• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeti, my statements stand as I've already explained them. To reiterate:

  • In the comparison pics you posted, Bob's head is tilted downward at a more extreme angle than Patty's; IOW, Bob's eyes are closer to the ground.
  • Also, the placement of the top line cutting across Patty's head to indicate the top of the cranium is subjective and unsubstantiated on your part.

These two factors taken together mean that the lines you claim to be "set in bone" are incorrect. The top line could be brought down or up, depending on the subjective opinion of the viewer, and the eye-line does not relate to Bob's eye-line on a 1:1 basis because of the difference in the tilt of the head.

Yeti, please note how I am careful to address any question you pose for me. Where I am not clear, and you request further information, I am certain to follow up. I would ask the same from you.
 
kitakaze wrote:
I challenge you to respond to that
Click to expand...


Gladly...:).

That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...


BobBrainBe2Big2.jpg
 
You will have to give a bit more detail on that one. I for one looking at both of those would have difficulty determine which is patty which is bob, if I had not known for years how the pgf looks like.
 
Rug-Bob SquareHead....:p...


SpongeBobSquareHead2.jpg




SpongeBobSquareHeadCrop1.jpg
SpongeBobSquareHead5.jpg




Gee, I wonder how much of that LARGE suit head is just empty space...:rolleyes:...
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/BobBrainBe2Big2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

1) Do the subjects appear to be the same height?

2) Do the subjects appear to have the same aarm lengths as show by the lines?

3) It does not show that Bob's head is too big, only that the mask heads have different shapes.
 
Another cherry pick by sweaty and it is intellectually dishonest IMO. Bob is in a suit and we do not know how it affects the size of his head so Sweaty can NOT draw this conclusion.
However, I measured it several times and got a difference of only 1-3 pixels. Maybe my measurements are a tad off but one has to consider the fact that "Bob in a suit" has his head not quite facing the camera the way "might be Bob in a suit" does. This could easily make up for the difference in pixel measurements (I was going from edge to edge of his head). There is also the issue of what defines where the borders of the head are located in such a low resolution image.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Rug-Bob SquareHead....:p...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SpongeBobSquareHead2.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SpongeBobSquareHeadCrop1.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/SpongeBobSquareHead5.jpg[/qimg]



Gee, I wonder how much of that LARGE suit head is just empty space...:rolleyes:...
Click to expand...

What the heck kind of logic is that? Who says it has to be empty space?

BTW, have an image of Bob's head in profile without a hat?

I see no evidence that his head couldn't fit in here:

PatHat.gif
 
Astrophotographer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quite right and a point well made. I note for the purposes of Sweaty that the poses of the figures is essentially the same. To refute the image he must refute his own methods. Notice when he tries he says nothing of the arms.
 
Astrophotographer wrote:
.....one has to consider the fact that "Bob in a suit" has his head not quite facing the camera the way "might be Bob in a suit" does.


This could easily make up for the difference in pixel measurements
Click to expand...


Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand they're off!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)


horse-racing-7.jpg




Right on schedule.....the "lucky breaks" ALL seem to go Roger's way! :D A slight "turn of the head", in this case.



As I said yesterday...

"I'll continue posting comparisons, and you all can continue playing make-believe."



Hey Astro....is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison??
 
Last edited:
Can have a shot at that ?

....is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison??
Click to expand...

Yes, it is wrong for you to think that ... ( ... but I can think of better words than ' wrong ' , to make that statement more meaningful .. )
 
SweatyYeti said:
Hey Astro....is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison??
Click to expand...

BELIEVE all you desire but it is not a valid comparison. You do not even provide any measurements. You state it matter-of-factly as if it is proven, which it is not. Trying to imply you are being objective and scientific about what you present IS WRONG. You are being dishonest to yourself as well as to others here. I suggest you prove that Bob can not fit in Patty's head. Show us some actual measurements with some real high resolution images. Demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that Bob's head is too big. If you can't prove it using something other than crayons, then your claim is false.

I will try and demonstrate your claim is false using the data in the image you presented. As I stated already, there is nothing in this image that shows his head is too big. I actually did some measurements as crude as they are. At the line level, I get 76 pixels for the width of "Might be bob in a suit" and 77 pixels for "Bob in a suit". Assuming we are talking about 72 inches (roughly 6 feet) as the height of Bob as seen in this frame, then we are talking about roughly 7 pixels per inch (the height of Bob is 508 pixels in your image). Now Bob is not fully erect, so I can suggest it is more likely 66 inches, which equates to almost 8 pixels per inch. You can do the rest of the math. The difference of 1 pixel equates to less than a 1/7th or 1/8th of an inch. Measurement error, resolution of the images used, the postions of the heads differing, thickness of the materials in the mask, etc can all account for this minor deviation between the two. Even if the difference was 3-4 pixels, we are talking about 1/2 an inch at most. Again, the errors involved can easily explain the difference. Your argument fails. "Make believe" all you desire. Stick your head in the sand or whatever but don't pee on my leg and say it is raining.

Since you seem to think Bob's head is too big to fit into "might be Bob in a suit" 's head, what does that mean about "Aunt Bunny"? Is she a pea brained monster with a tiny head? What does that mean for all of her other body proportions? Is she a midget in the bigfoot community? Surely, if her head is that small, she must be a shrimp in size.
 
Last edited:
That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...
Click to expand...

It also shows Bob is bigger than Patty. Wow, who knew Bob was 7 feet tall, and weighed 2,000 pounds?
 
Since the Morris recreation is a piece of dung to begin with whose to say what any head might do under its hood. However I tend lean towards there being too much head on the Morris affair. But while the MR is in topic has anyone ever seen a true motion clip of Bob reprising his role? I haven't and I'm not surprised that none seems to have been made public. After all from what I've seen of it it lame and there is no excuse for it being lame. It can't hide behind the excuses made for the equally lame BBC effort which some will come to its aide by saying it was never supposed to be the PGF. However the Morris/Bob mess was supposed to be the PGF (subject) and if there was a decent chance that the two Morris/Bob were the suit supplier and mime then that recreation should have been close to bullet proof. It wasn't and still isn't.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Right on schedule.....the "lucky breaks" ALL seem to go Roger's way! :D A slight "turn of the head", in this case.
Click to expand...

Lucky? Exactly what is the luck involved here, Sweaty? Can you explain that in a rational manner?

I relish the moments when Sweaty is absent-minded enough to insinuate some insane luck to Patterson based on his subjective opinions regarding what he thinks is possible and impossible with Patty. You see, when Sweaty talks about luck, that gives us the opportunity to talk about the actual mind-blowing luck Patterson really had based on the facts if he did in fact film a real Bigfoot.

Déjà vu? Why, yes we have been here before:

kitakaze said:
SweatyYeti said:
Just a passing thought.....Roger sure were a lucky fella'...;)...
Click to expand...
Yes, very lucky! I was just thinking the same thing. In fact lucky doesn't even begin to describe. He was yearning for money and dreaming of Bigfoot. Just the year before he ripped off Morgan Kunstler's illustration of the William Roe story. He put the copied drawing in his book and slapped his initials on it. Then he recounts in detail that breath-taking encounter. It seems to be the only encounter of a female Bigfoot he's ever heard about. He's clearly fascinated with the account. He even draws another female Bigfoot. But here's where the mind-bending luck comes in. The very next year when he's out hunting for Bigfoot evidence and hanging out with his "trusty native tracker," Bob Gimlin, who just happens to be riding Bob Heironimus' horse, he apparently stumbles across a female Bigfoot with the same description as in his book and has nearly the same exact type of encounter!

Holy crap! What crazy-ass luck! Astronomical odds!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's always déjà vu with the Desperado. Whatever doesn't work, just put it in storage and pull it out in a month or so. Yes, Roger was lucky. So lucky, in fact, that just after he receives a large sum of money that he swindled from the Radford's he films a Bigfoot that looks just like a man in a suit. So lucky that the year after swiping the art Morton Kunstler and prominently featuring the William Roe encounter in his Bigfoot book he apparently has an encounter with a female Bigfoot for which the Roe account in his book could serve perfectly as a story board. So lucky that the Bigfoot he films looks striking like the Bigfoot illustrated by Kunstler that he ripped off and passed off as his own.

Yes or no question, Sweaty. Based on the above, was Patterson a lucky guy? And was he an honest guy?

Hey Astro....is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison??
Click to expand...

Hey, Sweaty, is it wrong to accuse a person of a hoax, have them prove to you that they did not, and offer no acknowledgement or apology?
 
IMO Morris could not possibly have supplied the suit, whether Heironimous is the person inside or not. A standard-issue, shapeless, baggy ape suit, purchased via mail-order from a typical costume shop such as Morris', would not have been able to achieve the degree of realism evident on the film that has inspired 41 years of vigorous debate among scientists and laymen alike.

Unless such a costume had been considerably modified with padding, some means of hiding the seams/zippers, and accurate arm and back musculature (again, IMO), there's simply no way a suit of the kind Morris sold could account for the lifelike surface features of the P-G figure.
 
the degree of realism evident on the film that has inspired 41 years of vigorous debate among scientists and laymen alike.
Click to expand...

There has been very little vigorous debate about the PGF in the last 41 years. Very little debate at all. It's been pretty much ignored for most of those years, I believe.

Most scientists didn't think much of it after it came out, and it basically faded away.

It only recently became "popular" again.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom