norseman Posted July 20, 2018 Admin Share Posted July 20, 2018 I thought this was pretty cool. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-estimating-height-walk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 It is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 That got my height to the inch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 This doesn’t surprise me. If you look on the grander scale of things, life is based around ratios. Those ratios, plus or minus a variance, tend to be pretty darn regular. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In general terms. Pi, Fibonacci, etc. they are known and recognized for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 The sticking point here, though, is that Patty's ratios are fairly obviously different than ours, and we're making guestimates about those from the PGf, so I'm not sure that we can safely apply that guestimate to her step length and get a valid figure for height. Even if we get a "close enough" figure for her leg/body ratio, her compliant gait may well throw the whole thing out of whack, giving a different step to leg length figure because of her "glide". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) I agree with BC that her step pattern and compliant gait throws conventional wisdom and conventional ratios out the window. That said it would put Patty at 95" which everyone would agree is not correct and thus illuminated her step as something either outside of or barely human capable. I've always agreed that dimensions are what shows Patty as something not of fully human like us. Giganofootecus did fantastic work with his ASH ratio, Sweaty Yeti with his forearm ratios, etc., and others as well. Gigantofootecus' work back with the ASH ratio in November of 2005 was the first and has been the most enduring analysis that convinces me. Edited July 22, 2018 by wiiawiwb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted July 22, 2018 Share Posted July 22, 2018 I've always found her step or stride interestin' for a few reasons. Clearly it is unique an it seems large which suggests height. I'm not sure who created the first image with the comparison between the PGF sasquatch an McClarin with right foot forward, but I made the second one a bit back to show the distance difference a little easier. It's rather tellin' in my opinion. (It also shows the difference in direction of travel by McClarin [to the right] after the look back based on his profile an distance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 Patty's walk with her stooped posture and bent knees may in fact get her closer to the step vs. height ratio if she was standing fully erect? There have been several studies that have placed her walking height at 6'5". Standing straight up tall she could easily be closer to 6'10" of 6'11" putting her pretty close to that 95". But her other body dimensions and ratios are what tell the story. She isn't Human. It is without question a very interesting and intriguing study everyone should be involved with. It is the only way to see that as a whole Patty is quite amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted July 23, 2018 Share Posted July 23, 2018 The other aspect of her step is the average distance in the PGF. I believe it is 41". I've laid that distance out and asked friends to try and walk it smoothly. Not hop it but walk it. Patty does it gracefully as though a ballerina on the sand bar. On 7/21/2018 at 1:50 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said: It is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing. Patterson-Gimlin - question, have you measured your average step length? I'd be curious to know what that is with a normal gait and what it is using the bent knee/compliant gait step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 John Green and René Dahinden went to Bluff Creek about two weeks after the P/G film was filmed in 1967 and measuring against a tree she walked past I think their figure was 7'6", or maybe 7'4", I don't remember exactly. But that will be the most accurate measurement of her height, not later extrapolations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: The other aspect of her step is the average distance in the PGF. I believe it is 41". I've laid that distance out and asked friends to try and walk it smoothly. Not hop it but walk it. Patty does it gracefully as though a ballerina on the sand bar. Patterson-Gimlin - question, have you measured your average step length? I'd be curious to know what that is with a normal gait and what it is using the bent knee/compliant gait step. Around 36 inches. Which is less than the Patterson film subject. Exactly why I think the mime is taller than me. Edited July 24, 2018 by Patterson-Gimlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 24, 2018 Moderator Share Posted July 24, 2018 There have been a number of examinations of the site, film, etc that produce a height in the 7'3" to 7'6" range. Given .. well, not consensus, but repeatability ... via different methods, and the explanations I've seen for them, this seems the most likely to me. That's a "stooped walking height", not sure how tall she'd be if she were standing straight / upright as we do. The weight that goes with this 7'3 to 7'6" height seems a closer match to the track depths reported as well than any low-ish 6 to 6.5 foot height guess. All in all, I think she'd be rather impressive to meet face to face at close range. (I can dream, right?) MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Meet Patty face to face, you might be in a permanent state of dreaming depending on her mood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 20 hours ago, MIB said: There have been a number of examinations of the site, film, etc that produce a height in the 7'3" to 7'6" range. Given .. well, not consensus, but repeatability ... via different methods, and the explanations I've seen for them, this seems the most likely to me. That's a "stooped walking height", not sure how tall she'd be if she were standing straight / upright as we do. The weight that goes with this 7'3 to 7'6" height seems a closer match to the track depths reported as well than any low-ish 6 to 6.5 foot height guess. All in all, I think she'd be rather impressive to meet face to face at close range. (I can dream, right?) MIB Now that makes sense to me. Over 7 ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkieFoot Posted July 25, 2018 Moderator Share Posted July 25, 2018 I think BC and wii are right about how human ratios won't apply to Patty. For humans, height in inches times .413(for males) equals estimated stride length. Just an estimate. If you have a stride length, you can use the inverse to calculate height. Bob G. said, at a Texas BF Conference in 2010, Patty's stride varied from 42-46 inches. If we use the inverse: 42 / .413 = 101.69 in. 101.69 / 12 = 8.47 ft. as Patty's height using this ratio. I'm not certain but I don't think very many people, if any, have estimated her height to be 8-8.5 ft., so it would appear human ratios won't work on Patty. Given the physical differences between Patty and humans, this isn't surprising. Using a 41" stride gives you a height of 99+ in., which is still over 8ft. I'm not sure how much things are complicated by Patty walking stooped over and with a bent knee gait, while humans walk upright. Here's what the ratio would estimate as a stride length for a human male 7 ft. tall. 84 x .413 = 34.69 inches. This gives a 7ft. person an estimated stride length of nearly 35 inches. P-G, I think this was fairly close to your stride length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts