Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, please address my posts #108 - 110 in this thread before stating that your conclusions are "irrefutable". I have in fact refuted them employing simple logic, reason, a willingness to accept reality, and, oh yes, a working grasp of the principles of anatomy, foreshortening, and photography.

In post 108, you wrote:

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.

Of course that's true....with regards to increasing a person's body-width.....but it's NOT true regarding the exceptionally long reach of a person's elbows....(as measured, laterally, from their backbone).

That 'extra length'...comparable to Patty's measured lengths....simply CANNOT be produced by padding a person's shoulders, or arms.....(at least, not in a suit replicating Patty.....a Barney or a Godzilla suit is a different matter, altogether.)

In fact....when you add padding...(on the order of 2-3" thick, to a person's side...and an inch around the arm)....you significantly reduce the gap between the person's side and the inside of their arm.

This is yet another indicator, which can be...(and has been )....measured, to reveal whether or not an exceptionally-wide subject is wearing a heavily-padded suit.............or not.


I will demonstrate this, with a foam-rubber upper-body re-creation 'suit', replicating Patty's upper-body dimensions......with detailed pictures, including all of the appropriate measurements.

 

[Vortigern99]

So, out of three posts directly refuting your assertions on a point-by-point basis, you select one single point, completely misunderstand the logic behind it, make a garbled would-be refutation, and entirely ignore all the other rather damning points I've made against your absurd assertions.

This, Mr. Yeti, is why I routinely declare that I'm done arguing with you. You don't debate fairly, you misconstrue well-reasoned arguments that you cherry pick to make some oblique and unprovable point, you ignore all arguments that destroy your own beliefs, and you promise to return to points with new numbers/images/scribblings that you claim will prove your point, but never do.

For the third and hopefully last time, I am done arguing with you.

[Michael Palin]Look, this isn't an argument![/Michael Palin]

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks, kitty.....you did find an error in my 'Bob Angled View' animated-gif.....although, it wasn't an error in one of my measurements, it was an error in looking-up the angle, in the Trig Table Chart that I've been using...

(snip)

No, thanks....I have no problem being an imperfect human being.


Now, keep up the good work, kitty....and find a significant error in my measurements of Patty's elbow-reach!

Yes, so when you made that bungle you said this load of fail...

The number .64, in the comparison above, is the equivalent of the cosine of the angle-of-view.
Looking-up that figure in a Trig Chart tells us that the angle associated with it is 40 degrees.

(That angle, btw, is exactly what Grover Krantz estimated Patty's angle-of-view is, in the middle part of the film.)

Now....here is what happens when the angle-of-view of Mangler's Poser 7 skeleton changes ....from straight-on, to approximately 40 degrees...

NOTHING happens. It Violates a law of physics that REAL-world objects obey.

It's width doesn't fore-shorten, or compress.....as it would, if it accurately represented REALITY.

Yet again, the skeletons are SHOWN to conflict with, and contradict how REAL, physical objects behave.....in the REAL world.

Your attempt to invalidate the P7S overlays did a total faceplant. The whole premise of what you were trying to do was screwed.

But here, Sweaty, is why you are in La La Land and everyone can see the flailing of a desperate Bigfoot fanatic. Here is why your elbow span foo foo is in the proverbial garbage. Here is a list of your fail...

1) You can not provide a single verifiable measurement of Patty or show how you established it.

2) You can not tell us how long in cm or inches Patty's collar bone is with any certainty.

3) You can not tell us how long in cm or inches Patty's humerus is with any certainty.

4) You can not tell us in cm or inches how far Patty's elbow is from her spine at any point with any certainty.

5) You can not invalidate the overlays or show a faulty physics engine with fail math and scribbles on stills.

6) This is a biggy - you can not cope with the fact that two separate programs designed solely for the purpose of running three dimensional physics each in full animation show an average proportioned human skeleton fitting into Patty. They both have elbows that go where Patty's elbows go, shoulders where Patty's shoulders go, hands where Patty's hands go, a spine where Patty's spine goes, and knees where Patty's knees go. In full motion. Move them any which way you like. These programs don't both impossibly fail in some bizarrely coincidental same way.

Try dealing with the first five seconds of mangler's P7S animation. You can't. It destroys every desperate scribble you've made on any skeletal overlay of Patty. Try dealing with the 5 seconds of animation from 1:30 to 1:35 in neltana's JREF youtube video. You can't. It, too, anihilates all your goober graphics.

Two programs, fully animated, same results, verified and replicated. Your made up numbers and scribbles mean nothing at all.

 

[kitakaze]

So, out of three posts directly refuting your assertions on a point-by-point basis, you select one single point, completely misunderstand the logic behind it, make a garbled would-be refutation, and entirely ignore all the other rather damning points I've made against your absurd assertions.

Yes, as we see time and again this is par for the course with Sweaty. Sweaty always does this. Whatever he can't handle he simply pretends it isn't there, starts quibbling, and hopes people don't notice that he's not addressing the arguments presented to him. When he does this you simply have to take the points he is ignoring, put them back in front of his face, and don't allow him to sidetrack you with irrelevant hooey. Usually, what you get in the end is a one sentence reply effectively expressing his disinterest and in no way addresses the point. "Thans for the info! " Sweaty is simply incapable of participating in debate with sincerity and intellectual honesty where Bigfoot is concerned.

 

[kitakaze]

For Óðinn or anyone with a mind to make a P7S/Patty back view overlay, here in the middle is P7S from the back...

And Patty from the back...

Regardless of the blur blob there, any fool can see that there is no inhuman "elbow span" (possibly the stupidest term I have heard in quite some time) and that P7S would have no problem fitting it's elbows to Patty's. There is simply no reason why that could not be a person with a headpiece and shoulder pads under a costume.

 

[kitakaze]

I can call Bob H tomorrow.I think he doesn't like being called at night.

Hi, Lucas. I see you've joined us tonight. Did you get a chance to make that call to Bob today?

I don't know what the deal is with Lucas but what I do know is that he has logged in today several times since the night before last when he wrote that and I made my request. Each time he's gone right to this thread and made no response. Not a "sorry, I was busy today," or an "I'll call him later," or anything. What I do know is that we have a young man coming here and telling us he is in regular communication with Bob Heironimus, yet showing no indication of doing anything to confirm that fact.

I would very much like to believe Lucas' claim, but I find myself in doubt based on his lack of response while remaining present.

 

[Óðinn]

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.

I'm familiar with both applications and the algorithms that generate the images. This isn't a problem with the software. It's that there are an infinite number of solutions to arrange a poser if the body parts are foreshortened. You need to know the exact body orientation in 3D to know whether the poser fits. Plus the distance from the camera. Foreshortening gives you too much leeway. As the following diagram demonstrates:

In this scenario, the poser's leg would appear to fit perfectly from the back view.

IMO, this approach is backwards anyway. You can't tell if a "normal" human could have fit in the suit until you first measure the figure over a sequence of frames, then derive a CGI model. And not a loosey goosey fit either. This also requires using more than a few frames of dubious origin.

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?

Nope, but the poser animations don't demonstrate this.

For Óðinn or anyone with a mind to make a P7S/Patty back view overlay, here in the middle is P7S from the back...

The problem with this is that the view of the back is meaningless. We don't really know if the oblique view is a good enough fit to transpose the image to the back view. So unless you can do the same for Patty's image, what's the point?

Use the BEST possible calibrated frames of the PGF to build the 3D poser model. Overlay the model PRECISELY over each frame. The distances from the camera must be accurate (to correctly scale the poser). Refine the model. When you've achieved a best fit, then you can examine the poser from the back view.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm familiar with both applications and the algorithms that generate the images. This isn't a problem with the software.

On this we agree. I find the notion utterly absurd that two separate programs designed to run three dimensional physics are malfunctioning in the same way when you take a human skeleton and manipulate it in various ways.

It's that there are an infinite number of solutions to arrange a poser if the body parts are foreshortened. You need to know the exact body orientation in 3D to know whether the poser fits. Plus the distance from the camera. Foreshortening gives you too much leeway.

As the following diagram demonstrates:

[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/legangles.gif[/qimg]

In this scenario, the poser's leg would appear to fit perfectly from the back view.

IMO, this approach is backwards anyway. You can't tell if a "normal" human could have fit in the suit until you first measure the figure over a sequence of frames, then derive a CGI model. And not a loosey goosey fit either. This also requires using more than a few frames of dubious origin.

Óðinn, I always find it refreshing to debate with you.

If I understand correct what you're saying, the argument you are presenting applies to the original scenario with the first P7S overlays. What it does not address is the full animation that we now have. It is not over a few frames, but rather a significant portion of the film, as well as being shown in more than one angle.

I see no reason to abandon this as proof that an average human could fit Patty's proportion.

Nope, but the poser animations don't demonstrate this.

I'm still wondering if you downloaded mangler's animation. If not, I might be able to pass it along to you.

OK, putting aside for a moment the animations, unlike Sweaty, you are not stating that it would be physically impossible for a normal human to fit Patty. Would you say in terms of proportions there is any good reason for myself or anyone to consider a real animal over a man in a suit? If not, why?

The problem with this is that the view of the back is meaningless. We don't really know if the oblique view is a good enough fit to transpose the image to the back view. So unless you can do the same for Patty's image, what's the point?

Use the BEST possible calibrated frames of the PGF to build the 3D poser model. Overlay the model PRECISELY over each frame. The distances from the camera must be accurate (to correctly scale the poser). Refine the model. When you've achieved a best fit, then you can examine the poser from the back view.

IMO, mangler's animation reasonably achieves what we are talking about. I think it is of central importance to Sweaty's "elbow span" hooey that we can take an image of Patty from behind and a poser skeleton that fits Patty over many frames and show that there is no inhuman width or inhumanly long humerus bones. If you think it's pointless, that's cool, but I do not.

 

[Óðinn]

On this we agree. I find the notion utterly absurd that two separate programs designed to run three dimensional physics are malfunctioning in the same way when you take a human skeleton and manipulate it in various ways.

Yes, the programs are working fine, except they render the poser too close to the camera to be accurately overlaid on the PGF.

Óðinn, I always find it refreshing to debate with you.

Ditto.

If I understand correct what you're saying, the argument you are presenting applies to the original scenario with the first P7S overlays. What it does not address is the full animation that we now have. It is not over a few frames, but rather a significant portion of the film, as well as being shown in more than one angle.

But mangler just overlaid the skeleton/poser onto a sequence of frames. He didn't build a model and averaged the proportions over the sequence to get a best fit. Some frames didn't fit very well at all. Like I say this was done backwards. A "normaly proportioned" poser shouldn't have been force-fit onto Patty. Not unless you achieve a perfect fit would it be meaningful. Which it wasn't.

I see no reason to abandon this as proof that an average human could fit Patty's proportion.

Trust me, this ain't proof.

I'm still wondering if you downloaded mangler's animation. If not, I might be able to pass it along to you.

No I got it. See my comment above.

OK, putting aside for a moment the animations, unlike Sweaty, you are not stating that it would be physically impossible for a normal human to fit Patty. Would you say in terms of proportions there is any good reason for myself or anyone to consider a real animal over a man in a suit? If not, why?

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin. But until then...

IMO, mangler's animation reasonably achieves what we are talking about. I think it is of central importance to Sweaty's "elbow span" hooey that we can take an image of Patty from behind and a poser skeleton that fits Patty over many frames and show that there is no inhuman width or inhumanly long humerus bones. If you think it's pointless, that's cool, but I do not.

I'm not so sure about the elbow span thing either. My preference is to measure the limbs, head and body and build a model. Also, I'll give you hint. Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, the programs are working fine, except they render the poser too close to the camera to be accurately overlaid on the PGF.

OK, if I accept this argument and had Poser 7 or DAZ Studio, exactly how would I fix this situation? Exactly what distance would I be setting the camera to accurately overlay the skeleton?

But mangler just overlaid the skeleton/poser onto a sequence of frames. He didn't build a model and averaged the proportions over the sequence to get a best fit. Some frames didn't fit very well at all. Like I say this was done backwards. A "normaly proportioned" poser shouldn't have been force-fit onto Patty. Not unless you achieve a perfect fit would it be meaningful. Which it wasn't.

Let's talk about the frames that you think don't fit very well at all. If we were to take those exact frames and digitally alter the skeleton to make the fit perfect, would we be creating an inhumanly proportioned skeleton? I am absolutely sure that this would not be the case. The reason I am sure is the sample base I've made and testing I've done.

I think Patty's just a bit over 6 ft tall but I can't get mired down in trying to be precise cm/inch measurements where no one else has succeeded with certainty. What I am interested in is proving that proportionally Patty is not outside of average human range, and that the often heard claim that it is impossible for Patty to be a human is simply bunk. The method of measurement I've chose is one that any person participating can replicate. I'm basically using a measuring tape and calculator to measure mm's and make percentages. I take Patty, myself, and several human skeletons and measure bones for proportions. I show in percentages where various human proportions equal or exceed Patty's. No single measurement of Patty's has exceeded a human's. That includes her shoulder width relative to height and length of humerus relative to height separately or in combination with each other.

Sweaty will say that "Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately" yet he will not do anything at all to show how he arrived at that measurement or allow people to repeat his process. Nor has he created a sample base with which to establish that this "elbow span" exceeds average human measurements.

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin. But until then...

Right, but I think when it comes to measurements of the film subject, we've reached a point of finality where we can say that there is no good reason to rule out a human in a suit. I think that brings us to getting away from looking at Patty and the film and going into the circumstances around it.

There's only ever been one guy to say that he was Patty, and that man has a proven connection to the people who made the film. BH is friends with BG, we know that. We've got to talk with these people and find out what's going on. Why won't BG talk to BH publicly? Why won't BG talk to skeptics who know the inconsistencies and the indicators of hoax? I think we know the answer to those questions.

I'm not so sure about the elbow span thing either. My preference is to measure the limbs, head and body and build a model. Also, I'll give you hint. Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

It's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whenever I see something stupid, I think it would be fitting to exclaim "elbow span!"

That's interesting to know about the aspect ratio being screwed up. Personally, I think that's just another thing to throw on the pile. I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Regardless of the blur blob there, any fool can see that there is no inhuman "elbow span" (possibly the stupidest term I have heard in quite some time) and that...


P7S would have no problem fitting it's elbows to Patty's.

Thanks for posting the Pooper7 skeleton, kitty.


The skeleton's elbow reach is well short of Patty's...(as is typical)...

Pper7 would, in fact, find it impossible to place it's elbows in the same position, relative to it's backbone....as Patty's elbows were able to reach.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I think that brings us to getting away from looking at Patty.......and the film and going into the circumstances around it.

I understand why you would not want to look at Patty, kitty.....it's painful for you to look at the measurements of Patty's elbow-reach, and be completely helpless to do anything about them, other than to throw BS at them.

But, I have to tell you this, sir......these measurements will NEVER go away......they'll NEVER be refuted.

In fact, I will continue to build on them.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

Her Creator.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

Is any frame that Sweaty uses from the LMS version of the PGF correct in aspect? It is when running the DVD, but when saving the images to the HD, some DVD players screw up the aspect ratio. Significantly too.

Grover Krantz, in his book "Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence", gives his calculation of Patty's 'shoulder-width' as 27-28"....with a 'walking height' of about 6'0-6'1".

And those figures amount to the same body proportion as what's seen in the LMS version of the film...and are the same figures that I've been working with, also.
Also, Grover was using a good quality copy of the film, at the time....I believe....not LMS.


From his book...

"A more complicated calculation was made that depended on measuring the image width in the clearest frames and correcting these according to the angle from which it was viewed.

Seven such measurements were obtained from the seven largest and sharpest images. They represented different angles of observation, each of which was separately calculated.
These all averaged 28.7", or 27"...depending on which of two designs of shoulder shape that was presumed.

In my opinion, the 'angled shoulder reconstruction' is a little more accurate than the method using rear views... even if it is more complicated."


In Honor of Grover......

Note: kitakaze prefers using the fuzzier rear-views of Patty....and Half-Bob's, for his comparisons.

(I guess he figures that is the best way to get to the TRUTH.)

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for posting the Pooper7 skeleton, kitty.

The skeleton's elbow reach is well short of Patty's...(as is typical)...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyEATwo/Pooper7ERCompAG1.gif[/qimg]

That is hilarious! You have just created a Rorschach of a Patty blob seen at an angle and not straight on from the rear and stuck scribbles on it as if it had any imperical meaning at all. That is some of the most dazzling Sweaty fail I have seen for quite some time. You don't happen to smell burnt toast, do you? Even for you that is particularly epic. It's like you're running on 6 year old logic.

Tell me, Rorshach, why is P7S' left elbow lower than Patty's right?

How about telling me how you know that 6.7 pixels equals one inch?

How about telling me why the elbows fit in full animation? Why are you still scribbling on still? You need to refute a fit in full animation and explain that.

How about trying your scribbles on the image where Patty is actually seen from the back instead of making Rorschach monsters? Use their left arms and see how much win you come up with there.

Wow. Really, Sweaty, this is bad even for you.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:



I understand why you would not want to look at Patty, kitty.....it's painful for you to look at the measurements of Patty's elbow-reach, and be completely helpless to do anything about them, other than to throw BS at them.

But, I have to tell you this, sir......these measurements will NEVER go away......they'll NEVER be refuted.

In fact, I will continue to build on them.

Post #135. Post #143.

Concept: science = replication

You said that Patty's elbow measures about 21-22" away from her backbone, with her arm swung-out at only a 40-45-degree angle, approximately. I want to check your work. How can I do that? How did you establish a basic unit of measurement for Patty? What determined the scale? If you say Patty's elbow in an image is 21-22" away from her backbone, I want to know how you determined what sets an inch.

Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of verification and repeatability?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Do you have some kind of problem with the concept of verification and repeatability?

No, I don't. Patty's 'elbow-reach' measurements will be verified outside of Jref.

 

[kitakaze]

No, I don't. Patty's 'elbow-reach' measurements will be verified outside of Jref.

You are a piece of work. Look at that, Sweaty is outright refusing to answer a question regarding Bigfoot evidence. Do you have any concept of what you look like right now?

HAHAHA! My measurements are irrefutable! No one will ever be able refute them! HAHAHA!

Sweaty, can you show us how you made the measurements so we can attemp to reproduce them, confirming or disproving their veracity?

HAHAHA! Nobody at the JREF will get that information but I am going to continue to post here and tell people about my irrefutable numbers! HAHAHA!

Wow, Bigfoot enthusiasts have it hard enough without people like you making it harder for them. If you have no intention of engaging in allowing people at the JREF to know the methods of your measurements and try and verify them, what is the point of coming here and shooting your mouth off about them. What the heck is that?

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

I'd like to know who dropped the piano on Patty's head...

Her Creator.

Just one of the many issues with the PGF that Sweaty will not address...

 

[William Parcher]

Of course it's most likely a man in a suit. But I would like to see the film definitively measured anyway. THIS would put the last nail in the PGF coffin.

What last nail in what coffin?

What are the other nails that are already in this coffin that you speak of?