prediction....I think eventually it will be shown/proven that the lens on the camera was a 25MM lens...and that Patty's 'walking height' was within an inch or two of 6'3". (For her full 'standing body height'...add 5-6 inches). 

And, that the main source of error in the 'Photogrammetry solution', which gave an exceptionally short height for Patty....was the 'distance to the camera' figure used.  

 

   

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
15 hours 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

 

 

 

You make good points. When it comes to trackways and step length and stride length, I'm always getting fouled up by terminology. I did notice Bob said "toe to heel" and "stride" and I tend to interpret "toe to heel" as the distance from the toe of one foot to the heel of the opposite foot, which is one step. I think of stride as two steps, from one foot to the same foot, but I think many people use stride and step interchangeably. Since there isn't standard terminology this leads to confusion.

Toe to heel pace was mentioned in the video of the BCM trackway and it was measured at 36". It said the average human "toe to heel pace" was 20-21".

42"+ does seem like a rather long step length so apparently Bob G. was meaning stride as two steps. Did he mean toe of one foot to heel of the same foot?

 

One thing we should keep in mind is to get accurate measurements, these human averages for steps and strides were undoubtedly measured while a subject was walking on a flat surface that didn't give way with each step; while Patty was walking on an uneven surface of sand/soil that yielded up to 1&1/2" under her weight. While the same soil barely yielded to real humans when they walked on it. I wonder how much this affected Pattys' step/stride length as compared to Patty walking on a level,hard, flat surface.?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

Patty issues to the extent we can know them:

 

1- Patty's height

 

2- Patty's proportions

 

3- Patty walk 

 

4- Patty's movement speeds/rates over the early distance on the film.

 

Wouldn't the least controversial of these be #4, the Patty speed of walking?  If a person could walk away in a hurried fashion equal to Patty,it suggests it would be possible for a person to move at the same speed as Patty.  Now I would say they should have to  equal this while wearing a suit and so on, but I would just settle for now for a demo of a man walking in gym shorts across a flat lab floor accomplishing this.  Once we establish that, we can then add a suit and do it again. If we cross that barrier, then we can do it outside on grass, then dirt, then finally, ask the person to do the Patty walk while covering that distance and time.   (This assumes there is not something inherit in wearing a suit which results in the Patty walk as some unintentional effect not planned by Roger and Bob.)

 

Its simple.  Walk that distance and time.  If you pass, add the other conditions.   I suspect the walk of Patty vs a man on just covering the distance and time will be a tall task.  It may be equaled, but will turn out to be an obvious struggle suggesting adding the other conditions would be a deal breaker.

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

Patty issues to the extent we can know them:

 

1- Patty's height

 

2- Patty's proportions

 

3- Patty walk 

 

4- Patty's movement speeds/rates over the early distance on the film.

 

Wouldn't the least controversial of these be #4, the Patty speed of walking?  If a person could walk away in a hurried fashion equal to Patty,it suggests it would be possible for a person to move at the same speed as Patty.  Now I would say they should have to  equal this while wearing a suit and so on, but I would just settle for now for a demo of a man walking in gym shorts across a flat lab floor accomplishing this.  Once we establish that, we can then add a suit and do it again. If we cross that barrier, then we can do it outside on grass, then dirt, then finally, ask the person to do the Patty walk while covering that distance and time.   (This assumes there is not something inherit in wearing a suit which results in the Patty walk as some unintentional effect not planned by Roger and Bob.)

 

Its simple.  Walk that distance and time.  If you pass, add the other conditions.   I suspect the walk of Patty vs a man on just covering the distance and time will be a tall task.  It may be equaled, but will turn out to be an obvious struggle suggesting adding the other conditions would be a deal breaker.

 

I thought the frame rate used when filming the PGF is still in question, wouldn't that change the rate in which Patty crosses the given distance? 

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

 

I thought the frame rate used when filming the PGF is still in question, wouldn't that change the rate in which Patty crosses the given distance? 

 

I agree with you about it being in Q.  That is my thinking in 'to the extent that we can know..."

 

I would say we could test each speed.  We may find if the speed was A or B then it wouldn't be possible for a man to do it but at C it would.   There are many here on the BFF who would be good at this type of study but it wouldn't be me.  BFH on the BFF had information that the cameras were all preset to a certain speed anyway or information to that effect.

 

It could either be:

1- done easily

2- not done at all

3- a person could walk fast enough to accomplish it in gym shorts and shoes but it would be such an obvious strain no reasonable person could think it could be done convincingly( let alone with a man in a suit on unfamiliar and varied terrain).

 

Test it at all available speeds.

 

Any other thoughts anyone has on it, I am all ears.  

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

 

I agree with you about it being in Q.  That is my thinking in 'to the extent that we can know..."

 

I would say we could test each speed.  We may find if the speed was A or B then it wouldn't be possible for a man to do it but at C it would.   There are many here on the BFF who would be good at this type of study but it wouldn't be me.  BFH on the BFF had information that the cameras were all preset to a certain speed anyway or information to that effect.

 

It could either be:

1- done easily

2- not done at all

3- a person could walk fast enough to accomplish it in gym shorts and shoes but it would be such an obvious strain no reasonable person could think it could be done convincingly( let alone with a man in a suit on unfamiliar and varied terrain).

 

Test it at all available speeds.

 

Any other thoughts anyone has on it, I am all ears.  

 

I would be curious to see a recreation done at 16fps and 24fps and see how that compares to what a man can do, and since I'm just ordering up tests, lets recreate with a 6', 6'6", and 7' person.  To bad it wasnt that simple though.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Previous analyses have shown that the filming speed couldn't have been any faster than 18fps.  

 

One good reason why I think it couldn't have been any faster...(from my own analysis).....is the 'spin right...look back for 2 steps...spin left' maneuver that Patty pulled-off. 

 

At a filming speed greater than 18fps.....that entire sequence would have to have been executed within only a couple of seconds, or so. I doubt it could be accomplished...and with perfect smoothness/grace.....in only a couple of seconds. 

 

This is one detail which can be studied further....with some experimentation.  Very simply....show some test subjects a video of that segment of the film....point-out the 'spin move' detail.....and ask them to replicate it, precisely. And record the exact time it takes people to do it.  :popcorn: 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...