The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

Also, Kitakaze:

...take 15 seconds to hang a pencil then a piece of paper in front of [your] face per post #1400.

 

[Vortigern99]

Dont say I didnt warn you
Trying to educate a denialist who simply refuses to listen or answer questions. Its like listening to a skipping CD.
I keep trying to tell you Darth

Hope springs eternal, Darth Tabber. If Mayaka can wake up and smell the BF poo (or the distinct lack of same), then who's to say Sweat-Yet might not suddenly realize he's been fooling himself?

Stranger things have happened in the history of the Pattyverse.

 

[makaya325]

Hope springs eternal, Darth Tabber. If Mayaka can wake up and smell the BF poo (or the distinct lack of same), then who's to say Sweat-Yet might not suddenly realize he's been fooling himself?

Stranger things have happened in the history of the Pattyverse.

The poo is stronger than ever Vort!

 

[kitakaze]

Regardless of whether or not any "skeptics" on this board choose to support their claims, and demonstrate that what they're stating is actually true....I'll continue to do as much analysis as I can.....purely for the sake of the analysis itself.

NEIN!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4664530&postcount=1400

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

2. Dfoot's exaggerated arm out pose to exibit shortening is all well and good but it clearly looks like an unnatural posture. The BBC short arm nonsense is simply short arms and whatever outward arm positioning may be happening is mild at best. Give that BBC mime longer arms, shorter legs and longer torso and of course make him the correct color and you may have a humble representation of whats on the PGF.

Yup....Dfoot's arm is screaming.... "I'm away from my body right now....please leave a message".

Yeah, I think Dfoot did a better job of matching the Optic Nerve/BBC suit in this comparison.

Can you demonstrate that to be the case?

Sure, I could do that. However, I need one thing from you before I begin:

Yes or no: Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human?

 

[makaya325]

Yeah, I think Dfoot did a better job of matching the Optic Nerve/BBC suit in this comparison.



Sure, I could do that. However, I need one thing from you before I begin:

Yes or no: Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human?

Yes, Patty's arms are longer than those of some humans. The question is: Are they inhuman? No.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yeah, I think Dfoot did a better job of matching the Optic Nerve/BBC suit in this comparison.



Sure, I could do that. However, I need one thing from you before I begin:

Yes or no: Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human?

No, you don't need anything from me, in order to support your claims....such as...

1) A photograph can make a person's arm appear longer than it actually is.

and...

2) That Dfoot's arm appears longer than it actually is, in that image you referenced.


Both of those things are independent of Patty.


I'm not the least bit surprised that you're having trouble supporting your own claims, AMM.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, before we can continue, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of foreshortening (figure construction in perspective) and how it relates to the image of "Bob/Frac" that you've posted many times.

Also, please acknowledge that you understand the principle of arm/leg length control via the arc circle, and how it relates to the skeletal overlay figures.

These are long-standing points of contention which you initially brought up, which we then explained/clarified, which explanations you then ignored, post after post after post. If we are going to have a rational discussion, you need to acknowledge, please, that you have at least read and understood our explanations. If you disagree with them, please describe why or on what basis.

Thank you!

Vort, your comments/requests are...again...vague generalities.


Perhaps you're trying to evade a specific question. Like this one...


Is there an error in my post from last night?



FYI, Vort....I don't care whether or not you wish to continue discussing/analysing the evidence with me. I'll happily continue doing what I have been doing, with or without your input. But if you want to talk in SPECIFICS, rather than in vague generalities, I will be more than happy to answer your questions, and respond to your analysis.


As far as non-specific questions and comments, such as these, go....

We have in fact demonstrated time and again the principles at work, using diagrams, videos, software overlays and text descriptions -- all of which you continue to ignore, fail to address, pretend don't exist.

you would at least address our points and seek to overcome/rebut them, instead of ignoring them and then claiming we've never made any points

please acknowledge that you understand the principle of arm/leg length control via the arc circle, and how it relates to the skeletal overlay figures.

If we are going to have a rational discussion, you need to acknowledge, please, that you have at least read and understood our explanations.

...you can keep 'em. I'm only interested in Specifics.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Hope springs eternal, Darth Tabber. If Mayaka can wake up and smell the BF poo (or the distinct lack of same), then who's to say Sweat-Yet might not suddenly realize he's been fooling himself?

Stranger things have happened in the history of the Pattyverse.

I operate on a different axiom

once is an accident

twice is questionable

three or more times is deliberate

Sweaty has demonstrated in the 411 and other threads that his refusals to even attempt to understand counterpoints to his fatally flawed thinking is deliberate. His refusal to respond to legitimate points is equally documented.

You cant beat a royal flush, stacked deck, a smith & wesson and the house.

Unlike you and maybe Mak, sweeties defiance is deliberate denial in face of the facts and its impossible to pry open a mind thats rusted shut.

 

[Vortigern99]

Sweaty, the answer is yes, you've made an error in your post. The error is your lack of attention to the principle of foreshortening, which I've explained in detail in previous posts.

The trouble I'm having with you is that when I offer a detailed post, you either ignore it entirely, appearing to pretend it doesn't exist, or else you dismiss it as "mighty fancy talk", which evidently means you are unequipped to process complex information. When I then make a follow-up post asking you to address my previous, detailed explanations, I summarize the information so as not to repeat myself ad nauseam.

You then accuse me of speaking in generalities.

I am now done attempting to explain anything you, and short of correcting one of your numerous errors of perception, analysis or judgement, I will never again join you in a discussion. You lack the capacity to think rationally or to abide by the guidelines of a fair and balanced debate. Bye, now.

ETA: As usual, TABBER and Kitakaze have been absolutely on-target. I don't know why I refused to hear their pleas, or why I felt willing to give Sweaty the benefit of the doubt. It appears that nothing springs eternal except stupidity.

 

[kitakaze]

Vort, your comments/requests are...again...vague generalities.


Perhaps you're trying to evade a specific question.

Darth Evader is talking to Darth Vort about evasion. It is to laugh. I think that projector's bulb has burnt out.

...you can keep 'em. I'm only interested in Specifics.

Ah, yes... mmhmmm... I see. Say, Sweaty, how specific is the number one thousand four hundred?

 

[kitakaze]

Sure, I could do that. However, I need one thing from you before I begin:

Yes or no: Are Patty's arms longer than the arms of a human?

Yes! Nice one, Atomic. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! That is how you deal with Sweaty. I think someone who shows zero understanding of basic debate etiquette should have conditions set every time they ask for something. What's that? Have a simple question? Try answering one.

Yours is great. He then must admit the error of one of his false claims or - and this is 99.99% of the time what is going to happen - being loathe to give an inch to a skeptic, he refuses to admit his error thereby providing further proof of his intellectual dishonesty and showing a complete lack of interest in sincere debate:

No, you don't need anything from me, in order to support your claims.

Hey, look at that. What a surprise.

Yeah, Sweaty, I think Atomic does need something from you. Before he starts jumping through hoops for you, you can provide a simple yes or no answer regarding one of your claims relevant to your request:

Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking.

Eat it up, Sweat. Everybody's wise to your games.

 

[Óðinn]

This is rich. The Vision Realm gait animation is garbage, yet the skeleton overlay on Bob H is "accurate". All discrepancies are chalked up to "foreshortening".

One question: How can you tell that Bob's humerus bone is foreshortened, and not just shorter than Patty's? The skeleton overlay can't tell you this. Especially comparing 2 frames with different body positions and distances from the camera.

The foreshortening effect is the cosine of the component angle made by the humerus bone away (or towards) the camera. But the skeleton is just a 2D overlay which is forced to fit and foreshortened accordingly.

The problem here is that the skeleton's arm is artificially foreshortened to match up with Bob's arm. But that doesn't prove Bob's arm is actually angled from his body. You have to assume it is, which you can't, and this makes the skeleton overlay invalid. This is just another software model misused as a measuring tool with hidden methodology.

Here's a novel idea, why not measure Bob's arm and see if it's foreshortened instead of claiming that it must be? As Sweaty noted, the skeleton overlay suggests that Bob's arm is approx 18% more foreshortened than Patty's. (Patty's arm must also be foreshortened to some degree). Bob's right arm from the shoulder joint to his finger tips should be approx 40% of his height (confirm this on yourself). Below is Bob's standing height est by his body length (4 vectors). I measured 40% of this est along the arm, and IMO, there is very little foreshortening to consider. Bob's arm is swinging very close to his body. If Bob's arm was actually foreshortened by 18%, then it would be angled more than 30 degrees from his body (toward the camera) and it would look more like this.



So if Bob's arm isn't significantly foreshortened (relative to Patty's) then this implies that Patty's arm is longer than Bob's, which is reflected by the skeleton overlay. That is, if the skeleton overlay is valid.

How come the experts aren't screaming that the skeleton comparison is not scientifically valid? Or are they saving up for Bill Munns Report?

 

[kitakaze]

This is rich. The Vision Realm gait animation is garbage, yet the skeleton overlay on Bob H is "accurate".

