The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[River]

Nice animation mangler. I've been wanting to do the same thing, but have not been able to find my installation disks for poser. You did a great job. Although its not a perfect fit in every frame, its reasonable close and definitely close enough to demonstrate the figure clearly fits.

 

[kitakaze]

Get the crayons out.

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html



m

That is absolutely fantastic, mangler. Once again, fantastic work from you. I will reiterate that my support for for BH being in the suit does not equate your position that simply, a human of average proportions could be within the suit (which we obviously both support).

Let's see Sweaty scribble on that or say the skeletons are not the same.

BTW, yes, please. I would like you to pipeline me the format.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I believe the costume disguises joint locations. Particulary the hip and shoulder .. Less so for the knee and elbow ..

Sweaty seems to favor positions and angles that give the impression of odd proportions..

Here is a shot where the arms and legs look fairly human in proportion, IMO ..

Thanks for mentioning this again, Greg. I meant to respond to it last time you brought it up, but didn't get around to it.


Patty's arms didn't shrink, as she walked......her left hand is simply overexposed in this frame...

 

[LTC8K6]

Thanks for mentioning this again, Greg. I meant to respond to it last time you brought it up, but didn't get around to it.


Patty's arms didn't shrink, as she walked......her left hand is simply overexposed in this frame...

I wanted to see Sweaty's reaction to Mangler's animation, so I chose to view his post.

I think Sweaty has put up another example of Patty's "catcher's mitt" left hand, which has been referred to before. I have seen this frame before, of course, but never noticed the left hand in it before. I had only seen smaller versions of the frame.

I don't think the hand is overexposed, though. See these frames:

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

I wanted to see Sweaty's reaction to Mangler's animation, so I chose to view his post.

I don't have any reaction to it, at the moment. I've been extremely busy, helping a friend move.

 

[davefoc]

...

But one of the reasons that at least some of SweatiYeti's analysis shows significant variation between the body proportions of men and the image is that he assumes the PG film's creature's legs are short and he scales his images to match this assumption.

Mangler's animation seems to assume that the PG fils creature's legs are of normal length and the feet are deeper than is apparent from the film. The difference in approach to determining leg length seems to lie at the heart of at least some of the difference in body proportion determinations.

Could somebody comment on why one assumption of leg length is better than the other? To a casual observer (at least this one) it seems like SweatiYeti's assumptions about leg length seem reasonable.

I believe the costume disguises joint locations. Particulary the hip and shoulder .. Less so for the knee and elbow ..

Sweaty seems to favor positions and angles that give the impression of odd proportions..

Here is a shot where the arms and legs look fairly human in proportion, IMO ..

I single stepped through mangler's animation with an eye toward seeing how well the leg of the skeleton lined up with the leg of the creature in the PG film. I noticed something that I was unaware of in the PG film frames. The leg of the creature in the PG film seems to suddenly change length. In one frame the right leg of mangler's skeleton nicely covers the apparent leg of the creature in the PG film. And in the next frame the ankle and foot of the PG film creature disappears.

Apparently what is happening is that the lower part the PG film creature's leg becomes obscured by something that is reflective enough that it causes the film to be exposed all the way to white in the area of the ankle.

Is this the effect that lies at the heart of the discrepancies between the SweatiYeti's body proportion analysis and the analysis of others? Is SweatiYeti selecting frames where the lower part of the ankle is obscured so that he incorrectly scales his comparison images?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for mentioning this again, Greg. I meant to respond to it last time you brought it up, but didn't get around to it.


Patty's arms didn't shrink, as she walked......her left hand is simply overexposed in this frame...

Who said anything about the left hand ?

I'm talking about Patty standing straight and tall ..
It appears the left hand could be missing.. Over exposed ? Perhaps.
The right hand looks to be about right ...

Funny how bending over makes the hands hang lower .. Must be physics or something else beyond my comprehension ..

 

[mangler]

Davefoc,

There is a rise in the substrate in that area, the subject basically walks up one side and down the other. Be aware that all of this speculation is open to interpretation.

The first two images show McClarin and a rough line of the crest. The second image is a merge of two frames from the PGF. From about the ankle down disappear as the subject walks the following side of said crest.

Hope this helps.


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

Skeptical Greg....in his infinite skeptical wisdom, wrote:

Who said anything about the left hand ?

I did.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What does the left hand have to do with the ' inhuman proportions ' you claim exists ?

 

[kitakaze]

I wanted to see Sweaty's reaction to Mangler's animation, so I chose to view his post.

I don't have any reaction to it, at the moment. I've been extremely busy, helping a friend move.

No reaction at all...

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html

Sweaty, I want to help you get through this difficult time for you and Patty's "inhuman" proportions. Just close your eyes, click your heels, and say...

"Those computers, they'll just do anything!"

 

[Cicero]

Dr. Robert R. Hieronimus, Ph.D.

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/04/0316277.html

I don't know which is more bizzare; a guy with the same name as the one who claims to be inside the bigfoot costume, or a guy with a PhD who believes that the Patterson film is legit.

 

[davefoc]

Dr. Robert R. Hieronimus, Ph.D.

http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/04/0316277.html

I don't know which is more bizzare; a guy with the same name as the one who claims to be inside the bigfoot costume, or a guy with a PhD who believes that the Patterson film is legit.

The guy also seems to think that crop circles aren't created by humans.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Get the crayons out.

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html

BRAVO! Can we now discard all the crayon lines and poorly scaled images being thrown about? Does this seal the deal that Bunny does not have inhumanly long arms/legs/gait/etc.? Nah......there will always be those individuals who will not give up on these arguments.

 

[Vortigern99]

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html

I think it's time we all came clean here. It's obvious to any clear-seeing individual that the proportions and ambulatory mode in that video are perfectly human.

With this video as evidence, we can now say with the highest degree of certainty, "It's a guy in a suit." In this post-mangler era, we need no longer hem and hedge about this conclusion.

This is not a single-frame skeleton or one-time generated figure, layered in over a single frame or two from the PG film; it's an unchanging figure-and-skeleton moving with the frames of the PG film, animated in motile succession inside the outer parameters of the PG figure we call "Patty".

Skepticism of this position is all well and good: "Well, maybe Patty is still a non-human primate that happens to have the exact proportions and ambulatory mode of a human being! You have to say 'maybe' or you're not being a true skeptic!"

Baloney. There is and there can be no non-human animal with precisely human proportions that walks exactly like a human. No species in the animal kingdom shares the precise proportions and gait of another species; it's part of what separates us, physiologically and genetically. Chimps and bonobos, very closely related species, both genus Pan, locomote differently and have different proportions. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571309/ http://www.bonobo.ca/loco.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) Dogs and wolves, both genus Canis, have different physiological characteristics and distinct gaits. (https://knol.google.com/k/garry-jenkins/the-dog-its-origins-evolution/19tjln1ywaolr/5#) The list can go on.

In short, we now have definitive proof that "Patty" shares a visibly and measurably close range of proportions with a normal (if somewhat heroically formed) man, and that with a slight crouch that same normal man can match "her/its" unusual gait.*

It must be stated that proportionally, the mangler figure is not a precise match with "Patty". This is due to 1) the fact that a generic, statistically normal human male figure has been used in the animation, 2) that real human individuals vary somewhat, and 3) the features of what can now reasonably be identified as a suit.

If I had the capacity to generate a similar animation, I would shrink the human figure slightly and raise him up a bit from the ground plane. This shift in both size and position would allow a bit more padding around the figure; a slight excess of arm and leg length would be consistent with the fact-based theory of "suit".

Otherwise I applaud mangler, who has performed a service of considerable use to the skeptical community.

*The gait has already been matched by at least one test, including one overseen by Jeff Meldrum, of which a video exists on youtube can can easily be found.

 

[davefoc]

Vortigern99,
I agree with most of what you said completely.

I quibble with only a bit: If the creature in the PG film was an animal, it certainly was an unknown one. It doesn't look remotely like a gorilla, chimpanzee or bonobo, the three primates that resemble humans the most closely.

But the people that believe that the PG film was of a real creature have never, as far as I know, claimed that the creature was a known creature. Their claim is that there is some creature that while looking quite human still isn't one. Proving that the creature might be a human does not prove that it might not be an actual unknown creature.

So while mangle, et al. have done an awesome job of proving that the PG film creature might be a human, the determination that it is a human requires evidence beyond the film.

 

[Óðinn]

http://notthemunnsreport.com/page6a.html

I think it's time we all came clean here. It's obvious to any clear-seeing individual that the proportions and ambulatory mode in that video are perfectly human.

With this video as evidence, we can now say with the highest degree of certainty, "It's a guy in a suit." In this post-mangler era, we need no longer hem and hedge about this conclusion.

This is not a single-frame skeleton or one-time generated figure, layered in over a single frame or two from the PG film; it's an unchanging figure-and-skeleton moving with the frames of the PG film, animated in motile succession inside the outer parameters of the PG figure we call "Patty".

Skepticism of this position is all well and good: "Well, maybe Patty is still a non-human primate that happens to have the exact proportions and ambulatory mode of a human being! You have to say 'maybe' or you're not being a true skeptic!"

Baloney. There is and there can be no non-human animal with precisely human proportions that walks exactly like a human. No species in the animal kingdom shares the precise proportions and gait of another species; it's part of what separates us, physiologically and genetically. Chimps and bonobos, very closely related species, both genus Pan, locomote differently and have different proportions. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571309/ http://www.bonobo.ca/loco.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) Dogs and wolves, both genus Canis, have different physiological characteristics and distinct gaits. (https://knol.google.com/k/garry-jenkins/the-dog-its-origins-evolution/19tjln1ywaolr/5#) The list can go on.

In short, we now have definitive proof that "Patty" shares a visibly and measurably close range of proportions with a normal (if somewhat heroically formed) man, and that with a slight crouch that same normal man can match "her/its" unusual gait.*

It must be stated that proportionally, the mangler figure is not a precise match with "Patty". This is due to 1) the fact that a generic, statistically normal human male figure has been used in the animation, 2) that real human individuals vary somewhat, and 3) the features of what can now reasonably be identified as a suit.

If I had the capacity to generate a similar animation, I would shrink the human figure slightly and raise him up a bit from the ground plane. This shift in both size and position would allow a bit more padding around the figure; a slight excess of arm and leg length would be consistent with the fact-based theory of "suit".

Otherwise I applaud mangler, who has performed a service of considerable use to the skeptical community.

*The gait has already been matched by at least one test, including one overseen by Jeff Meldrum, of which a video exists on youtube can can easily be found.

Come on, you're joking right? These are nice animations but they don't prove anything. They certainly aren't up to photogrammetric standards. Mangler will be the 1st one to admit this.

They must match Patty EXACTLY, and they don't. Good fit, but not perfect. It has nothing to do with Mangler's efforts, it's just highly unlikely that the figure in the suit had the exact same dimensions as the poser, human or otherwise. And that's just 1 of the major problems here.

This poser figure has "standard" proportions that were forced to fit over Patty's images. But this approach is backwards. At best it's only phase 1. For phase 2, the proportions must be adjusted for a BETTER fit. Repeat this process until you converge on an accurate model of Patty. The resulting animation will then meet photogrammetric standards. Otherwise, what do these animations actually show? They AREN'T averages and they certainly don't prove that a person with "poser" proportions fits perfectly in the suit. As I alluded to upthread, whenever limbs are foreshortened, there are always MULTIPLE solutions for a 2D representation of a 3D object. This can only be resolved thru averaging over many frames, which in turn revises the model. This was not done here. Each frame was fit independently and the poser's proportions were never averaged.

Not to sound harsh, but for these animations to mean anything, they must attempt to match Patty's proportions, not force a "standard" human CG figure over them. The objective should be to achieve an optimal fit. Not close, it must be exact. No excuses. These animations don't fit to these specifications probably because the model is rigid and due to limitations of the software.

Then there is the hefty preparation required before these animations can meet photogrammetric standards (listed upthread). I wouldn't trust any derivations from any PGF images unless these standards were adhered to. Any CG animation can't come close to proving anything, otherwise.

But I also applaud Mangler, who has proven the persuasiveness of a slick graphic. Very nice job...and proof enough, for some. I guess I'm just a stickler, but I need more. Bring on phase 2.

 

[River]

Come on, you're joking right? These are nice animations but they don't prove anything. They certainly aren't up to photogrammetric standards. Mangler will be the 1st one to admit this.

They must match Patty EXACTLY, and they don't. Good fit, but not perfect. It has nothing to do with Mangler's efforts, it's just highly unlikely that the figure in the suit had the exact same dimensions as the poser, human or otherwise. And that's just 1 of the major problems here.

This poser figure has "standard" proportions that were forced to fit over Patty's images. But this approach is backwards. At best it's only phase 1. For phase 2, the proportions must be adjusted for a BETTER fit. Repeat this process until you converge on an accurate model of Patty. The resulting animation will then meet photogrammetric standards. Otherwise, what do these animations actually show? They AREN'T averages and they certainly don't prove that a person with "poser" proportions fits perfectly in the suit. As I alluded to upthread, whenever limbs are foreshortened, there are always MULTIPLE solutions for a 2D representation of a 3D object. This can only be resolved thru averaging over many frames, which in turn revises the model. This was not done here. Each frame was fit independently and the poser's proportions were never averaged.

Not to sound harsh, but for these animations to mean anything, they must attempt to match Patty's proportions, not force a "standard" human CG figure over them. The objective should be to achieve an optimal fit. Not close, it must be exact. No excuses. These animations don't fit to these specifications probably because the model is rigid and due to limitations of the software.

Then there is the hefty preparation required before these animations can meet photogrammetric standards (listed upthread). I wouldn't trust any derivations from any PGF images unless these standards were adhered to. Any CG animation can't come close to proving anything, otherwise.

But I also applaud Mangler, who has proven the persuasiveness of a slick graphic. Very nice job...and proof enough, for some. I guess I'm just a stickler, but I need more. Bring on phase 2.

I dont think this animation was in any way meant to EXACTLY duplicate the subject in the film (of course you'd have to confirm that with mangler) What I see it as a GREAT example of, is demonstrating that a human figure fits QUITE WELL. The points you bring up might apply if one were trying to duplicate the movements and size exactly. This model demonstrates that a human COULD be in a suit as the subject in the film. Not that it IS. I think that was the whole point of the animation. (IMHO)

 

[kitakaze]

River, quick question for you. From one person who's had a lot of experience with Wild Bill to another, it's good to have you join us here in an environment devoted to critical thinking. I note that very few Bigfoot enthusiasts want to address any of the glaring indications of hoaxing that you continue to raise at the BFF. I know what it's like to have Bigfooters ignore and evade important questions. That aside for a moment, I was interested in this comment of yours over at the BFF...

You're just eating up all this JREF stuff aren't you RR? Feels like old times debating with Dfoot.

Actually I dont participate at that forum, I've read over a few pages there and found it to be crass.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=26877&st=660

What exactly was it about the JREF that you found to be crass? Was it something specific? Was it a thread in General Skepticism and the Paranormal? Say, Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology or Education, for example? Economics, Business and Finance or maybe History, Literature, and the Arts? Religion and Philosophy, Computers and the Internet?

I'm wondering this because I'm used to seeing fanatical people with deeply impaired critical thinking such as SweatyYeti refer to the JREF as a sewer, but I've never seen someone who posts skeptical arguments speak ill of this forum. I had the impression from reading your posts in the PGF section of the BFF that you were a skeptic, but maybe I misunderstood and you're a Bigfoot proponent who believes the PGF was a hoax. I could understand why you might think poorly of the JREF then.

Please don't interpret my question as being hostile or perturbed. I'm simply curious as to what cold make you think the JREF is crass. That would be one of the last words that comes to my mind when I think of this forum. Personally, I consider it to be the most useful and educational website and enlightened community on the entire internet. It is certainly the largest gathering of critical thinkers on the web. I can learn about pretty much anything I want to know and I can get all sorts of assistance on any kind of problem, whether my computer is cracking out or my understanding of quantum physics is cracking out.

Anyway, I am confident that your opinion of the JREF will rapidly change, if it hasn't already, and I hope you enjoy your time here.

 

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern99,
I agree with most of what you said completely.

I quibble with only a bit: If the creature in the PG film was an animal, it certainly was an unknown one. It doesn't look remotely like a gorilla, chimpanzee or bonobo, the three primates that resemble humans the most closely.

But the people that believe that the PG film was of a real creature have never, as far as I know, claimed that the creature was a known creature. Their claim is that there is some creature that while looking quite human still isn't one. Proving that the creature might be a human does not prove that it might not be an actual unknown creature.

I'm a little confused here. Did I mistakenly assert that PGF proponents believe "Patty" to be a "known creature"? I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't recall where I opined anything of the sort. If I did, I did not intend to do so, and would ask that you quote me on this point, so I can endeavor to clarify.

As to your claim that "Proving that the creature might be a human does not prove that it might not be an actual unknown creature", you are demonstrably mistaken. You've neglected to address my fact-based assertion: "There is and there can be no non-human animal with precisely human proportions that walks exactly like a human. No species in the animal kingdom shares the precise proportions and gait of another species; it's part of what separates us, physiologically and genetically," followed by a ream of links providing evidence to support this claim. On what basis of biology, genetics and/or taxonomic classification are you deciding that "Proving that the creature might be a human does not prove that it might not be an actual unknown creature"? What do you mean by this, exactly, and what is your reasoning?

So while mangle, et al. have done an awesome job of proving that the PG film creature might be a human, the determination that it is a human requires evidence beyond the film.

I respectfully disagree. I opine that we can now make a reasonable, evidence-based determination that a human being of normal proportions could easily have fit inside the parameters of the PG figure, without recourse to mechanical or prosthetic extensions, demonstrating with sufficient certainty (based on the rules of taxonomic classification with regard to physiology, proportion and locomotion) that the figure is indeed genus/species Homo sapiens.