The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Skeptical Greg]

Sweaty has no concept of foreshortening .. It's right there on his list of:

" Things that impede my investigation, if I knew what they were . "

.. followed closely by ' mpeg artifacts ' ..

 

[xblade]

Why are folks getting caught up in the distraction of Bob's arm length? Does it really matter if Bob's arms aren't long enough(and I'm not saying they aren't)? Isn't it pretty well-established that it's possible for costume arms to be longer(or shorter), or made to appear longer(or shorter) than the costume wearer's arms?

 

[kitakaze]

Why are folks getting caught up in the distraction of Bob's arm length? Does it really matter if Bob's arms aren't long enough(and I'm not saying they aren't)? Isn't it pretty well-established that it's possible for costume arms to be longer(or shorter), or made to appear longer(or shorter) than the costume wearer's arms?

Your point is completely valid, xblade. I can, however, preemptively guess that this is the sort of post Sweaty will be attracted to. It allows him a distraction from the powning he's receiving to engage in a diversional quibble. For he would disregard the point that you clearly state you are not saying Bob's arms aren't long enough and ask by what manner the arms were elongated. The implication being that he would weasel the scenario to attempt to make it seem that you are suggesting mechanical extensions were used on Patty's arms. This would be accompanied by a finger bending reference and two frame gif and the expected recycling of a garbage argument.

Or something like that.

 

[Vortigern99]

SweatyYeti, you've declined to address two factors I've already pointed out:

1. Foreshortening of Bob's arm.

For an example of foreshortening (beyond Greg's excellent horse pic, above), please one or both of the following: a. Take a soup can and point the bottom/base of it toward your eye. Note how the cylinder portion, which you could see when the soup can was standing vertically on its base, vanishes in proportion to how much of the base comes into your field of view. Extrapolate this effect to Bob's arm. OR b. Stand in front of a mirror and raise your arm toward the mirror up until your hand is level with your eye. Notice how the visible portion of your arm becomes less as your hand raises toward your eye. Notice too how the arm appears to "shorten" as you raise it toward your eye.

2. Vertical tilt of Bob's head.

As Bob's head is tilted more obliquely than Patty's in the comparison pics, this means the distance between the top of Bob's head and his eye/brow, and the top of Patty's head (wherever that is exactly inside the presumed mask) and its eye/brow will be different.

Basically, Yeti, you're trying to match these figures up at a 1:1 ratio, but you can't because the positions of their hands, arms, heads, backs, knees and legs are all minutely different, leading to discrepancies in the apparent proportions which you are continuing to be deceived by no matter how many times I point them out.

I hope I don't seem overbearing or derogatory when I ask you, Yeti, to please pay attention to these (admittedly somewhat complex and "specialistic") points I'm trying to make to you. Perhaps it's simply that someone who has not studied figure drawing cannot fully grasp the concept of foreshortening? If so, may I suggest that you read about this concept somewhere on-line, and get back to us? Because your failure to grasp it is leading to a host of misconceptions that you seem unable to move past. Thank you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

SweatyYeti, you've declined to address two factors I've already pointed out:

1. Foreshortening of Bob's arm.

Addressed......

No foreshortening of Bob's arm to be found, anywhere. Only a match with himself.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

but you can't because the positions of their hands, arms, heads, backs, knees and legs are all minutely different, leading to discrepancies in the apparent proportions which you are continuing to be deceived by no matter how many times I point them out.

We have 'differences' in body angles, perspectives, distance from subject-to-camera, lenses, positions of arms, knees....basically, differences enough to keep a good, blind, skeptic busy all day long writing-up excuses..........but Bob still matches Bob, and Bob doesn't match Patty.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

O.K. Sweaty, he doesn't match ..

Your point ?

 

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern wrote:



Addressed......

No foreshortening of Bob's arm to be found, anywhere. Only a match with himself.

Yeti, Bob is stooping in the left pic and is more upright in the right. Also, foreshortening of the right arm (our left) is clearly a factor in the right pic.

The pictures cannot be compared on a 1:1 basis, and if they were, you'd have to say that Bob is not matched with himself, which I hope I don't have to point out would be absurd.

 

[kitakaze]

We have 'differences' in body angles, perspectives, distance from subject-to-camera, lenses, positions of arms, knees....basically, differences enough to keep a good, blind, skeptic busy all day long writing-up excuses..........

Sweaty is truly the most close-minded of them all. He's decided Patty is a real Bigfoot and there is no way she could be Bob Heironimus or even human. He will never let it go, it's pathological. He said that Patty's arms are inhumanly long. I asked him what his sample base of humans was before he made that statement. He said "enough humans... for my liking". What kind of sincere answer is that? What kind of intellectual honesty is that? Clearly we are not dealing with an individual interested in any real pursuit of the truth. Sweaty has a preconceived notion, that Patty really is Bigfoot, and his only interest is in protecting that belief against any threat. He doesn't have to listen to or use factual arguments. They only need to have the flimsiest kind of truthiness to them to keep him content. Perspective and what? Take a hike, loser. See these lines here? They spell trouble for you, buddy. Try a counter-analysis on that. And if you do address the problems with my lines, I'll responde to your points later today, I promise. You know... later.

Bob doesn't match Patty.

One skeleton, direct comparison, Bob matches Patty just fine:



Sweaty doesn't want anything to do with this one of Patty and Bob in the exact same positions matching perfectly:

Notice how silent he is about it? He says nothing about it because it demolishes his arguments and to try and refute it he would have to argue against his own method of demonstration. Thanks, Astrophotographer. I'll be keeping that in the collection.

Enjoy that image, Sweaty. You'll be seeing a lot of it.

 

[Vortigern99]

We have 'differences' in body angles, perspectives, distance from subject-to-camera, lenses, positions of arms, knees....basically, differences enough to keep a good, blind, skeptic busy all day long writing-up excuses..........but Bob still matches Bob, and Bob doesn't match Patty.

I fail to comprehend how logical and demonstrable discrepancies in measurement and proportion can be considered "excuses", as though they are somehow illegitimate or unworthy of acceptance. If this is the case, I'd like to request that you please show us how.

 

[kitakaze]

The pictures cannot be compared on a 1:1 basis, and if they were, you'd have to say that Bob is not matched with himself, which I hope I don't have to point out would be absurd.

Hmmm... Bigfoots hanging out in Valatie, NY, clandestine conflicts with UFO's being blasted at in orbit, Martian civilizations with connections to Earth sites such as Avebury, England.

Yeaaaaaaaah... I'm gonna have to go with dude has serious impairment recognizing the absurd on this one.



It's a Sweaty world.

 

[kitakaze]

I fail to comprehend how logical and demonstrable discrepancies in measurement and proportion can be considered "excuses", as though they are somehow illegitimate or unworthy of acceptance. If this is the case, I'd like to request that you please show us how.

They are offences to his reality that Patty is a Bigfoot, thus they are excuses. Sweaty has some neat double standards and funny ideas about reasons and excuses but let's watch him do some good ol' Sweaty semantic dithering with the term:

That phrase (legitimate excuse) makes no sense.

'Reasons' are reasonable....but 'Excuses' are inexcusable.

Yes, I will address your arguments later today, I promise. By promise I mean I intend to. But what actually is going to happen is that I will not address your points as I am moving. Did I not mention that when I made my promise? Yes, well anyway, as you can see, moving will legitimately excuse me from being able to do as I promised but let's not call it an excuse. Excuses are inexcusable, don't you know? We'll call them reasons. I am more comfortable with that and feel it reflects upon me better. You, on the other hand, if you have some legitimate and logical reasons why my arguments are flawed, well let me tell you, pal; those would be excuses. Inexcusable and ergo ipso facto, I won't be listening.

 

[Vortigern99]

SweatyYeti, here are some of the logical fallacies I've observed you making in this thread:

• All camera lenses and digital compression formats represent 100% accurate depictions of objective reality, and so all photographic images can be comparatively measured on a 1:1 basis.
  
• Foreshortening and perspective should not be considered real phenomena when measuring body proportions and measurements. If a subject's arm looks like it's two inches long between shoulder and hand, then that is irrefutably the length of his/her arm, despite the fact that the subject is pointing his/her arm directly at the camera.
  
• The vertical position of a subject's head in relation to his/her shoulders does not affect his/her apparent height, and so can be measured on a 1:1 basis with another subject who has his/her head in a different vertical position, whether higher or lower.
  
• If Bob Heironimous was not wearing the suit in the P-G film, then no other of some four billion human beings alive at the time could possibly be in the suit either; therefore it is a real bigfoot.

Yeti, I hope you can consider these observations, take them to heart, and re-formulate your beliefs and opinions accordingly. If not, well, at least I tried.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sweaty doesn't want anything to do with this one of Patty and Bob in the exact same positions matching perfectly...Thanks, Astrophotographer. I'll be keeping that in the collection.

Actually, if you look back at the post I put this in, I was just trying to demonstrate I can make the lines matchup with no problem using the right images. I do not consider it a "perfect match" at all. I was just trying to show sweaty that one can cherry pick any two photos and make them look the way you want them.

Sweaty's crayon drawings are not realistic. He will handwave and keep posting the ones he wants and will ignore anything that can bust his little bubble of belief. I am still waiting for the body to change my mind. It will take more than sweaty's crayon box to convince me or any other skeptic.

