Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[kitakaze]

Regarding Cleon's original question, the PGF, and other footage, in that thread of Sweaty's on the Freeman footage he has this bit of brilliance to offer about what he has decided is skeptic's circular logic:

Unlike the "skeptics" on the other boards....I consider this video, and the Memorial Day Video, to be very valuable videos...despite their limited resolutions...since they are still potential legitimate Bigfoot videos.

This is what ticks me off too Sweaty. I'm always reading the scoftics claiming that there is the P/G footage..............and nothing else.

I know....they actually use 'circular reasoning' in explaining away the various potential Bigfoot videos.
It goes something like this.....the MD Video can't be a real Bigfoot video, because there aren't any other real Bigfoot videos out there..........and the PG Film can't be a real Bigfoot video, because there aren't any other real Bigfoot videos.....and so on, and so on.

According to their "logic"...none of them can carry any weight, because none of them have been proven to show real Bigfoot creatures.

The truth of the matter is...is that some of these videos do carry weight, based simply on analysis of the subjects of the videos, themselves.

As one example...the Memorial Day Video. There is no good alternate explanation, besides a Bigfoot w/infant, that fits all of the details surrounding the whole event....from the video itself, to the eyewitness reports from the people on the hillside that day.

Tell us, Sweaty. Who is this "they" that are saying those things? Can we have some specifics, quotes, and links. When you're over there lying through your teeth do you ever wish you didn't need stawmen to whine about skeptics?

 

[xblade]

No, I don't think the PG Film is the only real Bigfoot video.

I think the Memorial Day Video is most likely a video of 'the real thing'

Can I interest you in some ocean front property in Kansas? I'll even throw in a bridge.

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, still waiting for you to address posts #594 and #595. I hope this doesn't prove too difficult for you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, still waiting for you to address posts #594 and #595. I hope this doesn't prove too difficult for you.

No...not at all. I'll respond to those later today, guaranteed!

 

[Hitch]

No...not at all. I'll respond to those later today, guaranteed!

This should be good.

 

[kitakaze]

No...not at all. I'll respond to those later today, guaranteed!

I'll even be a sport and help you catch up. Here's posts #594 and 595 and even a link to the referenced #585 -

#594:

Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking. (snip)

I love that post. It is an absolutely perfect example of Bigfoot science. All that goofy crayon work. Here are some simple questions that clearly outline the idiocy of that piece of Bigfoot science:

1) When confidently pronouncing that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking," what was your sample base? IOW, how many humans did you compare to?

2) Patty is hunched over, genius. What's the length from the tip of the right hand to the left foot and more importantly, what the heck does it matter?

Please note:

Post #585 kicks post #589 in the hole of no return.

#595:

It takes a lot of work to get the 'hard of seeing' to see, sometimes.....you see?

My thoughts exactly. Let us know when you start seeing tummy rocks, diaper butts, and freaky thigh lines.

ETA: More Sweaty dodge fodder:

Q - Are there any features of Patty that are more consistent with a hoax than a live Bigfoot?

#585:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4401217#post4401217

 

[SweatyYeti]

I'll even be a sport and help you catch up. Here's post #594...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking.

I love that post. It is an absolutely perfect example of Bigfoot science. All that goofy crayon work. Here are some simple questions that clearly outline the idiocy of that piece of Bigfoot science:

1) When confidently pronouncing that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking," what was your sample base? IOW, how many humans did you compare to?

First....In response to kitakaze's question, quoted above..."How many humans did I compare Patty to?"

Enough humans, for my liking.


Patty's arms are indeed exceptionally long, compared to a human's arm.


The skeleton comparison images you're using appear to be flawed.

I enlarged one of them, and highlighted an apparent discrepancy between the 2 skeletons...

Within only a small angle of upper leg movement....the skeleton's head moves upwards by almost one full head-height.

Now, IF that actually happened in the REAL world, you'd really have something there, kitty, with your stupid skeletons.
As it is....you don't.

To see how much Patty's head actually moves up and down, as she walks....here is something from the real world...

Try holding your mouse cursor over Patty's eyes, and see how much her head moves, vertically.



So, despite kitty's "magical skeletons".....in every DIRECT comparison of Bob and Patty (and Patty and Jim McClarin, also), Patty's arms appear to be distinctly longer....or, more significantly...her fingertips reach down closer to the feet.

(Hey, listen.........I think I can hear Correa, waaaaaaaaay off in the distance......................"It's a play of light and shadows, folks...ALL OF IT......don't freakin' believe it, I'm tellin' ya!......it's a damn trick!!!")


Putting this into a math-E-matical context...

