The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[makaya325]

When did I claim to be a "professional"? What I have posted in this forum is the limit to what I have ever presented about Bigfoot.

You never claimed it. I feel your professional in analysis of various topics (Phoenix lights, PGF film)

 

[Vortigern99]

First....I question the legitimacy of the skeletal animations based on a discrepancy between what they show, and what direct-comparisons of Bob and Patty show.


Like this direct comparison...which somebody else did, on another Board....in a galaxy far, far away...

That's only one of many examples I could supply, showing similar results.

Since every direct comparison of Patty and Bob shows the same thing....that either Bob's arms are shorter than Patty's arms, or his head is larger than Patty's head, (depending on which points on their bodies are used to scale their images)......and the skeletal comparisons show their body dimensions all match-up, very closely.....there is, apparently, a discrepancy.

Hence.....my questioning.

In that miasma of color, what you appear to be missing is that 1) the photos could be improperly scaled, not only figure-to-figure but also taking into consideration the kind of lens used both in the cameras and in the film developing processes, which could distort the apparent vertical and/or horizontal sizes of an image; 2) even if we assume for the sake of argument that the two pics are comparable on a 1:1 scale, Bob's head is lower than Patty's, his arm is not in the same position as Patty's, and his hand is tilted more obliquely than Patty's, all of which factors disrupt the measuring process between the two figures.

That you're using these wholly unconvincing and radically dissimilar images as a basis of your beliefs and opinions regarding the reality of BF and the P-G film is a testament to the degree of your credibility as a commentator.

Secondly.....you've misrepresented what my opinion actually is, in your bolded statement above.

I've never stated, or implied, what you wrote.

You called into question the apparent discrepancies in the lengths of the Poser7 and DAZ figures' arms from frame to frame. You posted a pictoral representation of these discrepancies in the form of a circle, and expressed bafflement as to how such a circular control could properly predict the length of an arm in different positions. Any disagreement so far?

The only two logical controls for arm length are 1) circle and 2) flat line. The correct control form is a circle, as I've demonstrated in several posts which you have yet to acknowledge as instructive or even as existing in objective reality. Since you asserted that you did not understand the circle control, the only logical conclusion is that you believed the proper control for arm length existed along a flat line.

Unless you mean to backtrack and suggest you believed that the proper control for arm length existed along a bell curve, or some other irregular shape, I cannot see what you hope to gain from this line of argument.

 

[makaya325]

In that miasma of color, what you appear to be missing is that 1) the photos could be improperly scaled, not only figure-to-figure but also taking into consideration the kind of lens used both in the cameras and in the film developing processes, which could distort the apparent vertical and/or horizontal sizes of an image; 2) even if we assume for the sake of argument that the two pics are comparable on a 1:1 scale, Bob's head is lower than Patty's, his arm is not in the same position as Patty's, and his hand is tilted more obliquely than Patty's, all of which factors disrupt the measuring process between the two figures.

That you're using these wholly unconvincing and radically dissimilar images as a basis of your beliefs and opinions regarding the reality of BF and the P-G film is a testament to the degree of your credibility as a commentator.



You called into question the apparent discrepancies in the lengths of the Poser7 and DAZ figures' arms from frame to frame. You posted a pictoral representation of these discrepancies in the form of a circle, and expressed bafflement as to how such a circular control could properly predict the length of an arm in different positions. Any disagreement so far?

The only two logical controls for arm length are 1) circle and 2) flat line. The correct control form is a circle, as I've demonstrated in several posts which you have yet to acknowledge as instructive or even as existing in objective reality. Since you asserted that you did not understand the circle control, the only logical conclusion is that you believed the proper control for arm length existed along a flat line.

Unless you mean to backtrack and suggest you believed that the proper control for arm length existed along a bell curve, or some other irregular shape, I cannot see what you hope to gain from this line of argument.

Ray Wallace knew the "Indian" who was in the suit.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

You posted a pictoral representation of these discrepancies in the form of a circle, and expressed bafflement as to how such a circular control could properly predict the length of an arm in different positions.

Any disagreement so far?

I think so.
If I'm understanding your statement correctly, then it appears that you've misunderstood what I was saying, when I posted that diagram.


I'll re-cap what my thinking is, regarding the arm lengths, and the diagram, as soon as I can.

Right now...it's off to the Hockey Rink, for some fun and exercise.......and then some more moving.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

You didn't answer my question, Atomic.

Wrong. I described in which part of the comparison picture where Dfoot's arm appeared to be longer than it really is. If you want, you can try digging up those pictures of Dfoot in his white muscle padding to compare against that image. I also explained to you that since you feel that Patty's arms are longer than a human's, then it seemed likely that you'd agree that Dfoot having an arm as long as Patty's would have to be an illusion.

Can you support your claim, using those pictures that you linked to?

Of course! Simply print out that comparison and go to a room with a fairly large mirror. Using the printout as a guideline, pose your upper body and arms in the same position. Compare this with how your arms looks when held against your side normally. If you don't have a large mirror, just have someone take pictures of you with a camera (preferably digital).

No, it doesn't...because we can't see all of Dfoot's body. We would need to see him from his Dhead-to-his-Dfeet, in order to make a meaningful comparison.

Um...we can't see Patty's feet in that picture either. Furthermore, we don't need to see such things to measure the apparent length of two arms.

Oh, and I managed to find a link to that gloved comparison that Dfoot did awhile back.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Wrong.
I described in which part of the comparison picture where Dfoot's arm appeared to be longer than it really is.

If you want, you can try digging up those pictures of Dfoot in his white muscle padding to compare against that image. I also explained to you that since you feel that Patty's arms are longer than a human's, then it seemed likely that you'd agree that Dfoot having an arm as long as Patty's would have to be an illusion.

