Vort, you can't guesstimate foreshortening this way. MEASURE the images! Bob's body length (height) is known. Is the LENGTH of his arm foreshortened w.r.t. his height? Ans: NO. Don't draw horizontal lines connecting body parts unless they are oriented at the exact same angle. Otherwise, measure the length of common body parts, and scale them to match. Then how does the rest of the body compare? Only then can you make a scaling comparison.
Perhaps you can post the other pictures of BobH with his unforshortened arms and compare him to himself. I'd do it, but then you wouldn't buy it.
Óðinn, it was Mr. Yeti who posted the images you're refuting -- images with "horizontal lines connecting body parts not oriented at the exact same angle". I and other have been contesting the validity of Mr. Yeti's measurements, in part citing the very point you've just made. So, it looks like we've found some common ground on this point.
Where we disagree is your contention that Bob's arms are the same length in the pic under discussion as they are in other pics. My counter-assertion is that because the arm under discussion does not fall to the same point in an arc circle along Bob's body as other pics show, the arm under discussion must be foreshortened.
Regarding your imperious command for me to "MEASURE the images!", allow me to point out that you may bark orders at me all day long, which I in turn may refuse to obey. My expertise in anatomical proportion and measurement is sufficient to support my observation, based on visual comparison to other pictures of Bob, that the arm is foreshortened. Further, not only the visibly stunted length of the arm, but also the action of drapery and the oval of the wrist cylinder (which phenomena follow laws of physics and optics that are not up for debate) contribute to my opinion.
At all events, I have no software with which I might scale-match separate images of Bob in order to compare his measurements at a 1:1 ratio, so any measurements I undertake in pursuit of this question must be visual.
So Vort, tell me what's wrong with the following scaling exercise?
This one uses the known shoe length (12.25") of one of our favourite skeptics, tube. The comparison above is actual scale, (providing Patty's foot length was 14.5"). I'm not claiming this was the case, but the next comparison scales the feet to the same length (12.25"). Note how Patty's height falls short of tube's by 1/2 a foot or so. There is a case to be made that the foot (costume or otherwise) was > 12.25". Otherwise, BH was too tall to be Patty.
I'm a little unclear on what your contention is here. Are you stating that your opinion, based on this comparison to Tube's foot size inside of a shoe, is that the P-G subject is
shorter than Bob H? If you're not saying that, allow me to apologize in advance, but if you are then that opinion sits at odds with seven other measurements of the P-G figure, 5 of which place it at around 6'5" and two of which place it at over 7'. I'm not in a position to assert that any of those estimates are accurate, but since you appear to be the only one stating that "Patty" is under 6', you may wish to conduct an error analysis at this point.
Regardless, I will remind you, once more, that camera lens size, enlarger lens size, the distance of the enlarger from the developing surface, and digital compression during scanning all affect/distort the apparent vertical and horizontal sizes of an image. It is therefore impractical and of little value to attempt to compare two images captured with different, unknown lens sizes and degrees of compression on a 1:1 basis. The images simply do not match up to the point that we can comparatively measure them with any assurance of accuracy.
The "actual" scale (1st comparison) demonstrates the difference in the arm lengths. Are you going to tell me that tube's arm was substantially foreshortened as well? If so, then how about using a picture of yourself for comparison. Make sure your arm is orthogonal to the ground. I'll bet your arm falls approx 10% short of Patty's. Not that significant perhaps, until you estimate the arm span (which includes the back) vs the height. That's where the rubber meets the pavement, IMO.
No one is saying that Tube is the one in the suit. I expect you're aware that individual humans have various limb lengths, so I will not belabor the point here, which I think should be evident.
There is also the point that a slight bending of the knees -- the position with which "Patty" walks through most of the P-G film -- will bring the vertical arm to a lower point along the subject's leg.
There is also the point, which I've stated recently but which I can understand that you might have missed seeing, that a rubber gorilla glove can be flexed by the wearer's hand even if the wearer's fingers only reach the palm of the glove.
So, having said all that, can you remind me what your point is in all of this? Are you trying to show that "Patty" cannot be any human being in a suit, or that "it" cannot be specifically Bob H in a suit? Because so far, I cannot understand how either of those hypotheses have been substantiated.