Yeah, that's right. BTW, that's skeleton overlays. There are a few now. Reuben Steindorf's artistic rendering made under the direction of Doug Hajicek to conceptualize Patty's skeleton is a purely speculative and artistic in nature. The Poser 7 and now DAZ overlays are taking models of something known (a human skeleton), and apply one to images of Patty and BH. The result is a pretty good match.

All discrepancies are chalked up to "foreshortening".

Just go right ahead and itemize all those discrepancies you mention.

The problem here is that the skeleton's arm is artificially foreshortened to match up with Bob's arm. But that doesn't prove Bob's arm is actually angled from his body. You have to assume it is, which you can't, and this makes the skeleton overlay invalid. This is just another software model misused as a measuring tool with hidden methodology.

Per bolded...

It is? It does?

Here's a novel idea, why not measure Bob's arm and see if it's foreshortened instead of claiming that it must be?

Why haven't you done this? Assuming that there are no objections by Bob Heironimus, I will be meeting with him later this summer and doing exactly that. I'll be taking a bunch of his measurements, including height and limb lengths (upper and lower). You know, I'm a bit surprised you haven't done this. You've written loads about the PGF on the BFF as Gigantofootecus, you have presented evidence for Patty being around 6 ft tall, and you live in Victoria, BC which is where I'll be when I set out to meet BH. I would have thought the same idea would have occured to you.

How come the experts aren't screaming that the skeleton comparison is not scientifically valid? Or are they saving up for Bill Munns Report?

Here they are:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhQ1Y3EqyN0

Explain to me exactly how I can know these overlays are invalid.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

One question: How can you tell that Bob's humerus bone is foreshortened, and not just shorter than Patty's?

The skeleton overlay can't tell you this. Especially comparing 2 frames with different body positions and distances from the camera.

Great post, Odinn!


I posted a Bob-to-Bob comparison image (a side view and a front view), a while ago, that shows that Bob's arm is, in fact, very close alongside his body.


I'll find the post number later.....and respond to more of your post later, also.

 

[kitakaze]

Great post, Odinn!

Yes! Super, wonderful, and great. Wait... there was more than one overlay, right?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, the answer is yes, you've made an error in your post.

The error is your lack of attention to the principle of foreshortening, which I've explained in detail in previous posts.

Back on April 1st, I posted this Bob-to-Bob-to-Bob-to-Bob comparison, showing that, since the lengths of Bob's arm are essentially the same in both images, and in the frontal view we can clearly see his arm is close to his body....that his arm must also be close to his side in the side-view image.

No foreshortening a-happenin'.



Here is my post, from the 1st...#1065...on page 27...

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]

Odinn wrote:

The problem here is that the skeleton's arm is artificially foreshortened to match up with Bob's arm.

That's what I'm thinking, too. I'm not saying that I think there is deliberate fraud involved....it may simply be an unintentional error in the creation process.


That's one of the reasons why the animation should be reproduced/tested by someone on the other side of the fence.

But that doesn't prove Bob's arm is actually angled from his body. You have to assume it is, which you can't, and this makes the skeleton overlay invalid.

This is just another software model misused as a measuring tool with hidden methodology.

Yup....at this point in time, the method used in creating these animations is well-hidden.

I asked neltana if he could at least partially explain how he created his animation....but he didn't respond to that request, as far as I know. If he did...I misssed it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Here is my post, from the 1st...#1065...on page 27...

OMG, Bob's arm grew! The lines don't match up! Thanks for this most informative crayon drawing sweaty. BTW, it is not a match since the lines don't match up. Additionally, I am not sure how you can compare a photograph taken at different times/dates and declare that Bob in the one photograph in question could not have his arm extended outward. Your claim that it proves it has to be close to his body is false.

 

[Vortigern99]

Sweaty, the lengths of Bob's arms are not the same in those images. In addition to the fact, noted by Astro, that the baselines of the hands don't match up (the red/right one is higher), the baselines of the feet are incorrectly matched (the red/right line goes through the toe rather than being under the foot), and the top red/right line of the head is purely subjectively placed, distorted by both the presence of the hat and by the differences in vertical head position between the two poses. Further, the lines of the hands are further out of whack because in the left/white image, Bob is tilting his hand at an oblique angle whereas in the right image it is hanging straight down. All of these discrepancies in the measuring methodologies combine to render useless any attempted measurement between the two images. And that isn't even taking into consideration any differences in camera and/or development lens, which I've pointed out before but which -- surprise! -- you continue to ignore.