Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

Twist
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for the information. Just amazing to think about. I have nothing to contradict what you said. 

 

Of course I like the other scientists, I Still don't accept the creature. Go figure. Lol 

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

 

We have failed to provide at least one of the above.   So far.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Agreed and probably never will since the creature is simply mythical in my honest opinion 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

 

 

If I got on stage and cut a lady in half We know it’s a trick.  If I claimed it was real and cashed in anyone wishing to prove my fraud could just replicate it and show how it was done.   Oh, and it shouldn’t take 50 years.

 

with the PGF we have gone 50 years without any demonstration how two cowboys used 1967 materials and made Patty.  Forgetting how long that has taken, wouldn’t we all agree it should be extreeeeeeeeemly easy to do this? 

 

I’m OK there should be a high bar for something extraordinary to be true.  What should the bar be for something the skeptics say is not extraordinary, but easy?  Skeptic know deep down the one glaring weakness of their opinion continues to be that one little fact they hate facing or talking about.  That is, doing what they said a broke cowboy with no creature effects training did in 1967.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Patterson-Gimlin,

 

Based on your thinkin' you're both about the same height(I'm in agreement with you on that),  how much difference in physical structure do you think there is between you two ? Your thigh compared to hers, torso thickness sorta thing ? 

 

I also agree her stride or step length is quite impressive, indicative of her impressive height.

 

Backdoc,

 

Agreed, a "suit" ahead oh its time yet to be replicated, certainly not by any hoaxer. As well as knowledge of primate anatomy decades ahead of its time. Truly claims of mythical proportions haha ! ;);) 

 

Pat...

 

4frames.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Always a pleasure to hear from you Pat.

You are always respectful. Never dismissive to me and my beliefs. 

 

The film subject has calves I am very envious of. I Am very muscular. The calves of the film subject look twice the size of mine.

 

I Have a very long torso. Again the subject is very different. Appears much longer. 

 

Thanks for agreeing we are both 7 footers. I think it takes one to know one. 

I know our dimensions are very different. I Am not sure how the creature was created so life like. I spend a lot of time In the gym  The film subject is bulkier than me. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
On 10/24/2018 at 11:37 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

.......I can't measure up to the Patterson film subject in that regard.  She is bulkier, heavier and stride is longer.

 

I am told I am taller. Not sure about that. I believe we are both 7 footers.........

 

As impressive a figure that you are, I agree with your assessment on Patty’s sheer bulk. As to her height, I think it’s never going to be resolved mainly because of her unique posture and gait, but it’s certainly somewhere between 6’2” and 7’2”. Due to the excellent prints she left in that excellent media of the firm mud of the river bed, the foot length and stride are ascertained (and, frankly, that is yet another part of the outstanding evidence that literally proves that the film is the real thing, despite what the denialist say). 

 

Her bulk, along with the layers of other evidence that the event provides, is astounding. All other things being equal, had she been a fully grown male instead of a female, the scientific community would have had no other choice but admit the truth. With you being @ 350 lbs., my bet is that (like my previous estimates have been based upon the weight of bears) her weight is, at the lightest, 450 lbs, and likely 550 lbs or more.

 

A giant like yourself is also a scientist? What field of science are you in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I've mentioned this comment before and I'll bet my last dollar on it:

No human on earth that is the same standing height as Patty will have both her same leg length and arm length.

I would even bet any human that could match Patty's leg length would have a shorter standing height than Patty, due to a shorter torso.

 

Between replicating the Patty suit and finding a human that had Patty's body proportions and could fit the suit; the easier job of the two would be replicating the suit. And in 51+ years, it still hasn't been done.

 

On Patty's weight, when you consider Patty's track depth was 5-6 times deeper than actual human tracks left behind from, I'm guessing, 160-200lb. humans, its amazing when you consider just how much she must have weighed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Height vs Bulk.

 

Here is an old photo of Franco Columbu Bodybuilder.   He is massive:

 

04-f-columbu-524111_364593813708841_3156960367504431355_n.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600

 

He is also only 5'5" tall.  

 

Assuming we believe Gimlin, it was the Massive nature of Patty which Gimlin impresses upon us and not the height of Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caenus

...aaaaannnnnddddd time to get back in the gym. Skipped it today...thanks for the guilt trip folks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
5 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

.......On Patty's weight, when you consider Patty's track depth was 5-6 times deeper than actual human tracks left behind from, I'm guessing, 160-200lb. humans, its amazing when you consider just how much she must have weighed. 

 

Based on what I know about brown bears, I doubt that her weight exceeded 1000 lbs, and her minimum weight wouldn’t be less than 500 lbs. I’d thus give her an average of 750 lbs, and likely a bit less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Huntster I enjoy reading your posts 

You seem very knowledgeable on the subject 

I am a chemist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I enjoy your posts, too. It sounds like you’re doubtful of the existence of sasquatches, but still interested enough in the subject and with enough of an open mind to be weighing it. 

 

A chemist. That’s interesting. I was guessing that you were an engineer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I look to a gorilla in the zoo for a better guess on Patty's traits.  One mature Zoo Gorilla was listed at 440lbs after it was shot and killed (a child got into his enclosure).

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

As impressive a figure that you are, I agree with your assessment on Patty’s sheer bulk. As to her height, I think it’s never going to be resolved mainly because of her unique posture and gait, but it’s certainly somewhere between 6’2” and 7’2”.

 

I'm not seeing the mystery, myself, Hunster.  :) 

 

The 'foot ruler' measurements give a 'walking height' of approx. 6' tall....and maybe a few inches taller.  

 

Likewise, the Photogrammetry calculation....(based on a 25MM Lens size...which was specified on the camera rental paperwork)….gives a rather short 'walking height' for Patty....of 5' +.

And that short height would increase, if a shorter 'distance to the camera' figure is used in the Photogrammetry equation. That is...if Patty's distance from the camera was less than 100'...then we get a 'walking height' much closer to what the 'foot ruler' indicates.

 

So, I don't see a problem with a 6' to 6'5" 'walking height' for Patty. 

 

Remember, if her 'walking height' was 6'3"...then her 'full standing'/true body height would have been right around 6'10".  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Height vs Bulk.

 

Here is an old photo of Franco Columbu Bodybuilder.   He is massive:

 

04-f-columbu-524111_364593813708841_3156960367504431355_n.jpg?quality=85&strip=info&w=600

 

He is also only 5'5" tall.  

 

Assuming we believe Gimlin, it was the Massive nature of Patty which Gimlin impresses upon us and not the height of Patty.

 

Soooo juiced! LOL!

 

Agreed that Patty looks massive, and you can see her muscles move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...