Jump to content

Unalterable Body Segment Dimensions in the Patterson-Gimlin Film


Recommended Posts

Mendoza

Brief synopsis:

I show that the film subject's upper leg length / height ratio is wildly outside the range of human proportions.  This ratio is uniquely impossible to alter using prosthetics due to the upper leg being located between joints.  Hence the ratio must be intrinsic to the film subject and the film subject cannot be a human in a suit.

 

Full paper in the attached PDF.

Unalterable Body Segment Dimensions in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.pdf

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Thank you Mr. Mendoza. A detail such as what you present needed to be brought out, and you did it by bringing sound anatomical science to the table. Nice job  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
49 minutes ago, Mendoza said:

Brief synopsis:

I show that the film subject's upper leg length / height ratio is wildly outside the range of human proportions.  This ratio is uniquely impossible to alter using prosthetics due to the upper leg being located between joints.  Hence the ratio must be intrinsic to the film subject and the film subject cannot be a human in a suit.

 

Full paper in the attached PDF.

Unalterable Body Segment Dimensions in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.pdf 90.94 kB · 3 downloads

 

 

A couple of problems with your analysis, Mendoza....the 'subject height' measurement, at "87"", is too tall.

 

Secondly....your Conclusion contains an incorrect statement:

 

Quote

Unlike previously considered proportions, the nonhuman ratio of the upper leg length of the Patterson-Gimlin film subject to its height, combined with the anatomical impossibility of altering human upper leg length without amputation, and the inability of height-altering prosthetics to produce the observed ratio, effectively rules out the hypothesis that the film subject is an unmutilated human in a costume, with or without prosthetics. 

 

 

The combination of Patty's 'arm length', and 'arm proportion', is outside the realm of 'human'. 

 

That has been shown, with images....many times over. 

 

 

The conclusion/finding of your analysis of Patty's 'upper-leg -to- body height proportion'....(i.e...being outside the realm of 'human')....may be correct, though.  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mendoza
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

A couple of problems with your analysis, Mendoza....the 'subject height' measurement, at "87"", is too tall.

 

Secondly....your Conclusion contains an incorrect statement:

 

 

 

The combination of Patty's 'arm length', and 'arm proportion', is outside the realm of 'human'. 

 

That has been shown, with images....many times over. 

 

 

The conclusion/finding of your analysis of Patty's 'upper-leg -to- body height proportion'....(i.e...being outside the realm of 'human')....may be correct, though.  :) 

 

We're dealing with a linear ratio, so even if the subject was actually shorter than 87", the ratio I obtained would be the same regardless of height.  For instance, if the height of the subject was actually only 80% of the height estimate I used, the upper leg length would likewise be decreased to 80% of the value I used, and the ratio of the two values would remain the same.  Basically, we've multiplied the numerator and denominator by the same constant, which cancels and doesn't affect the value of the ratio.

 

(For the record, I disagree with the "short Patty" height estimates, but that's outside the scope of my paper.)

 

Regarding the arm length (and ratios including the arm length):  While the arm length of the subject is outside the range of human proportions, the total arm length can be altered by a prosthetic worn over the hand.  Whether that can be done convincingly is another question that's been debated ad nauseum.  The motivation for zeroing in on the upper leg length is specifically because it allowed me to dispense with that can of worms entirely--no prosthetic can make your upper leg longer.  You can't make that claim about any other limb segment, except for the upper arm, for which I couldn't find suitable corresponding human data.  Hence the "unlike previously considered proportions" line in my conclusion.

Edited by Mendoza
Slight change in word choice
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

For myself, I'll go with either upper leg or upper arm. I also like the shoulder width/height ratio. There a couple of dynamics to consider though when going that route. One is the width of the torso and the other is the hang/swing shoulder joint location. Average 6' Human male has a shoulder span of around 18.5 inches, which is very close to average Human shoulder width being 25% of height. Patty's shoulder width is 40% of her height, which means if she was 6' tall her shoulder width would be better than 28 inches. A full 10" wider than a Human.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Mendoza said:

 

We're dealing with a linear ratio, so even if the subject was actually shorter than 87", the ratio I obtained would be the same regardless of height.  For instance, if the height of the subject was actually only 80% of the height estimate I used, the upper leg length would likewise be decreased to 80% of the value I used, and the ratio of the two values would remain the same.  Basically, we've multiplied the numerator and denominator by the same constant, which cancels and doesn't affect the value of the ratio.

 

 

I understand that completely, Mendoza. :)  

 

That is why I ended my post by saying your conclusion regarding 'proportion' may be correct. 

 

If Patty's height is less than the figure you used....then her upper-leg length is less, also...by the same percentage. The relative proportion remains exactly the same.

 

 

Quote

(For the record, I disagree with the "short Patty" height estimates, but that's outside the scope of my paper.)

 

 

Patty may not be exceptionally short....but she is not exceptionally tall...at least, not 87"...(walking height). That would equate to a full standing height of about 8'

 

 

Quote

 

Regarding the arm length (and ratios including the arm length):  While the arm length of the subject is outside the range of human proportions, the total arm length can be altered by a prosthetic worn over the hand.  Whether that can be done convincingly is another question that's been debated ad nauseum.  The motivation for zeroing in on the upper leg length is specifically because it allowed me to dispense with that can of worms entirely--no prosthetic can make your upper leg longer.  You can't make that claim about any other limb segment, except for the upper arm, for which I couldn't find suitable corresponding human data.  Hence the "unlike previously considered proportions" line in my conclusion.

 

 

You may have missed seeing what I have been posting, over the last 10-15 years, Mendoza.....but it has been shown, most definitively, that the film subject could not possibly have been wearing any 'arm extensions'. 

 

Basically....it's 'lower arm' is too short, in both length and proportion.....to be the result of a human w/hand extensions

 

No arm/hand extensions....together with the exceptionally long 'arm length'.....makes for an 'unbeatable combination'.

 

It cannot be replicated by a human...(with or without a suit). 

 

I can post images illustrating what I mean....at some point.  :) 

 

 

One quick comparison, for now.....note the human, with exceptionally long arms...

 

Chabal_Patty_ArmProportionComp1.jpg

 

 

…...and, the proportion of lower-to-upper arms, on each subject. 

 

Clearly, there are no hand extensions on Patty. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mendoza
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2020 at 7:06 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

I understand that completely, Mendoza. :)  

 

That is why I ended my post by saying your conclusion regarding 'proportion' may be correct. 

 

If Patty's height is less than the figure you used....then her upper-leg length is less, also...by the same percentage. The relative proportion remains exactly the same.

 

 

 

 

Patty may not be exceptionally short....but she is not exceptionally tall...at least, not 87"...(walking height). That would equate to a full standing height of about 8'

 

 

 

 

You may have missed seeing what I have been posting, over the last 10-15 years, Mendoza.....but it has been shown, most definitively, that the film subject could not possibly have been wearing any 'arm extensions'. 

 

Basically....it's 'lower arm' is too short, in both length and proportion.....to be the result of a human w/hand extensions

 

No arm/hand extensions....together with the exceptionally long 'arm length'.....makes for an 'unbeatable combination'.

 

It cannot be replicated by a human...(with or without a suit). 

 

I can post images illustrating what I mean....at some point.  :) 

 

 

One quick comparison, for now.....note the human, with exceptionally long arms...

 

Chabal_Patty_ArmProportionComp1.jpg

 

 

…...and, the proportion of lower-to-upper arms, on each subject. 

 

Clearly, there are no hand extensions on Patty. 

 

I actually considered including a brief discussion in my paper of the relative proportions not being dependent on the assumed height, but I decided against it because I didn't want to bury my findings under hypothetical asides.

 

The "short" estimates I've seen for the subject put her at just over 6 feet tall.  Given the average reported height of Bigfoot, that would make her either abnormally short for an adult Bigfoot, or a juvenile.

 

Image comparisons are nice, but I've seen image comparisons debated ad nauseum over the years.  People will see what they want to see.  That's why I saw the need for a quantitative methodology that could take any subjectivity out of it and put the prosthetic issue to rest once and for all.

 

That's not to disparage any work that's already been done.  I'm not overturning anything with this, just making our case more rigorous.

Edited by Mendoza
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor featured and unfeatured this topic
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Mendoza said:

 

Image comparisons are nice, but I've seen image comparisons debated ad nauseum over the years. 

 

By "debated"....you are referring to verbal arguments...(between skeptics and proponents)...over what is seen in images.  I don't get into that type of thing.  So, I don't understand why you are bringing the 'meaningless argument with a skeptic' thing into this discussion.

 

 

The comparison I posted above shows a difference in 'arm proportion' which is so significant, it doesn't even require 'lines' or 'numbers' in the graphic, in order for it to be seen. If you think you can show otherwise....have at it. 

 

And, the differential would be even greater, if you were to extend the length of a human's lower-arm....(in the case above...Chabal's lower-arm). 

 

Try extending the length of Chabal's lower-arm by 3"....and then see how Chabal's lower-to-upper arm proportion compares with Patty's. ;) 

 

I bet you could imagine, in your head....(without the need for specific numbers)....just how significant that differential would be.

 

 

 

Quote

People will see what they want to see. 

 

I agree.....lots of folks, over the years....have "determined" Patty's body height to be in the 7 - 8' range....when the subject's height has been shown, by various other methods, to be significantly shorter than that. 

