Jump to content
Twist

Can we corroborate the stride length seen in the film with the length measured onesite?

Recommended Posts

Twist

Curious if this has already been done and I missed it, but can we, using pixels or whatever method, measure the rough stride length we see Patty take in the film and corroborate them with what was measured at the site ?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I think the step length has been approximated, but I'm not sure it has been to compared to the actual trackway.

 

 

 

Acrobat_2018-12-30_02-00-18.png

 

Acrobat_2018-12-30_02-00-41.png

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That graphic of Chris Murphy's is loaded with errors...

 

Murphy-Mess1-C.jpg

 

The errors are the result of an incorrect 'walking height' figure of "87.5"....(which Chris got from Jeff Glickman's NASI Report.)

 

Chris has Patty's 'foot length' marked as "15.5"....when the footprint casts measure as 14.5" in length.

He also states that Patty "stepped upon" the stick on the ground....when there is nothing in the film that indicates she actually stepped on it.

 

 

Here is a different method of determining Patty's 'walking height'....using tree TC-1 as a ruler...(which was very close to the same distance from the camera, as Patty)...

 

F352-TC1-Ruler1-E.jpg

 

 

John Green's filmsite measurement diagram shows a diameter of TC-1 of "8""...but, John may have measured the width of the tree incorrectly...under-estimating it's true width.

 

If the tree was only 8" wide...and was just about the same distance from the camera as Patty...then Patty's 'WH' would measure shorter than 60"/5 feet. 

The possibility of such a mis-measurement was shown by Redbone, in a test that he performed...and posted about in the 'Thinker Thunker Size Comparison of Patty' thread...

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/58454-thinker-thunker-size-comparison-of-patty/page/4/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

A couple of notes, regarding the two 'distances to camera' I used, in my graphic...

 

The 'DTC' of 105', for TC-1:  John Green measured the distance from his camera position to that tree as 110'...and, Bill Munns has determined that John's position was about 5' further back from Roger's. Hence...the 'DTC'....(to TC-1)….for the PGF would be just about 105'

 

The 'DTC' for Patty, at F352....has traditionally been thought of as about 102'....a determination made by Rene Dahinden, in 1971. But, that distance is most likely in error....on the short side.

Rene's 'filmsite measurement' diagram shows Roger's position as being only 30' from the 'Main Log'...when Roger was actually about 45 - 50' from the Main Log.  So, Rene's distance of "102 feet" is flawed...and, most likely...shorter than the true 'DTC'.

 

So, it may well be that the 'distance to camera' for Patty @ F352 was in the range of 110 - 115'. And, with tree TC-1 being about 105' from the camera....the width of that tree should make for a good/accurate ruler....for measuring Patty's 'WH'.

 

Patty appears to have been a little further from the camera than TC-1...and, if so, her height would then be a little taller than what it measures...as shown in my graphic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Note to future video photographers:    When you take the HD video of a bigfoot walking past equaling or bettering the P/G film:   Carefully document where you were standing with some objects that define the location precisely,  note the settings on your camera (zoom setting etc),   document carefully any associated footprint finds,    and  document the hell out of the site so the subject can be compared with objects like rocks, trees and logs.  Otherwise for the next 50 years people will be arguing about your video.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Or......just shoot the thing.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I think that most people do not carry enough gun to shoot and kill a bigfoot without the risk of just wounding it and getting killed themselves.    We often hear that people withhold taking the shot because it looks so human, but I bet that many realized they do not have enough gun to take it down so withhold the shot.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7.62
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Or......just shoot the thing.

Oh my 

icon_smile_shock.gif.5e19af7b2f61f79665998c606c2017c7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I know, 7.62, kind of a dumb remark. Just goes to show you, boredom can take it's toll ;) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Note to future video photographers:    When you take the HD video of a bigfoot walking past equaling or bettering the P/G film:   Carefully document where you were standing with some objects that define the location precisely,  note the settings on your camera (zoom setting etc),   document carefully any associated footprint finds,    and  document the hell out of the site so the subject can be compared with objects like rocks, trees and logs.  Otherwise for the next 50 years people will be arguing about your video.  

 

I'm not arguing about any aspect of this film, SWW....I'm still learning about it. :) 

 

For the last 6 months, or more....I have been working on a line of analysis relating to trees TC-1/TC-2....their shadows....the sun's altitude and azimuth....Patty's path relative to the two trees....and, Jim McClarin's path, relative to the two trees. I've posted quite a bit of my work on another forum....and will be posting it here, also.

 

The findings from this line of analysis will tell us the time of the filming...and will serve to narrow-down Patty's 'walking height'. The graphic I posted just above is one aspect of this general line of analysis....and is one indication that Patty's crouched down/walking height was not 7 feet, or taller.

Patty was not a giant....as several prior analyses have "shown". Any analysis which does indicate such an extreme height contains one piece of flawed data.

 

One more note regarding my graphic above....using tree TC-1 as a ruler does not depend on knowing which size lens was on the camera....since, both TC-1 and Patty are being seen via the same lens....whatever size lens that was.

 

They are both just about the same distance from the camera...and hence...the tree's diameter makes a valid, accurate ruler...for measuring Patty's height. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

But the tree has grown in 50 years,  assuming it is still there at all.      The time to take such measurements was then or at least in the months that followed the film.    Had that been done the exact position of the camera could have been determined and the size of Patty relative to the trees determined.   When I find myself getting upset at the two,   I have to remind myself they were there for showmanship not science.  It sort of gauld me to have Bob on the Expedition Bigfoot as any kind of a reference for anything.    Science was the last thing he or Roger were thinking about when the film was made.    They documented very little.    My point was that someday,  hopefully soon,  someone will get good video.   Hopefully they will document the hell out of it at the time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
20 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

But the tree has grown in 50 years,  assuming it is still there at all.      The time to take such measurements was then or at least in the months that followed the film.  

 

That tree...(TC-1)….fell down only a few years after the film was shot. It is long gone. 

 

But, John Green did measure it's diameter...in June, 1968.....he has it marked on his measurement diagram as "8""...

 

JohnGreen-FilmsiteDiagram-TC1_TC2_Diamet

 

 

Quote

 Had that been done the exact position of the camera could have been determined and the size of Patty relative to the trees determined.  

 

 

Green made that measurement also, SWW.  He measured the distance from TC-1 to his camera as "105 feet". 

 

And.....Patty's size relative to those trees has been determined. See my graphic above. :)  

 

 

Your dreams have come true. There's nothing left to do...but argue over the result.  ;) 

 

 

 

Quote

 When I find myself getting upset at the two,   I have to remind myself they were there for showmanship not science.  It sort of gauld me to have Bob on the Expedition Bigfoot as any kind of a reference for anything.    Science was the last thing he or Roger were thinking about when the film was made.    They documented very little.    My point was that someday,  hopefully soon,  someone will get good video.   Hopefully they will document the hell out of it at the time.  

 

 

I agree with you, there, SWW.  The PGF should be a lesson to anyone who gets a comparable piece of footage...to measure, and document! 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Patty has a height, weight, walking pace and so on just like us.  The Q really is quantifying what those measurables are to some level of certainty.

 

IF those measurables are within human limits it means Patty could be man in a suit or a real creature.     IF however, just one of the key measurements is outside of human limits (no matter how anyone tries to pad it) then it must mean Patty cannot be a man in a suit.

 

The Walking Pace for me shows more promise than some height determination. Besides, a 6 foot tall NFL player can be "massive" at 300lbs and just 6'' tall and height that is fairly common.  The pace- if known -could be considered like the Memorial Day footage (MDF). That footage has an elite runner under ideal conditions for the elite runner running much faster than the MDF subject.  That means a person could move as quickly as the figure in the MDF.  Had the elite runner not been able to run faster than the MDF subject there would be no way the subject could be a person in a suit.   This logic could be applied to the PGF is the numbers could be known with some confidence and then tested.  

 

The final thing I keep coming back to is how well Patty walks and move with a cat-like smoothness.  That is smoothness while maintaining an interesting or unusual walk.  That would be hard for a non suited person even under ideal conditions.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
45 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

That tree...(TC-1)….fell down only a few years after the film was shot. It is long gone. 

 

But, John Green did measure it's diameter...in June, 1968.....he has it marked on his measurement diagram as "8""...

 

JohnGreen-FilmsiteDiagram-TC1_TC2_Diamet

 

 

 

Is there a need to compensate for the width of TC-1 in regards to measured width vs pixels when we are taking the pixel measurement off a 2d image of a 3d object?   Maybe a margin of error? 

 

This may be a better questions for @Bill ? Not sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
35 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

Is there a need to compensate for the width of TC-1 in regards to measured width vs pixels when we are taking the pixel measurement off a 2d image of a 3d object?   Maybe a margin of error? 

 

There isn't anything to compensate, or adjust for, Twist....in equating a pixel measurement to a tree's diameter, as seen in a 2D image....since the tree's diameter/width is a dimension which runs essentially in a straight line through the center of the tree...

 

Diameter-Circumference-Diagram1.jpg

 

 

We don't need to adjust for the rounded shape of the tree. That dimension is the tree's circumference

 

There is some potential 'degree of error', though....in 'eyeballing' a tree's width, when holding a rigid ruler up to the tree....(as John Green must have done, in measuring TC-1's width.) Redbone's experiment has shown that potential for error.

 

I have tried making the same type of measurement...and got the same result that Redbone did. In transferring the numbers on a ruler to the edges of an 8" round plastic tube....I under-estimated the tube's actual width.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...