 

[tsig]

kitakaze wrote:



That phrase (legitimate excuse) makes no sense.

'Reasons' are reasonable....but 'Excuses' are inexcusable.





I say what I intend to do.

Maybe you should realize that you talk, constantly, out of your a__.

deleted in disgust with all things bigfoot.

(I can't believe I read the whole thing)

 

[mangler]

sweaty,

I rotate the Humerus back and then out from the body, I then bend the Radius and Ulna to fit (check below for final result), know that if it’s a costume there’s all kinds of wiggle room for joint placement. I’m guessing that I could tweak BH (with a different method) and get pretty much the same results. Sweaty it’s a hack/eye-balled, this stuff is not that complicated, you’re brain is just wired to see what you want to believe.

I’m not making this stuff up, I openly admit that I know as much about anatomy as I do astrophysics, but hey, if the shoe fits…

Again I never stated that the subject was BH, though the resemblance is quite uncanny if its not. You really need to drop this lame assed argument that it couldn’t be BH because it very well could be. Is it BH? I don’t know. Is it bigfoot? I don’t know. Could it be a human in a suit? IMO, it most defiantly could be.


NEXT



m

Might have to click to activate Gif...

 

[SweatyYeti]

mangler wrote:

You really need to drop this lame assed argument that it couldn’t be BH because it very well could be.

Thanks for the animated-gif.....whatever it means.

But, I don't need to 'drop' anything. I'll continue doing comparisons, and you all can continue playing make-believe.

That's fair, isn't it?

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for the animated-gif.....whatever it means.

Holy guacamole, that's so lame. He just explained in explicit detail exactly why your comparison was invalid. He also showed you. You are accusing him of being a cheat. You are accusing him of hoaxing us and manufacturing false evidence in favour of Bob Heironimus' claims. You don't even have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit your error and apologize to him. You made a case that mangler was trying to deceive us all and you failed. That was so slimey, man.

But, I don't need to 'drop' anything. I'll continue doing comparisons, and you all can continue playing make-believe.

That's fair, isn't it?

Fair that you never behave accountable for your arguments and instead weasel around making accusations that you don't deal with when they're shown to be false?

And why haven't you used the information mangler gave you for looking into whether or not the results can be duplicated? That's what you were going on about. Got a whole lot of nothing since mangler gave you the info you were asking about. Same ol' Desperado.

 

[Vortigern99]

Make-believe?

Yeti, about a month ago I entered into this debate with as completely neutral a stance on the possibility of Patty's being a non-human primate as any person could have. If you check my early posts you'll see that I've been very careful to use words such as "putative" and "presumed" with regard to a suit or costume. I have striven to show no bias in my research, to harbor no emotional or intellectual stake in the outcome of this debate. Since my investigation here began, I have approached every piece of evidence and every claim as though there were a 50% chance that it could be true, and a 50% chance that it could be false. I am not blindly accepting evidence toward Patty being a suit, nor blindly dismissing evidence toward Patty being a non-human primate.

And yet here we are. Almost every piece of evidence I've examined with regard to the figure seems to point to the conclusion that it's a person in a suit. (See the PGF3 thread for my recent bullet points on what I believe to the best evidence toward this conclusion.) The only evidence that appears to lend credence to the conclusion that it's a non-human primate is the musculature on the arms, shoulders and back, which even if no one else can see (and many can), I can perceive plainly as though I were looking at a living animal. But given that as of 1967 there were muscle suits, and muscle-hair suits, and mechanical prosthetics, and given that visible folds and wrinkles are evident on the legs that are consistent with material fabric and inconsistent with primate epidermal tissue, the only reasonable conclusion I can now come to is that this is a person in a suit.

I don't want it to be that way; truth be told, in my heart of hearts I want bigfoot to exist, and I want the P-G film to be a visual record of it. But Yeti, the evidence says otherwise.

In short, I utterly refute your contention that I am playing make-believe. I am discerning fact from fiction to the best of my ability, to the best usage of my senses. I challenge you to do the same.

 

[SweatyYeti]

In short, I utterly refute your contention that I am playing make-believe. I am discerning fact from fiction to the best of my ability, to the best usage of my senses. I challenge you to do the same.

And I challenge you to respond to the things I said in my post...#1055, Vort.

I would like to know what your thoughts are concerning what I wrote, in this part, especially...

Vortigern wrote:
You can bring the top line of Patty's head down or up, depending on subjective opinion as to where the individual viewer believes the cranium of the person wearing the presumed mask is located.

This effectively dismisses your line placement, or at least calls it into question.

It 'dismisses' nothing.

As I just explained.....there is NO room for any meaningful adjustment of the size of Bob's image.

If you think that there is, Vort.....please feel free to make that adjustment, and post it.