Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Since kitakaze posted an image of Bob without legs....I put the legs "back on" Bob...and discovered that kitakaze has once again produced some highly inaccurate analysis...

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Bob could fit Patty fine...

In your dreams, pal!

 

[kitakaze]

Since kitakaze posted an image of Bob without legs....I put the legs "back on" Bob...and discovered that kitakaze has once again produced some highly inaccurate analysis...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyEATwo/NiceTryKitty1.jpg[/qimg]

Made a bit of a mess there, Sweat. The images I posted show a simple reference of proportion. Bob and car shows legs, Bob on horse does not. I simply used Bob on horse to match his upper body proportions to Bob and car. Being the same person, they must match. You'll note that shoulder line to elbow line on both shots of Bob are the same distance as well as shoulder line to top of head measurement. You must also take into account that Bob is supposed to be wearing a head piece like an old style leather football helmet as well as padding on the shoulders.

Try overlaying those images of Bob onto that image of Patty and you'll see what's going on.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

In your dreams, pal!

Let me give you a little rundown on the scenario. Here's you scribbling. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010... still scribbling. How's that turned out for you? Great big globs of technicolour gobbledy-gook all over the place, year after year, and nothing changes. Putting wrong pictures together and flopping out goober math and made up numbers. Inventing ridiculous scenarios that make no sense whatsoever. Denying the unfortunate facts available for all to see.

Keep scribbling, Sweaty. You can pout with Lyndon at SFB all you like. Whine to each other about the JREF while you both can't restrain peurile behaviour when you come here. You can pass the years of no Bigfoot away happily scribbling away and stay in the dream. Meanwhile, nobody free from fortean addiction cares and nothing changes. Bigfoot is still a myth. You can titter amongst yourselves while people like myself get somewhere.

I am going to meet with Bob Heironimus and that is where the answers to get somewhere will be found, not on blobs on film. The answers are with the people involved, and whether you like it or not, Bob Heironimus had an involvement with Patterson and Gimlin and he's the only one ever to claim to be Patty.

 

[GT/CS]

Made a bit of a mess there, Sweat. The images I posted show a simple reference of proportion. Bob and car shows legs, Bob on horse does not. I simply used Bob on horse to match his upper body proportions to Bob and car. Being the same person, they must match. You'll note that shoulder line to elbow line on both shots of Bob are the same distance as well as shoulder line to top of head measurement. You must also take into account that Bob is supposed to be wearing a head piece like an old style leather football helmet as well as padding on the shoulders.

Try overlaying those images of Bob onto that image of Patty and you'll see what's going on.

He knows that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

The images I posted show a simple reference of proportion.

The images you posted were significantly mis-scaled.

I have SHOWN that to be the case, in my post last night....and you cannot SHOW that graphic to be inaccurate.

Bob and car shows legs, Bob on horse does not. I simply used Bob on horse to match his upper body proportions to Bob and car.

They don't match.....you significantly mis-scaled them. Thus, your comparison has a significant degree-of-error in it.

It's just another example of your highly-flawed, error-riddled "analysis".

Being the same person, they must match. You'll note that shoulder line to elbow line on both shots of Bob are the same distance as well as shoulder line to top of head measurement. You must also take into account that Bob is supposed to be wearing a head piece like an old style leather football helmet as well as padding on the shoulders.

Try overlaying those images of Bob onto that image of Patty and you'll see what's going on.

Try SHOWING where, and to what extent, there are any errors in the many comparisons of Patty and Bob that I've posted in this thread.


You haven't.............and you can't.

And neither can Vort.

 

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern wrote: Patty has perfectly human proportions[....]

I say NOT.

I SHOW not.

You SHOW NOT a thing.

Have you forgotten the Poser7 animation? Not the still images with the overlaid generic human skeleton, but the full frame-by-frame animation that shows, unequivocally and beyond all doubt, that a generic human skeleton (not necessarily Bob's, since we don't yet have his precise measurements) fits inside of and moves normally within the P-G figure?

Or are you just ignoring it in hopes that the rest of us have forgotten it?

 

[Vortigern99]

...this graphic shows that the Poser 7 skeletons.....are full of CRAP...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeletal%20Crap/VortWidthCorr5A.jpg[/qimg]

Vort......feel free to SHOW where, and to what extent, there are any errors in this graphic.

Thank you, in advance.

I've addressed this before, but typically you've ignored my responses and are now bringing up the same baloney images and measurements as though no one had ever refuted them. In brief:

1. 89 pixels--->87 pixels indicates some degree of foreshortening. It's slight, but to claim that there is "no foreshortening" when the numbers are different (89 & 87) is not only wrong, it's ridiculous.

2. In the right image of Bob, you can see that the skeleton is tilted to the right; IOW, it's foreshortened. If you cannot see this I don't know what to tell you apart from getting your eyes checked or reviewing the meaning of the term 'foreshortening'. You're comparing a foreshortened skeleton (at 89 pixels) to a slightly more foreshortened skeleton (at 87 pixels).

3. The same old problems of lens size on camera and enlarger, digital compression and imprecise scaling apply here. The generic skeleton overlay is a general, non-precise imaging technique that allows us to see that a human skeleton can indeed fit inside both Bob and Patty. This shows that Patty has human proportions. It is not meant to be a mathematically precise, metronomically exact 1:1 comparison. A slight difference in size between the two images would render pointless any attempt to match them up mathematically, as you've done.

4. If it's a suit, the extra width of the figure compared to Bob's more narrow frame is easily explained by padding and the nature of such costumes, as has been shown again and again by AMM and others.

 

[Vortigern99]

My body and limb dimensions do not need to be PRECISELY the same as Bob's.

Reportedly, he's 6'0" tall.....and so am I.

[1.]The lengths of his collar bone, and upper-arm measure the same as mine do.

[2.]He looks like he has 'average' body proportions.....and I have 'average' body proportions, also.

[3.]Therefore, using known measurements, and a visual estimate......I KNOW for a fact that Bob's and my body dimensions are, at the very least, very close to the same.

1. Evidence? Are you obtaining Bob's clavicle and humerus measurements from still images, and comparing those to your own real-world tape measurements? I reiterate: Lens size of camera and enlarger, digital compression, imprecise scaling.

2. "Looks like" does not cut it. Your personal subjective opinion that Bob "looks like" he has the same proportions as you is not evidence in support of that claim.

3. You know nothing of the kind. You're using personal subjective opinions, which are colored by your own preconceived biases, in lieu of real-world, physical measurements. You are not engaging in science, critical thinking or skepticism here.

 

[Vortigern99]

How does one find the backbone, of a "mystery animal"??????

Simple.....one draws a SIMPLE line straight down the MIDDLE of the body...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyHHComp333.jpg[/qimg]

This SIMPLE procedure cuts through all manner of muscle, tissue, fat, padding, alien implants, calcium deposits, and swallowed gum.

1. You've placed the purportedly "central" line too far to the left of the figure's proper center, artificially increasing the distance between the purported elbow joint placement and the purported spine, even according to your own methodology.

2. If it's a costume, we don't know exactly where the actor's spine is inside of that suit. Have you ever worn a button-down shirt and noticed that the central button-line does not conform to your own spinal column/central line? Same thing is possible here, with even more room inside of a large, padded suit for the actor to shift around in.

3. Same thing goes for the arm and elbow. You've subjectively placed the elbow joint at a point where you personally believe the arm would/should be located. But if it's a costume, the arm could be located more to the left of the line you've drawn rather than precisely in the center of the visible, padded arm.

4. Stop wasting our time with this baloney. I'm tired of going over the same BS claims, garbled measurements and arguments from ignorance.

 

[lucaschorak]

Yes I use facebook KitaKaze.

 

[kitakaze]

Yes I use facebook KitaKaze.

Lucas, will you be calling Bob today with the information I gave you and request for his email?

 

[kitakaze]

Really??

Well, this graphic shows that the Poser 7 skeletons.....are full of CRAP...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeletal%20Crap/VortWidthCorr5A.jpg[/qimg]

Your graphic is all screwed up. Tell me, Sweaty, if the physics engine of Poser 7 can not even handle basic physics, why is it that the DAZ Studio shows the same result in full motion?



Why is it that not only a collection of real skeletons, but also my own body have more squatchy proportions than Patty?

No foreshortening? Try using the correct images and give us measurements that anyone can verify (cm/inches). Here we can see that foreshortening occurs just as it does with the Daz Studio model. Yes, what a shock. In the 21st century the computer things can actually display physics accurately. We can make video games in 3D and everything. We've come along way from the physics of Pong. Between the two images of Bob here, and the two images of Patty, any idiot can see foreshortening is happening...



And when you say Patty is being viewed from a 40° angle, try establishing that the numbers you are throwing out are in fact verified.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

But what you can not easily do is find a way to make Bob's elbows reach as far as Patty's elbows did...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyBobSymmetryAG7.gif[/qimg]

This is a perfect example of Sweaty "analysis". Let's measure an elbow span. I know! Let's take images of Bob and Patty cut them somewhere in the middle-ish, make a Rorschach Bob and Rorschach Patty, then start making measurements like they're the real thing.

I have an important question, Sweaty. Exactly what is the length in centimeters or inches of Patty's elbow span? Also, I would like to measure my elbow span to see if Patty's elbow span far exceeds mine and any other average human. How do I measure my own elbow span?

 

[kitakaze]

Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately.

It's not even "maxed-out", horizontally... and it's beyond the length that Bob's elbo w can reach with his arm fully raised up, and fully horizontal.

CONCLUSION: Bob COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been Patty....beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The measurements are unaffected by any potential padding....and the difference in 'elbow reach' is beyond any potential error caused by a "Blur factor".

Please provide the work you did to arrive at a measurement of 21-22 inches between Patty's spinal column and elbow joint. Since there is no agreement among anyone investigating the PG film, even among proponents of the film, as to the height of the figure, there can be no agreement as to what constitutes an inch at any point on the picture plane.

Note that in response to the post of Vort's that I have quoted, Sweaty ignored the centrally important question of how he established the veracity of his 21-22 inch measurement and simply responded with a nuh-uh post. Why would Sweaty do this? Can he not verify his measurements? Does he not care to? Is he not interested in establishing verifiable facts about Patty?

How did you establish you measurements, Sweaty? How can we go about verifying them and knowing them to be factual?

 

[kitakaze]

They don't match.....you significantly mis-scaled them. Thus, your comparison has a significant degree-of-error in it.

It's just another example of your highly-flawed, error-riddled "analysis".

Sweaty, here are the two images for you again...

Now you're going to need to fetch a ruler or measuring tape to answer the three following questions...

1) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder to elbow line on both images of Bob?

2) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder line to top of head in both Bob images?

3) What is the measurement in cm or inches of the shoulder width of both images of Bob?

If the numbers in numbers in the three questions above match each other, how is it possible that I have significantly mis-scaled them?

 

[Óðinn]

Your graphic is all screwed up. Tell me, Sweaty, if the physics engine of Poser 7 can not even handle basic physics, why is it that the DAZ Studio shows the same result in full motion?



Why is it that not only a collection of real skeletons, but also my own body have more squatchy proportions than Patty?

No foreshortening? Try using the correct images and give us measurements that anyone can verify (cm/inches). Here we can see that foreshortening occurs just as it does with the Daz Studio model. Yes, what a shock. In the 21st century the computer things can actually display physics accurately. We can make video games in 3D and everything. We've come along way from the physics of Pong. Between the two images of Bob here, and the two images of Patty, any idiot can see foreshortening is happening...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_89614996f85077c1f.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/89614996f86ab415a.jpg[/qimg]

And when you say Patty is being viewed from a 40° angle, try establishing that the numbers you are throwing out are in fact verified.

And therein lies the problem with overlaying animated posers to prove anything. There is too much variance when limbs are foreshortened due to body orientation. For example:



The arm bones for the right arm of Patty are 110% the length of Bob H's. But Bob's arm isn't even bent. How can that be, unless Bob is holding his arm out from his body (which he isn't)? What's up with that? And the left shoulder alignment error on Patty is outrageous. The poser fit isn't nearly good enough to prove anything. Sorry.

 

[kitakaze]

The arm bones for the right arm of Patty are 110% the length of Bob H's. But Bob's arm isn't even bent. How can that be, unless Bob is holding his arm out from his body (which he isn't)? What's up with that? And the left shoulder alignment error on Patty is outrageous. The poser fit isn't nearly good enough to prove anything. Sorry.

You are quite right, Óðinn. If you measure the humerus in both images, the result is not the same. Why is this? Why does the arm overlayed on Patty appear to be longer than it is overlayed on Bob if they are the same Poser 7 model with no errors happening in the physics engine of the program? Óðinn, if you watch again neltana's JREF crew youtube video that I included, you will see that that specific issue is addressed. Poser 7 shows it and DAZ Studio shows it.

BTW, did you download mangler's Poser 7 animation? Once again, same thing - an average human skeleton can fit Patty. And in that case it is a moving Patty. The idea at the core here is simply that Patty does not have inhuman proportions and that a man in a suit can not and has not been eliminated as a possibility.

Would you state that an average human can be eliminated as being Patty?

 

[kitakaze]

Have you forgotten the Poser7 animation? Not the still images with the overlaid generic human skeleton, but the full frame-by-frame animation that shows, unequivocally and beyond all doubt, that a generic human skeleton (not necessarily Bob's, since we don't yet have his precise measurements) fits inside of and moves normally within the P-G figure?

Or are you just ignoring it in hopes that the rest of us have forgotten it?

Yes, he is doing exactly that. Farting around with scribbles on stills and goober math. Did Sweaty download mangler's animation? Wanna scribble on that? Oh, wait a minute. No, it's a moving graphic display of the undeniable fact that an average human skeleton can fit Patty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Between the two images of Bob here, and the two images of Patty, any idiot can see foreshortening is happening...

With regards to the image in the quote box above....as I have shown before......the Poser 7 skeleton does not fore-shorten anywhere near the amount that it MUST fore-shorten, in accordance with the amount of change in the angle-of-view it undergoes, from Bob to Patty....(approximately 30-40 degrees).


Here is the graphic I posted before....demonstrating this...

Let's summarize the figures again.......


1st) The Poser 7 skeleton on Patty does not cover her full apparent width. It's short by about 20 pixels.


As Odinn rightly, just pointed-out...

And the left shoulder alignment error on Patty is outrageous.

2nd) The Poser 7 skeleton only shortens by about 2 or 3 pixels from Bob to Patty.....while it MUST fore-shorten...(according to the Cosine figure for an angle of approx. 40 degrees).....by an amount of approx. 40 pixels.


It's SHORT on 2 counts....and defies a 'Law of Physics'.

The "Mangled Matching Poser 7 skeleton" is Meaningless Junk.