In every single direct comparison... Bob Heironimus (A) does not equal Patty (B).

Kitty attempts to get-around this by using 2 skeletons....(which I'll label S1 and S2)....to try to make A equal to B...
Kitty's equation: A=S1=S2=B

Unfortunately, since S1 does not equal S2 (as is shown above).....kitty's equation is a false equation.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

what a dumbazz- Sweety needs a career in politics

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
It takes a lot of work to get the 'hard of seeing' to see, sometimes.....you see?

My thoughts exactly. Let us know when you start seeing tummy rocks, diaper butts, and freaky thigh lines.

ETA: More Sweaty dodge fodder:

Q - Are there any features of Patty that are more consistent with a hoax than a live Bigfoot?

There is one thing about Patty that I do think looks questionable...possibly suit-like. That's the top of the thigh, where it seems to compress under the butt...

Unlike the "skeptics" here....I don't feel the need to pretend to not see something.

But...I don't know that what is seen there cannot happen on a real animal.

What is more significant, to me, are all of the other movements on Patty, that I've mentioned before. They're just too un-suitlike to explain-away as a padded suit, until they can actually be replicated with a suit.

 

[LTC8K6]

I didn't see Patty stand straight up in the PGF, so how does Sweaty know the full range of motion of her noggin?

 

[kitakaze]

First....In response to kitakaze's question, quoted above..."How many humans did I compare Patty to?"

Enough humans, for my liking.

Sweaty, please don't dodge. That answer makes you look extremely intellectually dishonest. Seriously, try to find one Bigfoot enthusiast that doesn't think so. I asked the number of your sample base when you pronounced Patty's arms inhuman in length. I think it was one, two tops. McClarin and Heironimus. McClarin isn't in the same position and we've shown BH matches. An honest answer will show your idiot Bigfoot science so you dodge. We got your number.

You also didn't answer the second question, Sweaty. You said my questions wouldn't at all be too difficult to answer but with a dodge and an ignore they proved entirely too difficult. Do you ever wonder why you're no longer at the BFF, SFB, BFD?

Patty's arms are indeed exceptionally long, compared to a human's arm.


The skeleton comparison images you're using appear to be flawed.

I enlarged one of them, and highlighted an apparent discrepancy between the 2 skeletons...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SkeletonBob5.jpg[/qimg]


Within only a small angle of upper leg movement....the skeleton's head moves upwards by almost one full head-height.

Now, IF that actually happened in the REAL world, you'd really have something there, kitty, with your stupid skeletons.
As it is....you don't.

To see how much Patty's head actually moves up and down, as she walks....here is something from the real world...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk5.gif[/qimg]

Try holding your mouse cursor over Patty's eyes, and see how much her head moves, vertically.



So, despite kitty's "magical skeletons".....in every DIRECT comparison of Bob and Patty (and Patty and Jim McClarin, also), Patty's arms appear to be distinctly longer....or, more significantly...her fingertips reach down closer to the feet.

(Hey, listen.........I think I can hear Correa, waaaaaaaaay off in the distance......................"It's a play of light and shadows, folks...ALL OF IT......don't freakin' believe it, I'm tellin' ya!......it's a damn trick!!!")


Putting this into a math-E-matical context...

In every single direct comparison... Bob Heironimus (A) does not equal Patty (B).

Kitty attempts to get-around this by using 2 skeletons....(which I'll label S1 and S2)....to try to make A equal to B...
Kitty's equation: A=S1=S2=B

Unfortunately, since S1 does not equal S2 (as is shown above).....kitty's equation is a false equation.

Wow. Just wow. Normally I would delete that when quoting to save space but as a monument to your complete and utter foolishness I will leave it. That can only deserve one thing - a giant facepalm:

I really find myself wondering if you are being willfully ignorant or are actually deeply stupid in some way. I don't want to think so but with displays like this it's hard not to. Let me say this so you don't miss it:

Patty never stands fully erect, man!

We've been through this before. What an embarrassment to footers you are! The skeletons are exactly the same. Look here. PGF2:

KK:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268274#post4268274

SY:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268365#post4268365

KK:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268450#post4268450

Here's something more your speed

BTW, thank you for pointing out how "mathematical" is spelt. Do I have some apparent consistent problem spelling that or were you just being a dick?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I enlarged one of them, and highlighted an apparent discrepancy between the 2 skeletons...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SkeletonBob5.jpg[/qimg]

Within only a small angle of upper leg movement....the skeleton's head moves upwards by almost one full head-height.

