Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical.
It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches.
In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image...
Patty's upper leg is partially visible...and the visible front and back edges are both vertical.
It may not mean that the entire leg is 100% vertical, but it doesn't make that much difference in her 'walking height'...the variation of 'walking height', due to the leg flexing/straightening, is only a few inches.
In that image, Patty's leg is clearly somewhere near the top of the cycle...it's not deeply-flexed, as the supporting leg is in this image...
One would think differences on the order of three inches would be important. Nevertheless, looking at the right leg in your image where Patty's left is obscured, we can easily imagine that lower leg could be at a significant angle.
Is there some reason why you ingored the following points 1 and 2 from my previous post?...
Notice how Sweaty evades Greg's point about the critical flaw in his statement. No, we don't know if Patty's leg is going straight down vertically unbent. The leg is obscured.
Further, I don't know what is supposed to be accomplished by...
1) Posting a comparison of Jim and Patty where Patty is on the foreward side of a ridge or mound of uneven ground behind a pile of wood debris while Jim is on the backside of the ridge with his legs half obscured.
2) Posting another LMS gif which again shows Patty's legs obscured by wood debris where her head goes down a bit. Maybe it's a change in posture, maybe it's a change of uneven ground which I can't see. Seeing neither her knees, feet, or the ground makes it impossible to discern.
What the heck is that?
Oh, I know. That's Sweaty looking for a distraction to quibble about rather than face the fact his inhuman proportions goop has been flushed.
WP's given me a hand getting this screen capture. This is a little visual aid showing a satellite view of the street Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin live on. As you can see, they live literally nine houses from each other...
As we know Bob and Bob are still friends. BH is the only person ever to have claimed to have been Patty and as the DAZ and Poser 7 animations show, BH could fit Patty.
Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street?
So you have Kal Korff saying that Heironimus said something. You don't have a direct quote and you're quoting a guy that we know makes $#!% up for his own agenda. That's OK, let's run with it. Korff is trying to account for the look back that Grover has famously said was the sign of an ape-like animal with an ape neck and shoulders.
Has it occured to you that whether or not Heironimus actually said the suit made it difficult to turn only his head, of course he is going to turn his whole body? How else are we going to get a money shot of the creature's ridiculous tummy rocks and face from a distance if bob doesn't do that?
Quibbles n' bits. You're grabbing at straws. Pay attention to the bolded - allegedy. If if he did say that he was uncomfortable, if he said that, it still doesn't mean anything if his head was in an uncomfortable position for a moment. Go ahead and show me where Bob has only his head turned to the camera after the look back for a full 2 or 3 seconds. The look back is the money shot. Roger would have Bob focused on it. Roger is not going to be thinking about Grover's future observation, he just wants the tummy rocks and face on camera. Bob, himself, said the whole thing was uncomfortable. So Bob moves one way or the other and you're trying to make it into what you want. You try and quibble over things like this while ignoring the major indicators of hoaxing. You're desperate.
I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you.
Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you.
The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth.
I explained this to you, before....but I am not engaging in a question-and-answer dialogue with you.
Approx. 90% of what you post is BS....so it's not worth my time to attempt to discuss and debate anything with you.
The only thing I am doing, in responding to your BS, is to 'clean it up'....for the sake of others who are reading the thread, and may be interested in the truth.
No, you're not really engaging anyone in a meaningful and honest dialogue. Trying to clean up the BS for those interested in the truth? LOL
What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF. I guess Sweaty is only interested in helping people with some truth as he sees, not all of it.
That's a neat method of cleaning up what you call BS. Apparently your method involves the method of cleaning known as...
What if I was interested in the truth of verifying your elbow reach measurments? I'm sorry, what's that? Oh yes, Sweaty refuses that truth to anyone at the JREF.
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?
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.
Would you lie about a friend who can walk nine doors down the street and box your ears in? BG could literally open the door and yell "I'm no liar!" and BH would hear it. What are the odds that BH is lying about his friend down the street?
This is interesting. OK, so not including neltana and DAZ, when mangler is creating an animation with Poser 7, the software isn't going faulty and causing a humerus to change length or impossible foreshortening to occur, it's how mangler is using Poser 7.
1) Have you followed any of mangler's assistance to you to use Poser 7 for yourself so as to even begin to know what you're talking about? I can give you a tutorial on youtube if you like. I think you don't like.
2) Have you used an physical appropriate physical analog to demonstrate impossible foreshortening in Poser 7?
3) What is your suggested mechanism of failure on mangler's part?
Well, that's one piece of information that's not in the graphic.
I use the program 'Irfanview'. If the graphic is viewed in that program, it'll have the same number of pixels as it did when I made it.
It might also have the same number of pixels, when viewed in other programs.
As for the 72" figure....that was chosen simply because it's Bob's standing-height.
The comparisons of the elbow-reaches is a comparison of body proportions...so it isn't critical what body height figure you use, as long as both subjects are scaled to the same height.
The rest is all there, and simple enough to check.
...that, too, was meaningless, as it depended on the following information that nobody had until I asked...
I use the program 'Irfanview'. If the graphic is viewed in that program, it'll have the same number of pixels as it did when I made it.
It might also have the same number of pixels, when viewed in other programs.
Easily checked, huh? So we have to have that program you didn't tell us about and if we don't have that one, the numbers might not be the same. That's brilliant stuff, Sweaty. I think I'll stick to the method of body proportion percentages based on comparitive measurements in milimeters. All anyone needs for those is a tape measure and a calculator, and that I tell people up front.
Moving on...
As for the 72" figure....that was chosen simply because it's Bob's standing-height.
Yeah, that's going to be a bit of a problem. You see, in the image you chose Bob isn't exactly standing straight up, perfectly facing the camera, with his arms out Jesus for you to make measurements on. He is back against his car, slightly at an angle, his head's a bit down... but that's really nothing, you see, because here's the big one, the critical flaw, the irrefutable fail in your graphic...
You fail to comprehend the inherent fallacy in scribbling 2D goober math on an image of a 3D subject. You're doing calculations on his arm like he's a stick man or a cardboard cutout.
Look at this image and you will see, Sweaty...
His arms aren't simply hanging at his side perfectly straight and parallel. They are arms, man, with shoulders that swivel and move in a vast range of motion. His elbows are back angled away from the camera which destroys any 2D measurement ranges you placed over a 90° arc. He moves his elbow forward and all that scribbling goes out the window.
That's why mangler's P7S overlay is an accurate reflection of what Bob's own bones will be positioned like in that photo of him against the car. That is why both DAZ and Poser software can place one skeleton in both Bob and Patty and get a fit. It's not like in making an animation with either program you're clicking on frames of Patty and causing the software to alter bone lengths to fit the limbs and body. That is exactly why the left elbow of P7S seen from behind was matching the right arm of your Rorschach Patty.
See, look for yourself...
That's the same Poser 7 skeleton from the Bob w/ car image, the same from the full Patty animation, and the same Poser 7 skeleton seen jumping around here...
...snip...You fail to comprehend the inherent fallacy in scribbling 2D goober math on an image of a 3D subject. You're doing calculations on his arm like he's a stick man or a cardboard cutout....snip...
Even if he were a stick man or a cardboard cutout and the images were taken with the same camera, sweaty's "analysis" would still be flawed, for it does not takes in to account perspective effects.
Flawed methods- bigfootery's trademark.
No, I am not sure about Hieronimus' claim of playing Patty at PGF. A prime suspect, of course, he is.
Poopie7's left arm's elbow-reach measures a whopping 14"....the same as your 'average' REAL human being.....while REAL Patty's measures a paltry 19", uncorrected for the angle-of-view....which, when adjusted, comes out to approx. 21".
Checking the measurements in my graphics did not depend on knowing which program I used in making them.
This is yet another example of 100% Pure kitakaze BS.
It doesn't matter which image-editing program you view my graphics in. Regardless of how many pixels various programs apply to an image.....(which, actually, I think they'll all give an image the same number of pixels)...the relative lengths and proportions within the image will all remain constant...and so will the resulting measurements.
The only figure that would change is the "pixels/inch" figure...which doesn't matter. The resulting measurements, in 'inches', will all be exactly the same.
Green said that there were still some tracks visible when McClarin did the recreated walk. We know he didn't take the same path for at least some of the walk. This could be explained by a fake trackway made after the actual filming of the guy in the costume. Patterson may have decided that the tracks left by the costume feet weren't convincing enough or that they were poorly rendered because the sand didn't hold their shape to his liking. The actor may have chosen not to walk through moist or muddy areas even though this would give the best impressions.
If Heironimus is correct, P&G went back to Bluff Creek weeks after he had been filmed there. At that time (Oct 20th) the two guys could have made sure the fake trackway looked good for visitors and photographs. There would have been no compelling reason to make sure the trackway looked good and authentic back when BH was filmed because nobody had announced the filming of Patty yet. IOW, nobody would go to look for her tracks at the filmsite until the big announcement (Oct 20th).
Concerning measuring Patty's height from the film: If you believe the testimony of Gimlin, she had sunk deeply into the sand. Deeper than a human would, including McClarin. Additionally, the ground at her path is not necessarily flat and even. She could appear to gain or lose height inches as she walks over lumpy ground. This is also true for McClarin.
It is said that BH's height is 6' 1/2" (72.5"). Cowboy boots were the typical footwear for all these guys. BH would probably stand 6'3" (75") in his boots. I think (not sure) he said he wore his boots inside the costume. There would also be some unknown thickness of the costume feet soles adding to his height. Then there is the domed headpiece adding height to his own head. Anyway, there would be some minimum and maximum height that would eliminate Bob Heironimus as being the person in the suit. Everyone is estimating the height of Patty from what they can see. Some estimates would rule out Heironimus simply because he would be too tall or too short to be the guy inside the costume. For example, if someone estimates Patty's standing height at exactly 6' (72") then it can't be Heironimus inside the suit. The headpiece alone would be adding inches to his own height.
Yep, in some frames Patty would appear to be 3.5" shorter due to sinking deeply into the soil, according to Gimlin in this interview shortly after the PGF incident.
B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
nd
