Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I just asked Jim McClarin if his stride in one forward step was equal to Patty's and he said the creatures steps were around 6" further apart as best as he recalls. This was based on his first trip to the film site when the tracks were still quite clear.

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

A Preview...

That same sun angle is only 33 inches from TC2.

Patty Possible Path.jpg

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

I just asked Jim McClarin if his stride in one forward step was equal to Patty's and he said the creatures steps were around 6" further apart as best as he recalls. This was based on his first trip to the film site when the tracks were still quite clear.

 

I find this interesting.   Watching the film, her steps do not seem abnormally or awkwardly long, in fact, if anything, they appear slightly short for her height.   There's no way she's near a mere 6 feet.   Comparing her leg positions as she walks in the film to the track distance on the ground points to a height solidly over 7 feet .. 7'3" to 7'6" most likely.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^^ Agreed, stride length plus foot size puts her in the 7’+ range.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

Here's another visual aid to explain what I think about the shadows.

Patty Shadows.jpg

 

And this is where I think Patty and McClarin are practically in the same place. This makes her walking height shorter than him, but his knee is locked and her knees are bent, and of course she is stooped over. This also puts her foot sole in the next Patty image over at about 14".

McC Patty Compared.jpg

Edited by Redbone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

The average observed footprint and stride length of sasquatch relative to the average observed height is significantly larger than that of humans. In other words, Bigfoot really does have unusually big feet. Based on that alone, one could make a reasonably educated guess that Patty very likely has a height of less than 6’8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

Patty's foot is larger than McClarin's and it may be possible that he is closer than she in this comparison.

foot compare.jpg

Share this post


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

 

I find this interesting.   Watching the film, her steps do not seem abnormally or awkwardly long, in fact, if anything, they appear slightly short for her height.   There's no way she's near a mere 6 feet.   Comparing her leg positions as she walks in the film to the track distance on the ground points to a height solidly over 7 feet .. 7'3" to 7'6" most likely.

 

 

 

Patty is not that tall, MIB. The Frame 72 'foot ruler' indicates a 'walking height' of a little over 6'.  

 

Likewise...the 'foot ruler' in this frame also gives a 'walking height' of only a little over 6'...

 

Patty_Foot_Ruler_B1.jpg

 

 

 

Quote

her steps do not seem abnormally or awkwardly long, in fact, if anything, they appear slightly short for her height.   There's no way she's near a mere 6 feet. 

 

I agree, MIB....the evidence does not indicate a 'walking height' for Patty of only 6'.

 

It indicates a slightly taller height. And when you add several more inches, to account for her bent-kneed, and forward-leaning torso posture.....you then have a 'full standing' height for Patty of about 6 1/2', or a little taller.  

 

And, since Patty does appear to have long upper-legs....there is no conflict between her 'walking height' being around 6'3"....and her 'step length'.

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

This is the sun angle if what we see in the film if one shadow from TC1 and one shadow from TC2. This path puts Patty within 22 inches of TC2 after walking through it (and makes her really short). I find this to be impossible. I think she is nearly as far back as McClarin at the point where we see the shadows on her back. (I am still trying to work that out)

Walks Through Trees.jpg

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Interesting diagram, Redbone....though, I'm not sure exactly what to make of it.  :) 

 

Redbone wrote:

Quote

 I think she is nearly as far back as McClarin at the point where we see the shadows on her back. (I am still trying to work that out)

 

 

Here is something to consider, regarding your proposal that Patty is almost as far back in the scene as Jim is, at the point of Tree TC-2. 

 

A few years ago, I created this diagram of Patty's path...from before F352, to the point of tree TC-2...

 

Krantz-_Patty_Trackway15.jpg

 

 

I started by using the 'step diagram' Grover Krantz worked-out, from his analysis of the film....and extrapolated it from where his diagram ended...drawing Patty's steps out to tree TC-2 reasonably close to scale. 

 

What I think is worth considering, is that it shows that Patty moved approx. 13' front-to-back, within the scene.....from the F352 spot, to tree TC-2. 

 

Since you are proposing that Patty may have been almost as far back as Jim, at tree TC-2....(which, from your charts....seems to be about 140', at TC-2).....if we work backwards from that point, for Patty's distance to the camera at F352.....we would subtract about 13'....and get a 'distance to camera' of about 127'

 

That figure seems too far....based on the very small detail discernible on Patty's face...such as 'lip detail', and the whit-ish spot just below Patty's right eye. 

 

 

Working with your proposal, and 'tweaking' the numbers a little bit...we could get a slightly closer distance, for Patty. Let's say Patty was about 5' closer to the camera at TC-2, than Jim was....(about 135')....and, if we subtract 15'...(back-tracking to the F352 spot)....that would give a 'distance to camera' that's a bit closer.....approx. 120'....but that still seems too far, based on the visible facial detail.  

 

Given the very fine detail discernible on Patty's face....(which is clearly just above the level of 'film grain' noise).....I would think that Patty's distance from the camera couldn't have been much more than about 110'.  

 

Just some numbers for you to consider. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
On 12/17/2017 at 11:43 AM, Bigfoothunter said:

^^

 

I just asked Jim McClarin if his stride in one forward step was equal to Patty's and he said the creatures steps were around 6" further apart as best as he recalls. This was based on his first trip to the film site when the tracks were still quite clear.

 

 

I'll take him at his word but when I view the video of his walk it looks like he is taking itsy-bitsy steps while Patty is striding and really reaching out with her step. If her average step with 41", that means he had an average step of nearly three feet.  That's a head scratcher for me.

 

My crude approach was to pull out a ruler and try to measure his step length in a few pictures compared to his height.  I'm getting a ratio of 1/3 which would put his step length 26 inches. It's clearly not scientific but it looks to my primitive approach to be 35% shorter than what he said his step length was.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

And that's the thing W. I don't know what the 41'' is measuring. Heel of the back foot to the toe of the front? Doubt that so it must be heel of the back foot to heel of the front foot. In that regard I came out with a rough length of 35.5 for Patty. Like you, I used ratios but I also used a 15 inch footprint where I probably should have used 14.5 inches. It would be better for Jim McClarin's remark as well as a difference in height compared with a Human female. So, more like a 34 inch step for Patty, a height of 6'10 and a walking height leaning forward with a compliant gait of around 6'5-6.

 

In other words........she's average; like a Human female of that height when working backwards from a known step length in order to find a height. A Human female on average with a 34" step will be around 6'10. It also puts Jim McClarin's statement closer to the mark by only being a couple of inches off per step. I'm sure in the field he and Patty BOTH varied some in how they stepped. One thing McClarin knew though- Patty had a pretty big step by comparison.

 

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 6:37 PM, hiflier said:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

regardless of 6'.  6.5' or whatever Patty height it is the "walk" speed I wonder about.   Can a person walk that fast and smooth on a varied terrain?   Can they do it in a fake fur suit?

 

 

No no matter what we consider it seems like we are always missing some puzzle pieces.

 

Share this post


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

No no matter what we consider it seems like we are always missing some puzzle pieces.

 

 

That would seem to be true although many different pieces have been analyzed and discussed. The trick is to roll them all together because when one considers each dynamic it needs to be plugged into the whole shebang in order to paint an accurate picture of what is on the PGF. When one does that it's nearly impossible to say hoax. Patty has withstood the test of time for being a real creature. It's why any skeptical cherry-picking fails at every turn.

 

Time lines, walk speeds, distances, tree diameters, heights, step lengths, suit making, joint locations, bone lengths, foot morphology, and everything else by themselves can be debate but rolled together there is little to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
18 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

That would seem to be true although many different pieces have been analyzed and discussed. The trick is to roll them all together because when one considers each dynamic it needs to be plugged into the whole shebang in order to paint an accurate picture of what is on the PGF. When one does that it's nearly impossible to say hoax. Patty has withstood the test of time for being a real creature. It's why any skeptical cherry-picking fails at every turn.

 

Time lines, walk speeds, distances, tree diameters, heights, step lengths, suit making, joint locations, bone lengths, foot morphology, and everything else by themselves can be debate but rolled together there is little to debate.

Well said. Even a skeptic like me can see the validity in what you just so eloquently expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...