• 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.
Sweaty, the 2 pictures dont support your hypothesis. The camera angles are different from one another. Again, shame on you.
 
To answer Odinn's question, above, I can tell that Bob's arm is foreshortened based on three pieces of visual information:

1) The overlap of folds away from the camera. This is a "trick" of figure construction I've picked up from anatomist/artist B. Hogarth. The way the two anterior (front-facing) folds of Bob's sleeve overlap the forms behind it indicate that the forearm is closer to the camera than the upper arm. IOW, the arm is foreshortened toward the camera. (If the fold overlaps were reversed, we would know that the arm is angled away from the camera.)

2) The circular shape of Bob's sleeve. Yet another Hogarth "trick", this one having to do with cylindrical forms. If you will imagine the forearm as a cylinder, like a soda can, it will become apparent that we will only see the underside/base of the can if the cylinder's bottom (the wrist) is angled toward the camera. Bob's sleeve shape reveals just such a "soda can base", indicating that the arm is angled toward the camera.

3) The hand is higher along a vertical scale than the average human hand. Judging from various pics of the subject, Bob's limb proportions appear to be within normal human range; IOW, standing at full height with his arms at his sides, Bob's fingers should fall to the mid-point of his thigh, like most human beings. In this image, however, Bob's hand barely grazes the base of his buttock. The hand is tilted obliquely, further distorting the apparent length of the arm, but even if we were to straighten out the hand so that it continues parallel to the line of the arm, the hand would still fall short of the vertical placement evident in other images of the subject. Therefore, the arm is foreshortened toward the camera.

BobBobSide1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sweaty before neltana's independent DAZ replication of mangler's Poser 7 proof:

SweatyYeti said:
As for the overlays that are in question.....it's 'standard operating procedure' for any type of scientific analysis to be able to be duplicated, as a test of it's legitimacy.
That's why I asked which program Fric and Frac belong to....so that mangler's work can simply be tested...and either verified, or falsified.
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti said:
As 'standard practice' in any scientific analysis...it should also be replicable by others.
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti said:
If the Poser 7 images are legitimate, then they'll be replicated, and confirmed, in time.
Click to expand...

Sweaty after neltana's independent DAZ replication of mangler's Poser 7 proof:

SweatyYeti said:
That's one of the reasons why the animation should be reproduced/tested by someone on the other side of the fence.
Click to expand...



Intellectually dishonest people have no place in a rational and sincere debate.

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.
Click to expand...

Neltana has bent over backwards for you and accomodated you far more than anyone here ever should.

neltana said:
I have no doubt that you could be up and running and producing frames in a single evening. Just PM me if you have any technical problems.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry to burst a bubble, or two....:)....but here's another comparison of Bob with Bob....:)...and guess what it shows...


OldShortArmsBob2Lined.jpg
OldShortArms5Lined.jpg




Alas.....no foreshortening of said arms...:).


The image on the right is from the same NG Video as the frontal-view image that I used in the other Bob-to-Bob comparison.

In that NG Video, they filmed Bob from both the side, and the front......and, I believe it's just 2 different looks at the same walk. (As opposed to 2 separate walks.)


But, whether it is or not....Bob is clearly walking with his arm hanging down very close to his side, in that side-view video.



This comparison also highlights the fact that, despite all the differences in these 2 images....taken years apart, with different cameras, different lenses, different distances from the subject-to-camera....Bob still matches Bob.

And in every direct comparison of Bob with Patty....they don't match.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Alas.....no foreshortening of said arms...:).
Click to expand...

Actually, your lines are not correct. The left image has the line drawn so it is roughly four pixels below the bottom of Bob's hand and the right image has the line drawn about 3 pixels above the bottom of the hand. This means the difference is 7 pixels, which means your images are not matched up. You also ignore that both images are taken from two different angles, which will introduce errors. We also have to wonder about the tilt of Bob's hand. In the left image it is tilted at angle of about 20 degrees from horizontal and the right it is about 15degrees. This also introduces errors. You have not eliminated the possibility of foreshortening at all.

SweatyYeti said:
The image on the right is from the same NG Video as the frontal-view image that I used in the other Bob-to-Bob comparison.
Click to expand...

However, can you demonstrate it was taken at the exact same moment as the previous image you used? Until you can do that, it means nothing.

SweatyYeti said:
This comparison also highlights the fact that, despite all the differences in these 2 images....taken years apart, with different cameras, different lenses, different distances from the subject-to-camera....Bob still matches Bob.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....you mean Bob did not grow a longer arm? For once you are stating something factual. That being that Bob's body did not change. However, your scaling and line drawing is still incorrect. Why don't you get some higher resolution images to work with. The one on the right is so "blocky" you can barely see his hand.


SweatyYeti said:
And in every direct comparison of Bob with Patty....they don't match.
Click to expand...

Wrong, they do match. You keep using Bob outside a suit to compare to "Bunny". I have shown that Bob in a suit matches pretty close to "Bunny". You just keep coming up with reasons to deny it. Each time you raised an issue, I have demonstrated that your issues are false accusations. Keep trying to convince yourself because you aren't convincing anyone here.
 
Vortigern99 said:
To answer Odinn's question, above, I can tell that Bob's arm is foreshortened based on three pieces of visual information:

1) The overlap of folds away from the camera. This is a "trick" of figure construction I've picked up from anatomist/artist B. Hogarth. The way the two anterior (front-facing) folds of Bob's sleeve overlap the forms behind it indicate that the forearm is closer to the camera than the upper arm. IOW, the arm is foreshortened toward the camera. (If the fold overlaps were reversed, we would know that the arm is angled away from the camera.)

2) The circular shape of Bob's sleeve. Yet another Hogarth "trick", this one having to do with cylindrical forms. If you will imagine the forearm as a cylinder, like a soda can, it will become apparent that we will only see the underside/base of the can if the cylinder's bottom (the wrist) is angled toward the camera. Bob's sleeve shape reveals just such a "soda can base", indicating that the arm is angled toward the camera.

3) The hand is higher along a vertical scale than the average human hand. Judging from various pics of the subject, Bob's limb proportions appear to be within normal human range; IOW, standing at full height with his arms at his sides, Bob's fingers should fall to the mid-point of his thigh, like most human beings. In this image, however, Bob's hand barely grazes the base of his buttock. The hand is tilted obliquely, further distorting the apparent length of the arm, but even if we were to straighten out the hand so that it continues parallel to the line of the arm, the hand would still fall short of the vertical placement evident in other images of the subject. Therefore, the arm is foreshortened toward the camera.

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/BobBobSide1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Vort, none of this matters. Measure the pixels on the scanned images. Bob's body dimensions are a constant, known parameter. He can be measured against himself. What is your estimate for the relative length of his arm? If it was foreshortened by 18% (as suggested by the skeleton(s) overlay(s)) then it couldn't POSSIBLY be more than 22% of his height. This is clearly not the case.

Kit, these computer graphic models are oriented by the user until they fit. When foreshortening is allowed, then the model can shore up a limb to ANY size. Whether you are fitting the model to the actual 3D figure is unknown. Often with reverse kinematics there are multi-solutions for a limb orientation. All the skeleton Poser can do is foreshorten the limbs to "fit" the image. But it isn't "solving" the Z coordinate.
 
Last edited:
And by the way Kit, since the skeleton is being used as a ruler, what are its proportions? How far away is the skeleton supposed to be from the camera? Is the skeleton set up for Bob's distance from the camera, or Patty's? The closer to the camera, the more distorted the body proportions are. Think of how a close porno shot makes things in the foreground appear bigger. Ok, stop thinking about it now.

There are several parts of the skeleton that don't fit very well on Patty, mostly due to improper body orientation. The shoulders (especially the left one) don't seem to align and the body width doesn't seem to match. Also, the legs don't look quite right. And worst of all, this is only a few frames. Match it up for dozens of frames and record the skeleton's position. Refine the model until it achieves a best fit. You could even create your own animation. But as is, this comparison is even more worthless than the Vision Realm skeleton animation.

