The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

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, 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...

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

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

No. When I said this to you:

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.

And when I said this to you:

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.

Oops for you...

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

Chronic Ballzheimers.

Keep on dodging, Sweaty.

Here from post #1789 are the things you dodged because of your intellectual cowardice and ineffectual manner of attempting debate:

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.

You keep running away and dodging questions when literally everybody can plainly see that you do it blatantly. This is a serious question now. What kind of fools do you think would actually not see right through your silly games?

 

[kitakaze]

I have decided to bust out my seriously badass crayons again and lay it down Sweaty-style. Here is the true phase shifting abilities of the Infiltrators (Bigfoot) showcased for your shock and awe...

That blue line shows where the alternative outline might be. As you can see, the Infiltrator's (Bigfoot) shapechanging abilities are impressive. See how the cranial area literally expands while observing the stunned cowboys. This is actually due to transmissions being relayed to the mothership for instructions. You can see that instructions have been relayed and in the second image showing the Andy Capp profile that the Infiltrator (Bigfoot) has adopted a highly aerodynamic cranial profile so as to facilitate a greater cruising speed. It may be concealing some manner of particle weapon in the cargo pants pocket-like bulge. More research is needed.

 

[kitakaze]

This is actually an ability that Infiltrators (Bigfoot) have. It was something introduced from Reptoid genetic strains so as to allow poison acid vomit. Beware. This is reportedly more foul than their hallucinagenic flatulence abilities.

 

[JcR]

This is actually an ability that Infiltrators (Bigfoot) have. It was something introduced from Reptoid genetic strains so as to allow poison acid vomit. Beware. This is reportedly more foul than their hallucinagenic flatulence abilities.

ROFLMAOASTC!... That's Perfect. Genius!

This song popped into my head when I read that...

 

[kitakaze]

ROFLMAOASTC!... That's Perfect. Genius!

Oh yes, I think this may have been expected but I really must know what the last highlighted part there stands for. I was thinking "roll on the floor, laugh my ass off, and $#!% on the cat.

This song popped into my head when I read that...

That is very cool and highly appropriate. I love it. I would like to have that on vinyl so that I could really put it to work. Unfortunately, the music becomes very lighthearted. Interstellar war is a dealdy serious reality for the Infiltrators (Bigfoot). That is the purpose of their creations and their sole function. How would you like to be bred in a tube and then plopped down on some backwater world where you have to train constantly throw pinecones and junk at morbidly obsese weirdo outcast only to be ripped away into the mothership, programmed by some little grey almond eye douchebags, and then plopped down on Arcturius V to fight along side those smarmy Reptoids against some bug people with nothing to eat but rations of tree octopus?

With that seriousness and when one includes their phase shifting capabilities, I think this might be slightly more appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=Y9x1YbLEG7k

 

[JcR]

Oh yes, I think this may have been expected but I really must know what the last highlighted part there stands for. I was thinking "roll on the floor, laugh my ass off, and $#!% on the cat.



That is very cool and highly appropriate. I love it. I would like to have that on vinyl so that I could really put it to work. Unfortunately, the music becomes very lighthearted. Interstellar war is a dealdy serious reality for the Infiltrators (Bigfoot). That is the purpose of their creations and their sole function. How would you like to be bred in a tube and then plopped down on some backwater world where you have to train constantly throw pinecones and junk at morbidly obsese weirdo outcast only to be ripped away into the mothership, programmed by some little grey almond eye douchebags, and then plopped down on Arcturius V to fight along side those smarmy Reptoids against some bug people with nothing to eat but rations of tree octopus?

With that seriousness and when one includes their phase shifting capabilities, I think this might be slightly more appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=Y9x1YbLEG7k

And scaring the cat.

 

[kitakaze]

Oh, OK. Well, I suppose that could be fun, too...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

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.

Eeeeeh Gads.........Vort....I didn't realize placing a dot half-way between, and in-line with the eyes on an image was such a friggin' complicated thing.

Apparently...according to what you just posted....that dot placement is dependent on..

the pose of the subjects,

the scaling of the images,

whether someone just happens to thinks the 'area is a general area' or not.....and...

it's dependent on being done with precision (you're right, on that one. )


The way I see it....the dot is either in-line, or it isn't......it's either half-way between the eyes, or it isn't. It's only a question of 'precision'....and....whether or not that particular point on Bob's head is a point which can be reliably located on different pictures of him. And it can be......it's in-line with his eyes, which are very clearly visible in those images.
(In other words...the 'line across the eyes' is not a subjectively placed line....there's extremely little room for differing interpretations of where Bob's eyes...and the resultant line they form....are located.)

By placing a dot "between the eyes" on two different images, what guarantee do we have that the dots are precisely placed, proportionally speaking?

Again, like I said....it's a very simple matter. The upper dot is placed in-line with the eyes.

It's placement is not related to the 'proportions' of anything.

'Proportions' are determined after the dot placement, and the subsequent scaling of the 2 images.

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:

Originally Posted by Vortigern99
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.

The downward tilt of Bob's Vintage head introduces a small distortion, or error, into the comparison...but by no means does that small distortion make a comparison impossible....or even unconvincing.

All it means is that the small error needs a small corrective adjustment.


Tell you what, Vort.....you think what you want to think....and I'll think what I want to think. How's that sound??


I could, if I wanted to waste many more hours of my (limited) free-time, continue responding to every little objection you can concoct, and imagine, to a simple comparison.....but I'm not going to.

This is clearly a pursuit that's leading into an ever-thickening forest of BS trees.

 

[SweatyYeti]

No. When I said this to you:



And when I said this to you:



Here from post #1789 are the things you dodged because of your intellectual cowardice and ineffectual manner of attempting debate:



You keep running away and dodging questions when literally everybody can plainly see that you do it blatantly. This is a serious question now. What kind of fools do you think would actually not see right through your silly games?

Translation......


kitakaze....."Critical Thinker Extroardinaire"....got no explanations...no illustrations......no contributions.......regarding this little ditty...

And that, my friends.....is a GOOD thing!

 

[Astrophotographer]

kitakaze....."Critical Thinker Extroardinaire"....got no explanations...no illustrations......no contributions.......regarding this little ditty...

This little bit of nonsense has been debunked several times. If you are going to repost it without addressing the problems with it, then you are really are caught up in fantasy land. Say hello to Mickey and Donald while you are there.

 

[Vortigern99]

Eeeeeh Gads.........Vort....I didn't realize placing a dot half-way between, and in-line with the eyes on an image was such a friggin' complicated thing.

Apparently...according to what you just posted....that dot placement is dependent on..

the pose of the subjects,

the scaling of the images,

whether someone just happens to thinks the 'area is a general area' or not.....and...

it's dependent on being done with precision (you're right, on that one. )


The way I see it....the dot is either in-line, or it isn't......it's either half-way between the eyes, or it isn't. It's only a question of 'precision'....and....whether or not that particular point on Bob's head is a point which can be reliably located on different pictures of him. And it can be......it's in-line with his eyes, which are very clearly visible in those images.
(In other words...the 'line across the eyes' is not a subjectively placed line....there's extremely little room for differing interpretations of where Bob's eyes...and the resultant line they form....are located.)

Mr. Yeti, did you happen to read the part of my previous post(s) where I noted that lowering one's head lowers the eyeline in relation to the rest of the head? In Yeti-speak:

This means that your dot placement is WRONG.

Again, like I said....it's a very simple matter. The upper dot is placed in-line with the eyes.

It's placement is not related to the 'proportions' of anything.

Mr. Yeti, your dot placement is directly, inextricably related to the position and angle of the head in relation to the viewer and in relation to the other visible features of the subject. This is what "proportion" means. If you lower your head, as Bob has done in the 1966 pic, the eyeline drops, thereby affecting the placement of the dot. The dot is "between the eyes" but the eyeline has lowered, as has the relationship of the eyes to the chin. See above as I'm only repeating myself at this point.

'Proportions' are determined after the dot placement, and the subsequent scaling of the 2 images.

It's clear to me now that you simply don't understand what proportion actually means, or how changing the POV of the viewer changes perspective, or how shifting the position of a given body part changes the apparent proportions (=relationship between body parts in perspective). In the past, I've posted paragraphs of explanatory information from one of the best artists' anatomists around, the late Burne Hogarth, but all that elicited from you was an eyeroll and an expression of patent incomprehensibility. If you want to understand how these principles work, you can easily do the research yourself, without spending a dime and without my writing it out for you. But of course, your time is precious -- not precious enough to prevent your posting unsubstantiated, illogical and uninformed claims, but precious enough to prevent your doing actual research into the area you choose to comment on. Bravo. Way to excuse yourself from the social pressure to be intelligent and well-informed. You "don't have the time". Awesome. Applause and handshakes all around.

The downward tilt of Bob's Vintage head introduces a small distortion, or error, into the comparison...but by no means does that small distortion make a comparison impossible....or even unconvincing.

All it means is that the small error needs a small corrective adjustment.

'Kay. Go ahead and make that adjustment in your admitted error (at last!), and get back to us with the results.

Tell you what, Vort.....you think what you want to think....and I'll think what I want to think. How's that sound??

I could, if I wanted to waste many more hours of my (limited) free-time, continue responding to every little objection you can concoct, and imagine, to a simple comparison.....but I'm not going to.

This is clearly a pursuit that's leading into an ever-thickening forest of BS trees.

Uh-huh. I assume you're deriving this from an old Welsh proverb that says "If you regurgitate BS onto fertile ground, you will grow BS trees." This may be why you're finding the BS foliage to be BS ever-thickening from your BS POV.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

This little bit of nonsense has been debunked several times.

How about "adjusted"......or "corrected"???


The fact that nobody has yet to make any adjustments to the comparison is quite telling.

The BEST of the world's 'critical thinkers' can only stand around and hiss at it. (Like Vort just did. )

What a laugh!

 

[Vortigern99]

Please indicate what in the following salient quote constitutes "hissing":

Mr. Yeti, your dot placement is directly, inextricably related to the position and angle of the head in relation to the viewer and in relation to the other visible features of the subject. This is what "proportion" means. If you lower your head, as Bob has done in the 1966 pic, the eyeline drops, thereby affecting the placement of the dot. The dot is "between the eyes" but the eyeline has lowered, as has the relationship of the eyes to the chin. See above as I'm only repeating myself at this point.​

Also, are you unable to meet my request?:

Go ahead and make that adjustment in your admitted error (at last!), and get back to us with the results.​

 

[snoop_doxie]

Please indicate what in the following salient quote constitutes "hissing":

Mr. Yeti, your dot placement is directly, inextricably related to the position and angle of the head in relation to the viewer and in relation to the other visible features of the subject. This is what "proportion" means. If you lower your head, as Bob has done in the 1966 pic, the eyeline drops, thereby affecting the placement of the dot. The dot is "between the eyes" but the eyeline has lowered, as has the relationship of the eyes to the chin. See above as I'm only repeating myself at this point.​

Also, are you unable to meet my request?:

Go ahead and make that adjustment in your admitted error (at last!), and get back to us with the results.​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
The downward tilt of Bob's Vintage head introduces a small distortion, or error, into the comparison...but by no means does that small distortion make a comparison impossible....or even unconvincing.

All it means is that the small error needs a small corrective adjustment.

_______________________________________________________________

SweatyYeti,
surely, it would be child's play for you to make these small corrective adjustments in a flash. maybe you would get a new perspective.
is that possible?

 

[Astrophotographer]

The fact that nobody has yet to make any adjustments to the comparison is quite telling.

Hmmm.......DIdn't you read my post? I did adjust and scale it as best I could. End result, the heads are about the same and there is nothing to indicate Bob can not fit into the Bunny suit.

Still refusing to answer my questions?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Vortigern wrote:

Please indicate what in the following salient quote constitutes "hissing":

Mr. Yeti, your dot placement is directly, inextricably related to the position and angle of the head in relation to the viewer and in relation to the other visible features of the subject. This is what "proportion" means. If you lower your head, as Bob has done in the 1966 pic, the eyeline drops, thereby affecting the placement of the dot. The dot is "between the eyes" but the eyeline has lowered, as has the relationship of the eyes to the chin. See above as I'm only repeating myself at this point.

I wouldn't characterize that as 'hissing'.....but I would characterize this as hissing at the comparison...

You wrote:

....it distorts the linear perspective of the picture and makes comparison to another, non-downward tilted pic impossible, or at least unconvincing.

It's that type of analysis......(saying that comparisons are "impossible", "invalid", or "meaningless", when, in actual fact...all that is needed is a little tweaking, here or there)....that I'm refering to as 'hissing'.


While the comparison is not 100% accurate....there may still be a fair-to-high degree of accuracy to it, and hence....it would have meaning, and value.




Now.....having a little fun, with the subject of "accuracy"...

Here is a sampling of Astro's "finely-tuned assessments' of the degrees of accuracy/error in the comparisons I've posted in this thread........enjoy......



Post #43:

BTW, you still did not properly align other parts of the body (shoulders, arm angle, stoop, etc) and therefore your crayon drawings STILL are null and void.



Post #72:
If you do not align all the body points, the comparison is not valid.


Post #97:

Your argument above has not been proven to be correct. You provide no measurements to prove your point. Somebody made some measurements and found your argument to be false.


Post #1093:
BELIEVE all you desire but it is not a valid comparison.



Same Post....only stated more exquisitely.......


If you can't prove it using something other than crayons, then your claim is false.


Post #1133:
Your comparisons are invalid and therefore you are wrong.


Post #1146:
...your analyses are flawed for various reasons


Post #1151:
you are wrong because your comparisons are wrong.



Post #1152....Astro employs the dreaded..."double-zinger"......

People have clearly showed how flawed each of your analyses are wrong.


Post #1243:
Still playing with crayons Sweaty? Your argument fails because you are now switching things about.


Post #1258

you are trying to deceive everyone with your image comparisons. They are invalid.


Post #1275:

It is simple. Your lines are inaccurate. They form a rapid taper at the top of "Bunny's" head. You have no idea what kind of tapering occurs on this two dimensional image. Views from the side indicate the point is in the back of the head and not towards the front. Therefore, your drawing lines are invalid.


Same post:
This is where you continue to fail in your subjective line drawings


Post #1507:
Actually, your lines are not correct.


Same Post....

Each time you raised an issue, I have demonstrated that your issues are false...


Post #1512:
Bob outside the suit is not a valid comparison.



Post #1723:
Your little gif file is invalid for the very reasons stated already


Post #1746:

The end result, is your analysis can not be replicated by others and therefore, it is invalid.


Post #1777:

The fact is your original image was flawed, which makes it invalid.



Dang, dang.....a thousand times "Dang"!!!!!!

NO valid comparisons, for me!!!
Dang...and Fiddlesticks!



Oh.....one last word, from Astro.......


"I find that rather funny because I was doing something similar a few months ago. I was putting together all my old Navy slides/negatives into digital format. I kept looking at the pics and remembering some very significant events. However, I had a devil of a time remembering details and names. It took a lot of emails and checking with old buddies to figure stuff out.
Does this mean Bob gets a free pass? No.....

However, it does give me an understanding when he makes small errors."

 

[Astrophotographer]

You know after all that, all I could figure out is that everybody agrees that Sweaty's crayon lines are improper. Now that you go that off your mind, can you answer the bigfoot questions you keep refusing to answer. Remember you were the one who stated you never refused to answer a bigfoot question. Apparently, you're writing checks you can't cash.

 

[makaya325]

I want to know if anyone is familiar with these pictures of Heironimus and Morris? Is there anyway to increase the resolution of these 2 images so that we can compare them to patty?





Thanks

 

[snoop_doxie]

makaya,

do you have a link for those photos?
i would love to read about the circumstances.

thank you

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I want to know if anyone is familiar with these pictures of Heironimus and Morris? Is there anyway to increase the resolution of these 2 images so that we can compare them to patty?

Thanks

No .

You're Welcome