Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

For more 'perspective' on Height...here is Jim McClarin, a little older...and with guests...

 

[kitakaze]

Here is another comparison, with the images properly scaled...(in addition to their heights being very close...notice how much wider Patty is than Jim)...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim%20McClarin/McClarintrackwalk.gif[/qimg]

That's wonderful work there, Sweaty. You've successfully confirmed Jim McLarin having been a skinny man. McLarin is not Heironimus and as DAZ and Poser 7 show, Heironimus could easily have fit Patty. You go ahead and try and deal with posts #176, #184, and #187 if you want to try and cope with the truth. Hey, BTW, why is does the log and debris in the foreground move so much?

And here...folks....is kitakaze's 'evidence' that Patty's walking height was only 5'9-5'10"...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/896149ab4ae788f13.gif[/qimg]

Well, I guess 3 clear graphics, which include a foot-ruler measurement.....can't "beat out" 1 hazy comparison...(lacking a wider-view context with which to judge it's accuracy)...which kitakaze can only SAY shows Patty's height to be about 5'10".

1) What you call haze is the effect of perfectly overlaying two images.

2) There's more...

3) You yourself are screwing your inhuman proportions garbage.

4) Sweaty can only say Poser 7 stills violate physics while he can't show them. Meanwhile, DAZ and Poser 7 animations show that Patty is not inhumanly proportioned and can be a match for BH.

kitakaze....you can't deal with the truth, can you?

I think you have a hard time discerning what is truth and what is not...

I saw a small Bigfoot on Mt. St. Helens in 1973. They are real!

Cool! Congrats on your sighting, Professor....you're a very lucky guy!

Have you talked about it on this board, before?

Maybe you should go back to scribbling on IMAX tundra-foot gifs. Maybe you'll find a baby on the back

 

[William Parcher]

I did my own match-up here and I no longer think that Bob can be Patty. He is way too short to fill out that costume. His head is near her butt.

 

[kitakaze]

Here Sweaty says Patty's walking height is 6'3"...

But over here with the exact same frame Sweaty says Patty's walking height is 6'6"...

Since we have to add at least 3, or 4 inches to the walking height to get Patty's actual, standing body-height....the 6'6" figure would translate into a 'standing height' for Patty of approx. 6'9". ....well outside of Bob Heironimus' range.

Sweaty can't keep his goober math straight. Maybe that's why he refuses questions to show his work.

 

[JcR]

I did my own match-up here and I no longer think that Bob can be Patty. He is way too short to fill out that costume. His head is near her butt.

LOL...

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

But over here with the exact same frame Sweaty says Patty's walking height is 6'6"...

The measurements in those 2 different graphics, using the same Frame, were made with line placements in slightly different locations....hence, the small difference in the result.

There is most certainly some 'degree of error', and uncertainty, in those measurements.....but, nonetheless, they both show Patty's 'walking height' to be over 6 feet....by anywhere from a few inches, to several inches.

And, when the 'foot ruler' measurement is taken together with the direct Patty/Jim comparisons....the 6' + height estimate is reinforced.


kitakaze still can't accept...and deal with...the truth.


Here is what I said on the SFB Board, several days ago...concerning Patty's walking height...

I think Patty's 'walking height' is somewhere between 6'1" and 6'6"....which would equate to a 'standing height' of somewhere between 6'4" - 6'9".

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

The measurements in those 2 different graphics, using the same Frame, were made with line placements in slightly different locations....hence, the small difference in the result.

Three inches is not a small difference. Neither is the difference between 5'7" and 6'6". Sorry, ol' Sweaty, but your goober math still sucks...

There is most certainly some 'degree of error', and uncertainty, in those measurements.....but, nonetheless, they both show Patty's 'walking height' to be over 6 feet....by anywhere from a few inches, to several inches.

Except for that other measurement that shows 5'7" and images that show Patty as shorter than Jim. That's OK, that's not the only thing you're ignoring. You're ignoring the CAD analysis showing her walking height to agree with the foot measure you're ignoring. I can pull about another 5 sources showing that.

And, when the 'foot ruler' measurement is taken together with the direct Patty/Jim comparisons....the 6' + height estimate is reinforced.

kitakaze still can't accept...and deal with...the truth.

Not only have you failed to refute the DAZ and Poser 7 animations, using your own logic and varying measurements of Patty, I will say that your analysis is inept and that Patty on film will not yield reliable measurements. Her head violates the laws of physic, you know.

Your "truth" is whatever you want it to be. You are on the bad guy side of logic and reason. You say that you will never refuse to answer Bigfoot evidence questions and then outright refuse to answer questions regarding your measurements. You have no place in a serious conversation among adults. By everyone here you are considered either merely a troll or a nuisance. Where the reality between facts and myth is, you know nothing of truth at all and I have no trouble showing it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

McLarin is not Heironimus and as DAZ and Poser 7 show...

You're right, kitakaze......but they are both REAL.

And the comparisons between Patty and those 2 REAL beings are REAL comparisons.....and show REALITY.

And you can't DEAL with REALITY. All you can do is sit around and play with your dollies...

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Except for that other measurement that shows 5'7"

The 'Frame 72' foot-ruler measurement, of 5'7", needs 'correction factors' applied to it, to correct for a few things....such as 'blooming' of the foot, the foot being closer to the camera than the rest of the body, and vertical foreshortening of Patty's height.

Therefore, the 5'7" figure is too short...by several inches.


More reality....that you can't face.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:



You're right, kitakaze......but they are both REAL.

And the comparisons between Patty and those 2 REAL beings are REAL comparisons.....and show REALITY.

And you can't DEAL with REALITY. All you can do is sit around and play with your dollies...

Yes, McLarin and Heironimus are real people. Comparisons between them and also Patty show varying things depending on who you go to. What two physics animation programs show is that you can fit one skeleton into Patty and Bob. You can't refute that in any real way. You fail. All you can try is to say that one program is warping its physics. Oops for you, I showed that that was not true. How absurd and desperate. Whatever keeps Bigfoot alive in your mind...

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Not only have you failed to refute the DAZ and Poser 7 animations,

The Pooper7 skeletons...along with all skeletons of "average proportioned" human beings....cannot match Patty's 'elbow reach'...

.....because, if they did, they would HAVE TO HAVE collar-bones and upper-arm bones which are OUTSIDE of the "average" range.


In other words, a skeleton wouldn't show the measurement of Patty's elbow reach to be IN ERROR.....it would only show that it can be DUPLICATED...


.....BY A MAKE-BELIEVE IMAGE.


(Your favorite thing!!)


Now...kitakaze......go ahead and SHOW the measurement of Patty's elbow-reach to be significantly IN ERROR.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote....what ANY fan of Bob Heironimus would write, when left with nothing.....in the REAL world...

What two physics animation programs show is.....

Good show, Ol' Chap!!

 

[kitakaze]

The 'Frame 72' foot-ruler measurement, of 5'7", needs 'correction factors' applied to it, to correct for a few things....such as 'blooming' of the foot, the foot being closer to the camera than the rest of the body, and vertical foreshortening of Patty's height.

Therefore, the 5'7" figure is too short...by several inches.


More reality....that you can't face.

Your logic needs correction factors.

The frame 72 is the clearer image and you haven't shown that its size has been distorted. Same with the effects of Patty's foot being closer to the camera - ridiculous - or unproven foreshortening. You cherrypick the results that you want. You have no concept of true analysis at all. Reality? You are the one in the fantasy denial world.

What's happening to reality here, Sweaty?

Can you address that reality? Something messed is happening there. Is it the film or Patty's head?

 

[kitakaze]

The Pooper7 skeletons...along with all skeletons of "average proportioned" human beings....cannot match Patty's 'elbow reach'...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Elbow%20Analysis/PattyBobElbowRangeMeasured5.jpg[/qimg]

.....because, if they did, they would HAVE TO HAVE collar-bones and upper-arm bones which are OUTSIDE of the "average" range.

In other words, a skeleton wouldn't show the measurement of Patty's elbow reach to be IN ERROR.....it would only show that it can be DUPLICATED...

BY A MAKE-BELIEVE IMAGE.

(Your favorite thing!!)

Now...kitakaze......go ahead and SHOW the measurement of Patty's elbow-reach to be significantly IN ERROR.

1) You haven't refuted posts #176, #184, or #187 at all.

2) You talk of measurements that you refuse to allow anyone here to replicate.

3) You haven't show in any physical way that the Poser 7 or DAZ animations are violating physics. You haven't shown that computer software can not handle the simple task of creating three dimensional objects then rotating them. Simple stuff.

4) You have failed to answer this question...

Simple question, Sweaty - is the P7S seen from behind that has the left elbow matching your Rorshach Patty's right elbow inhumanly proportioned? Yes or no.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote....what ANY fan of Bob Heironimus would write, when left with nothing in the REAL world...

What two physics animation programs show is.....

Good show, Ol' Chap!!

DAZ and Poser 7 work great. See post #187.

 

[Óðinn]

One last time with this one. Here are a progression of blinking GIFs that demonstrate that McClarin did not follow the trackway (for whatever reason). All these GIFs should be correct in relative scale. That is, the foreground AND the background are matched, which means everything in between is too (McClarin & Patty). The aspect has also been calibrated for all frames (except for the 1st GIF). Note that in the 1st GIF McClarin is taller than Patty. However, I don't trust the aspect because even though the background matches horizontally, the foreground log shifts significantly between frames. It appears Roger was a couple of steps closer to the log.

This one has been corrected for aspect. Note McClarin's height.

This is at frame 352 of the PGF. The raw images were almost the same scale. There is some spherical aberration on frame 352, but it is evident that the focal lengths of both cameras were very close. Note that now Patty is as tall or taller than McClarin.

This is the correct image size comparison for frame 352. The camera positions look to be in sync.

Now compare their heights at frame 480. Again Roger appears a step or 2 closer to the foreground debris that Green was, yet McClarin is clearly taller.

If Green and Roger stayed put with their cameras and McClarin had followed Patty's trackway exactly then their images should remain the same relative size throughout this sequence of frames. Since this is not the case, I must conclude that their trackways were different. In which case, we need a more sophisticated method (triangulation) to determine when their distances from the camera varied. So until we are confident these photos show McClarin & Patty scaled to common distances from the camera, all these comparisons are meaningless.

 

[GT/CS]

Roughly how far are they from the camera?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

So until we are confident these photos show McClarin & Patty scaled to common distances from the camera, all these comparisons are meaningless.

Nice work, Odinn.

I don't agree, though, that not having all the info regarding the cameras...distance-to-camera, and lens sizes....results in the comparisons being completely meaningless.

Some things can still be determined, within a certain 'degree-of-error'. One of those is that Patty's walking height is, at the very least, quite close to Jim's walking height.


Regarding the Frame 352 comparison, you wrote this:

There is some spherical aberration on frame 352, but it is evident that the focal lengths of both cameras were very close.
Note that now Patty is as tall or taller than McClarin.

Since the lenses were clearly either very close, or the same...(since all of the 'relative lengths and distances' within each scene are the same)....and Jim and Patty are in the same position...(left-to-right)...there aren't very many factors left, which can distort Jim's and Patty's relative heights..(to each other).

One of those would be the distance front-to-back, within the scene....but, wouldn't it require that Jim be further back in the scene by quite a lot, to make him appear smaller than Patty...if he were in fact taller than her by approximately 6 or 7 inches?


If the lenses were the same (focal length) in the 2 cameras....would not the distance from 'camera-to-subject' be irrelevant....(at least within a short range of variation)?
Wouldn't simply re-scaling the image taken from the further distance...(up-sizing it)....bring everything within the scene back into their proper relative sizes?

In other words....if you took a picture of a scene...then stepped back 20, or 40 feet, and took another picture...(with the same camera)....wouldn't re-sizing the pictures later, to match, bring everything within the scene back into a perfect match?



Also...I don't know how much John Green, or McClarin have said, regarding the clarity of the footprints at the time....other than there were some impressions left....but, maybe one of them could be asked specifically about what was left/visible at that particular point in the walk...(Frame 352).

 

[River]

One last time with this one. Here are a progression of blinking GIFs that demonstrate that McClarin did not follow the trackway (for whatever reason). All these GIFs should be correct in relative scale. That is, the foreground AND the background are matched, which means everything in between is too (McClarin & Patty). The aspect has also been calibrated for all frames (except for the 1st GIF). Note that in the 1st GIF McClarin is taller than Patty. However, I don't trust the aspect because even though the background matches horizontally, the foreground log shifts significantly between frames. It appears Roger was a couple of steps closer to the log.
[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/jimpat5.gif[/qimg]
This one has been corrected for aspect. Note McClarin's height.
[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/PGF_Green2.gif[/qimg]
This is at frame 352 of the PGF. The raw images were almost the same scale. There is some spherical aberration on frame 352, but it is evident that the focal lengths of both cameras were very close. Note that now Patty is as tall or taller than McClarin.
[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/PGF_Green.gif[/qimg]
This is the correct image size comparison for frame 352. The camera positions look to be in sync.
[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/cmpscl.jpg[/qimg]
Now compare their heights at frame 480. Again Roger appears a step or 2 closer to the foreground debris that Green was, yet McClarin is clearly taller.
[qimg]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/JTrojan/PattyMcClarin.gif[/qimg]
If Green and Roger stayed put with their cameras and McClarin had followed Patty's trackway exactly then their images should remain the same relative size throughout this sequence of frames. Since this is not the case, I must conclude that their trackways were different. In which case, we need a more sophisticated method (triangulation) to determine when their distances from the camera varied. So until we are confident these photos show McClarin & Patty scaled to common distances from the camera, all these comparisons are meaningless.

Excellent comparison - This has been needed for a while. (first time ive seen it) You can definitely tell there are some differences in distance going on. (in certain frames) Others appear to be fairly closely matched in distance. I think you may correct - while these images do give some comparison... theres not enough assurance as to accuracy on distance (as of now) to make any precise comparisons. However, I do think it provides some decent "ball park" comparisons with a known measure for scale. (mcclarin) Might be difficult to refine the camera to subject differences at this point though.

Excellent effort though. Judging from those images it would appear that "patty" is shorter than McClarin. Anyone care to estimate numbers on height based on these comparisons images alone? (which would be excellent to compare with the photogrammetry methods)

 

[kitakaze]

Fixed it. Too bad Lucas was a liar and a troll.

Fair question.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but as far as I concerned, the fact that Lucas was repeatedly signing in here, watching this thread, making no responses at all to any attempt of mine to verify his claims, nor responding to any PM's asking what was up, then dissappearing altogether, is sufficient evidence for me. I think that's more than enough clear indication that he came here simply to string people along with lies about talking to BH and Patricia Patterson talking about a planned deathbed confession.

If any wants I signed confession from Lucas, go ahead and PM him. I don't think he'll be getting back to you.

This may be a little premature, but it seems apparent that I owe Lucas a major apology. I've gone from doubting Lucas at first to believing him to disbelieving him to now knowing he was telling the truth.

Lucas, I said you were a liar and a troll. I was wrong and I apologize.

Based on the information I had when I wrote that, it seemed obvious to me that I was being played. Lucas sent me a PM yesterday answering five questions I had for him and he gave me the first three digits of BH's number. Since I already had the last three digits he gave me before and the area code, I had the list narrowed down to ten numbers. WP helped me in narrowing the number down to one of six phone numbers all in the Yakima area. At this point I could simply call each of the six numbers until I got the right one, however I'm not going to try that just yet.

I still want Lucas to act as a liason in putting me in contact with Bob. I don't want to just call BH out of the blue before Lucas talks to him and tell him I basically got the number from Lucas. I'm still waiting on Lucas to return my PM from yesterday. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I will soon be in contact with Bob Heironimus.