The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Darat wrote:

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...

Actually.....everything that is claimed/proposed on this forum should be under scrutiny.

If anyone expects their claim/proposal to carry any weight, it needs to be supported by something more than just their opinion....because unsupported opinions should all be considered of equal 'value' here...(including mine).......somewhere between 2-cents, and nothing.


Here again is your claim, Darat....

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

To even start to make such a comparison you would need to know the details of the equipment used to make both photos, the settings used at the time, distance from the camera and so on.

Simply linking to a website which explains the principles of Optics doesn't demonstrate where, and to what extent, the error is in the comparison image of Bob and Patty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

The two images I posted are properly scaled, within a very small, insignificant, degree of error.

I lined-up Bob's eyes with Patty's eyes....and Bob's feet with Patty's feet.

We know that if Bob was indeed Patty, that his eyes had to line-up with Patty's eyes.
So the scaling is appropriate, if Bob was in fact Patty.


Again....given that scaling....you've pointed out what I, and others, have pointed out before....that Bob's head appears to be too big to fit inside of Patty's head.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Again....given that scaling....you've pointed out what I, and others, have pointed out before....that Bob's head appears to be too big to fit inside of Patty's head.

So either Bob is a big brained kind of guy or "aunt bunny" is a pinhead? Hmmm...no wonder we can't find skulls of bigfoot, they are all way too small and are probably the size of a golfball. Keep trying Sweaty.

BTW, you still did not properly align other parts of the body (shoulders, arm angle, stoop, etc) and therefore your crayon drawings STILL are null and void.

Then we have the "Bob in a suit = Aunt Bunny" comparison. That speaks volumes.

 

[sanguine]

The two images I posted are properly scaled, within a very small, insignificant, degree of error.

I lined-up Bob's eyes with Patty's eyes....and Bob's feet with Patty's feet.

You lined up Bob's feet with some random chunk of ground, in two pictures with no scale correlation at all.

Honestly, if those two pictures are actually scaled properly with each other, then the issue isn't Bob's head -- it's Bob. He's clearly just bigger all around than "bigfoot."

Anyway. I wanted to say, as a non-bigfoot-debate-follower, that I found the original comparison meaningless. It's still meaningless. The pictures don't demonstrate anything useful at all.

You're a little depressing, you know?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

BTW, you still did not properly align other parts of the body (shoulders, arm angle, stoop, etc) and therefore your crayon drawings STILL are null and void.

As long as the eyes and feet are lined-up....as they MUST HAVE BEEN if Bob was indeed Patty....then the scaling is proper, and appropriate.

That's all that matters, as far as 'proper scaling' is concerned, in determining whether or not Bob's arm (not "Bob's arm-in-a-suit" ) is long enough so that his fingers could have been Patty's fingers.

The other body parts are irrelevant to that scaling, and arm-length comparison.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Here again is your claim, Darat....



Simply linking to a website which explains the principles of Optics doesn't demonstrate where, and to what extent, the error is in the comparison image of Bob and Patty.

Why should it since I have never claimed an "extent" or "the error in the comparison is"?

What I have done is used what we know of how 2D photographs of a 3D object can distort the apparent geometry of the 3D object to come to a conclusion about whether your conclusion can, given the information you supplied, be a meaningful conclusion or not.

Using that knowledge we can state that given the information you have so far supplied your conclusion could be erroneous, therefore it is still up to you to support your conclusion (claim). Until such time as you can support your claim there is no reason to accept it as being accurate or as I put it earlier meaningful.

So if you wish to support your claim please do so, obviously you do not have to however without such support your conclusion will remain meaningless.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The other body parts are irrelevant to that scaling, and arm-length comparison.

Which really demonstrates you do not even know what you are talking about Sweaty. Align a few body parts does not guarantee the others are properly aligned. I have already demonstrated that long ago. Oh, that's right, you claimed ignorance because you do not "do numbers".

A will to believe can blind you from the obvious. Keep believing sweaty. You will go to your grave believing that the PGF shows a real bigfoot but at the same time I can wager that no evidence for bigfoot will surface to vindicate your belief.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

The two images I posted are properly scaled, within a very small, insignificant, degree of error.

I lined-up Bob's eyes with Patty's eyes....and Bob's feet with Patty's feet.

We know that if Bob was indeed Patty, that his eyes had to line-up with Patty's eyes.
So the scaling is appropriate, if Bob was in fact Patty.


Again....given that scaling....you've pointed out what I, and others, have pointed out before....that Bob's head appears to be too big to fit inside of Patty's head.

The problem is you are self imposed deliberately blind and in denial of the facts. Theres no amount of science that overcome that.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As long as the eyes and feet are lined-up....as they MUST HAVE BEEN if Bob was indeed Patty....then the scaling is proper, and appropriate.

That's all that matters, as far as 'proper scaling' is concerned, in determining whether or not Bob's arm (not "Bob's arm-in-a-suit" ) is long enough so that his fingers could have been Patty's fingers.

The other body parts are irrelevant to that scaling, and arm-length comparison.

I had to do this because it appear appropriate:

Thanks to the bad astronomer for this link to a great pic.

 

[captain koolaid]

That's all that matters, as far as 'proper scaling' is concerned, in determining whether or not Bob's arm (not "Bob's arm-in-a-suit" ) is long enough so that his fingers could have been Patty's fingers.

The other body parts are irrelevant to that scaling, and arm-length comparison.

But you haven't demonstrated that there are actually ANY fingers in that glove, let alone Bob's.

 

[Correa Neto]

Hey, Sweaty, "notice the arms"!

Unless both figures were at the very same position in respect to the film plane and the same camera model was used, your diagrams are useless. Unless, of course, you can completely rewrite optics and perspective.

Note that we haven't even entered in to things like montion blur...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Unless both figures were at the very same position in respect to the film plane and the same camera model was used, your diagrams are useless.
Unless, of course, you can completely rewrite optics and perspective.

Feel free to demonstrate those distortions caused by using different model cameras, and the different positions in respect to the film plane, along with a detailed explanation of exactly how it all relates to the comparison of Bob and Patty that I posted.


The lens diagram you posted doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the Bob/Patty comparison. All it shows is that lenses invert images.

 

[Drewbot]

Correa Neto wrote:

The lens diagram you posted doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the Bob/Patty comparison. All it shows is that lenses invert images.

It shows I1 is not equal to I2 depending on the angle of the arm in relation to the camera.

Thus your dimensioning of the photos is absolutely a moot point.

 

[technoextreme]

Simply linking to a website which explains the principles of Optics doesn't demonstrate where, and to what extent, the error is in the comparison image of Bob and Patty.

Because Darat is not an idiot. Darat knows that in order to characterize the distortion and even magnification of a lens you need the lens. Darat knows that distortion happens in all lens but he really can't say how the image was distorted in those pictures because he needs the camera. Any sort of numerical characterization of the distortion would throw him into the woo category. And apparently you fell for the same flaw that the people who try and determine the speed of WTC 7 falling using video fell for.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It shows I1 is not equal to I2 depending on the angle of the arm in relation to the camera.

Thus your dimensioning of the photos is absolutely a moot point.

The arm-length ratio of A1 to I1...or A1/I1.......is exactly the same as the arm length ratio of A2 to I2...or A2/I2.

In that diagram, the 2 lenses did not distort, or change, the 'body proportion' of the arm, or the angle of the arm.


To boot....in Correa's commentary, in his post with the lens diagram, he doesn't even say ONE thing about any supposed distortion, and how that would relate to the Bob/Patty comparison.
Note that Correa only makes reference to my comparison graphic, rather than his graphic...

Unless both figures were at the very same position in respect to the film plane and the same camera model was used, your diagrams are useless.

I appreciate Correa's effort to try to make the comparison appear meaningless, but without actually explaining his graphic, and demonstrating precisely how it relates to the B/P comparison image....it's nothing more than meaningless scribble on my computer screen.

 

[Darat]

SweatyYeti - still waiting for the information that will support your claim.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The lens diagram you posted doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the Bob/Patty comparison. All it shows is that lenses invert images.

And the cartoon I posted becomes more appropriate every posting that Sweaty performs on this subject.

Sweaty, take a ruler (or a piece of string that you can mark) and measure the vertical dimensions of A1 and A2. You will discover that they are different. The film would show the same arm to have different lengths. If you can not see that, then you are truly blinded by belief.

 

[SweatyYeti]

SweatyYeti - still waiting for the information that will support your claim.

What claim?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

...measure the vertical dimensions of A1 and A2. You will discover that they are different.

I already knew they're different....without even using a ruler.
The difference in length is very easy to see, judging it by eye.

I never said they were the same.

What is your point??

The film would show the same arm to have different lengths.

Of course an arm could appear to be different lengths, depending on the angle it's at, relative to the camera.

So what?

I understand the concept, very well, Astro.....but Bob's arm and Patty's arm are at very nearly the same angle (both viewed from the side, with the arm a few degrees 'back' of a straight vertical, in it's swing) in the comparison images........and also....in other comparison images of the two, Bob's arm comes up shorter than Patty's.

This is not a meaningless coincidence. I'm thinking it's simply because Bob's arm is shorter than Patty's arm, proportionally speaking.


Again......anyone who claims the comparison is extremely inaccurate, needs to explain exactly why it is inaccurate....with specific information which relates directly to the images I posted.


Why is it so difficult for skeptics to do this???

 

[Darat]

What claim?

The one you make in post 2.