The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[doctoratlantis]

[qimg]http://www.monstertalk.org/not-going-to-scale-due-to-angles.gif[/qimg]

Just to sort of highlight the problem here - the faces look similar in their orientation once flipped, but there is still enough difference that you can't get those red lines to accurately line up. And the only features we can be pretty sure are Bob's (if he's in the suit) are the eyes. The other features could be exaggerated due to applied prosthetics.

See how the mouth's too big on Bob? Chances are that the whole head would be larger than Bob's head.

Just look at how much of Bob's left shoulder suit is visible in the brown/red version. These two are not good matches for this kind of comparison.

DOH! We should have been trying to match the SUIT head to PATTY'S head - not Bob's to Patty's. Now I'll have to do the whole thing over.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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.

Nahh....according to Sweaty's analysis, Bunny is massive and huge but has a pea sized braincase. He is going to next demonstrate that when HE scales Bunny with the head the same size as Bob (and I am sure we will be able to demonstrate the scaling is off), that the body proportions will be all wrong. That being the arms will be too long, the legs to large/short, and other assorted appendages too big.....

Through the dozens of drawings Sweaty has presented, I have yet to see one that convincingly shows that the head of Bunny is too small or Bob's is too big. Everytime I scale them, the dimensions always come out to be about the same (give or take a few pixels). The differences are so small that it can easily be attributed to the resolution of the film(s) and improper positioning of the figures so that the heads are not exactly in the same position.

This is something Sweaty does not want to recognize. If you turn Bunny's head a dozen or so degrees towards the camera, the comparison with his Bob image is more applicable. Having two different profiles makes it almost impossible to get an accurate measurement or representation of various head features in these two-dimensional images.

I predict the next argument of sweaty is that even though the heads are about the same size, Bunny's head is more pointy and therefore Bob can not fit into the suit. Same old record skipping on the same old tune.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

No problem, Astro. I'm very pleased that you cannot demonstrate a single thing you're saying.

Keep up the lame work!


As for your 'numbers'.....I can show that they're meaningless, with regards to what I've been talking about.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Keep up the lame work! .

This coming from somebody who can't scale images properly or understand three dimensions. Gee Sweaty, I am so hurt. Still waiting for your answers.

 

[kitakaze]

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

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

Yes, I can. The posture and situation of the head and bodies are not the same.

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

Oh, yes. By all means, please do that. Please do provide some measurements to quantify in angles. Please provide solid data to show that your scribbles have any emperical value as evidence.

'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.

Oh dear, have you properly scaled these images? Yes or no.

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......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PBHeadCompAG4.gif[/qimg]

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.

This is a double-facepalm, elbows on the table. It's hard to believe you can't see how remarkably stupid what you written is. Your comparison is completely invalid. Improperly scaled, not the same positions or angles, 3D question to 2D gobbledy-gook scribbles. So simple - two dots on Bob's eyes reposition and scale them to fit Patty's eye and see what you've got. This latest round of yours is one of the dumbest I've seen yet. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel these days, ol' Sweaty.

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

[/COLOR]Not yet.

No, of course not. 25 laughing dogs, nuh-uhs, running away, and doing the hustle is so much more important than addressing drop-dead easy questions from Asto for anyone who isn't an intellectual coward.

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

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/PBHeadCompAG3.gif[/qimg]

Does it? Yes....or no???

No, #4 doesn't highlight the specific flaw with your fool comparison. It does show with simplicity that it's gobbledy-gook but the specifics are what is covered by 1,2,3.

Oops for you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

1) Different head positions...

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

Can you specify?

Yes, I can...
The posture and situation of the head and bodies are not the same.

Apparently, you didn't understand the purpose of my question, kitty.


I am asking you to provide a detailed explanation....or to demonstrate (highlight).....specifically, and precisely, what the differences are in the "positions" of the heads.

(The positions of the 'bodies' doesn't matter, as long as the subject's heads are turned so that they're facing the camera with essenially the same 'angle of view'.)


Alll you did was substitute one vague term.....'positions'....with two terms, one of which ('situations') is even more vague than the word 'positions'.

As for the term 'posture'.....can you explain, in detail, exactly what the difference is, in their 'postures'?




Again...same question, but an expanded, more specific version...

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

Can you provide a more specific, and detailed explanation of exactly what you are refering to?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Bunny's head is not turned towards the camera as much as Bob's. I can't quantify it for you, but the difference appears to be on the order of 10 degrees or so (this is a guess by just looking at it). This causes the observer to see more of the back of bunny's head and less of the opposite side. As a result, when you attempt to show comparison's the head position skews the result. It is a 3D thing, which usually is not your specialty.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't think I'd go above a C-, for 2D either...

 

[kitakaze]

Apparently, you didn't understand the purpose of my question, kitty.

Oh dear, I know this is heady stuffy, Sweaty, but I understood the question perfectly fine. The question was "'Different head positions'....what precisely do you mean by 'positions'??? Can you specify?"

