The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

The western, uninhabited portion....We have bear, moose, coyote...no Bigfoot though. He seems to live east of here, according to BFRO sighting reports.

Don't forget the Apple Farms....and the beautiful scenery. Don't want to leave those out!

I've driven through there, a few times, along the Mohawk Trail. Very nice area.

I haven't visited the famed Bridgewater Triangle , but the population density of that section of the state is about 10 times what it is here (see Avatar on map).

Strangely, the big guy prefers to stay out east. I wonder if it is because Loren Coleman used to live there. After all, what would a crypto-creature be without a good press agent? (Ask the Dover Demon, Loren lived one town over from there!)


I find it curious that the reported Bigfoot sightings are all out east. I suppose that is where all the people are...a necessary condition of a Bigfoot sighting. I just wouldn't think that would be where the Bigfeetuses are (perhaps not a necessary component of a Bigfoot sighting).

That's an interesting Sighting Map....but I don't put any credence in any of the Bigfoot sightings in the Eastern half of the state.
Mainly because the ratio of sighting reports to population density is so extreme...that I think it's simply a matter of the 'occasional prankster'.

Given enough people....there'll always be someone making some 'off-beat' claim...including...but not limited to....Bigfoot.



As for the "Bridgewater Triangle"......don't worry, you ain't missin' much! I've lived right next to it, all my life...(only about 50 years )..and driven all around it...and I haven't seen or heard anything strange yet. (I did see a porch light flickering very strangely....once.....but I think it was just a loose bulb. )

Oh...need to drag this back to the content of this thread....um...wait, there really isn't any content anymore, is there?

I didn't have time, earlier today at work, to respond to what you said in your earlier post...

Did I miss a link here? I want to see this real, physical object! Those are my favorite kind of physical object...real ones.

No, you didn't miss a link. I haven't posted anything from my "real, physical object" demonstration, yet.


I should have time later tonight to post an animated gif. Stay tuned.......

 

[neltana]

That's an interesting Sighting Map....but I don't put any credence in any of the Bigfoot sightings in the Eastern half of the state.
Mainly because the ratio of sighting reports to population density is so extreme...that I think it's simply a matter of the 'occasional prankster'.

Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a Bridgewater Bigfoot supporter. It is just an aspect of "bigfootery" I find particularly amusing. Not super-apropos in our Bob H. discussion.

No, you didn't miss a link. I haven't posted anything from my "real, physical object" demonstration, yet.

I should have time later tonight to post an animated gif. Stay tuned.......

No love for YouTube? Not that I don't loves me the animated GIF, but I was hoping for something glitzier. After all, we are talking about a real, physical object.

Best not to skimp!

 

[kitakaze]

On that note. I had never seen the above linked website. In other threads on BF I had noted the disdain for locales that were small and not very isolated (Salt Flats, etc) and thought I have a huge wilderness right next to me but I doubt bigfoot would live there..too freeking hot - (it's 105 right now) also Southern California is not perceived as wilderness by a lot of people. Behold though I do have bigfoot in my back yard. According to the website 3 sightings!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Padres_National_Forest

I'm so lucky!

Fork.

 

[kitakaze]

No, you didn't miss a link. I haven't posted anything from my "real, physical object" demonstration, yet.


I should have time later tonight to post an animated gif. Stay tuned.......

Cool! I'll really be looking forward to th- *snore*

 

[makaya325]

Fork.

It is funny that you focus on the lack of bigfoot in a small area, yet ignore when focusing on finding bf in such a large area. Hypocrite

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a Bridgewater Bigfoot supporter. It is just an aspect of "bigfootery" I find particularly amusing. Not super-apropos in our Bob H. discussion.

Sure.....it is interesting, if nothing else!

No love for YouTube? Not that I don't loves me the animated GIF, but I was hoping for something glitzier. After all, we are talking about a real, physical object.

Best not to skimp!

Oh, I love Youtube.......there are quite a few good videos on it.

Here's one of my favs......Enjoy the music...on skates...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSDw3tMa7ec&feature=fvw



I haven't uploaded any videos onto Youtube, yet...but I will, eventually.....and I'll upload the videos I shot, of this 'Arm Swinging' device.




Now...to the subject at hand.

I don't have time tonight to put together a complete explanation of what my thoughts are, concerning your CG skeleton video, Nel.....but, for now....here are a few images, and a short explanation.


First...I took 3 frames from your video, and put them together, into this AG.....aligning the shoulder joints.....and highlighted, in yellow, the position of the elbow joint in the three frames...(thereby showing how the upper arm bone changes length, between the frames)...

Here is an animated-gif of the Vision Realm Patty skeleton....with the same points highlighted...

