Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

xspider1
On 10/30/2018 at 6:37 PM, Huntster said:

Lots of skeptics say say that everybody has a camera now, but that doesn’t mean they can bring it to bear, and it might take lousy pics. Despite all the cameras out there, I don’t think another Patterson film is automatically forthcoming. 

 

^ This is an interesting and very true observation.  Film images are almost completely a thing of the past (at least for now) :crazypilot:   I practice with my iPhone just trying to get decent action shots of our dogs!  And even that isn't easy.  It takes about 10 seconds to even start a digital video recording.   When I see a bug and other 'animals' in a good spot for a picture or video it seems like an eternity trying to boot my cell phone camera and app.  Capturing a clear image of a Bigfoot(s) relatively close-up and in good light is more difficult than 'The skeptic guide to why Bigfoot don't exist'' (rhetoric) wants us to believe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 10/30/2018 at 7:37 PM, Huntster said:

My iPhone 6 camera is 10 meg, I believe. I used to have a Canon 35mm slr many years ago, but I don’t even remember what happened to it. It had the classic 50mm lens, and I never got a telephoto for it. I turned out to be such a lousy photographer that I gave up on it early. 

 

Lots of skeptics say say that everybody has a camera now, but that doesn’t mean they can bring it to bear, and it might take lousy pics. Despite all the cameras out there, I don’t think another Patterson film is automatically forthcoming. 

 

Game cams are another story..........

I agree no Patterson film is forthcoming.

One of a kind . Real or not. Most likely the latter. 51 years speaks volumes. 

 

I hope I am mistaken of course 

As a scientist it is painfully obvious the creature simply doesn't exist. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

The image stabilization in the first part of the film is exceptional. You can really see the manner of locomotion, with enough differences in it to modern man to take note of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Here is his shin rise angle video.

 

Sorry Ive been on a TT kick of late. Not saying the guy is Einstien, but fairly convincing with the pixels..

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here is his shin rise angle video.

 

Sorry Ive been on a TT kick of late. Not saying the guy is Einstien, but fairly convincing with the pixels..

 

 

 

 

This video is exceptional and very impressive.  

 

The one issue I have:  If you take a person and put them in longer feet like swim flippers (or rubber bigfoot feet I would expect) the person walking would need to lift their foot up higher.  That is, they must pull the heel more toward their buttock increasing the angle of the shin to the ground.  The reason for this is they need to create extra space for the elongated foot (toes) to clear the ground.  Otherwise they would trip.

 

Even with this being said, I am very impressed with the point made in the Thinker video.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Here is a MK Davis comparison video.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
Posted (edited)

MK Davis' conclusion, based on this film comparison, is that Patty is at least as tall as Jim McLarin, maybe a hair taller.  Gigantofootecus' calculation for Patty's conversion to standing height is 118% which is more than the average human conversion of 110%. That makes Patty's standing height at least 6'5" x 118%/110% = 82.6" or almost 6'11", and maybe more. 

 

At that height, you're eliminating the field of people to a minute handful and getting dangerously close to game over.

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

MK Davis' conclusion, based on this film comparison, is that Patty is at least as tall as Jim McLarin, maybe a hair taller.  Gigantofootecus' calculation for Patty's conversion to standing height is 118% which is more than the average human conversion of 110%. That makes Patty's standing height at least 6'5" x 118%/110% = 82.6" or almost 6'11", and maybe more. 

 

At that height, you're eliminating the field of people to a minute handful and getting dangerously close to game over.

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

Well he says that. But I say his own comparison shows her quite a bit taller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

MK Davis' conclusion, based on this film comparison, is that Patty is at least as tall as Jim McLarin, maybe a hair taller.  Gigantofootecus' calculation for Patty's conversion to standing height is 118% which is more than the average human conversion of 110%. That makes Patty's standing height at least 6'5" x 118%/110% = 82.6" or almost 6'11", and maybe more. 

 

At that height, you're eliminating the field of people to a minute handful and getting dangerously close to game over.

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

^^^ This. 

 

And when you further consider the shoulder width, the sheer mass of the subject compared to McClarin, the arm length, and the visible muscle definition, it really should have been game over. Complete with a decade of sightings and reports during the previous years before the filming, and footprints at the film scene that match prints in the area for that decade make this the real deal.

 

The absolute silence of USFWS and California Dept. of Fish and Game regarding the PG film, then and now, is astounding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

As far as Claudia Ackley's San Bernardino case goes I hope her lawyer team gets it right, right out of the gate. In other words her report came out of the San Bernardino National Forest which means she and her lawyers should be going after the U.S Department of Agriculture. NOT the State of California even though I'm sure there must be overlaps there. Between the feds and the staties though it could wind up like this?

farside.gif.84be65753b9ffead9cd8b15e079226e3.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

MK Davis' conclusion, based on this film comparison, is that Patty is at least as tall as Jim McLarin, maybe a hair taller.  Gigantofootecus' calculation for Patty's conversion to standing height is 118% which is more than the average human conversion of 110%. That makes Patty's standing height at least 6'5" x 118%/110% = 82.6" or almost 6'11", and maybe more. 

 

At that height, you're eliminating the field of people to a minute handful and getting dangerously close to game over.

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

 

Giganto may have underestimated how much further back in the scene Jim was, than Patty, Wiiawiwb. Jim could have been anywhere from 10 feet, to as much as 25 feet further back. My thinking is that he was 15-20 feet further back. 

 

Here is a look at how much 'apparent body height' reduces, with distance from the camera....(in the PGF)...

 

Patty-Two-Sides-of-Tree1-E.jpg

 

While behind that large tree, Patty walked approx. 30 feet further away from the camera...(walking directly away from Roger)....and we can see how much her 'apparent body height' decreased, over that distance. 

 

To make Patty's position within the scene a little clearer...here is an animation of Patty on the two sides of the tree...

 

Patty_BothSidesOfLargeTree_AG1.gif

 

 

As Patty passed behind that large tree, she turned to her left...and walked almost perfectly in-line with Roger's line-of-sight...for about 6 seconds, and for about 30 feet...before re-appearing.

 

Note how having the filmsite objects matched-up....(in the small comparison graphic above)….means nothing, in and of itself.....as Patty's 'body height' does not match-up with herself, in those two film frames. 

This principle applies to comparisons between Jim and Patty, as well. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

In MK Davis comparison? I see Patty and Jim objects lining up quite nicely as the superimposed Patty walks along. Especially boles of trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 minutes ago, norseman said:

In MK Davis comparison? I see Patty and Jim objects lining up quite nicely as the superimposed Patty walks along. Especially boles of trees.

 

That's great, Norse...if you're comparing the sizes of objects within the scene...between the two films. The objects clearly do match themselves, in height.

 

The complexity of the matter arises when comparing subjects walking through the scene...at differing distances from the camera. 

 

When it comes to this point in the figurin'....I suggest you just go get a gun, and fire it. ;)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
5 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

That's great, Norse...if you're comparing the sizes of objects within the scene...between the two films. The objects clearly do match themselves, in height.

 

The complexity of the matter arises when comparing subjects walking through the scene...at differing distances from the camera. 

 

When it comes to this point in the figurin'....I suggest you just go get a gun, and fire it. ;)  

 

I may be pixel challenged. But I can tell there is no way in heck that Jim is 25 FEET further away from the camera than Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 minute ago, norseman said:

 

I may be pixel challenged. But I can tell there is no way in heck that Jim is 25 FEET further away from the camera than Patty.

 

At some point, I will post images that show Jim was most likely a good 15 feet further back...and could well have been about 20 feet further back. 25 feet is not out of the question, either. 

 

'Depth' in the PGF scene is highly compressed/distorted, in the camera's view...and hence...the illusion of objects being closer together than they really are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...