The answer was "Yes, I can... The posture and situation of the head and bodies are not the same."

Thus I explained to you exactly what I meant by "positions". Your inability to grasp that simple and clear explanation is of trivial importance to me. I really don't care if you can't reconcile it with your wee head problem.

I am asking you to provide a detailed explanation....or to demonstrate (highlight).....specifically, and precisely, what the differences are in the "positions" of the heads.

1) Oops for you, now you're asking me for something different from what you originally asked for.

2) Who gives a flying hog what you're asking for now? You've dodged and ignored everything in my previous post except the very first comment. The Ballzheimers is getting worse, you know.

3) What you are asking from me is exactly that thing you said you could do but didn't...

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

You get right on those measurements we're all waiting for. Don't forget to specify how you are making the measurements so we can all check for ourselves.

And you ignored my question about your scaling...

'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.

Again, have you properly scaled these images? Yes or no.

(The positions of the 'bodies' doesn't matter, as long as the subject's heads are turned so that they're facing the camera with essenially the same 'angle of view'.)

But they're not. You are definitely having a wee head problem here.

Alll you did was substitute one vague term.....'positions'....with two terms, one of which ('situations') is even more vague than the word 'positions'.

Oops for you. I exactly specified what the word "positions" meant in the context of the situation. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.

As for the term 'posture'.....can you explain, in detail, exactly what the difference is, in their 'postures'?

Ah, another request. Sure thing, ol' Sweaty. We'll just do this tit for tat to ensure fairness of participation. You go ahead and answer what I have already specified and I will in return answer what you are requesting now. Isn't that nice and simple? That way you don't get to play any evasion games and we have a good, clean debate.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze.....aka...."Sir Rants-a-lot"....wrote:

2) Who gives a flying hog what you're asking for now?

You've dodged and ignored everything in my previous post except the very first comment.

kitakaze got no explanations.......no demonstrations........no contributions.


But that's O.K., I'll happily contribute to the analysis,

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

While kitty is helpless to show where the errors are in my direct comparisons....I can demonstrate....highlight.......the errors/distortions in his in-direct comparisons.


The 'Third-Party' Skeletons have arms (and other limbs) of unequal lengths......hence....distortion....error.....in-equality...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty and Bob/FF22.jpg

Please do not hotlink.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

On the other hand....in this wonderful, direct-o-mundo comparison....


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty and Bob/PBHeadCompAG3.gif


.....Nobody, including

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility

has been able to show where there is a significant error, or distortion, which could cause the upper-half of Bob's head (above the eyes) to falsely appear larger than Patty's.


While there is some, very small, 'degree of error' in the comparison....relating to head angles....I don't think the differences are nearly enough to make a significant change in the comparison, and hence....the result....'Bob's head appears too large to fit inside Patty's head'.


I'll do a few more comparisons, with Bob's head down-sized....and see what that shows.

 

[Astrophotographer]

.....Nobody, including the King of Babble-On, has been able to show where there is a significant error, or distortion, which could cause the upper-half of Bob's head (above the eyes) to falsely appear larger than Patty's.

False claim. I demonstrated a few posts back that there was improper scaling and that the rotation was not correct (post 1738 and post 1777). Dr. Atlantis even demonstrated it with an animated GIF. PLUS you do not discuss the rotation of the head. All these add up to an invalid comparison.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I felt it necessary to play Sweaty's little game and post an image to show how wrong Sweaty is. This is a rescaled and rotated image of the animated GIF that Dr. Atlantis posted (which was Sweaty's little GIF with the eyes, mouth and nose drawn in). I then used the "Sweaty method" of graphing the top of the head with some lines that APPEAR to follow the head contour. These lines are VERY similar to what Sweaty did some time ago except I corrected some of his errors (not going to the point of the back of the head on the left line for Bunny being one of them). Finally, I drew three red lines across the top of the head at various positions to see what I would get for measurements. Line 1 is at the bottom of the head closest to the eyes.

The results were interesting but what I would expect:


Line 1 Bunny 69 pixels Bob 65 pixels
Line 2 Bunny 57 pixels Bob 55 pixels
Line 3 Bunny 47 pixels Bob 45 pixels

Now there are issues with this I understand and have mentioned previously. I was attempting the Sweaty methodology here, which means we are just picking points and drawing lines. Sweaty may argue with line #3 for Bunny simply because it went past the blue line. The lines were for reference when I did the measurements. I did not measure the actual lines but the distance between the blue. I also expect that there is some measurement errors involved. So I don't consider these values exact but approximates. What they do show is that the head of Bob is slightly smaller or the same size as Bunny. Even if Sweaty or somebody else gets a 1-2 pixel larger measurement for Bob, it can easily fall into the range of measurement error. Therefore, these images can not prove that Bob is not Bunny by measuring/comparing head sizes.

