The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[angelsaramark]

The key is that Hieronymus walks just like that so-called bigfoot. Both have and identifiable and strange gait. I saw Hieronymus walking on a documentary. It's so obvious that it can't be mistaken.

 

[William Parcher]

On a different note, if the PGF depicts a man in a suit, what do you think of the FIT of the suit?

It doesn't look like an ill-fitting suit. There are no obvious loose bits, and it's not bursting at the seams. Yet Bob Heironimus doesn't indicate that the suit was custom tailored to fit him. He pretty much just put it on over his street clothes and went for a walk.

There's something not quite right about that. How would it fit so well?

BH says that he first tried on the costume at Patterson's house. It was there that Roger made some adjustments to the fit. He may have made more permanent adjustments after BH left, as would a tailor fitting a new suit after purchase at a clothing store.

 

[SweatyYeti]

On a different note, if the PGF depicts a man in a suit, what do you think of the FIT of the suit?

It doesn't look like an ill-fitting suit. There are no obvious loose bits, and it's not bursting at the seams.

Yet Bob Heironimus doesn't indicate that the suit was custom tailored to fit him. He pretty much just put it on over his street clothes and went for a walk.

There's something not quite right about that. How would it fit so well?

A most excellent point, Kilaak.

Good 'Ol Bob hasn't said much of anything about the "suit", actually.....he just says he was inside it, and everyone believes him!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Here again is one of my favorite comparisons...

Uh..Oh...Sweaty broke out his crayon box again. You know sweaty, you should not eat the cheap ones, they make you see things that are not there.

He forgot that I demonstrated this was false back in the first PGF. When I showed that Bob in a suit matched frame 352 pretty well on post 14761.

I also demonstrated that Bob in this comparison was not similar and the shifting of shoulders, swing of the arm, etc. made it an invalid comparison at post 14692.

From what I recall, Sweaty claimed ignorance because he did not "do numbers", which is why I posted the image above. After that he did what he normally does when his ideas are shown to be flawed. He ignored me and waited for me to disappear before he reposted the same exact nonsense again on this thread. Do you have anything original to present Sweaty?

The fact of the matter is none of these can be valid comparison's one way or the other because there is no way to exactly duplicate the positions of the body and the position of the camera. My comparison of Bob in a suit can be just as flawed as Sweaty's comparison.

 

[kitakaze]

A most excellent point, Kilaak.

Good 'Ol Bob hasn't said much of anything about the "suit", actually.....he just says he was inside it, and everyone believes him!

The mountain of circumstantial evidence is why people believe him. See 29 "I knows."

As an alternative, if that really is an example of the beasts that have been slipping through our fingers all across the continent while playing in our backyards al this time then it really is absurd we haven't got a body.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

After that he did what he normally does when his ideas are shown to be flawed. He ignored me and waited for me to disappear before he reposted the same exact nonsense again on this thread.

I'll happily ignore your comparison of "Bob in a suit" to Patty, Astro....because it's completely meaningless.


The reason for comparing Bob's (not "Bob in a suit") body proportions to Patty's is to determine if Bob's arms (not the extended arms of a suit) are long enough for his fingers (not the fingers of a glove) to be Patty's fingers.

The comparison I posted is appropriate because it's comparing Bob's body proportions to Patty's body proportions, as we see them.

A reminder for you, Astro......the topic of this thread is "Bob Heironimus and Patty".
It is not "Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit and Patty".

Your comparison is completely meaningless....worthless....irrelevant...and idiotic.

If that statement is not true.....then please, go ahead and explain why your comparison has any value in determining whether or not Bob's actual fingers could be Patty's fingers.

By "Patty's fingers", I mean what is outlined in this still frame...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Darat wrote:

Secondly I pointed you to a site that starts to explain why objects that are photographed will be distorted, you can actually follow the equations to learn further.....

I could follow the equations. I could also take a night course on Optics, and learn all about the wonderful world of 'distortion through lenses'......but I'm not going to.


Again....you made a claim...

Unless the photos are from the same distance and angle and were created with the same lenses any such "eyeline" comparison is meaningless.

..so you can back it up with something of substance, which demonstrates exactly, and specifically, how the comparison image I posted is meaningless.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

BH says that he first tried on the costume at Patterson's house. It was there that Roger made some adjustments to the fit. He may have made more permanent adjustments after BH left, as would a tailor fitting a new suit after purchase at a clothing store.

A lot if it comes down to how adaptable a padded suit is. I need to dig up the link to the professional rental suit that was posted a few times in the "big thread". It had a suggested range of heights for the wearer, but there was definitely some leeway.

But then if Roger did make adjustments to the suit, that takes a bit of steam out of the "professional suit" theory, although minor tweaks are within reason. I'm a bit more sold on it being a pro suit than on BH being the guy inside it.

 

[William Parcher]

It could have been a professionally made costume to which Roger made adjustments or customizations. It could have been originally made to fit a smallish range of human sizes, and could be improved by making certain changes for a specific person.

 

[kakariki]

Here again is one of my favorite comparisons...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/Patty1lined1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/Bob1lined1.jpg[/qimg]



Lining-up the eyes, (which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit")....and the feet.....Bob's arms come up well short of Patty's.

You can't compare the arm lengths in those two pictures because the figures are in different positions. Patty's right shoulder is in a downward forward position with the arm coming down and back angled toward the camera. Bob H. has his right shoulder up, with his back angled away from the camera and his arm up.

From those two pictures I wouldn't be surprised if the arms lined up pretty well if Bob H. moved his shoulder and arm into the same position as Patty.

 

[Darat]

Darat wrote:



I could follow the equations. I could also take a night course on Optics, and learn all about the wonderful world of 'distortion through lenses'......but I'm not going to.

...snip...

It really doesn't require anything like that, this is simple knowledge that can be found in any high-school physics textbook, in most photography books (that deal with concepts such as depth of field, focal lengths and so on) and so on.

Again....you made a claim...


..so you can back it up with something of substance, which demonstrates exactly, and specifically, how the comparison image I posted is meaningless.

Which I have done - remember I pointed you to a site that describes some of the science that supports my claim, and you do have this "making a claim" thing a bit backward, remember it is your claim that is under scrutiny...

..so you can back it up with something of substance, which demonstrates exactly, and specifically, how the comparison image you posted are meaningful.


I really don't understand your problem with this - distortion of the geometry of a 3D image is something anyone who has ever taken a photo of anything has to be aware of even if they don't understand why or how the distortions happen.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The reason for comparing Bob's (not "Bob in a suit") body proportions to Patty's is to determine if Bob's arms (not the extended arms of a suit) are long enough for his fingers (not the fingers of a glove) to be Patty's fingers.

The comparison I posted is appropriate because it's comparing Bob's body proportions to Patty's body proportions, as we see them.

A reminder for you, Astro......the topic of this thread is "Bob Heironimus and Patty".
It is not "Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit and Patty".

Your comparison is completely meaningless....worthless....irrelevant...and idiotic.

Do you realize how you appear when you state these things? The key words are "as we see them". I have already showed how your comparison was flawed long ago because the position of Bob's body is not the same as the position for Aunt Bunny. Therefore, you can not compare them by drawing simple horizontal lines. So, put your crayon box away and do some real math/numbers and get back to us when you get there.

Finally, if Bob in a suit matches the positions of frame 352 in a reasonable manner, it goes to state that Aunt Bunny could be Bob in a suit. Stating it is meaningless is just your way of trying to hide the fact that your original analysis was extremely flawed.

 

[drapier]

I really don't understand your problem with this - distortion of the geometry of a 3D image is something anyone who has ever taken a photo of anything has to be aware of even if they don't understand why or how the distortions happen.

I think if you study Sweaty's research, the only conclusion you can come to is that Sweaty thinks Patty is a two-dimensional creature.