You seem to have forgotten to account for the fact that the spine of the "Patty skeleton" curves as Patty leans over, whereas the Bob H. skeleton is erect. A straight leg and upright spinal position could account for the head-height.

Oh, and you can find some old notes on people displaying arms of similar length here, here, and here. I also like the notes regarding apparent arm length and the Bob H. suit shown here. Sorry for the lack of direct links to single posts, but it's late and I really want to go to bed.

 

[kitakaze]

There is one thing about Patty that I do think looks questionable...possibly suit-like. That's the top of the thigh, where it seems to compress under the butt...

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


Unlike the "skeptics" here....I don't feel the need to pretend to not see something.

So you see no problem with Patty's breasts?

But...I don't know that what is seen there cannot happen on a real animal.

Surely this detail has not escaped you in the past. Why did you not do a patented Sweaty analysis on it?

What is more significant, to me, are all of the other movements on Patty, that I've mentioned before. They're just too un-suitlike to explain-away as a padded suit, until they can actually be replicated with a suit.

Not once ever have you shown any movement more likely to be a real animal. Show me one. I dare you.

 

[kitakaze]

KK:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268274#post4268274

SY:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268365#post4268365

KK:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4268450#post4268450

The last link here in addition to mangler's image completely destroying Sweaty's idiotic crayon work then and now has two links to Astrophotographer's excellent analysis of both Patty's height and proportions (including normal arm length). Here they are again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3571927&postcount=13474

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3844448&postcount=14692

As well as the independant analysis that confirms his results for height:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=oKqBaPwhUPU

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There is one thing about Patty that I do think looks questionable...possibly suit-like. That's the top of the thigh, where it seems to compress under the butt...

Unlike the "skeptics" here....I don't feel the need to pretend to not see something.

But...I don't know that what is seen there cannot happen on a real animal.

What is more significant, to me, are all of the other movements on Patty, that I've mentioned before. They're just too un-suitlike to explain-away as a padded suit, until they can actually be replicated with a suit.

It's refreshing to see you admit there is a problem with the upper thigh/pelvic area ..


Too bad a certain suit expert, can't be as honest ...

 

[Aepervius]

It's refreshing to see you admit there is a problem with the upper thigh/pelvic area ..


Too bad a certain suit expert, can't be as honest ...

The more i see the animation picture quoted... the more I really need to ask believer "Do you freaking really think this is a real animal instead of a costume ? can you tell that again with a straight face ?".

Sweaty, really, do you realize that the femur/leg isn't even in the same plan ? If it was in the same plan it would be longer. The proof of this is quite easy. Take two pens. Then incline the LEFT pen to the left, then displace the bottom of the pen forward as if it was a leg going forward. Then look both from the side. You will then realize why your error.




or maybe not as you do the same error over and over and over and over...

Our good energizer-bunny.

PS: experience with a small tubbing of the same length as the femur above, shows that for an inclination identical to the left (~25°), you only need 35-40 degree forward to reproduce the length of the left photo. Now i am sure somebody could do a better calculation using trigonometry.

PPS: actually that lead me to think the pelvis isn#t correctly placed on the elft photo... But maybe that jsut me

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My graphics skills are less than desirable, and it took me a while to
nail down what I was seeing with the blue line..

You can also see a disconnect between upper arm and shoulder, as well as
the chest and the arm. ( in a different set of frames )
As the ( right ) arm moves to the rear, it should pull the entire breast
rearward. It does not. The upper part of the chest moves independantly
of the breast itself .. You can also see the left breast bob up and down
while the right one stays relatively stationary.

I'm sure it's my lack of training and expertise that makes me imagine I am
seeing these things.

I have pointed each of these problems to bill Munns, and while he has commented
that this or that looked interesting, he always came back with the verdict
it was not suit behavior, while ignoring that it was unlikely that it
was actual animal morphology.

 

[kitakaze]

I have not read to much of the CAD analysis being done on Patty at the BFF. I recently had a chance to check out some of Jack D Davis' measurements there and at the MABRC. Here is a link to a post with a synopsis of his measurements at the MABRC followed by a quote of the text with my bolding:

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=30853#p30853

These were scaled and compared in TurboCAD Pro. v12.

I've been working on measuring Patty in TurboCAD, off and on, for about two years now. My work is shown oat http://www.metalsmithpro.com/PGF CAD.htm.

By using a CAD program, I'm able to scale a photo to a known object (in this case, her foot) and get very acccurate measurements directly from the photo. I will say that many folks don't believe the work I've done on this (in BFF), but I will stake my reputation of it. CAD is very accurate and I've taken perspective (location of her foot in respect to her body measuring points and distance from the camera) into consideration. Based on these measurements, I can say that Patty is only 5'-4.5" walking height in frame 72. In Her walking posture, it is physically impossible for her to gain more than about 6" by standing erect. My direct measurements put her about 5'-10.5" (deducting for hair on her head). Adding 6" to 5'-4.5" = 5'-10.5". Of course there is some error factor due to human placement of the measurement points, photo resolution and motion blur. I'd put that factor at about +-1"

Interesting that Jack D Davis has arrived at about the same height estimate using comparable methods to both Astrophotographer and the youtube analysis I often post.

After Jack posts this Sweaty asks him about an apparent measurement discrepancy and Jack explains:

Jack D Davis @ MABRC]And a good question it is. I've rescaled the McLarin photo (in your example) to get the aspect ratio correct or as near correct as possible. Notice the two small trees in the background of the two photo's. I've scaled the McLarin frame to make these two trees equal distance apart to the same two trees in the PGF frame. If I rescaled the McLarin frame so that the two trees appeared to be the same size in diameter as they appear to be in the PGF frame, then everything in the McLarin frame will get bigger. This makes me believe that the two cameras were not the same distance from the subjects in the two frames. This make it very difficult to make any good comparisons between two photos unless everything is exactly the same....same lens, same angles, same distance from the subject, etc.

What I have done is much more accurate. Scaling the frame in CAD to a known factor (her left foot) and knowing the angle she is to the film plane (35 deg.) and the error due to perspective (.003"/foot), it is relatively easy to measure her to some precision. If I were a betting man and there were a way to prove it, I'd put my money on 5'-10" to 5'-11" standing erect

I will make a change in the drawing.......The angle she is to the film plane is no longer "assumed". It is measured.

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=30900#p30900

So now we have three separate people independently using accurate methods and arriving at similar results placing patty at the same height as Bob Heironimus.

 

[Crowlogic]

My graphics skills are less than desirable, and it took me a while to
nail down what I was seeing with the blue line..

You can also see a disconnect between upper arm and shoulder, as well as
the chest and the arm. ( in a different set of frames )
As the ( right ) arm moves to the rear, it should pull the entire breast
rearward. It does not. The upper part of the chest moves independantly
of the breast itself .. You can also see the left breast bob up and down
while the right one stays relatively stationary.

I'm sure it's my lack of training and expertise that makes me imagine I am
seeing these things.

I have pointed each of these problems to bill Munns, and while he has commented
that this or that looked interesting, he always came back with the verdict
it was not suit behavior, while ignoring that it was unlikely that it
was actual animal morphology.

Gee Greg you're such a footer! Not that that's my opinion since I wouldn't want you in the club, lol! But by virtue of these lines and arrows you sure seem according to some to be a footer. After all that person (a cohort of yours here) claims that folks who put lines and arrows on this stuff are footers.

 

[Crowlogic]

First....In response to kitakaze's question, quoted above..."How many humans did I compare Patty to?"

Enough humans, for my liking.


Patty's arms are indeed exceptionally long, compared to a human's arm.


The skeleton comparison images you're using appear to be flawed.

I enlarged one of them, and highlighted an apparent discrepancy between the 2 skeletons...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SkeletonBob5.jpg[/qimg]


Within only a small angle of upper leg movement....the skeleton's head moves upwards by almost one full head-height.

Now, IF that actually happened in the REAL world, you'd really have something there, kitty, with your stupid skeletons.
As it is....you don't.

To see how much Patty's head actually moves up and down, as she walks....here is something from the real world...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk5.gif[/qimg]

Try holding your mouse cursor over Patty's eyes, and see how much her head moves, vertically.



So, despite kitty's "magical skeletons".....in every DIRECT comparison of Bob and Patty (and Patty and Jim McClarin, also), Patty's arms appear to be distinctly longer....or, more significantly...her fingertips reach down closer to the feet.

(Hey, listen.........I think I can hear Correa, waaaaaaaaay off in the distance......................"It's a play of light and shadows, folks...ALL OF IT......don't freakin' believe it, I'm tellin' ya!......it's a damn trick!!!")


Putting this into a math-E-matical context...

In every single direct comparison... Bob Heironimus (A) does not equal Patty (B).

Kitty attempts to get-around this by using 2 skeletons....(which I'll label S1 and S2)....to try to make A equal to B...
Kitty's equation: A=S1=S2=B

Unfortunately, since S1 does not equal S2 (as is shown above).....kitty's equation is a false equation.

I found a scaling that I believe Tube did of Bob H and Patty and it put Patty in the range of 7' tall.