And.......a physical object, showing how an arm would actually appear, as it swings....when viewed from slightly behind a side-view...(similar to the angle-of-view in your CG Video)...

Here, I highlighted the same points...

Here is the diagram you had posted, a while ago...of how "swinging arm" lengths should appear, when viewed from slightly behind a straight-on side view...

Notice how the green vertical line lengths in your diagram compare with the real, physical object...

Basically......they agree. They match.


Now, notice how...in your CG Skeleton Video images above...those lengths contradict, are completely opposite, of what the diagram...and the REAL object show.



Much more.....later......

 

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, as I've pointed it out to you on numerous occasions, you're neglecting that the human arm is capable of swinging out away from the body toward a "T" formation, and toward, in this case, the position of the camera. The human arm doesn't just swing back and forth like a slat nailed flat to a post.

 

[neltana]

Well, what I think Sweaty is saying is that Patty is a block of wood. And, as we know from Monty Python: wood = duck = witch.

Who knew?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mr. Yeti, as I've pointed it out to you on numerous occasions, you're neglecting that the human arm is capable of swinging out away from the body toward a "T" formation, and toward, in this case, the position of the camera. The human arm doesn't just swing back and forth like a slat nailed flat to a post.

I'm not neglecting anything, Vort. I'm analysing the computer-generated skeletons....ONE step at a time.

The 'arm being held out, away from the body', can also be simulated with a physical model.....and it will be.


If you're hoping that that's what's gonna rescue Fric and Frac from the trash-pile....then I think you're going to be sorely disappointed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Mr. Yeti, as I've pointed it out to you on numerous occasions, you're neglecting that the human arm is capable of swinging out away from the body toward a "T" formation, and toward, in this case, the position of the camera. The human arm doesn't just swing back and forth like a slat nailed flat to a post.

I also think he is ignoring the rotation/twisting motion of the body.

 

[Tricky]

Confirmed reports of bickering and off-topic posts have been reported. Scientists. Mods have moved the evidence to AAH. They eagerly anticipate no more evidence.

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

 

[HarryHenderson]

Considering KK has publicly confirmed he's seriously attempting a pow-wow with BH in the near future, continuing this argument based on those oh so blurry photos etc. just doesn't make much sense if something better is possibly coming along shortly. Our wasting time doing so seems so...stupid...given the seeming genuine chance we have at getting some more 'cold hard facts'. At this point I think a little patience might show why it's the virtue it's cracked up to be.

 

[kitakaze]

Considering KK has publicly confirmed he's seriously attempting a pow-wow with BH in the near future, continuing this argument based on those oh so blurry photos etc. just doesn't make much sense if something better is possibly coming along shortly. Our wasting time doing so seems so...stupid...given the seeming genuine chance we have at getting some more 'cold hard facts'. At this point I think a little patience might show why it's the virtue it's cracked up to be.

I haven't had my email returned which I sent to Bob's wife. I was thinking to just try calling him at home on Sunday but I became busy with work. What I really wanted was to get in touch with him by email first. I wanted to talk with some people that know him but that the first who come to mind are Gimlin, Biscardi, and Greg Long. I don't want to talk with either Biscardi or Long and I'm quite sure Gimlin would not want to talk to me.

How cool would it be if I could get Heironimus posting in this thread? I hope Sweaty could behave. I love Sweaty's Judy choppin' rig. That post there is for me a perfect example of the kind of convoluted logic that Sweaty speciallizes in. He's so desperate to invalidate in his mind that mangler's and neltana's proof that Bob's proportions are a good match for Patty's. It doesn't matter if it's not real, it just has to feel real. Like he can put it together and stand back and look at it and think Yeah, that looks good to me. Doesn't that look good?

Then somebody comes along and says something like "Hey, Sweaty. Nice little windmill or whatever the heck it is you've got yourself there. Hey, BTW, this is wild, I know, but did you know that arms can move out?" and *tuba sound* you sunk my battleship.

Sweaty'll get right on that. He knew that. It a step by step process, you see. Sorry, ol' Sweat. You did make the gobbledy-gook pile bigger, just not the way you meant to.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty'll get right on that.

 

[neltana]

Okay, Sweaty, I'm certainly curious to see what you come up with.

So, as the skeleton's arm swings through an apparent arc of about 30 degrees, the apparent length changes in a manner differently that your physical model, which swings through about 80 degrees.

Is it your contention that no physical model could match the way that the 3D model changes, even if we matched the angles and motion exactly? Are you saying that there is some law of nature that ensures that an arm swinging away from a viewer will always appear shorter than an arm swinging towards the viewer?

I just want to be clear what you are trying to accomplish here...because it gets a little hard to follow sometimes.

My impression is that your goal is to demonstrate that Mangler's matching of 3D models to Bob and Patty was in error (intentionally or otherwise), as was my independent confirmation using completely different software. Therefore, Bob H. could not be Patty.

Am I on the right track? Is this what fence-post Patty is meant to demonstrate?

 

[HarryHenderson]

...How cool would it be if I could get Heironimus posting in this thread?...

I'd bet dollars to donuts that not only is he not gonna post in this thread, which by the way would be 'really cool', but that he's otherwise and completely ignorant of this newfangled device everybody's been ravin' about called "the intranat".

...Then somebody comes along and says something like "Hey, Sweaty. Nice little windmill or whatever the heck it is you've got yourself there. Hey, BTW, this is wild, I know, but did you know that arms can move out?" and *tuba sound* you sunk my battleship...

Maybe this specific instance isn't as vivid as others, but once again here's where I just don't get why these (mostly) 'proponents' don't simply cut and run and...just try harder next time. It's like they can't give a lowly quarter inch even after they've been literally blown out of the water (sometimes simply) with their 'arguments'. The argument about SFSP with the ABS is the perfect example, they won't concede a thing, not a crumb not a scrap not a piece of crap regarding how not so super-terrific the place actually is for a real Bigfoot hunt. Let's face it, the 'handicapped parking area' of any park isn't going to be in the first entries of anyone's 'Top 10 Places to Start Looking for Bigfoot'. Neither would Skookum Meadow but that's another story. And then here, in the Standard Bigfoot Proponent's™ usual masochistic and always continuous effort to never give up the ship even when it's already at the bottom, Sweaty's resorted to using Lincoln Logs™ and iPhone™ pics to 'visually decrypt' for us the supposed physiological conflict between BH and Patty? Have we lost our minds?

...Is it your contention that no physical model could match the way that the 3D model changes, even if we matched the angles and motion exactly?...

...Therefore, Bob H. could not be Patty.

Am I on the right track? Is this what fence-post Patty is meant to demonstrate?

Yeah, what he said.

 

[tsig]

Okay, Sweaty, I'm certainly curious to see what you come up with.

So, as the skeleton's arm swings through an apparent arc of about 30 degrees, the apparent length changes in a manner differently that your physical model, which swings through about 80 degrees.

Is it your contention that no physical model could match the way that the 3D model changes, even if we matched the angles and motion exactly? Are you saying that there is some law of nature that ensures that an arm swinging away from a viewer will always appear shorter than an arm swinging towards the viewer?

I just want to be clear what you are trying to accomplish here...because it gets a little hard to follow sometimes.

My impression is that your goal is to demonstrate that Mangler's matching of 3D models to Bob and Patty was in error (intentionally or otherwise), as was my independent confirmation using completely different software. Therefore, Bob H. could not be Patty.

Am I on the right track? Is this what fence-post Patty is meant to demonstrate?

It seems to me that the end fence-post patty's "arm" had better swing in a circle or no one can ever draw a circle again.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Okay, Sweaty, I'm certainly curious to see what you come up with.

So, as the skeleton's arm swings through an apparent arc of about 30 degrees, the apparent length changes in a manner differently that your physical model, which swings through about 80 degrees.

Is it your contention that no physical model could match the way that the 3D model changes, even if we matched the angles and motion exactly? Are you saying that there is some law of nature that ensures that an arm swinging away from a viewer will always appear shorter than an arm swinging towards the viewer?

I just want to be clear what you are trying to accomplish here...because it gets a little hard to follow sometimes.

My impression is that your goal is to demonstrate that Mangler's matching of 3D models to Bob and Patty was in error (intentionally or otherwise), as was my independent confirmation using completely different software. Therefore, Bob H. could not be Patty.

Am I on the right track? Is this what fence-post Patty is meant to demonstrate?

I won't have time to respond to your questions until later tonight, Nel.

Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring your post, in the meantime.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Considering KK has publicly confirmed he's seriously attempting a pow-wow with BH in the near future, continuing this argument based on those oh so blurry photos etc. just doesn't make much sense if something better is possibly coming along shortly. Our wasting time doing so seems so...stupid...given the seeming genuine chance we have at getting some more 'cold hard facts'. At this point I think a little patience might show why it's the virtue it's cracked up to be.

I'll continue doing my analysis.

 

[WGBH]

But something better regarding the PGF HAS come along Harry Henderson. Have you not heard about M.K. Davis and his amazing "new" evidence for his Bigfoot Massacre at Bluff Creek theory? Now that is some good reading.