New analysis on Patty's height 2020

[Jesseu]

Hello 🤩

I have for a long time been intrigued by the PG film and with the latest use of computers and other technology we can now have a much better understanding of what the film shows. I did my own analysis focusing on the height of Patty using the latest in measuring applications by photo or film to a high level of precision. Given some unknown factors like the exact position of Patty in the film we can only make a pretty good educated guess and assumptions. Still based on eye witness reports over the years BF height has always been reported as of a very tall stature. 

I provide my link to my YouTube channel exploring the height of Patty. I will be making more videos addressing some issues regarding objects of reference in the film and their use for measuring Patty's height soon. Thank you 😁

I had sent my video to Bill Munns for review and comment; thus that is why you hear me say his name.

Link to video: 

 

 

[Jesseu]

An update will follow soon 

In brief there appears to be a discrepancy between MK Davis comparison of Jim McClarin and Patty height. In the original PG film there is a still where Patty's foot is clearly in view and according to Rogers's plaster casts they measure  14.5 in, hence in the still shot Patty's foot gives a very small height of about 67 in tall !!

So something is wrong ....either MK Davis is lying or Paty is much smaller than portrayed. I will conduct my own comparison of how feet can be used to calculate height with both film and still shots. 

Jesseu

 

 

 

[Redbone]

If you are wondering why nobody is jumping into this discussion, we have beaten this horse to death, with no valid conclusions yet.

If you want to go through the rabbit hole, here is 41 pages of discussion. (linked below) If you look harder you can probably find 100 more pages where Patty's height has been discussed.

 

I tried to layout the film site in a CAD drawing using every possible measurement technique that has been presented, trying to make them match up and every attempt failed.

I think I debunked a few, but since I could not come to accurate conclusions, who knows for sure...

 

Errors exist... There are variables that I cannot understand. There is something we don't know about the camera focal length, lens distortion, and site measurements, that prevent us from putting it all together.

 

My opinion is that she's 6'3" to 6'6" in her stooped walking position. I have seen seemingly accurate methods indicating she is shorter in some cases, and taller in others.

 

 

 

[Jesseu]

Thank you 😁

Very interesting indeed...your insight and that of others. 

Still, I am kinda new and want to look into it myself. I will read all and use my own video and measuring apps and other to see for myself. I intend to take my own foot-to-body measure to independently confirm if the same discrepancy manifest itself.

Thanks

 

[MikeZimmer]

You might want to look at work by Giagantofootecus. He was on the site years ago and did a lot of photogrammetric work on the film. He is trained, a working scientist, and a professional in this area. He went incognito for a long time, and then resurfaced. His older incarnation now comes up with Guest as the poster:

In his previous incarnation, he posted this:

 

 

And also this by me, which is probably not an improvement: https://vorticity-martial-arts.com/sitchamalth/2015/01/24/estimating-pattys-height-with-the-foot-ruler/

 

 

 

[Jesseu]

Fantastic !

Thank you Mike Zimmer 

I have seen some video footage of a group of researchers, including Bill Munns and others at the original site. Albeit many years later but there are still some objects that have remained in place. Namely stumps and large rocks remain and can be a good source of reference. I think this issue of Patty's height needs to be clarified. Has Roger lied about the foot prints? Has MK lied about his video comparison? Does the still frame show an anomaly of Patty's foot? This is a big problem 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

It has been explained that as PGF film copies and copies of copies gets made one loses contrast and lighter objects lighten up even more. There are frames there are cibachrome closer to the original that show good detail of the foot's sole and toe definition. For me, height isn't as important as body ratios outside a Human norm such as shoulder width to height ratios using a consistent measuring tool- like a mm scale or a pixel count. In either case shoulder width extensions would place a Human elbow in the only place it could go and still have a natural arm swinging from a natural shoulder location. And the only place a Human elbow could be using shoulder extensions is straight out and horizontal from the shoulder. The ration I came up with is if Patty was 6' tall then her shoulder width was at least 28" which is nearly 10" wider than a normal 6' Human male. After a few moments of letting this sink in you'll understand the significance of this.

[Jesseu]

Good point Hiflier

I understand the degrading effect caused by copies of a film. Certainly ....but even multiple copies will not erase or exaggerate the proportions of a film subject so much as to make it unrecognizable. I have noticed how a copy of the PG film varies in quality from the original or it's first copies. It is dramatic in certaint aspects in color, resolution and clarity. Because you can still see the detail in Patty's foot even after several copies a very good estimate can be made of her height. What is significant is no matter how much the effect of multiple copies may be it is still very clear that Patty is much much shorter than 8 feet! 

I am not saying this proves a monkey suit by no means. There is still the unusual non-human anatomy and proportions and walk to explain. I think a closer look or focus needs attention here because it is part of the original film and not modified or messed with by unscrupulous BF researchers. 

Thx

 

 

[hiflier]

Never have really quite warmed up to getting down votes with no explanations behind them.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Never have really quite warmed up to getting down votes with no explanations behind them.

Especially new posters to the forum. 
 

Welcome to the forum Jesseu!

[Jesseu]

😁👍

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing your interest and findings now and in the future.

Never understood down votes period. Opinions sharing should be welcome not discouraged.

It is not like there is much more to be gained without real evidence.

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Hope the 🏆 helps.

[Jesseu]

Thanks 

That was dead on 👍

 

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

On 3/10/2021 at 5:20 PM, Jesseu said:

An update will follow soon 

In brief there appears to be a discrepancy between MK Davis comparison of Jim McClarin and Patty height. In the original PG film there is a still where Patty's foot is clearly in view and according to Rogers's plaster casts they measure  14.5 in, hence in the still shot Patty's foot gives a very small height of about 67 in tall !!

So something is wrong ....either MK Davis is lying or Paty is much smaller than portrayed. I will conduct my own comparison of how feet can be used to calculate height with both film and still shots. 

Jesseu

 

As mentioned above, Gigantofootecus is the Yoda of photogrammetric analysis. Anyone hoping to draw defensible conclusions about size or distance in a picture had better brush up on their trigomonetry. Here is a some of the phenomenal work he did on the PGF and Patty including his calculations. He has a section on Patty's height and the Foot Ruler:

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

Edited March 14, 2021 by wiiawiwb