Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Bill

It is a background shadow, not an extended thumb. I just cycled through about 20 frames before, including and after the four frames shown above, and the background shadow is consistent in all where it's visible, whether the hand is in front of it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
21 hours ago, NCBFr said:

I posted V1 of it a few years ago if you have the search skills to find it.  I tried and failed so clearly I am not up to the task.  I will work on posting V2  but it may be a while as I will want to review it one more time to check for stupid errors.  Will get my HS daughter to check the math.  Here are the pics and lines I used to calculate the final dimension.  The tricky part is understanding it is a 2D pic of a 3D object so twist in the Z axis which is unknown but can be estimated will impact the final height dimension by upwards of 6 inches.  While the lines may look crude, they are based on real world anatomy as far as I could determine.  Hope this helps.

 

3rd edit lol - That is a huge thumb.  Will add calculating its length to the to list as it appears way beyond human range to the visual eye.

 

image.thumb.png.84da40c10ca00ae5283069269d1d6752.png

 

 

Thanks for posting that much, NCBFr.  :)  So, you were calculating Patty's 'Full Standing Height'....not just her 'WH'.

 

Personally, I prefer to try to work-out the simpler calculation....her 'walking height'.....and, from there.....just add several inches, to correct for her bent posture. For a WH of 6 feet....I would add 6". 

 

But, I am still interested in seeing your work, if you can post it at some point. 

 

I would recommend using this very high quality Cibachrome copy of F364....there is less foreshortening of Patty's legs, in this side-profile view of her...

 

Frame364-Cibachrome-deblurred3.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr

I cannot use the pic above because I cannot get the length of the foot in pixels so I cannot calculate the ratio.  My analysis is based on the reported foot print length is 14.5 inches and the blue segment in pic 2 for the pixels which gives me the ratio of pixels to inches.  Once had I had that ratio I just added up all of the segments in pixels and used the ratio to get length in inches.  I added two more segments in the picture below.  The red line in pic 4 is for calculating the walking height and the red line in pic two over the thumb is for the thumb length.

 

image.thumb.png.3b2e94c5211ec137cb4b9d61d0f49b96.png

 

Using this this analysis I get the following:

 

Walking height (red pic 4):  6'  6.1"

Thumb length: 7.1"

Total Height Pic 1 (sum of blue lines): 6' 5"

Total Height Pic  2: 6' 8.4"

Total Height Pic 3:  6' 7"

Total Height Pic 4: 6' 7.7"

Average of all 4 pics:6' 7"

 

It is a pure judgement call but I estimated the tilt angle away from perpendicular to be 15% which adds 2.4" to the height so my total standing height comes to 6' 9.4". 

 

The thumb length was a real surprise to me.

 

There you go.  Thoughts?

Edited by NCBFr
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That seems reasonably accurate, NCBFr.  :) 

 

I was looking over my collection of height calculation graphics....and came across this graphic of Gigantofootecus'.....(in which he got a 'full standing height' close to what you got)...

 

Giganto-Arm-Ruler1.jpg

 

Using the foot length in F61....he measured Patty's 'arm length'....and then used that arm length in the later frame...to measure Patty's individual 'body vectors'.

 

Giganto derived a 'S.H.' of 6' 6"...( +/- 3")…..and you derived 6' 9". 

 

A 'S.H.' of 6' 08" would equate to a 'W.H.' of approx. 6' 2"....(if the differential between the two heights is 6"). That is a far cry from the 'Walking Height' figure of 7' 3 1/2"....as others have proposed, over the years. 

 

 

Regarding the "thumb' detail.....as others have pointed-out....that is just something in the background.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr

The problem with the analysis on the right is that the pic used to get the foot to pixel ratio could be far from the pic used to calculate the length making the ratio incorrect.  It also does not take in to account the angle that Patty is standing with respect to the camera making some of the measurements shorter than reality.  You do not have this problem with the pic on the left as it is pretty much straight on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 2/17/2020 at 12:32 PM, hiflier said:

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

Brutally simple. Exactly why I am pro kill.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Brutally simple. Exactly why I am pro kill.