I am sure Sweaty is going to squeal about something insignificant (that I did not meausre the correct slope or something like that). However, the values are so close that any strange marking he makes is not going to affect the general idea that Bob's head is about the same size as Bunny's.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just an edit to my previous post. I made the pixel measurements rather crudely using MS Paint. I decided to check them with Adobe PS when I got home and discovered they were in error (not significantly). The refined values are:

Line 1 Bunny 67 pixels Bob 64 pixels
Line 2 Bunny 55 pixels Bob 55 pixels
Line 3 Bunny 45 pixels Bob 43 pixels

Sweaty probably gets all excited about line 2. Again, measurement error, placement of lines, projection of where we think the slope of the head is located, rotation of the head towards the camera, etc. etc. plays a role in this. So far, nothing to indicate Bunny's head is too small or Bob's head is too big.

 

[kitakaze]

While kitty is helpless to show where the errors are in my direct comparisons....I can demonstrate....highlight....the errors/distortions in his in-direct comparisons.


The 'Third-Party' Skeletons have arms (and other limbs) of unequal lengths......hence....distortion....error.....in-equality...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/FF22.jpg[/qimg]

Oops for you...

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

Chronic Ballzheimers.

Keep on dodging, Sweaty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I downloaded neltana's movie...and I'll check it out later, to see what I can see....regardng what it supposedly shows.


In the meantime.....feel free to Rant a bit......

 

[William Parcher]

Here's another BH head to play with.

 

[Vortigern99]

I guess it's time for me to point out, for approximately the 37th time, that lens sizes in both the camera and the developer will affect the apparent width and length of a given object. Compression during the scanning processes (which got those images into a computer) can, will and does further affect apparent width and length.

This effect can easily be seen in the pics of Bob H that WP posted above. Bob in 1966 has a considerably narrower head, proportionally speaking, than Bob H in 2006. Part of this might be due to aging (most of us tend to swell up a bit in the cranial/facial region), but it is largely a product of the differences in lens sizes among the various photographic steps that got us those images.

So Mr. Yeti may posit imaginative comparisons of supposed head size all the live long day, but without knowing the specific lens sizes of all the equipment used, we cannot properly scale them one to the other and so construct a convincing argument about them.

Also, for the 132nd time, the skeletal comparisons Mr. Yeti enjoys posting so much have different apparent lengths in the humerus owing to the rules of perspective and foreshortening. The above-mentioned lens size issue, and the angle of the viewer in both pics, also affect the apparent lengths to a degree that any comparison among or between them is pretty much worthless.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Thanks for pointing it out again Vort. I seemed to have forgot to mention several of the issues you just repeated for the umpteenth time. Do you really think Sweaty is going to pay attention?

 

[SweatyYeti]

I guess it's time for me to point out, for approximately the 37th time, that lens sizes in both the camera and the developer will affect the apparent width and length of a given object. Compression during the scanning processes (which got those images into a computer) can, will and does further affect apparent width and length.


This effect can easily be seen in the pics of Bob H that WP posted above.

Bob in 1966 has a considerably narrower head, proportionally speaking, than Bob H in 2006.

Actually....not so considerably......


Here are those two pictures of Bob, straightened up....and scaled to match....using two points, highlighted with white dots...

Proportionally.....their heads are no different, or, at the most, there's an insignificant difference.

The number of pixels (vertically) between the white dots is about 76 on 1966 Bob, and about 79 on 2006 Bob. I gave 2006 Bob a few more pixels, because his mouth is opened slightly.


The '1966 Vintage' head appears to have a greater 'overall vertical height' to it, because his head is tilted down somewhat.

So Mr. Yeti may posit imaginative comparisons of supposed head size all the live long day, but without knowing the specific lens sizes of all the equipment used, we cannot properly scale them one to the other and so construct a convincing argument about them.

Well.....that imaginative comparison


of 'Bob with Bob' sure seems to match-up very well...despite all the differences...


Different years...

Different cameras...

Different lenses...

Different distances from camera-to-subject...

Different high tides in Peurto Rico...

Different digital compressions/processing...

Etc....

Part of this might be due to aging ...... but it is largely a product of the differences in lens sizes among the various photographic steps that got us those images.

Or, part of the "difference" just might be from a "will to believe".



Edited to add:

Patty....straightened-up, too.....for future use...

 

[Vortigern99]

You're placing dots subjectively again, and inaccurately scaling the pics as a result. Owing to the downward tilt of the head in the 1966 pic, the point between the eyes will be lower than the same point on a more straightforward view. You can test this for yourself, with your own head, by placing the tip of a finger between your eyes, then lowering your head while keeping your finger stationary. Your fingertip will now be somewhere on your forehead, even though you haven't moved it at all. See how that works? The point between the eyes drops as the head tilts downward. Ergo, your pics are improperly scaled.

Also, the word "narrow" refers to horizontal width, not vertical height. Keep trying... or don't, since it's pointless.