• 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.
makaya325 said:
Where is the link to the video? Does it even exist? Was it ever considered that Paul Freeman LATER faked tracks after getting impatient since the finding of the real ones?
Click to expand...
I can't believe you're insulting the late Mike Dennett.

But seriously.

What does that even mean? "Getting impatient since finding the real ones" - is that some kind of justification for hoaxing? How could you be sure the "real ones" you saw weren't also the fakes of an impatient believer?

Wowzer.
 
makaya325 said:
It was not "Buffalo hair". It was Synthetic fiber that was LIKELY a contaminent of the environment.
Click to expand...

Radford was correcting me.

He was talking about the case with Dynel fiber.

I was talking about the case where the drunk guys saw bigfoot and found bison hair.

Two entirely different cases - both ending up as non-primate.
 
I can't believe you're insulting the late Mike Dennett.
Click to expand...

I am not insulting him. I am questioning his claims concerning freeman



What does that even mean? "Getting impatient since finding the real ones" - is that some kind of justification for hoaxing? How could you be sure the "real ones" you saw weren't also the fakes of an impatient believer?
Click to expand...

I am just considering another possibility, a rather unlikely one. This is No mean to
 
doctoratlantis said:
Are you suggesting Bigfoot has carpeting?
Click to expand...


No, of course not........BOB has carpeting...;)...


BobtheFurball.jpg
 
kitakaze wrote:
1,2,3, Sweaty.
Click to expand...


1) Different head positions, angles, distances from cameras, and perspectives.



'Different head positions'....what precisely do you mean by 'positions'???
Can you specify?


'angles'.....the slight differences in angles can be quantified, and highlighted. I'll do that.


'distances from cameras'.....irrelevant.

Any difference in that distance can be adjusted for simply be re-scaling the image sizes.
It doesn't change the proportions of their heads.




2) Why only one eye dot under the red scribbles? Try making two dots on Bob's eyes and then scaling down the image so that the dots approximate where Pattys's eyes would be. Mind you, it's still flawed because the heads are still in different positions so the eye positions will be affected.


The 'eyes' have it...:)...


PBHeadCompAG4.gif



The dot on Patty's left eye doesn't line-up exactly where it should be....but it's off by only a slight amount.

The heads aren't 100% accurately aligned....but that doesn't mean the 'degree of accuracy' is 0%.
The differences in 'positions', and 'angles' are minimal....and should be able to be measured, and estimated pretty accurately.

Also, I can put together additional gifs....with re-adjusted images, to make the comparison even more accurate.


I've already mentioned that I'll be putting together another animated-gif, with Bob's image downsized to the point where his head just fits inside Patty's head....and also include a 'body-size comparison' with it.




3) No answer to the questions in post #1728 of Astro's which have been hanging there for days, hey, Slippery?


Not yet.




#4 Shows that Bob's head fits within Patty's and that Patty is of normal human stature. Please don't ignore 1,2,3. You're not afraid, are you?
Click to expand...


Sadly....Number 4 doesn't show, or demonstrate where the error is in this comparison...



PBHeadCompAG3.gif




Does it? Yes....or no???
 
Astro wrote:
And I proved you wrong by measuring Bunny's forehead. It was larger than Bob's.

If you have a specific spot that makes Bunny's forehead narrower, feel free to show us.
Click to expand...


GAZE into the spot/bunch-of-spots in-beeeeeeeeeeeetweeeeeeeeeeen the blue lines, Astro.......where the red line is, to be more preeeeeeeeeecise......and you will (well, actually, you probably won't see it, but others will! :) )....seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the part of Patty's head which is smaaaaaaaaaaaaalleeeeeeeeer....naaaaaaarooooooooooweeeeeeer......more poooooooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiinty-ish......than Bob's.......head...


PattyHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
The differences in 'positions', and 'angles' are minimal....and should be able to be measured, and estimated pretty accurately
Click to expand...

I did measure these and gave you those values. Dr. Atlantis's gif shows this to be true (the eyes are tilted more and they are not in the same position as Bob's indicating improper scaling and improper alignment). When you scale Bunny to the correct dimension, the head's line up pretty close. Considering the small scale of Bunny's original image, I think it demonstrates you can not rule out the Bob's head may be in a mask in the Bunny image.
 
SweatyYeti said:
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PattyHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Image debunked long ago and you did not respond to it. Now you bring it up a second time. Go back to where I demonstrated your lines were not properly setup.

Here is the original statements I made:
The line for Bunny's forehead is not at the appropriate angle. It is not parrallel to the eyes the way Bob's is. When you correct for the angle of the eyes and scaling, the length of the red line is 53 for Bob and 50 for "Bunny". A three pixel difference is not that significant as far as measurements go. It is a fraction of an inch. However, there is more to this.

We then have the arbitrary blue lines used for the end points. The middle line does not converge to the point in the back of "Bunny's" head. It heads to a point about 4-5 pixels to the right. If you shift this to the left, we suddenly have Bunny's red line slightly longer than Bob's.



No measurements AGAIN?
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
Image debunked long ago and you did not respond to it. Now you bring it up a second time. Go back to where I demonstrated your lines were not properly setup.

No measurements AGAIN?
Click to expand...



Sorry, Astro....can't help you there.

You think that Patty's head is larger than Bob's......good for you! You're the only one! :)


I'll continue posting these lined-images, and comparisons! :D
 
SweatyYeti said:
Show us.
Click to expand...

When scaled properly, the red line you have in your flawed drawing comes out to 59 pixels. On Bob's head, the equivalent line is 58. Sorry if you are disappointed with no animated GIF. I am not interested in the crayon line approach. The fact is your original image was flawed, which makes it invalid.
 
SweatyYeti said:
You think that Patty's head is larger than Bob's......good for you! You're the only one!
Click to expand...

Hmmm.......I put it to a vote in the list. Has anyone seen any evidence presented by Sweaty or anybody else that proves that Bob's head is too big to fit into Bunny's (AKA Patty) head? I would love to see the evidence if it has been proven to be so.

As for "thinking", I don't think about something that should be able to be determined and quantified. I actually measure it and see if it is true. My measurements continue to indicate that the heads of Bunny and Bob have very similar meausrements. Therefore, it is not possible to definitively state that Bob can not be Bunny based on the size/shape of the head.
 
Assuming, for a moment that Bill is correct, wouldn't that make PATTY's head frikkin huge? Would an argument that Bob's head couldn't fit be in fact silly? Because now Patty's head is so large, that of course Bob's head could fit.

Perhaps Bill Munns is trying to prove Sweaty wrong with his Munns report.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom