Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[kitakaze]

There may be a problem with Ghetto's height analysis.

Luckily I have two other analyses using similar yet different methods to support and confirm that analysis. All you have is a maybe and a wish.

Check this out...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/Pattysback34Lined.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty/PattyRearView2Lined.jpg[/qimg]


This comparison might need a little refining...it's still in progress.

Yay. More scribbles. No thanks.

Roger was apparently on lower ground than Patty was in the first part of the film....and, therefore had to point the camera up at an angle to have Patty in view.

Apparently?

1) What confirms Patty was on higher ground?

2) Shouldn't being on higher ground make Patty appear taller?

Sweaty, you were thoroughly powned in post #711. As predicted, you dodged and ignored questions in those posts. It made you look like a very intellectually dishonest and insincere Bigfoot enthusiast. Everyone can see this, skeptic and proponent alike. Such behaviour is a disservice to your cause. I will glady point out the problems with your scribbles in as much detail as you would like but you need to start acting like a person interested in sincere discussion and debate. Deal with the questions as pointed out in #711 and I will reciprocate further.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Shouldn't being on higher ground make Patty appear taller?

No.
If you stand in front of a tall building and look at it...the windows directly in front of you will appear to be their full, correct vertical dimension....but as you look upwards, the vertical dimension of the windows will appear to shrink...because you're looking at them more edge-on, as opposed to directly face-on.

If the angle of view is great enough, the effect can be significant....even without the object being very tall.

 

[Crowlogic]

kitakaze wrote:



No.
If you stand in front of a tall building and look at it...the windows directly in front of you will appear to be their full, correct vertical dimension....but as you look upwards, the vertical dimension of the windows will appear to shrink...because you're looking at them more edge-on, as opposed to directly face-on.

If the angle of view is great enough, the effect can be significant....even without the object being very tall.

Good point Sweaty but bear in mind the majority of the minds attached to the eyes reading your post have been poisoned by critical thinking, lol!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Good point Sweaty but bear in mind the majority of the minds attached to the eyes reading your post have been poisoned by critical thinking, lol!

Thanks, Crow.

Yes...."Critical thinking"......or, as I prefer to call it......"thinking in critical condition".

 

[Blackdog]

Good point Sweaty but bear in mind the majority of the minds attached to the eyes reading your post have been poisoned by critical thinking, lol!

Logic has nothing to do with it. I am not Spock, are you?

Yeah pesky stuff that logic and critical thinking, they always seems to get in the way of a good story....

 

[kitakaze]

No.
If you stand in front of a tall building and look at it...the windows directly in front of you will appear to be their full, correct vertical dimension....but as you look upwards, the vertical dimension of the windows will appear to shrink...because you're looking at them more edge-on, as opposed to directly face-on.

If the angle of view is great enough, the effect can be significant....even without the object being very tall.

Yes, that may be so but it does not change the fact that Patty being on a higher plane could make her appear taller. Now you notice that you bypassed addressing point # 1. Typical Sweaty:

1) What confirms Patty was on higher ground?

And I hope that you won't having so much difficulty again addressing the other questions that I asked and you ignored and evaded. You assured me you wouldn't and then did a faceplant.

 

[kitakaze]

Good point Sweaty but bear in mind the majority of the minds attached to the eyes reading your post have been poisoned by critical thinking, lol!

Knock knock, lumber. We know you're pure of the poison of critical thinking. But what potion has corrupted your wits as we see in evil post #666 of the Munns report thread?:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4432922&postcount=666

Timber!

 

[RayG]

If you stand in front of a tall building and look at it...the windows directly in front of you will appear to be their full, correct vertical dimension....but as you look upwards, the vertical dimension of the windows will appear to shrink...because you're looking at them more edge-on, as opposed to directly face-on.

Yeah, it's called perspective. If you look upwards the windows further away appear smaller, but the window directly in front of you appears taller.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks, Crow.

Yes...."Critical thinking"......or, as I prefer to call it......"thinking in critical condition".

Yay! w00t! High five! Oh... wait a tick. I think the rocket scientist who can't understand the effects of Patty not being fully erect as illustrated in this royal pantsing shouldn't be too quick to gloat:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4425275&postcount=711







And there's always these bits of Sweaty brilliance:

That's true, kitty....I already considered the existence of Bigfoot to be a 'high probability' when I called Joyce..........but, while I was in the middle of explaining to Joyce why I thought this to be the case....she interjected.....enthusiastically....with (and I quote)...."Oh yeah, they're real!"

And so, as a result of Joyce's enthusiastic interruption, I now place a higher degree of probability, or likelihood, or odds, on Bigfoot's existence.

If Bob Gimlin really wanted to shoot-down Patty, he could have easily rode right up to her, and blown her to bits.

Had the thinking cap on a little too tight, hey Sweaty?

 

[mangler]

sweaty/illogic,

You two never cease to amaze me (you need to change your bait when you troll around here). Only in the land of bigfoot science would the target subject appear taller with a higher camera elevation.

In the real world one would lower the elevation and change the pitch of the camera to add the appearance of power/superiority/height.

Once again, for those of us that are r e a l l y slow…

…By Reducing The Elevation Of The Camera The Subject Will Appear Taller.



m

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, for anyone that might not have known, the human skeletal comparisons with Patty and Bob Heironimus that I find the necessity to frequently post are an excellent demonstration created by mangler. Both log and Sweaty handle them like chimps with remote controls, mind you...

 

[makaya325]

Yay! w00t! High five! Oh... wait a tick. I think the rocket scientist who can't understand the effects of Patty not being fully erect as illustrated in this royal pantsing shouldn't be too quick to gloat:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4425275&postcount=711

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_89614996f85077c1f.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/89614996f86ab415a.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_89614996f894dcba4.jpg[/qimg]

And there's always these bits of Sweaty brilliance:





Had the thinking cap on a little too tight, hey Sweaty?

Im sorry, but the first 2 pictures are way different. Bobs arms hare like chicken short, and patty's is incredibly long

 

[kitakaze]

Im sorry, but the first 2 pictures are way different. Bobs arms hare like chicken short, and patty's is incredibly long

Don't be foolish. Use your eyes. The skeleton is the same. It has not been altered. They fit both BH and Patty equally well. This is because there is a very good chance that the person inside the Patty suit is BH.

 

[kitakaze]

I see I'm going to need an umbrella and galoshes again. Little mak is back. The return of the mak. Any thoughts on post #735?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

1) What confirms Patty was on higher ground?

Frame 72 does...

...and so does this Frame, as Patty starts to disappear over the "horizon"...the 'ridge'.......also known as the higher level of ground, above Roger's level......

 

[SweatyYeti]

Makaya325 wrote:

Im sorry, but the first 2 pictures are way different. Bobs arms are like chicken short, and patty's is incredibly long

You have keen 'powers of observation', Mak!

 

[Crowlogic]

Makaya325 wrote:



You have keen 'powers of observation', Mak!

In spite of being plied this evening with serious amounts of champane and Godiva chocolate I'll include that no amount of chocolate or champane is going to make Bob H look like he's "suit boy". Carry on gentlemen the future is wide open!

 

[SweatyYeti]

As for the "magical skeletons" comparison....this direct comparison shows that they're bunk...

...and so does this Beefy image of Patty....

...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Crowlogic wrote:

I'll include that no amount of chocolate or champane is going to make Bob H look like he's "suit boy".

Hey, Crow...I'll drink to that!

 

[Aepervius]

o all I see you proving sweaty, is that
1) Patty looks realllly similar to BH, there is only a few inches differences on arm length
2) patty looks wider than BH from 1966

To which you will get the very logical answer :
1) gloves
2) costumes fillings

By the way, thank you for accepting that patty has got human length (near BH size), and near human proportion (only a bit longer arm aka gloves).