 
Óðinn said:
And by the way Kit, since the skeleton is being used as a ruler, what are its proportions? How far away is the skeleton supposed to be from the camera? Is the skeleton set up for Bob's distance from the camera, or Patty's? The closer to the camera, the more distorted the body proportions are. Think of how a close porno shot makes things in the foreground appear bigger. Ok, stop thinking about it now.

There are several parts of the skeleton that don't fit very well on Patty, mostly due to improper body orientation. The shoulders (especially the left one) don't seem to align and the body width doesn't seem to match. Also, the legs don't look quite right. And worst of all, this is only a few frames. Match it up for dozens of frames and record the skeleton's position. Refine the model until it achieves a best fit. You could even create your own animation. But as is, this comparison is even more worthless than the Vision Realm skeleton animation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1950349ff7c0edb0cc.gif
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding what this overlay is attempting to prove. It's not trying to prove that this skeleton is exactly the one inside the Bigfoot suit. Nor is it attempting to prove that any particular person was inside the suit. All it is trying to show is that something roughly within the range of of normal human proportions could have been in the suit. For that reason, distance from camera is irrelevant (nobody is trying to prove anything at all with this animation about the absolute size of the skeleton). All that matters is whether the proportions of Patty's various members in relationship to her trunk are within normal human parameters.

I'd say that this overlay pretty strikingly suggests (though it cannot, of course, prove) that whether or not that beast is human, it's skeletal structure would be indistinguishable in its general proportions from a human one.
 
Astro wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
And in every direct comparison of Bob with Patty....they don't match.
Click to expand...



Wrong, they do match.

You keep using Bob outside a suit to compare to "Bunny".
Click to expand...



Yes, Astro....that is why I said "Bob".... "Bob" means....

"Bob outside of a suit"....."Bob" as "Bob"......not "Bob in a suit"....not "Bob on a roller coaster".....not "Bob in the Ice Cream Truck".......not "Bob for Apples"........are you getting the picture, Astro??? :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:
 
Bob outside the suit is not a valid comparison. You need to compare Bob in a suit to see how he compares with "Bunny", who may be Bob in a suit.
 
Yoink said:
I think you are misunderstanding what this overlay is attempting to prove. It's not trying to prove that this skeleton is exactly the one inside the Bigfoot suit. Nor is it attempting to prove that any particular person was inside the suit. All it is trying to show is that something roughly within the range of of normal human proportions could have been in the suit. For that reason, distance from camera is irrelevant (nobody is trying to prove anything at all with this animation about the absolute size of the skeleton). All that matters is whether the proportions of Patty's various members in relationship to her trunk are within normal human parameters.

I'd say that this overlay pretty strikingly suggests (though it cannot, of course, prove) that whether or not that beast is human, it's skeletal structure would be indistinguishable in its general proportions from a human one.
Click to expand...

Yoink yoinked the words right out of my mouth.
 
Yoink said:
I think you are misunderstanding what this overlay is attempting to prove. It's not trying to prove that this skeleton is exactly the one inside the Bigfoot suit. Nor is it attempting to prove that any particular person was inside the suit. All it is trying to show is that something roughly within the range of of normal human proportions could have been in the suit. For that reason, distance from camera is irrelevant (nobody is trying to prove anything at all with this animation about the absolute size of the skeleton). All that matters is whether the proportions of Patty's various members in relationship to her trunk are within normal human parameters.

I'd say that this overlay pretty strikingly suggests (though it cannot, of course, prove) that whether or not that beast is human, it's skeletal structure would be indistinguishable in its general proportions from a human one.
Click to expand...
Yoink, I understand more than you think. Why not just overlay Bob H over Patty? Why use an animated skeleton? Because it's acting as a comparative ruler. But there is so much margin for error that it doesn't really demonstrate anything. At worst it is misleading.

 
Óðinn said:
Yoink, I understand more than you think. Why not just overlay Bob H over Patty? Why use an animated skeleton? Because it's acting as a comparative ruler. But there is so much margin for error that it doesn't really demonstrate anything. At worst it is misleading.
Click to expand...

Stick to your day job
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom