Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze wrote:
For mangler to access that function to say, elongate a humerus from fitting BH to fitting Patty, or bizarro foreshorten the skeleton when turning it to do the same, he would be actively engaging in deceit and hoaxing.
Click to expand...


A fascinating theory, my dear Watson!! I'm intrigued....please, say more!!

(Oh, btw...Watson...did I tell you that I don't care by HOWST mangler managed to mangle his skeletal comparisons? :) )



If he did not do such a thing, then we are going back to a problem with the physics engine itself, which you said you weren't implying. That's a smart thing for you to do, because if you would imply that consumer physics software couldn't handle something as simple as basic rotation of a given object, you'd end up looking like some kind of a driveling idiot.
Click to expand...


How very true, kitakaze....I WOULD!! :) But...I DIDN'T....so I DON'T!!


In order to prevent any such embarrassment on your part, why don't we make some effort to educate you on what you're trying to invalidate?
Click to expand...


Why don't you SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are errors in my graphics, kitakaze?? :)

So far, all you've done is HISS and RANT at them.....but DEMONSTRATING something is a much more (infinitely more) meaningful thing to do, than simply SAYING something...(which is all you can do.)

You can't deal with REAL-ity, can you? :)
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
A fascinating theory, my dear Watson!! I'm intrigued....please, say more!!

(Oh, btw...Watson...did I tell you that I don't care by HOWST mangler managed to mangle his skeletal comparisons? :) )
Click to expand...

Certainly. Hey, Sherlock...

1) You've never even attempted to use DAZ or Poser.

2) Every scribble you've thrown at us, like you 2D elbow reach fail, has been squished.

3) You've never show us with any suitable physical analog that Poser 7 stills violated the laws of physics.

4) Hello. Hi, I'm DAZ. I'm not Poser 7, but rather this other separate thing and I have an animation that fits BH and Patty, too. You keep sidestepping that. The Poser 7 animation is also a separate creation that has nothing to do with anything you've done.

Why don't you SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are errors in my graphics, kitakaze??
Click to expand...

Again? Sure...

Error 1

Where: Your comparison where you attempt to compare Patty frame 352 to Jim Mclarin.

What extent: 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. Óðinn analyzed the distance between them in those shots to be 10 ft at 133 ft vs 123 ft respectively with a 25 mm lens being used. Patty is definitely significantly closer to the camera than Jim and not at all in the same place. Controls not set. Comparison Invalid.

Error 2

Where: Your comparison where you attempt to compare Patty's height based on her foot and Roger's height based on an alleged Patty cast he is holding.

What extent: First of all, the image showing the bottom of Patty's foot is the one you just told us earlier is not reliable because...

SweatyYeti said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Total intellectual dishonesty on your part. You refuse to acknowlege the results of Frame 72 when it does not suit you, yet you go and use it when you think it is to your advantage.

Secondly, and far more importantly, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that the subject of the Patterson film made any of the impressions Patterson cast. Conversely, there is significant evidence that Roger faked his casts. Those are two left feet. They are not the same feet.

If Patty's feet and Patty's casts are not the same thing, then any comparison you make assuming they are is totally meaningless. To what extent is the degree of error? Pick a number. Based just on the issues you had with Frame 72 before, you'd be off by several inches. What the real extent is can not be reliably measured. All we can say is... Controls not set. Comparison invalid.

Of course, of direct relevance is the post by River concerning foot rulers and track depth that you still haven't addressed. Here's a snip...

River said:
The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated.
Click to expand...

Let's see if Inspector Holmes can get on the case. BTW, you know he had a thing with the blow, right? Sherlock Holmes - cocaine addiction, SweatyYeti - fortean addiction. Huh. I guess the crucial difference being that Holmes was usually right, whereas you are so epically wrong all the time.

You can't deal with REAL-ity, can you? :)
Click to expand...

It is to laugh.

Sweaty, you show me one bit of reality that you've proven and that I can not deal with. Otherwise, lose the projection and try not running away from the essential points of debate.
 
kitakaze wrote:
What extent: 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.
Click to expand...


A ridge????? :confused: What ridge? I don't see a ridge. Not even a bridge.


Earlier, I went lookin' for a ridge.....in the images of Jim....and, though I didn't find one, I did find an interesting little detail.
Jim seems to have moved upwards....or, forward, closer to the foreground....as he approched the frame 352 position...


JimJim352CompAG2.gif
 
Sweaty, this is the fourth time. Your evasion is ridiculous and transparent for all to see. Please address the issues in Error 2 from my previous post. Are you frightened to deal with that? You say I can't deal with reality and yet I run from none of your issues raised. Also, you continue to evade the key point about the DAZ animation as well as the Poser animation. This not the behaviour of an intellectually honest person.

Now, addressing what you just posted...

That's very interesting, Sweaty. Based on that image and those posted by you and Óðinn here...

Óðinn said:
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]
Click to expand...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim McClarin/PattyJim352CompAG1.gif

...it looks like there is not a ridge on which Jim and Patty are on either side. It appears that was an illusion created by the differing manner in which their legs were obscured. In fact, both Jim and Patty seem to be obscured by a short cut log in the foreground that is uneven on the right vertical side. I think you are right that Jim is moving up on the terrain and forward relative to the log.

Unfortunately, regardless, that does nothing to change that Jim is about 10 ft closer to the camera than Patty at 123 ft and 133 ft respectively and also as Óðinn proved, Jim does not follow Patty's path.

ETA: Upon further examination of the film images, I can not be entirely sure, but it seems rather than a short cut log that is uneven on the right vertical side, that the wood debris that is obscuring both Jim and Patty's leg is separate from a short cut segment of a log that is even on both sides, and yet where that segment is present where Jim is seen, it is missing where Patty is seen. At this point there is simply not enough clarity to be sure. Nevertheless, it does not affect the point I already made about the varying distances of Jim and Patty.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
ETA: Upon further examination of the film images, I can not be entirely sure, but it seems rather than a short cut log that is uneven on the right vertical side, that the wood debris that is obscuring both Jim and Patty's leg is separate from a short cut segment of a log that is even on both sides, and yet where that segment is present where Jim is seen, it is missing where Patty is seen. At this point there is simply not enough clarity to be sure. Nevertheless, it does not affect the point I already made about the varying distances of Jim and Patty.
Click to expand...

After examining the PGF and McLarin footage shot nine minths later as shown in the The X Creatures: Shooting the Bigfoot episode, I can see that the log segment is in fact present in both films. This can be seen at the 5:28 mark. Now check again the video at 5:00. Starting at 5:26 you can see the two films spliced side by side. You can see by the long fallen tree in the foreground that the camera positions are not the same and walking paths also do not match perfectly. It is only for one second at the 5:32 mark that the foreground lines up and at that point, Jim looks significantly taller than Patty as they pass behind a tree. Pay close attention to the The X Creatures video from just after 5:32 where they show a splice and say that using a digital effects device, they've precisely matched the two films. However, if you look closely at the fallen tree in the foreground, you can see that they are in fact not precisely matched. In that splice that doesn't precisely match, they say Patty is only slightly taller than Patty.

I think at this point, what Óðinn showed can't be understated in that the camera positions and paths of the subject are not the same, rendering the comparisons useless. It would appear that Patty is indeed shorter than McLarin. What is clear is that there is no evidence of Patty leaving the imprints cast by Patterson, and that tracks cast such as those posted by WP show imprints that anatomically can not be from the same foot.
 
Here's something extremely interesting to me that I have never seen before. From part 3 of the youtube video of The X Creatures: Shooting the Bigfoot episode we see a campfire scene from Patterson's film. In the footage we see seven individuals and some horses at a campsite. You can see this scene from 00:35 - 00:46. Roger is clearly identifiable by his stetson, red plaid flanel shirt, and jacket that he wears in the plaster cast scenes. Look carefully at what you can see of each of the seven individuals and then compare it to the cowboy photo here...

picture.php


Jerry Merritt is the first man shown in close-up playing the harmonica. It looks to me that Bob Heironimus is the third man from the left in the campfire footage wearing a coat with his darker coloured stetson. It also appears of the four horses seen that BH's horse, Chico, is the second from the left. It appears that all the men from the cowboy photo are present but there is a seventh man wearing garb quite different with a cap that appears to be something like that worn by a rail attendant or something like that.

This should be filmed in Washington, right?
 