 

 

Quote

That's why I saw the need for a quantitative methodology that could take any subjectivity out of it and put the prosthetic issue to rest once and for all.

 

That is a good approach, Mendoza....but, as you just stated:

 

"Image comparisons are nice, but I've seen image comparisons debated ad nauseum over the years."  ;) 

 

The simple fact of the matter is......the one factor which takes 'subjectivity' out of any/all analysis....is the extent/degree of whatever body limb differential is being proposed.....(whether it be leg length/proportion....or arm length/proportion).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If I'm making the movie Harry and the Hendersons, I am looking to find an actor who can fit convincingly in my Bigfoot suit.  Someone tall and long.  I am not looking to find someone normal size and certainly not short. 

 

If Patty is a man in a suit it would be an obvious point they couldn't be a 'typical' person. Someone way over 6' would be in short supply in 1967 as a typical person but there would be one or two if you looked hard enough. The average person is all around us.   

 

How tall is Patty.  I could accept the figure we see on the PGF could be just a 6' or so.  I'm fine with that even though I'm thinking more 6'5'' or so.   However, lets just go with 6 foot tall for the sake of this point.

 

The issue- as this thread points out- is % of proportions. That is, regardless if Patty is 6 foot tall or 7 foot tall or some other roll of the dice (6'4 1/2 inches) it is not the height which is the issue.   It is what happens in that height from her feet to her head.  More specific:  Since she would have to be a man in a suit that man would have to be able to match the odd % of limb ratios and so on we observe.  So what are the possibilities?

 

1- We have the % wrong and what we are seeing is just not accurate.   We got it wrong somehow and those % of proportions are not accurate.  Somehow the PGF gives the appearance of wild limb ratios and our interpretation is off.     This might be from camera limitations, wishful thinking of those doing the measuring, or even some optical Mach effect with a dark subject over various grey colors or soil upon the various crossing lines of the downed trees and limbs.   <---- none of that seems likely to me.  I leave it possible but not likely.

 

2- They found a way to take some completely normal person (be they tall or normal sized) seem like they have crazy % of proportions by some really talented suit making.   <--- since no one has really demonstrated this, I say that is really a long shot but we still have to think it is possible.

 

3-  They found some freakish person with some really odd limb sizes.   <---- Good luck with that.  Nope.

 

4-  A combination of some decent suit making being enhanced by a slightly blurry figure to measure by (combining 1 and 2)   <----- More likely over just 1 or two by themselves.  I have to consider this possible but not very likely.

 

5-  Patty is a real creature and that is why the % are what they are.   <------  This makes sense.   Dr Grieve had been quoted as saying something like he was pulled between the feeling total acceptance of what he is looking at has to be real and an emotional total rejection of this film as it must be a hoax of some kind.  I think that sums up my feelings from time to time.   

 

If Patty is a man in a suit someone should be able to make a functional suit using the materials of the 1967 era and replicate the limb % in a functional suit.  Then, the look of it should be able to move in a same or similar way as to what we see on the PGF.  I'm waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Limb Ratio Challenge:

 

Homework:     Take a still pic from 2001 a Space Odd. and prove the Dawn of Man 'apes' shown have man size limb proportions and thus a man in a suit :-)    Yes I realize the 2001 effort was not intended to be a Bigfoot suit attempt.  If you don't like that example, can you take a Messin' with Sasquatch commercial or something else like it and give it a limb proportion test?   

 

I expect it will clearly result in easy proof the % of proportions match that of a man.  For those who are computer aces, I think such a thing would be helpful.  I would try it but I am weak on computer stuff.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mendoza
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

If I'm making the movie Harry and the Hendersons, I am looking to find an actor who can fit convincingly in my Bigfoot suit.  Someone tall and long.  I am not looking to find someone normal size and certainly not short. 

 

If Patty is a man in a suit it would be an obvious point they couldn't be a 'typical' person. Someone way over 6' would be in short supply in 1967 as a typical person but there would be one or two if you looked hard enough. The average person is all around us.   

 

How tall is Patty.  I could accept the figure we see on the PGF could be just a 6' or so.  I'm fine with that even though I'm thinking more 6'5'' or so.   However, lets just go with 6 foot tall for the sake of this point.

 

The issue- as this thread points out- is % of proportions. That is, regardless if Patty is 6 foot tall or 7 foot tall or some other roll of the dice (6'4 1/2 inches) it is not the height which is the issue.   It is what happens in that height from her feet to her head.  More specific:  Since she would have to be a man in a suit that man would have to be able to match the odd % of limb ratios and so on we observe.  So what are the possibilities?

 

1- We have the % wrong and what we are seeing is just not accurate.   We got it wrong somehow and those % of proportions are not accurate.  Somehow the PGF gives the appearance of wild limb ratios and our interpretation is off.     This might be from camera limitations, wishful thinking of those doing the measuring, or even some optical Mach effect with a dark subject over various grey colors or soil upon the various crossing lines of the downed trees and limbs.   <---- none of that seems likely to me.  I leave it possible but not likely.

 

2- They found a way to take some completely normal person (be they tall or normal sized) seem like they have crazy % of proportions by some really talented suit making.   <--- since no one has really demonstrated this, I say that is really a long shot but we still have to think it is possible.

 

3-  They found some freakish person with some really odd limb sizes.   <---- Good luck with that.  Nope.

 

4-  A combination of some decent suit making being enhanced by a slightly blurry figure to measure by (combining 1 and 2)   <----- More likely over just 1 or two by themselves.  I have to consider this possible but not very likely.

 

5-  Patty is a real creature and that is why the % are what they are.   <------  This makes sense.   Dr Grieve had been quoted as saying something like he was pulled between the feeling total acceptance of what he is looking at has to be real and an emotional total rejection of this film as it must be a hoax of some kind.  I think that sums up my feelings from time to time.   

 

If Patty is a man in a suit someone should be able to make a functional suit using the materials of the 1967 era and replicate the limb % in a functional suit.  Then, the look of it should be able to move in a same or similar way as to what we see on the PGF.  I'm waiting.

 

I would say the work I presented here definitively rules out #2 and #3.  Since I dealt with the upper leg length / height ratio, the "really talented suit making" would need to include transfemoral amputation as part of the costume fitting process.  And as I showed, the odds of finding a person with the needed proportions is on the order of 1 in 1023.   That's about a trillion times the number of people who have ever lived.

 

As for #1, this would be plausible in a still photo, but in the Patterson-Gimlin film, the subject is in motion.  Unless lens distortion or some similar effect followed the film subject (and I can't think of any type of distortion that would do that), it would be very obvious as the subject passed through the area of the scene being distorted by any hypothetical lensing effect.

 

Here's a rough calculation for #4:  Given the details visible in frame 352, we can set an upper limit for the radius of a "blur" at about 2.5 cm assuming a height of 222.25 cm (Glickman's estimate).  Let's be generous and grant an assumption that the blur makes the subject appear 2.5 cm shorter and that the actual height is 224.75 cm, and conversely that the blur makes the subject's upper leg appear 2.5 cm longer and that the actual length is 58.46.  In this case, the ratio is 0.260.  This is still 8.1 standard deviations from the human mean, or the 99.9999999999998th percentile, or present in around 1 in 4.5x1014 people.  I may be off by something on the order of 10 because I didn't proofread my calculation (this is the kind of z-score that breaks computers and has to be handled very carefully).  As with the other proportion calculations, it doesn't matter what height you actually use as long as you use it consistently--the results will not change.

Edited by Mendoza
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Limb Ratio Challenge:

 

Homework:     Take a still pic from 2001 a Space Odd. and prove the Dawn of Man 'apes' shown have man size limb proportions and thus a man in a suit :-)    Yes I realize the 2001 effort was not intended to be a Bigfoot suit attempt.  If you don't like that example, can you take a Messin' with Sasquatch commercial or something else like it and give it a limb proportion test?   

 

I expect it will clearly result in easy proof the % of proportions match that of a man.  For those who are computer aces, I think such a thing would be helpful.  I would try it but I am weak on computer stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a simpler...and more direct challenge, Backdoc…....replicate this:

 

 

Patty-Human-Arm-Proportion-Comp1-K.jpg

 

 

I don't think the arm, or leg proportions can be replicated...via a human being. 

 

I have thought about having this particular challenge posted on a Crypto Blog, or two....for the last few years, or so.  I'll have to work on getting that done….sometime in the near future. :) 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

1- We have the % wrong and what we are seeing is just not accurate.   We got it wrong somehow and those % of proportions are not accurate.  Somehow the PGF gives the appearance of wild limb ratios and our interpretation is off.     This might be from camera limitations, wishful thinking of those doing the measuring, or even some optical Mach effect with a dark subject over various grey colors or soil upon the various crossing lines of the downed trees and limbs.   <---- none of that seems likely to me.  I leave it possible but not likely.

 

2- They found a way to take some completely normal person (be they tall or normal sized) seem like they have crazy % of proportions by some really talented suit making.   <--- since no one has really demonstrated this, I say that is really a long shot but we still have to think it is possible.

 

We've had the immense talents of Gigantofootecus, Bill, and Sweaty look at the arm and leg proportions every which way to Sunday.  In my opinion, that rules out Number 1. 

 

If someone has, or had, such crazy proportions, it's hard to imagine we wouldn't know about it. There would be pictures somewhere on the internet or a medical journal, or even someone who was on display decades ago with a traveling circus. For my purposes, I'm ruling out Number 2 as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...