Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Redbone,

 

The image you used on left is not McClarin, it is Mike Hodgson, 6 foot tall, 150 lbs, he was the model for size comparison Peter Byrne used when on site Aug 20th 1972.

 

Based on his comparisons usin' the 6 foot model, Byrne estimated her at 7' 3".

 

Pat... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
20 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Redbone,

 

The image you used on left is not McClarin, it is Mike Hodgson, 6 foot tall, 150 lbs, he was the model for size comparison Peter Byrne used when on site Aug 20th 1972.

 

Based on his comparisons usin' the 6 foot model, Byrne estimated her at 7' 3".

 

Pat... 

NUTS!

That actually explains something. If it was McClarin, the pole he is holding is 8.87 feet long, or else it is up above his feet.

If he is 6' tall, that pole is 8 feet, which is what I would have expected. I'll have to find a different McClarin pic.

The scaling may still be close though, as long as Hodgson's and McClarin's body proportions are not too far out of whack.

Edited by Redbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Im sorry redbone you went through all out that work for nothin!!!

 

We owe you a beer or something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone

It's not for nothing.... It's just a minor setback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Counting pixels twice? Would not be a minor set back for me. If I had any hair I'd pull it out.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Redbone said:

NUTS!

That actually explains something. If it was McClarin, the pole he is holding is 8.87 feet long, or else it is up above his feet.

If he is 6' tall, that pole is 8 feet, which is what I would have expected. I'll have to find a different McClarin pic.

The scaling may still be close though, as long as Hodgson's and McClarin's body proportions are not too far out of whack.

 

McClarin was 6' 5" tall

Share this post


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

McClarin was 6' 5" tall

Noted and adjusted...

 

McClarin's shoulder width calculated - round 2!

I updated the image replacing 6' Hodgson with 6' 5" McClarin.

 

Left image head to hand = 223 px

Left image height = 373 px = 77"

Left head to hand = 77 x 223/373 = 46.03"

Right head to hand = 382px = 46.03"

Right shoulder width = 46.03 x 168/382 = 20.24" (despite using the wrong guy I was still only off by 0.2 inches)

(I don't even need shoulder width to calculate anything else)

 

TC1 = 86px wide

TC1 = 46.03 x 86/382 = 10.36" (1/10" different than my first attempt)

 

I'll use the same guestimated distance for camera to McClarin of 115 feet and TC1 at 105 feet.

TC1 = 10.36 x 105/115 = 9.46" wide

 

McC Shoulder Calculated 2.jpg

 

Patty = 144 px and TC = 23px below.

Patty is at 132 feet based on comparison to her behind TC1 at 136 feet (JG notes) She is 4 px taller where shown.

TC1 = 9.46" (see above) and is 105 feet from camera (JG notes)

 

Patty = 9.46/23 x 144 x 132/105 = 74.45 inches = 6' 2.5" +/- error due to guess at McClarin's and Patty's distance from camera.

(I can calculate min and max I think but that has to happen later)

 

Patty Calculated 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airdale

Just curious here, but not sure I'm grokking the goal of the thread. Is it to prove/disprove TT's analysis, decipher John Green's notes or try to get a reasonable estimate of Patty's height?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Sweaty challenged Thinker Thunker’s analysis Airdale.

 

In my mind? If Redbone and Sweaty Yeti are right? And Patty is only 6’2” tall? Then the whole thing is a hoax. Because the track way both the size of the feet and the gait tell a VERY different story.

 

This foot does not belong to a 6’2” individual.....

 

And interestingly enough? When Airdale ran the numbers of Patty’s foot print value stacked on top of one another next to Patty? He gets a height of 6’11” tall.......not 6’2” tall.

 

Thats a huge difference. So logically speaking we should be able run Airdale’s analysis backwards with a Height of 6’2” tall and come up with a much smaller footprint length?

 

As I said earlier this is a Cinderella story. We are not counting pixels or looking at scribbles when it comes to Patty’s foot casts. They are set in stone so to speak. 

 

If we have a 6’2” individual that has feet smaller than the dental resin casts? Then we have a serious problem gentlemen.

 

 

A6B3F2B4-8993-4ED3-BACC-540C17B8869E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I have a little different view.   I agree on one or two points.    The tracks and film together do not suggest a 6-ish foot tall individual.   Not by a lot.   They are things that were measured with good precision.   The other things including tree sizes, distances, etc are **assumptions**.   There is no evidence for a hoax.   There's a lot of evidence of no-hoax because of what should/would have been found that wasn't.    If there is an error, it is in our forum members' assumptions and math long after the fact.   Correct answers MUST, without exception, include the real, measured size of tracks and length of steps.   It's not negotiable.

 

MIB 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

FWIW,

 

I’m absolutely not trying to beat up Redbone here or his hard work. Seriously. Nor am I trying to lead the evidence as has been suggested. 

 

But in my mind the totality of the evidence must mesh together.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone

There is a built in error to my calculations. McClarin may be anywhere from 105-135 feet from the camera, so 6' 2" is NOT set in stone, like the print casts.

In fact, as we get closer to the answer, we may be able to determine McClarin's position in the photo I used to measure shoulders. If hes right next to TC1 then Patty is 6'9"

 

I didn't set out to disprove Thinker Thunker. I think the method is sound, but needed refinement.

 

I'm interest in truth...

Edited by Redbone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
30 minutes ago, norseman said:

Sweaty challenged Thinker Thunker’s analysis Airdale.

 

In my mind? If Redbone and Sweaty Yeti are right? And Patty is only 6’2” tall? Then the whole thing is a hoax. Because the track way both the size of the feet and the gait tell a VERY different story.

 

This foot does not belong to a 6’2” individual.....

 

And interestingly enough? When Airdale ran the numbers of Patty’s foot print value stacked on top of one another next to Patty? He gets a height of 6’11” tall.......not 6’2” tall.

 

Thats a huge difference. So logically speaking we should be able run Airdale’s analysis backwards with a Height of 6’2” tall and come up with a much smaller footprint length?

 

As I said earlier this is a Cinderella story. We are not counting pixels or looking at scribbles when it comes to Patty’s foot casts. They are set in stone so to speak. 

 

If we have a 6’2” individual that has feet smaller than the dental resin casts? Then we have a serious problem gentlemen.

 

 

A6B3F2B4-8993-4ED3-BACC-540C17B8869E.jpeg

I agree with you. There is no way that the track way and those casts come from a six footer. Since I am not a proponent of the creatures existence .

I should be on board with the 6' hoax theory. However, I have never bought into her height being less than 7' . I am a member of the one percent that is a seven footer. 

I have always thought she was my height and much heavier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

PG, 

 

Can you get me a measurement of your foot? Length and width? Your 7’ tall and weigh how much?

 

The only comparison I have is Shaq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...