Last edited:
A Bigfoot bicker of the day

You wanna believe in the big harry dude...Smack!
It was no bear, No bear moves that way...Slap!
You can tell that from a blurry video...Kick!
Well what else could it be if it wasn't a bear...Duh on you!
Produce some solid evidence then...One on you! Sorry!
We have and here is the proof... I win! :)
 
JcR said:
A Bigfoot bicker of the day

You wanna believe in the big harry dude...Smack!
It was no bear, No bear moves that way...Slap!
You can tell that from a blurry video...Kick!
Well what else could it be if it wasn't a bear...Duh on you!
Produce some solid evidence then...One on you! Sorry!
We have and here is the proof... I win! :)
Click to expand...

The problem is the last line. Bigfoot speculation is like life--no one ever wins. Best you can do is put off defeat for a while.
 
kitakaze said:
Look carefully at what you can see of each of the seven individuals and then compare it to the cowboy photo here... Jerry Merritt is the first man shown in close-up playing the harmonica. It looks to me that Bob Heironimus is the third man from the left in the campfire footage wearing a coat with his darker coloured stetson. It also appears of the four horses seen that BH's horse, Chico, is the second from the left. It appears that all the men from the cowboy photo are present but there is a seventh man wearing garb quite different with a cap that appears to be something like that worn by a rail attendant or something like that.

This should be filmed in Washington, right?
Click to expand...

I tried to analyze this months ago but found that it was too dark to get much from it. I think it is Washington. The horses don't match. At the campfire we see three with blazes, but only two have these in the actors line-up shot. There may be more than four horses there but we can't see them all because it is so dark. The photographer is an unknown in both situations, and it might be safe to presume that the camera person(s) has their own horse. Where is Gimlin in the campfire scene? If there are 7 men visible around the fire - then the camera guy makes eight. I don't know what to think about the guy with the odd hat. Gimlin should be able to answer questions about him and his "role", right?

We also have this scene...

fc9c7108.jpg
 
William Parcher said:
If there are 7 men visible around the fire - then the camera guy makes eight.
Click to expand...

WP, check from 00:44 to 00:46 at the very most left of the campfire scene. Pay attention to the brims of the stetsons. You will see that instead of seven men on camera, there are eight. Camera guy makes nine.
 
Spektator said:
The problem is the last line. Bigfoot speculation is like life--no one ever wins. Best you can do is put off defeat for a while.
Click to expand...

Kinda like me with a leak in my boat with one bucket, and the fishing is too good to paddle in just yet.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Why don't you SHOW specifically where, and to what extent, there are errors in my graphics, kitakaze??
Click to expand...

Too funny. Sweaty asks me this, I give him what he asks for, and three days later he still has nothing.

[SYLVIA BROWNE]Sweaty will return soon with more scribbles trying to finagle Patty the way he wants and pretend as though the blatant errors and problems in his graphics and posts have not been explicity detailed for him.[/SYLVIA BROWNE]
 
kitakaze said:
WP, check from 00:44 to 00:46 at the very most left of the campfire scene. Pay attention to the brims of the stetsons. You will see that instead of seven men on camera, there are eight. Camera guy makes nine.
Click to expand...

Yes, I definitely see eight in the shot.
 
FWIW, I didn't count seven guys. I didn't count them at all. The scene is so dark that I ditched trying to figure it out. I just went with what kitakaze said...


kitakaze said:
Look carefully at what you can see of each of the seven individuals and then compare it to the cowboy photo here...
Click to expand...


Here is a group of images put together by Dfoot (I think). This is a mixture of genuine Patterson scenes and ones from the film Sasquatch - The Legend of Bigfoot. This has also just been put in a blog by Loren Coleman because the film director recently died. The images on the left are "Patterson scenes" and those on the right are actors in the Ron Olson film.

Anyway, you can see the same campfire scene we are discussing but also a scene showing some guys riding away on horseback. Are these the campfire guys? Are they the guys in the line-up shot? Where did Dfoot get that still frame?

3d66fb7c.jpg
 
Nine years ago while running wild horses, deep
in the mountains with an old Indian friend,
He ran across a huge, a very huge footprint and
this is where the hunt for the bigfoot man
began.
To town and back they went and they made a
plaster cast 18 inches long from heel to the toe,
And from the print that it made, they guessed
that it must have weighed 700 pounds or so...

Buddy Knox
 
William Parcher said:
I think I can place BH in the scene...

[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/88ceb4c9.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Great find, WP. For some sociopatchic nut out of the blue looking for fame and fortune by accusing P&G of a hoax, he sure did roll around with them a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom