The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[doctoratlantis]

Orly

.....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.

Are you sure?

Look at the size of Patty's mouth?? These pictures are neither lined up nor are they to scale.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote

Keep trying... or don't, since it's pointless.

I will keep analysin'. But, thanks for the suggestion, anyway, Vort....I appreciate it.


I'll respond to your 'counter-analysis' later....either tonight, or tomorrow.

 

[I Am He]

Why? Do you have to buy some more crayons, Yeti??


I Am He

 

[wolftrax]

Are you suggesting Bigfoot has carpeting?

:lol: Or wears a fake fur suit?

Wait, Freeman had a video of a squatch (or somebody in a fake fur suit) didn't he?

 

[kitakaze]

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......

~later~



I think I'll watch my fingernails grow...

 

[kitakaze]

I will keep analysin'.

Read "flailing".

Tell us, Sweaty. What is the science in your analysis? What are the scientific principals and methodology being used and more importantly how have you executed error elimination in that data?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Read "flailing".

Tell us, Sweaty. What is the science in your analysis?

What are the scientific principals and methodology being used........?

"HA HA HA....HO HO HO.....And a couple of "LA - TI - DA's"....
That's HOW we laugh the "analysis".....

..... away......in the Merry Ol' Land of Rand!"


Explain to me.....OH, ONE WHO THINKS 'CRITICALLY'........... the "science" behind taking 'background foliage'...outlining it...and calling it "part of Patty's head"?????

As Astro actually did...

Bring me that little "broomstick", kitakaze....and then I'll tell you what science I've used in my comparisons.

 

[kitakaze]

Explain to me.....OH, ONE WHO THINKS 'CRITICALLY'......... the "science" behind taking 'background foliage'...outlining it...and calling it "part of Patty's head"?????
As Astro actually did...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Fun/Doofus3.jpg[/qimg]



Bring me that little "broomstick", kitakaze....and then I'll tell you what science I've used in my comparisons.

No, I asked you a simple question. Astro is quite capable of answering any question you have regarding any exchange you have with him. I've already given you what you've asked for and got nothing more than the "later" that you spit out when you have nothing.

Again, what is the scientific principles and methodology used in your analyses and what measures do you use to eliminate erroneous data?

Any chance we'll get some answers to Astro's questions? Any chance you you don't ignore essential parts of post for quibbles and bits? Any chance you might actually have an effective and topical rebuttal for the video I linked?

I doubt it very much. I think your critical thinking skills are far too impaired by a fanatical will to believe to do easy stuff like that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

You're placing dots subjectively again, and inaccurately scaling the pics as a result.

Can you elaborate on exactly what you're refering to, as being "subjective"?
There are two different ways of interpreting what you mean, in that statement.

Do you mean where I located the 'bottom of the chin', or, just the fact that I chose to use the 'bottom of the chin'??

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.

Can you elaborate on what you mean, or possibly illustrate what you mean....with respect to how it affects the accuracy of the comparison??

Also, the word "narrow" refers to horizontal width, not vertical height.

I'm well aware of that, Vort.

In that comparison, with the 2 white dots.....those dots were simply used to scale the images to each other....after which, the proportions of Bob's heads could then be compared, both vertically and horizontally.


I never said (or implied) that those 2 points, and the 'vertical dimension' they measure, indicate the width of Bob's head.

 

[kitakaze]

Vintage Bob's head there measures 4.6 cm from top to bottom. Mod Bob's head measures 4.1 cm even though his mouth is slightly open and he's quite a bit fatter and saggier now.

I have just used Sweaty logic to show that Vintage Bob's head could not possibly fit physically into Mod Bob's head and that Bob Heironimus is some inhuman alien skinjob.

 

[I Am He]

Can you elaborate on exactly what you're refering to, as being "subjective"?
There are two different ways of interpreting what you mean, in that statement.

Do you mean where I located the 'bottom of the chin', or, just the fact that I chose to use the 'bottom of the chin'??






Can you elaborate on what you mean, or possibly illustrate what you mean....with respect to how it affects the accuracy of the comparison??






I'm well aware of that, Vort.

In that comparison, with the 2 white dots.....those dots were simply used to scale the images to each other....after which, the proportions of Bob's heads could then be compared, both vertically and horizontally.


I never said (or implied) that those 2 points, and the 'vertical dimension' they measure, indicate the width of Bob's head.

Jeez Yeti, you would of made Gene Kelly envious of those dance steps you're doing.


I Am He

 

[Astrophotographer]

As Astro actually did...

Explain this Sweaty. This is the same image (left side image) but it does not show that right angle cut into Bunny's head:

http://www.visualmediastudios.com/Images/Sasquatch%20Art/compare%20stamp01.jpg

Why does this image, which appears to be a higher resolution scan than the one you are using, show that the "background foliage" is actually part of the head?

You are still refusing to answer any of my bigfoot questions. It appears that the claim you made that you do not refuse to answer such questions is false. However, everybody pretty much knew you weren't be very honest to begin with when you made that statement.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

No, I asked you a simple question.

I've already given you what you've asked for....

Really???

You mean when you said this to me...

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?

Again....all you did was to replace one vague, unexplained and undemonstrated term..."positions".....with two undemonstrated, unexplained....and vague terms..."situations"...( )...and "postures".



Re-capping...

You stated that Patty's and Bob's heads are in "different positions (situations ...postures)" in this comparison...

How so? Where is the difference...and what is the extent of that difference??

 

[SweatyYeti]

Explain this Sweaty. This is the same image (left side image) but it does not show that right angle cut into Bunny's head:

http://www.visualmediastudios.com/Images/Sasquatch%20Art/compare%20stamp01.jpg

Why does this image, which appears to be a higher resolution scan than the one you are using, show that the "background foliage" is actually part of the head?

To me, the head shape looks very nearly the same, in the image you just linked to...

For comparison....here are 2 versions of the image I've been using...

By increasing the color level, the distinction between the background foliage and Patty becomes more distinct.....therefore, in effect, the resolution is increased.

The image you posted doesn't have as clear a distinction....at least at the upper part of the head....between Patty's head and the background, as the colored image does.

 

[Astrophotographer]

By increasing the color level, the distinction between the background foliage and Patty becomes more distinct.....therefore, in effect, the resolution is increased.

You can not "increase resolution" by increasing the color level. You are just exaggerating the problems with the original scan.

 

[SweatyYeti]

You can not "increase resolution" by increasing the color level. You are just exaggerating the problems with the original scan.

Patty's coloring is quite different from the background foliage's coloring.


If you can't tell the difference, Astro...then you're blind.


OH...I forgot.....you can't tell the difference....

...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

To me, the head shape looks very nearly the same, in the image you just linked to...

or comparison....here are 2 versions of the image I've been using...

By increasing the color level, the distinction between the background foliage and Patty becomes more distinct.....therefore, in effect, the resolution is increased.

The image you posted doesn't have as clear a distinction....at least at the upper part of the head....between Patty's head and the background, as the colored image does.

_

What happened to ' flathead ' ?

_

Who's blind ?

 

[Astrophotographer]

If you can't tell the difference, Astro...then you're blind.

If you want to stick with an image that indicates the person in the suit is wearing a loose fitting helmet of some kind that does not sit squarely on the head, that is just fine with me.

You still refuse to answer my original questions about this image. What were you trying to prove with your lines and why were your lines drawn differently on Bob than on Bunny?

 

[JcR]

 

[Vortigern99]

You're placing dots subjectively again, and inaccurately scaling the pics as a result.

Can you elaborate on exactly what you're refering to, as being "subjective"?
There are two different ways of interpreting what you mean, in that statement.

Do you mean where I located the 'bottom of the chin', or, just the fact that I chose to use the 'bottom of the chin'??

I mean you're placing the points in general areas without precision in improperly scaled, incompatibly posed pics. By placing a dot "between the eyes" on two different images, what guarantee do we have that the dots are precisely placed, proportionally speaking? In one image, the subject is looking down; his face is angled away from the viewer, as you've correctly noted. This changes the position of the eyeline and of every feature of the face. Note how much longer the nose looks in the 1966 pic, how much closer to the base of the nose are the lips. This is a result of the downward tilt, and it distorts the linear perspective of the picture and makes comparison to another, non-downward tilted pic impossible, or at least unconvincing. I already said:

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.

Can you elaborate on what you mean, or possibly illustrate what you mean....with respect to how it affects the accuracy of the comparison??

Did you do as I suggested? As I tell my drawing students, you're your own best model. Simply place the tip of a finger between your eyes. That's the 2005 pic, full frontal view, and your finger is the white dot. Now lower your head while keeping your finger stationary. The white dot, ie Your fingertip, is now somewhere on your forehead. This is the 1966 pic: downward tilt view. Do you understand? The eyelines are on different planes, as are all the features of the face. The comparison is inherently flawed, since if we try to match them up the dots won't be in the same place proportionate to the rest of the head. This is why kitikaze got the measurements he did: the 1966 pic had to be up-sized to match the dot placement. It's bigger than the 2005 pic. Is any of this getting through?

Also, the word "narrow" refers to horizontal width, not vertical height.

I'm well aware of that, Vort.

In that comparison, with the 2 white dots.....those dots were simply used to scale the images to each other....after which, the proportions of Bob's heads could then be compared, both vertically and horizontally.


I never said (or implied) that those 2 points, and the 'vertical dimension' they measure, indicate the width of Bob's head.

Got it. And I hope by now you've "got" that the pics are not scaled properly, the 1966 pic is bigger than the 2005 pic because of the lowered eyeline and resulting erroneous dot placement.