 

You are 'Pro-Killing'.….of a Myth??  :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stabilized, close-up, HD video of a bigfoot doing its thing for ten minutes plus would kill the myth just as well. You might think that's too hard considering that the best footage we have to this day is the Patterson Film, but as hard as it would be to get documentary footage, it's quixotic to think killing a bigfoot is any easier. How many hunters do you know who have killed multiple bears? That's the type of hunting skill you'd need. How many bigfooters do you know who have went into the woods looking for a sasquatch and successfully seen one up close multiple times? Not only would they need to be that skilled as a tracker, they'd need to be skilled enough to see one close up without the creature seeing them first. Such a person would be the most skilled bigfooter ever to live, so skilled that I don't think such a person is even alive. Even if this person did exist, it would be one heck of a coincidence if they also happened to be one of the best bear-killers in the world. If they had any less than that amount of hunting skill, they aren't getting out of the woods alive. 

 

Pro-kill isn't the logical or pragmatic worldview. Pro-kill relies on multiple extraordinary coincidences and the perfect amount of luck. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Not to mention that whoever shoots a BF is likely going to be hunted down and killed themselves if the relatives of the BF are in the area.    To eliminate that chance, the human hunter needs to ensure the one they shoot is alone.  That problem aside,  what is a solo hunter going to do to move a 900 lb BF body out of the woods without dismemberment?  

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

Not to mention that whoever shoots a BF is likely going to be hunted down and killed themselves if the relatives of the BF are in the area.    

 

 

The heck with the 'kin folk', SWW.....the sasquatch who just got shot would probably take-out the hunter. 

 

Unless the hunter hits the squatch with a very well-placed shot...a creature as massive as they purportedly are, would very likely just charge the shooter...and end-up being the one doing the killing.  End of story....(and, back to the Patterson Film. ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 2/25/2020 at 5:53 AM, SweatyYeti said:

 

You are 'Pro-Killing'.….of a Myth??  

Lol. Yes of course. Also on the very remote chance large man apes walk among us in the great outdoors. I am also in favor of killing and or capturing one specimen for conservation purposes. 

Anyway, I am honored you responded to an ignored skeptic that doesn't believe in the creature and is convinced the film subject in the PGF  is 7 foot. 

On 2/25/2020 at 11:27 AM, SWWASAS said:

Well a body on a lab table would certainly kill the myth too.  

Agreed. You win the cup.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Lol. Yes of course. Also on the very remote chance large man apes walk among us in the great outdoors. I am also in favor of killing and or capturing one specimen for conservation purposes. 

Anyway, I am honored you responded to an ignored skeptic that doesn't believe in the creature and is convinced the film subject in the PGF  is 7 foot. 

Agreed. You win the cup.


Must be a slow day for him to give you the time of day !  :lol:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 2/25/2020 at 3:24 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

The heck with the 'kin folk', SWW.....the sasquatch who just got shot would probably take-out the hunter. 

 

Unless the hunter hits the squatch with a very well-placed shot...a creature as massive as they purportedly are, would very likely just charge the shooter...and end-up being the one doing the killing.  End of story....(and, back to the Patterson Film. ;) )

 

DB120632-B11C-4FDB-9B77-823FDC1A13C1.jpeg

2513A61F-DED7-40E5-8710-A342D9941B99.jpeg

C6CE2CEE-C558-494A-B3BB-3733DDDA06CB.jpeg

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Lol. Yes of course. Also on the very remote chance large man apes walk among us in the great outdoors. I am also in favor of killing and or capturing one specimen for conservation purposes. 

Anyway, I am honored you responded to an ignored skeptic that doesn't believe in the creature and is convinced the film subject in the PGF  is 7 foot. 

 

You sound more sure that the PGF subject was 7' tall....than that it was a "man in a suit".  :haha:  

 

I'm glad you find the sasquatch's existence to be, at the very least, plausible...you "scoffer" you. 

 

Bang Bang.....go get one. They just might be out there. ;) 

 

 

2 hours ago, Twist said:


Must be a slow day for him to give you the time of day !  :lol:

 

Are you sure you are a "Bigfoot proponent", Twist?

 

You always display a little hostility towards me....(just like the rest of the skeppies do). :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...