The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Yep just like the Memorial Day footage thread, when you get your butt kicked you quit.

As always, Blackdog......you're spot on....

Folks....please pick up a copy of Blackdog's new book...available this Friday!!...in Dollar Stores everywhere...

Hey, Mr. Woofles......did you see Astro kick my butt with this incorrect statement??...



"This image may help you as the blue circle shows where the "back" of "Bunny's" head really is located...

Hey Mr. Woofles.....did you know that your ear is really the back of your head??!

I never knew that, Mr. Woofles!!!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hey Mr. Woofles.....did you know that your ear is really the back of your head??!

I never knew that, Mr. Woofles!!!

Then why did you draw your line at the back of the head for Bob in a suit? Sweaty, your methodology has a double standard and you really keep shifting where you want to place your line. At first it is above the ear but then it is at the back of the head. Now it has to be above the ear again. Which is it? Feel free to elaborate what you are trying to do because it makes absolutely no sense when your two "comparisons" use two different points to start the line. It makes your analysis not only flawed but just completely worthless. I guess this is another bigfoot question you can not answer or will not answer.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Patty's ear is the 'back of her head'???

OK, why is the line for Bob at the back of his head? Come on Sweaty, why the double standard? Why cheat in your analysis? Why keep shifting your placement.

1. You first stated:I chose a point on Patty's head, just above the ear....
2. Then it was: I chose a clearly-defined, and specifically-placed point....on both subjects...(which are both, allegedly, a "Bob-In-The-Suit")......the back edge of the visible head, approx. half-way up the head...

So which is it? Above the ear or at the back of the visible head approximately half-way up (not at the top)? I guess this is another case where you are completely out of touch with reality Sweaty.

In my images I have posted I have been trying to match what you are trying to do based on what you have stated. However, since you keep shifting your standards, I can only assume you do not know what you really are doing. Keep trying because this does not fly.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

At first it is above the ear but then it is at the back of the head.

Now it has to be above the ear again.


Which is it?

Is it possible that the line I drew on Patty starts at a point which is BOTH...

1) On the 'back edge of Patty's head'

AND...

2) At a point located 'just above the ear'?


Is that possible, Astro?




Also....please answer this question....if you can..........


Then what would you call this 'edge' I highlighted in red, Astro.....Patty's elbow??...

Can you describe what you think that edge is?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Can you describe what you think that edge is?

It is incorrect. the lighting hides the true edge unless Bunny's head shape takes a sudden 90 degree turn at the crown (which would indicate a possible flaw in the suit/mask).



Now, how about answering these questions:

1. What are your comparison drawings trying to demonstrate?
2. What is the standard for placing the upper point of your line? Is it the back of the head or the ear?
3. What is the standard for placing the lower point of your line? Is it the butt or the thigh?

You do realize that two different suits can produce two very different results in these kinds of measurements. The addition of something like a liner inside the mask would produce a change in an inch, which would make it appear there is a difference. Therefore, your analysis is not only flawed because you have not established fixed standards for drawing the lines but the lines, even if correctly drawn, could be skewed by the variations in suit manufacture.

Finally, maybe you can explain why, using your criteria, Bob's line should not be placed at a different point following the line of the ear hole as your new standard seems to require. See the image below. Also, explain the different end points I highlighted with the blue boxes here.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:


Therefore, your analysis is not only flawed...

....because you have not established fixed standards for drawing the lines ....

...but the lines, even if correctly drawn, could be skewed by the variations in suit manufacture.....

Oh, Goodness Gracious....I never knowed the situation was that bad!!!!

What am I gonna do?????




I know.......I'll juggle stuff.....

Much more about Astro's "findings", later...

 

[Astrophotographer]

Much more about Astro's "findings", later...

I am not sure what to make of the post. "Later" in Sweaty speak usually means never. You had plenty of time to compose this piece yet you could not answer the three specific questions about your analysis. That must mean you don't know what you are doing and your analysis is flawed because you can't explain the errors/inconsistencies in your lines. Go back to the kiddie room with your crayons sweaty. When you can produce a coherent argument and defend it, feel free to come back and present it.

 

[RayG]

I can only think that a person who thinks doing that is useful or effective is at least a little out of their heads.

Ever hear of a guy named Beckjord?

RayG

 

[Blackdog]

As always, Blackdog......you're spot on...

Thanks Sweety, nice of you to say.
In fact to show you some luv I'll fix it for you in case anyone missed it. I know you like to accentuate the positive.

As always, Blackdog......you're spot on...

As far as the rest of your post, I'll respond................................later.....

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

When you can produce a coherent argument and defend it, ....

Can you defend your argument, Astro....that what appears to be green-colored background foliage is actually part of Patty's head?...

Or, are you playing make-believe......or, perhaps, just being a complete idiot?


Can you support your "finding"?





Also....from my earlier post...a little something you're a little afraid of......


Astro wrote:

At first it is above the ear but then it is at the back of the head.

Now it has to be above the ear again.


Which is it?

Is it possible that the line I drew on Patty starts at a point which is BOTH...

1) On the 'back edge of Patty's head'

AND...

2) At a point located 'just above the ear'?


Is that possible, Astro?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey, Mr. Woofles!......which line more properly highlights the border of Patty's head......the blue line that Astro drew, or the red line that I drew?...

Can you help us figure it out, Mr. Woofles???!

You're the smartest guy around, Mr. Woofles!! You're ALWAYS right!! Aarf Aarf!!!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Can you defend your argument, Astro....that what appears to be green-colored background foliage is actually part of Patty's head?...

Yes. It is one of several things. One is a bright area on the film and the other is over processing of the image that has affected that part of the head. Remember the original image was probably only a few pixel across and it has been enlarged/processed and converted to various image types (jpeg/gif/tiff). This is going to produce artifacts and unusual shapes. As I stated, it makes no sense for a head to have such a right angle to it (see my red line). It might indicate a flaw in a costume but it is more than likely a processing artifact. You should be referring to it as a processing artifact because if it is real, it is indicative of a mask/suit flaw.

You still are avoiding my questions. Can you explain what you are doing and what it demonstrates? When you draw a line, you need two data points. You have given a vague standard for the first point. What is the second point by which you drew your lines?

Finally, why is the line for Bob in a suit's head not intersecting the ear? Why did your line parallel the back of his head? Why was it wrong for me to do that with "Bunny's" head?

Remember, this is your evidence and theory. I would think you could explain it clearly (i.e. identifying your data points for the lines) so everyone could follow and see if your work is valid. I also would think you could clearly explain what this is supposed to show.

Finally, unless the two figures are identically posed (i.e. head position, head tilt, etc.) then this kind of comparison based on a small scale is probably going to be severely flawed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Hey, Mr. Woofles!......which line more properly highlights the border of Patty's head......the blue line that Astro drew, or the red line that I drew?...

Why is your figure different than this one (not the sketch but the original)?

http://www.thepaintedcave.com/img/pete/sasketch/patty/patty.php

Then there is this one, note how the green really cuts into the head even more than yours:

http://bloggingexperiments.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/patterson_bigfoot.jpg

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Now, how about answering these questions:

1. What are your comparison drawings trying to demonstrate?

Maybe you'll catch on to it.....eventually, Astro. Keep trying....don't ever give up!

2. What is the standard for placing the upper point of your line?

Is it the back of the head or the ear?

Hold on to your hat, Astro........believe it or not.......it's......


BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you hear that, Wheezie??....Sweaty said 'BOTH'!! I heard it....but I sure don't get it!

I heard him, too, George....I got ears of my own, you know! I can dig what the dude is saying, though.....he's placing a point on a two-dimensional image, using 2 coordinates....one on a Y axis, and one on an X axis......it's simple geometry, George!

HUH??? What the hell you talkin' about Wheezie???......just dance, will ya?!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Maybe you'll catch on to it.....eventually, Astro. Keep trying....don't ever give up!

In other words, you do NOT have an answer. You did not satisfactorily answer the first two questions. How do you define your point on the head and why is the line on Bob's head not drawn through the ear the way "Bunny's" is?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

I would think you could explain it clearly (i.e. identifying your data points for the lines) so everyone could follow and see if your work is valid. I also would think you could clearly explain what this is supposed to show.

I'll get around to doing that, eventually.

Right now.....I'm attempting to show how absolutely meaningless, and idiotic your statements/analysis truly are.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Also....from my earlier post...a little something you're a little afraid of......


Astro wrote:

At first it is above the ear but then it is at the back of the head.

Now it has to be above the ear again.


Which is it?

Is it possible that the line I drew on Patty starts at a point which is BOTH...

1) On the 'back edge of Patty's head'

AND...

2) At a point located 'just above the ear'?


Is that possible, Astro?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Right now.....I'm attempting to show how absolutely meaningless, and idiotic your statements/analysis truly are.

"Attempting" is a good word for it. In your opinion they are meaningless and idiotic. However, I think they are perfectly valid and you have yet to demonstrate how you did your work so it can be duplicated. You are wasting everybody's time and just showing that you can't defend your work. It is your analysis that is meaningless since it is not being defended.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Astro wrote:



I'll get around to doing that, eventually.

Right now.....I'm attempting to show how absolutely meaningless, and idiotic your statements/analysis truly are.

You should be ashamed of yourself sweatyYeti.
really embarassing how you put your butt on your shoulders instead of answering the question.
could have looked less foolish if you had just said it was both, not one or another, or neither.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Also....from my earlier post...a little something you're a little afraid of....Is that possible, Astro?

Once again, identify the points you are using to draw your lines so we can figure out what you are doing. I am not afraid of anything but because you aren't explaining your methodology, we have no idea how to answer the question. Repeating the same statement over and over again is meaningless. I want you to demonstrate exactly how you drew your lines and then show me how you did the same thing with the Bob image. So far, you have only demonstrated that you appear to have used two different standards.

Stop stalling. Answer the questions.