The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Hitch]

Sweaty, I have to congratulate you on your highly detailed, insightful analysis in post #699 which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bob H. absolutely, positively could not be Patty... in a world where costume padding and gloves did not exist.

Unfortunately, both of these technological marvels were developed sometime before 1967, so it renders all of that hard work somewhat useless.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That would be great Sweaty if you could actually show us the arm inside the suit, including a couple of minor points, like where the shoulder joint is actually located under the shoulder pads and wear the tips of the fingers are inside the rubber gloves.

What I really love about that fine Cibachrome print, is how it shows such a beautiful creature , that couldn't possibly be a rag-tag costume made by Roger Patterson..

 

[I Am He]

Sweaty, why do you keep trying to prove you know anything about costumes and human anatomy when you do not? When I show some of your post to my friends, who by the way could care less about Bigfoot, they laugh. If and when you take some courses in those subjects you might have a leg to stand on, but until then stop making a fool out of yourself.



I Am He

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, I have to congratulate you on your highly detailed, insightful analysis in post #699 which shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bob H. absolutely, positively could not be Patty... in a world where costume padding and gloves did not exist.

Unfortunately, both of these technological marvels were developed sometime before 1967, so it renders all of that hard work somewhat useless.

One of the reasons for the comparison was to show that the 'skeleton comparison' that mangler and kitakaze have posted...(to supposedly show that Bob's and Patty's body dimensions actually match each other)...is a bogus comparison.

The comparison I did shows....irrefutably....that their arm-lengths don't match, not by a long shot.



I agree with you, though, Hitch...the comparison doesn't prove that Patty is not 'Bob in a suit'.
I never claimed it did.


Here's a little something, on the comical side.....Bob's head, carpeted...

And for comparison, Patty's head....

 

[neltana]

The comparison I did shows....irrefutably....that their arm-lengths don't match, not by a long shot.

I'm not sure you've really established that. Minor differences in the subject's orientation to the camera, orientation of the limbs and choice of pivot points can make a big difference in the arm length you come up with using this method.

In your example, you showed that Bob's arm is 18% shorter ((304-247)/304 =.1875) than Patty's. Well, consider the following example:



Here are two similarly scaled pictures of Bob. Using a similar method to yours (I used different units and measured the segments directly rather than using right triangles), I came up with two different arm lengths. Right-Bob has a right arm (your left) 5% longer than Left-Bob ((100-95)/95=.0526)!

But it should be obvious that minor errors in scaling, ambiguity in joint placement and the angle of the arm are the source of the discrepancy. Bob does not have Gumby arms (at least, I've never heard that he does!).

For instance, since I don't know where Bob's fingers end, I had to estimate the placement of his wrist in both pictures. This introduced error. Similarly, the placement of the shoulder and elbow in your example are estimates that introduced some degree of error in your measurements.

And look at Bob's left arm. Using a similar method, it appears to be 23% shorter than the right one ((100-77)/100=.23)...and yet Bob is fairly straight-on to the camera! Most of this difference is due to arm angle.

The arms in your example are oriented quite differently and could create the appearance of of different arm lengths where none exist.

I really don't think that the type of analysis you did allows us to conclude that Patty's arms are significantly different in length than Bob's. They might well be, but this example does not establish it, in my opinion.

 

[William Parcher]

Neltana, I have some footage of BH if you want to do more BH-to-BH comparisons.

He appears riding here - pulling a packhorse (see 1:54-2:01). It looks like the same clothing (same day?) as the still photo of him and the others posing on horseback.

 

[mangler]

One more quick hack job.

Sweaty, let me count the ways. Please don’t associate anything that I do with kit’s association to BH, that’s kits deal. The fact of the matter is I base all of my crap on the IM Index of a human. The beauty of this is that height does not matter because the IM proves (IMO) that the subject is well within human range. Pay attention, until someone proves that the subject in the film is of a certain height (which, BTW IMO will be near impossible) said subject could be rightfully associated to any height, the IM doesn’t change, get it?

In the images below I have based my guy (skeleton) on Meldrums guy, see it doesn’t matter what skeleton one uses as long as it’s within the human IM Index.

Figure one shows an illustration from I believe Meldrums book LMS.

Figure two shows my guy fits the human IM of their guy.

Figure three shows that my guy could fit into Pattersons guy.

Figure four shows that if you add a little hair my guy starts to get even closer to Pattersons guy in width. Add some padding in a few places; stir, simmer and IMO Pattersons guy could most defiantly be a human in a suit.

I simply don’t know how to illustrate this to make it any clearer. Bend a joint, tweak the spine; roll a shoulder, my guy fits. He fits BH, he fits me, he fits Tube, he fits patty and I’m reasonably certain that he fits millions of other men around the globe.


Sorry to interrupt; carry on with your clown show.



m

 

[neltana]

Neltana, I have some footage of BH if you want to do more BH-to-BH comparisons.

He appears riding here - pulling a packhorse (see 1:54-2:01). It looks like the same clothing (same day?) as the still photo of him and the others posing on horseback.

Ah, that is gold!

It does appear to be the same clothing. I suppose, though, if Bob was an actor in a film, even as a stock footage extra, he would wear the same thing from day to day. That way the shots could be cut together more freely.



Bob's arms increase in size by about 25% between C and E!

Now we have proof that Bob's arms are constantly changing size...or that this is a completely invalid method of analysis. Either way, it doesn't rule him out as Patty. Doesn't rule him in either...although the fact that he appears in Patterson's film certainly gives his claim more weight than it would have if he was just some random guy off the street.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's a little something, on the comical side.....Bob's head, carpeted...

And for comparison, Patty's head carpeted....

There.. Fixed it for you.

You made a very good point that escapes a lot of people..

 

[SweatyYeti]

neltana wrote:

The arms in your example are oriented quite differently and could create the appearance of different arm lengths where none exist.

When all else fails.....play "make-believe". The "true skeptic's" way of dealing with the unthinkable.


First....As for Patty's 'apparent arm length'.....there is no 'arm angle' which could make Patty's arm appear to be longer than it is....only shorter.

So you're out-of-luck, there.


And as for Bob.....in the image I used.....the full arm is visible, it's straight, and it appears to be hanging down very close to his body.

Given those facts......the ONLY thing which could cause his arm to appear shorter than it actually is, is if his arm was being held away from his body slightly....so that we're not seeing it squarely, in the vertical dimension.
(In the extreme....if he held his arm up, directly toward the camera....so that it was fully horizontal, and seen fully edge-on....it's 'apparent length' would shrink to almost nothing.)

It's fine with me, neltana, if you prefer to pretend that Bob's arm is being held significantly away from his body in that image....it's your ONLY hope for the "distortion" of lengths you're looking for.


There is a video of Bob H. walking, shot from directly in front of him, which would eliminate that possible distortion....and I'll use stills from that to do some more comparisons.
Bob's arm will still appear to be significantly shorter than Patty's.....simply because....it is.

Stay tuned!

 

[SweatyYeti]

As for this "bit of gold"......

All that shows is that the 'apparent length' of an object shrinks as it's viewed more edge-on, as opposed to being viewed squarely, face-on.

Good work, kids!

 

[kitakaze]

All that shows is that the 'apparent length' of an object shrinks as it's viewed more edge-on, as opposed to being viewed squarely, face-on.

Good work, kids!

You mean in addition to showing the BH's arms would fit Patty's nicely?

 

[kitakaze]

Flying in the face of Kitakaze's 'Magical Matching Skeletons'......this direct comparison of Patty and Bob shows very clearly that Patty's arms are significantly longer than Bob's.

hahaha... Good ol' desperado! You know, Sweaty, nothing is more direct than taking one skeleton and directly fitting it in to both without altering the skeleton's dimensions as you guys tried to argue when that comparison made you start chewing your nails. If you really want to fly in any faces, try explaining why that comparison is wrong. You tried with your idiotic no head-bobbing and it got squished. Made you flee. Got real quiet there, remember, Sweaty? #711 in PGF 3 ring a bell? Nothing but crickets from you there.

Using the high-quality Cibachrome profile-view image of Patty....I lined-up 2 key, well-defined points between them.....their eyes and the tops of their heads.

Lined up the tops of the heads? You took a hefty chunk off Patty's head.

Patty's arm is clearly, and significantly longer than Bob's arm.....and...I'm happy to report.....the image of Bob cannot be up-scaled any more than it is.....his head would simply be too large to fit inside of Patty's 'costume head'.

What the guy wearing the baseball cap vs the costume head said to have an inside like an old-time football helmet?

Bottom line....Patty wins again.

Actual bottom line... Sweaty scribbles again:

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Using the high-quality Cibachrome profile-view image of Patty....I lined-up 2 key, well-defined points between them.....their eyes and the tops of their heads.

Lined up the tops of the heads? You took a hefty chunk off Patty's head.

The reason for that is obvious, kitty....to some people, at least.


Patty's head is a sharply sloped cone-shaped head....and Bob's head, well........it's, ummm...well..........perhaps I should sing it..........feel free to sing along, too, kitty....if the mood strikes ya'....



OHHHHHHHHHHHHH....


Who lives in a Dream-world, with Kita-Kaze??......

"RUG-BOB-SQUAREHEAD!! "...

...Who's got a lame story...that smells like a FISH??"...


"RUG-BOB SQUAREHEAD!"...

..If Complete Nonsense is something you wish...

"RUG-BOB SQUARE-HEAD!"...

....Then drop all your SENSES and think like a DISH!!!".....


"Rug-Bob-SquareHead...
Rug-Bob-Squarehead...
RUGBOB----SQUARE-HEEEEAAAAAAAAAAD!!!"....

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

Bob's head is square....not pointed. Get the point?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

...a hefty chunk...

BTW...that "hefty chunk" of Patty's head amounts to only 1-2"...Absolutely appropriate considering how sharly-sloped, and pointed Patty's head is.

 

[kitakaze]

The reason for that is obvious, kitty....to some people, at least.

Yes, Patty's head does slope back. Just as William Roe described and one of the many jaw-dropping matches between the PGF and the Roe encounter story as noted by Patterson in his book the year before. You know those jarring similarities, Sweaty. I detailed them just recently. Got some stuttering excuses for that or just the typical fly-away Sweaty, dodge whatever he can't handle. Yeah, you're a real honest debater.

Patty's head is a sharply sloped cone-shaped head....and Bob's head, well........it's, ummm...well..........perhaps I should sing it..........feel free to sing along, too, kitty....if the mood strikes ya'....

I'm sure you've got a lovely singing voice. All that practice sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la."

So Bob's head is not the shape William Roe described. That's what masks are for, genius. If we look at Patty's head we can see the head bulging just where an old-time football helmet does.

Bob says "hi!" (not Bob G. Bob G doesn't talk to media or skeptics):



Dfoot says "hi!" too:

Bob's head is square....not pointed. Get the point?

No. You're going to have to draw it out for me.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW...that "hefty chunk" of Patty's head amounts to only 1-2"...Absolutely appropriate considering how sharly-sloped, and pointed Patty's head is.

What a very selective quote you made there, Sweaty. Gee... I wonder why that is? Was there something alluding to something that Sweaty can't deal with? Something that makes Sweaty cornerhuddle so he pretends it's not there? I think so! I think Sweaty must be some type of intellectual coward. He has always acted like one so should be true.

Just click your heels, Sweaty, and just like magic you're back in Bigfoot fantasy land. Oh.. that's right. Excuse me. You never left.

 

[neltana]

When all else fails.....play "make-believe". The "true skeptic's" way of dealing with the unthinkable.


First....As for Patty's 'apparent arm length'.....there is no 'arm angle' which could make Patty's arm appear to be longer than it is....only shorter.

So you're out-of-luck, there.


And as for Bob.....in the image I used.....the full arm is visible, it's straight, and it appears to be hanging down very close to his body.

Given those facts......the ONLY thing which could cause his arm to appear shorter than it actually is, is if his arm was being held away from his body slightly....so that we're not seeing it squarely, in the vertical dimension.
(In the extreme....if he held his arm up, directly toward the camera....so that it was fully horizontal, and seen fully edge-on....it's 'apparent length' would shrink to almost nothing.)

It's fine with me, neltana, if you prefer to pretend that Bob's arm is being held significantly away from his body in that image....it's your ONLY hope for the "distortion" of lengths you're looking for.

Okay, it is true that an object's dimension will appear largest when viewed full on. This is a basic rule of perspective.

But I want you to keep in mind my central point: this method of analysis, given our source material, is flawed. It does not establish the relative length of Bob's arms versus Patty's with enough precision for us to make a judgment.

I am not arguing that the comparison shows the arms are the same length or that Bob's are longer. I am only saying that the comparison does not establish that Patty's arms are longer.

You maintain that the image of Bob is essentially a full on view, and thus represents Bob's arm at its longest apparent length. This isn't the case, as the top left box of my example shows.



The top two images show a full on side view of a walking figure. As expected, the position of the arm doesn't make much difference in its apparent length.

Note the contrast between these images and the image of Bob. He is hunched forward with his back slightly to the camera. Also, Bob has clothes on...we shouldn't trivialize this point. It is hard enough to get the joints right on nude figures. Clothing and/or costumes can conceal the exact position and orientation of the joints.

The bottom two images show what happens when a figure extends its arm forward as Patty is doing. The apparent length of the arm increases, primarily because we visually place the pivot point of the shoulder higher than we do in the full on view.

Now, your image of Bob has him turned away from the camera slightly with the arm coming back. The front shoulder is not extended as it is with Patty. Thus, we would expect, all other things being equal, that the Patty figure would have a longer apparent arm length.



Of course, all other things are not equal in these two images. We do not know the position of the mime in the costume we are hypothesizing, we can't be sure that our choice of shoulder pivot is comparable. We can't be sure whether or not Bob's elbow has a cant that is being obscured by his shirt sleeve.

So, absent other evidence, I believe we cannot conclude anything about the relative arm lengths.

 

[kitakaze]

"RUG-BOB SQUARE-HEAD!"...

I don't think Morris did quite right in getting the shape of Patty's head there. Not sloping enough. But I don't think Morris made Patty so I'm not worried in the slightest.

Morris should have stuck with the script :

William Roe -

The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4443732#post4443732

Roger Patterson -

Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4445070#post4445070

Just keep huddling in the corner. Maybe all those glaring matches between subject and scene will diappear.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nice work neltana .. You have some skills that add a level of expertise to these discussions..

If Sweaty is going to continue, he will need a new box of crayons..

Maybe he can pick up a cheap copy of Poser on eBay ...