 

[neltana]

The comparison I posted is appropriate because it's comparing Bob's body proportions to Patty's body proportions, as we see them.

A reminder for you, Astro......the topic of this thread is "Bob Heironimus and Patty".
It is not "Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit and Patty".

Your comparison is completely meaningless....worthless....irrelevant...and idiotic.

Wait, so your contention is that the PGF doesn't show Bob Heironimus-not-in-a-suit. Well, I don't think you are going to find anyone who disagrees with you there.

Congratulations. You have finally won a thread!

Clearly, Bob was wearing a monkey suit that day.

ETA:
I also have photographic evidence that Bob Heironimus-not-in-a-suit is less hairy than Patty!

 

[sanguine]

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/Patty1lined1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/Bob1lined1.jpg[/qimg]

Lining-up the eyes, (which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit")....and the feet.....Bob's arms come up well short of Patty's.

But if I line up the eyes the way you have, Bob's head is too big to be inside a "suit" head anyway -- we'd have to clip off some valuable skull space up top, at any rate. This doesn't seem like a meaningful, informative comparison.

 

[William Parcher]

I've been told that Bob H is next to Patterson...

By who? It's been pointed out countless times on JREF that Bob Heironimus is on the far right. The caption for this photo in Long's book names all of those guys.

 

[captain koolaid]

I'll happily ignore your comparison of "Bob in a suit" to Patty, Astro....because it's completely meaningless.

The reason for comparing Bob's (not "Bob in a suit") body proportions to Patty's is to determine if Bob's arms (not the extended arms of a suit) are long enough for his fingers (not the fingers of a glove) to be Patty's fingers.

The comparison I posted is appropriate because it's comparing Bob's body proportions to Patty's body proportions, as we see them.

A reminder for you, Astro......the topic of this thread is "Bob Heironimus and Patty".
It is not "Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit and Patty".

Your comparison is completely meaningless....worthless....irrelevant...and idiotic.

If that statement is not true.....then please, go ahead and explain why your comparison has any value in determining whether or not Bob's actual fingers could be Patty's fingers.

By "Patty's fingers", I mean what is outlined in this still frame...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattyhand4OL.gif[/qimg]

No, Sweaty. I think you know exactly which frame I'm talking about. And it's not the first one. It's the second one where Patty's finger actually does the supposed "flex". Try drawing on that one, and explain how it's done.

1) Knuckle bends.
2) Last joint bends.
3) Joint between knuckle and last joint does not bend.

Does Bigfoot now have unique bone structure and joints in the hand, as well as the feet? Call Meldrum. Surely he can come up with a scientificky explanation. What could possibly account for such a bizarre party trick? Is it magic bones? Rubber glove? Or poor image resolution?

Choose wisely...

 

[SweatyYeti]

But if I line up the eyes the way you have, Bob's head is too big to be inside a "suit" head anyway -- we'd have to clip off some valuable skull space up top, at any rate. This doesn't seem like a meaningful, informative comparison.

Good observation, sanguine.
You're not the only one who's noticed that!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

I have already showed how your comparison was flawed long ago because...

So?

A whole bunch of "skeptics" here have "shown, stated, and pointed-out" that the comparison image of Bob (not "Bob-in-a-suit" ) and Patty is flawed.....but not ONE of them, including you, Astro, has backed-up their claim/proposal/statements with anything which actually demonstrates what they're claiming/proposing is true, and that there is actually a significant distortion in the comparison.


So....talk away....but it means nothing more to me than a worthless, 2-penny opinion....without a supporting demonstration of the alleged distortion error.

 

[sanguine]

Good observation, sanguine.
You're not the only one who's noticed that!

Now, that's just puerile on your part. Let me be clearer:

It looks to me like you were comparing two pictures that are not at the same scale. This means they provide no useful information for the comparison you are trying to make.

I gave you the credit of thinking you'd understand that. I still give you that credit; I think you were just selectively emphasizing part of what I said to pretend to make a point.

If you can't make a good argument, don't try to cherry pick one from what I said.