Do you mean that in the top-left picture of Dfoot, his arm appears longer than it actually is?...

If so....why is that the case?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Back to this diagram...

What I'm saying it shows is that....the 3 blue lines will measure the same actual length, when a ruler is placed directly alongside the lines, at any point in their swing around the central pivot point.......but the blue lines will have a different vertical length, as they swing....with it's maximum at the point where the arm is fully vertical.
(When the arm is fully horizontal, it's vertical 'component' is zero....and, would thus measure zero length, vertically.


That diagram represents how an arm should measure when it's swinging, and being held very close to the side of the body.

As the arm is moved away from the person's side....towards the viewer/camera....it's length would then appear to shorten. (At any point in it's swing.)



Here are 3 frames from Vision Realm's Patty skeleton...

The upper arm vertical lengths are...

1) 74 pixels
2) 83 pixels
3) 79.26215 'Wally Cleavers'


Those numbers follow pretty accurately what the diagram shows.

In the middle image....where the upper arm is fully vertical....it's vertical length is at it's maximum.

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, have you taken the 15 seconds necessary to perform the experiment I detailed in post #1400?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, have you taken the 15 seconds necessary to perform the experiment I detailed in post #1400?

No, not yet. Maybe I will, tomorrow.

 

[xblade]

No. I said that Dfoot went into irrelevant backround information about Patterson.

Actually, you said inaccurate, not irrelevant.

 

[neltana]

What I'm saying it shows is that....the 3 blue lines will measure the same actual length, when a ruler is placed directly alongside the lines, at any point in their swing around the central pivot point.......but the blue lines will have a different vertical length, as they swing....with it's maximum at the point where the arm is fully vertical.
(When the arm is fully horizontal, it's vertical 'component' is zero....and, would thus measure zero length, vertically.

All other things being equal...but there are many other things to consider. In your special case example where the camera is perfectly flat on to the plane of the swing, I believe you are correct.

However, that is not what we are dealing with in the PGF. The camera is addressing the figure from a variety of angles, depending on the shot. So, now we need to consider the effect of perspective on perceived lengths.



As the camera addresses the subject more and more to the rear, the perceived length of the "backswing" arm gets longer and longer. In my example, this is the same figure three times. The first one is in a plane that we are viewing dead one (perpendicular). In the other two, the plane begins tilting away from the viewer.

Even in the middle figure, where the amount of perspective is slight, there is a measurable difference in the vertical component of the "backswing" relative to the "frontswing".

So, comparing the vertical component of swinging arms only can be done in the special case where we have two pictures that are being viewed from exactly the same perspective. The length of the "straight down" arm will only have the largest vertical component when the plane of view is perpendicular to the viewer.

Or something like that....

 

[Vortigern99]

Sweaty and Neltana, as far as my mind can grasp after only two sips of coffee, those are accurate and well-made representations of the "arm-length control" principle at work, from both perpendicular (Sweaty) and in-perspective (Neltana) viewing angles.

Now then. What's the point of all this?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

neltana,
FWIW, The skeleton animation Sweaty used, actually rotates through a wide range of
angles; some of which, clearly demonstrate the effect you are pointing out.

I find it revealing that Sweaty conveniently grabbed three frames that reinforce his nonsense, and ignored the rest.

I also find it amusing, that Sweaty actually thinks he is in some sort of debate, where his observations even have merit..

 

[neltana]

Now then. What's the point of all this?

Um...okay, I'm stumped.

ETA: Wait, I just remembered. It had something to do with a dead horse....and...no, I lost it. Thought I had it there, but I didn't.

 

[makaya325]

Actually, you said inaccurate, not irrelevant.

My bad, I apologize. Anyway, what I was saying was how Deep Dfoot dug into Patterson's personal life, and has wanted to know every action Patterson did, even if it had nothing to do with bigfoot (ex: Him knowing Merritt, Army service, Pics of rodeos, etc)

 

[SweatyYeti]

neltana,

I find it revealing that Sweaty conveniently grabbed three frames that reinforce his nonsense, and ignored the rest.

I also find it amusing, that Sweaty actually thinks he is in some sort of debate, where his observations even have merit..

Hey Greggy!! ...

.....Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[kitakaze]

In the middle image, in which the arm is hanging straight down, the upper arm should be at it longest length, vertically (in the circular arc of it's swing), but it has actually become shorter than it was in the previous frame.
The exact opposite of what it should have done.

In the middle image....where the upper arm is fully vertical....it's vertical length is at it's maximum.

Sweaty has no interest in understanding these things whatsoever. He's just playing games and keeping hope alive another day. The fact that neltana completely replicated mangler's Poser 7 work and Sweaty has never issued any apology of any kind for accusation of hoax is proof of what a sad, desperate, and trollish believer he is.



It's not easy when you're sleazy.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Do you mean that in the top-left picture of Dfoot, his arm appears longer than it actually is?...

Correct.

If so....why is that the case?

Presumably due to how his arm is being held out and the position of his upper body. In fact, most of the illusion is probably due to the upper body movement. Seriously, try doing that experiment I wrote up and you should see for yourself.

 

[makaya325]

Sweaty, just give it up and accept that you are wrong. When I first came here, I thought I would prove the critical thinkers wrong, but I ended up reaching the rational conclusion (Special thanks to Astro, Kitz, Greg, Mangler!): It is a man in a suit! Get over it!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, just give it up and accept that you are wrong. When I first came here, I thought I would prove the critical thinkers wrong, but I ended up reaching the rational conclusion (Special thanks to Astro, Kitz, Greg, Mangler!): It is a man in a suit! Get over it!

Thanks for your encouragement, makaya.

I'll join you in your disbelief, just as soon as I see enough reason to do so.