The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Thank you, for your thoughtful response, Dave.

I'll respond to it sometime tomorrow...but it'll probably be on the late side.

Just so you know, Dave, this is what Sweaty does when he gets completely cornered; a little nothing thank you and a later that never comes.

Ran out of moves, hey, Sweaty?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thank you SeatyYeti for your thoughtful response.

Before I respond let me start with a bit of a disclaimer. I think the chances that creature in the PG film is an unknown primate that lives or lived in North America approaches zero. You reasonably might believe that my response is driven by my confirmation biases as a result.

As to your image:
I took it, reversed the image of the person on the right and mirrored it so that it was facing the same direction as the alleged bigfoot (AB). I then explanded the image on the right by 8% and did comparisons. There is a very good correlation between the images for the upper body when this is done. The width of the back seems much closer between the two images, the shoulders are very close in position, the arms are almost exactly the same length and the butt areas line up reasonably well, (although the undefined butt area in the AB photo makes it difficult to make much out of this comparison).

However when this is done, the length of the legs of the human appear to descend substantially below the AB legs. However this might not be as significant as it seems at first. It is difficult to determine from the AB image how deeply buried the foot of the AB is. It is also difficult to determine how deeply bent the AB legs are.

Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human. But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea. Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably. Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

However, given the obvious non-resemblance of the AB images to an actual animal and the non-resemblance of the movement of the AB to anything other than a human I would say it is highly unlikely that the PG film is anything other than a film of a man in a monkey suit. Put into the context of the rest of the evidence relevant to the AB, the possibility that a non-human creature is portrayed in the PG film is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it is certain that it is a man in a monkey suit.

Thanlks for reminding me about Dave's post, kitzo.....I completely forgot about it. I've been very busy lately, between work, and this 'elbow analysis' I'm working on. (That's the 'elbow analysis' which shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bob Heironimus could not possibly have been Patty.....the Combination of his shorter 'shoulder-width' and shorter 'upper arm bone length' make it a physical impossibility.

Put another way....the Combination of Patty's longer 'shoulder bones' (shoulder-width)....added to the longer length of Patty's upper-arm bone...results in an elbow which is several inches further away from the backbone, than an average human's....and Bob's.

And one of the beautiful things about this analysis, is...it eliminates hand-extensions....shoulder padding....chest padding......ALL padding from the equation.
Bob is left.....naked...and too short. (A bad Combination...

)

Much more about this....later.



So.....as for Dave's post....I don't have time to respond to it now...'tis 5 in the morning. I'll respond to it as soon as I can!

 

[kitakaze]

Good luck with that. Will it be the wondrous quality of the faceplant you pulled today in the PGF thread? Oh, the anticipation...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Good luck with that. Will it be the wondrous quality of the faceplant you pulled today in the PGF thread? Oh, the anticipation...

Don't worry, dude...I don't need luck. I have numbers on my side.

 

[kitakaze]

So.....as for Dave's post....I don't have time to respond to it now...'tis 5 in the morning. I'll respond to it as soon as I can!

You never will and if you do, the post will be a dodge. Such is life in Sweaty World. Do yourself a favour and toss the crayons and buy a tape measure.

 

[kitakaze]

Don't worry, dude...I don't need luck. I have numbers on my side.

Numbers like 35.81%? Like one of the numbers that is literally on my side, destroys your arm-to-ground gobbledy-gook, and makes me more squatchy than Patty?

You're right, you don't need luck. You need a Patterson-like filmed-exactly-what-I-drew-and-detailed-in-my-book-the-year-prior miracle.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Thank you SeatyYeti for your thoughtful response.



As to your image:
I took it, reversed the image of the person on the right and mirrored it so that it was facing the same direction as the alleged bigfoot (AB). I then explanded the image on the right by 8% and did comparisons. There is a very good correlation between the images for the upper body when this is done. The width of the back seems much closer between the two images, the shoulders are very close in position, the arms are almost exactly the same length and the butt areas line up reasonably well, (although the undefined butt area in the AB photo makes it difficult to make much out of this comparison).

However when this is done, the length of the legs of the human appear to descend substantially below the AB legs.

However this might not be as significant as it seems at first. It is difficult to determine from the AB image how deeply buried the foot of the AB is. It is also difficult to determine how deeply bent the AB legs are.

Dave, I took that Patty/Tube comparison image, and did to it what you described....I flipped Tube horizontally, and incresed his size by 108%...

I then connected the little colored squares with blue lines....and, as you said, the feet....(along with the knees)...are significantly mis-aligned. Therefore the images are now significantly mis-scaled.

Rendering the comparison......as our friend Robo-Astro would say......


"IT......IS......IN......VAL.....ID.......ROBO-ASTRO.......SIGN......ING......OUT...........IT.........WAS.......A.......PLEAS.......SURE.......TO........SERVE........YOU......"



Also....I don't agree with you that it's difficult to determine where the bottom of Patty's right foot is located.....we can see the very top of the foot...and we know approximately how thick the foot appears on the film.......so it's not at all difficult to see that Tube's foot is well below (significantly below) the bottom of Patty's foot.

Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human.

They're not proof...and, they're not even evidence,....of any weight.....regarding the proposition that Patty's and Bob's body dimensions are either equal...or, very close to equal.

But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea.

Actually....they're garbage.....they carry no weight. With time....I can demonstrate that to be true.

In actual fact.....nobody has yet been able to provide a real-world, physical example, in which Fric's skeleton can be shown to legitimately match Frac's skeleton.

Skeptics can say they're 'legitimate'....but they can't demonstrate that they are.

A huge difference.

Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably.

Feel free to demonstrate the extent of the error/s in that comparison, Dave.

Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

Thanks, Dave.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Just so you know, Dave, this is what Sweaty does when he gets completely cornered; a little nothing thank you and a later that never comes.

Ran out of moves, hey, Sweaty?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1359

This is a perfect example of what I said, several days ago, about kitakaze's....(twist-akaze's).....little "twistings" of the truth....of reality.


He misrepresented my lack of a response to Dave's post as...


"this is what Sweaty does when he gets completely cornered"



In actual fact.....I was, as usual, very busy, and forgot about Dave's post.

In actual fact.....I wasn't "cornered".....I responded to it, and demonstrated what I saw regarding Dave's take on the comparison.

In actual fact....I demonstrated that Dave's re-scaling of the image makes it significantly mis-scaled, therefore, having a high degree of error.


Twist-akaze.......once again....."brings the garbage".

 

[kitakaze]

They're not proof...and, they're not even evidence,....of any weight.....regarding the proposition that Patty's and Bob's body dimensions are either equal...or, very close to equal.

Actually....they're garbage.....they carry no weight. With time....I can demonstrate that to be true.

Abe can hardly contain himself...

In actual fact.....nobody has yet been able to provide a real-world, physical example, in which Fric's skeleton can be shown to legitimately match Frac's skeleton.

How's that working out for you?

BTW, two different physics programs can't reliably display real-world physics
and yet they replicate each other? How lucky for a fanatic.

Skeptics can say they're 'legitimate'....but they can't demonstrate that they are.

A huge difference.

Yes, I can...

1)



2)



Oops for you.

Replicated, duplicated, repeated, tested, verfied.

BTW, Sweaty, remove the stuponitron helmet for just a minute, read your first quote above, and enjoy the fireworks...



As a desperate fanatic, you are going to ignore the following things...

1) Are the skeletons that mangler and neltana have overlaid upon Patty of inhuman proportions? Are they, Sweaty??

2) By your own gobbledy-gook preferred measurement (end of arm to ground), I am more squatchy than Patty, and yet not exceptionally proportioned.

35.81%

I love watching you ignore those numbers.

It's a Sweaty World...

Check this out...I modified the Vision Realm Patty skeleton....putting it's arms straight out...and compared them to an average human's skeleton...

Notice any difference??? (Hint: Look at the Elbows.)

 

[kitakaze]

In actual fact.....I was, as usual, very busy, and forgot about Dave's post.

In actual fact.....I wasn't "cornered".....I responded to it, and demonstrated what I saw regarding Dave's take on the comparison.

In actual fact....I demonstrated that Dave's re-scaling of the image makes it significantly mis-scaled, therefore, having a high degree of error.

In actual fact, you ignored this...

Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human. But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea. Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably. Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

However, given the obvious non-resemblance of the AB images to an actual animal and the non-resemblance of the movement of the AB to anything other than a human I would say it is highly unlikely that the PG film is anything other than a film of a man in a monkey suit. Put into the context of the rest of the evidence relevant to the AB, the possibility that a non-human creature is portrayed in the PG film is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it is certain that it is a man in a monkey suit.

Why did you do that? Fear? Incompetence?

In actual fact, you posted images that make it pretty clear that Patty is neither inhumanly proportioned nor impossible to be a suit that uses nothing more than shoulder pads, a head piece, and gloves.

In actual fact, and here's the kicker...

You keep posting images of Matt Crowley that he would rather people not posted when it is completely moot and unnecessary, given the fact that a normal human's (me) proportional measurements exceed Patty's.

Do you get cable in there?...

 

[Akhenaten]

You never will and if you do, the post will be a dodge. Such is life in Sweaty World. Do yourself a favour and toss the crayons and buy a tape measure.

Go you! I gotz a new hobby. Have you seen?

 

[davefoc]

Hello SweatiYeti et al.,
I appreciated the fact that SweatiYeti took the time to duplicate the image manipulation that I had done. And that does appear to be an accurate reconstruction of my effort.

And it does at first glance seem to show a significant mismatch between leg sizes as I had previously noted. However, as kitakaze noted, I had pointed out in my earlier post that I believed the alleged bigfoot and the human are in significantly different positions.

I believe the ABF is an image of a man in a monkey suit doing a kind of Groucho Marx walk. That is the lower leg is bent significantly forward and the thigh is approaching parallel to the ground. I am not sure that this can be proved because the image of the ABF is taken largely from the rear where the angle of the upper and lower legs is not clear.

Perhaps a different image from the PG film could be selected that would include a side view of the ABF. It seems like this might have already been done with the fitting of a skeleton to the PG film in every frame. If SweatiYeti wants to contest those results based on a detailed comparison of a single image, the use of a side profile image would seem to be critical.

Alternatively, a new photographic image of a man attempting to duplicate the ABF position in this image might be created. Although, I think it might be counter to your approach SweatiYeti, what is required is for somebody to make the best effort possible to match the ABF position in the image in question. And then, measurements might be done to demonstrate that it is or is not possible for an image of a human to have body parts in similar positions to the ones in the ABF image.

As it is now, I think it is very possible that the ABF image can be a man in a monkey suit, and the current image comparison does not make me question that conclusion.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hello SweatiYeti et al.,
I appreciated the fact that SweatiYeti took the time to duplicate the image manipulation that I had done. And that does appear to be an accurate reconstruction of my effort.

And it does at first glance seem to show a significant mismatch between leg sizes as I had previously noted.

Thanks, Dave.

However, as kitakaze noted, I had pointed out in my earlier post that I believed the alleged bigfoot and the human are in significantly different positions.

Alas.......here, we disagree.

I don't see Tube's and Patty's body positions as 'significantly diifferent'.

If you do.....could you please describe that 'significant difference' in detail....or, perhaps, post an image which shows where those significant differences are?

I believe the ABF is an image of a man in a monkey suit doing a kind of Groucho Marx walk. That is the lower leg is bent significantly forward and the thigh is approaching parallel to the ground.
I am not sure that this can be proved because the image of the ABF is taken largely from the rear where the angle of the upper and lower legs is not clear.

Perhaps a different image from the PG film could be selected that would include a side view of the ABF. It seems like this might have already been done with the fitting of a skeleton to the PG film in every frame. If SweatiYeti wants to contest those results based on a detailed comparison of a single image, the use of a side profile image would seem to be critical.

Alternatively, a new photographic image of a man attempting to duplicate the ABF position in this image might be created. Although, I think it might be counter to your approach SweatiYeti, what is required is for somebody to make the best effort possible to match the ABF position in the image in question. And then, measurements might be done to demonstrate that it is or is not possible for an image of a human to have body parts in similar positions to the ones in the ABF image.

I don't see Patty's thigh as being close to parallel with the ground, Dave.

Can you elaborate on what you mean, by this?...

"...the thigh is approaching parallel to the ground."

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze outgassed...

SweatyYeti wrote:

Skeptics can say they're 'legitimate'....but they can't demonstrate that they are.

A huge difference.

Yes, I can...

Sorry, pal......No, you have not demonstrated that those skeletons legitimately portray the movements of real, physical objects.


All you have been able to do is post, and re-post, computer-generated junk.


Do everyone a favor....kittty-POO....go back to first grade and learn what the word "REAL" means....and then come back, and take another shot at posting something "REAL".




kitty-POO outgassed the following piece of .....

In actual fact, you ignored this...


Originally Posted by davefoc
Overall, I would agree that kitakaze's skeleton/bigfoot images are not proof that the AB in the photo could actually be a human. But they provide significant evidence of the plausibility for such an idea.


Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably.

Nonetheless if I was just looking at the comparison you did in isolation from all the other evidence surrounding the case I would at least agree that you produced a legitimate basis for questioning the man in the monkey suit hypothesis.

However, given the obvious non-resemblance of the AB images to an actual animal and the non-resemblance of the movement of the AB to anything other than a human I would say it is highly unlikely that the PG film is anything other than a film of a man in a monkey suit. Put into the context of the rest of the evidence relevant to the AB, the possibility that a non-human creature is portrayed in the PG film is close enough to zero that for all practical purposes it is certain that it is a man in a monkey suit.

Why did you do that? Fear? Incompetence?

In actual fact,......Blow-Master....I did not ignore it.

I quoted it....and responded to it.

If you don't like my response.....tough...for you.


Again.....from my post...

Dave wrote:

Your comparison image, suffers a bit because the human is in a distinctly different position than the AB and it suffers because the quality of the AB image does not allow the precise comparisons that you are trying to make to be done reliably.

Feel free to demonstrate the extent of the error/s in that comparison, Dave.

kitty-POO....once again......'outgasses'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

More fun with Elbows......

If Bob was, in fact, Patty....then his eyes had to line-up with Patty's eyes....and his elbows had to line-up with Patty's elbows.....just like in this comparison...

Unfortunately....there seems to be a problem with the knees lining-up...


kitzo wrote....with his Hind-End Pen...

In actual fact, you posted images that make it pretty clear that Patty is neither inhumanly proportioned nor impossible to be a suit that uses nothing more than shoulder pads, a head piece, and gloves.

In actual fact, kitty-POO....the comparison above shows an upper-arm length on Patty which is clearly longer than Bob's.......coincidentally........just like in the comparison with Tube's upper-arm.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Oh, one more thing....about this kitty-dropping...

In actual fact, you posted images that make it pretty clear that Patty is neither inhumanly proportioned nor impossible to be a suit that uses nothing more than shoulder pads, a head piece, and gloves.

You can pad the shoulders, a mile deep...and you can add hand extensions, a mile long.....but you CANNOT move the Elbow.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, two different physics programs can't reliably display real-world physics
and yet they replicate each other? How lucky for a fanatic.

Ignored by Sweaty.

As a desperate fanatic, you are going to ignore the following things...

1) Are the skeletons that mangler and neltana have overlaid upon Patty of inhuman proportions? Are they, Sweaty??

As predicted, ignored by Sweaty.

2) By your own gobbledy-gook preferred measurement (end of arm to ground), I am more squatchy than Patty, and yet not exceptionally proportioned.

35.81%

I love watching you ignore those numbers.

As predicted, ignored by Sweaty.

Fear is the mindkiller.

 

[kitakaze]

You can pad the shoulders, a mile deep...and you can add hand extensions, a mile long.....but you CANNOT move the Elbow.

I fell down.

Wow.

This from the very special mind that brought you this wolloping utter and breathtaking stupidity on elbows...

Check this out...I modified the Vision Realm Patty skeleton....putting it's arms straight out...and compared them to an average human's skeleton...

Notice any difference??? (Hint: Look at the Elbows.)

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitzo wrote:

As a desperate fanatic, you are going to ignore the following things...

1) Are the skeletons that mangler and neltana have overlaid upon Patty of inhuman proportions? Are they, Sweaty??

As predicted, ignored by Sweaty.

More GAS........from the 'GAS GIANT'....URANUS-KAZE.


I've already addressed the matter of the 'limb proportions of Fric and Frac'......oh Stinky One...

I haven't ignored the issue of the skeleton's limb lengths, and proportions.

In the case of the skeleton on the left....the length of it's upper-arm bone matches Patty's upper-arm bone......and, in every comparison that I've seen, Patty's arm appears to be longer, proportionally-speaking, than the human's upper arm.


So.....to answer this question of yours....kitty-POO...

1) Are the skeletons that mangler and neltana have overlaid upon Patty of inhuman proportions? Are they, Sweaty??

.....Some of their bones have 'human proportions'.....and at least one of the bones....Patty's upper-arm bone....has a length which is greater than the human's it has been compared to.



BTW......just a reminder........the Fric and Frac animation is fatally flawed, since it failed to take into account the significant difference in the subject's upper-body widths.
In other words....Bob's upper-arm actually needs to be longer than....(not 'equal to')....Patty's upper arm, because of that difference in width.


It's a major, fatal flaw of Fric and Frac......who, to this point in time, haven't even had one example of a real-life, physical object support the legitimacy of their upper-arm bone lengths being called "equal". (Let alone Bob's arm being longer!)

 

[SweatyYeti]

TWIST-akaze wrote:

Originally Posted by kitakaze
BTW, two different physics programs can't reliably display real-world physics
and yet they replicate each other? How lucky for a fanatic.



Ignored by Sweaty.

Here is another beautiful, shining example of kitakaze's TWISTING....misrepresenting....things that I have said.

I have NEVER stated that the programs used to make the computer-animated skeleton videos "CANNOT reliably display real-world physics".


They certainly can.....but that doesn't mean that they're not also capable of producing animations/movements which do not represent 'real-world' movements.


TWIST-AKAZE.......at his slippery-best.