Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
And why does 156 pixels equal 23 inches? *yawn*
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
I need a detailed explanation of your diagram, Drew, before I can answer your question.
kitakaze wrote:
I used the pixel/inch figure, in the image with just the woman in it...... 6.83 pxl/in.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I'm sorry, Sweaty, but you failed to answer my question. How do you know when you wrote on the Patty still that those measurments are reliable? How do you know that there is just about a whopping two feet there? How does 156 pixels definitely show 23 inches there?
And for that matter, just for clarity, how do you know that 111 pixels equals 16 incheson the picture of the woman?
The Shrike
Philosopher
I'm about 6' 1" these days; in my youth I could stretch my neck and get to 6'2". So I'm tall-ish, but not unusually large. I have a pretty small frame for my height - I wear a 43" jacket and 33" waist on my slacks. I know, TMI from The Shrike . . .
I've got a convenient piece of wall here in the office where I could measure my "elbow reach" reliably. From sternum to elbow, I max out at 21" with my arm straight out. Then I made my elbow larger by putting on my jacket. The "larger elbow" increased the distance to just under 22", which I would consider statistically the same as Sweaty's reported estimate for Patty. Finally I shifted my position about an inch (to simulate the inability to pin down the exact location of my spine relative to my elbow) and I got to just over 22". Even closer.
So then I measured my elbow reach with my arm forward, as the dance instructor's appears to be in Sweaty's latest photo comparison. I got 13".
I next twisted my body back to create the impression of foreshortening when viewed from behind. This got me to 9".
So there you have it. A tallish man with a smallish frame can, depending on the angle of measurement and the apparent bulk of his elbow demonstrate a similar "elbow reach" to that SweatyYeti is claiming to measure on Patty. However, my controlled measurements here in my office also varied by 13" as a function of the angle of my arm forward-to-back. So the potential error has an enormous influence on any apparent measurement like this without precise control over the angle from the body and the position of the arm front-to-back.
I suppose once we have a real bigfoot on a slab we can measure this elbow reach thing with accuracy and precision, and we could do the same thing with Bob H. (Let's have Bob Gimlin do it - he's in the neighborhood!) Then we'll know for sure if Bob H's elbow reach is outside the range possible for a bigfoot, and that'll provide irrefutable evidence that bigfoot is real. Oh wait . . .
I've got a convenient piece of wall here in the office where I could measure my "elbow reach" reliably. From sternum to elbow, I max out at 21" with my arm straight out. Then I made my elbow larger by putting on my jacket. The "larger elbow" increased the distance to just under 22", which I would consider statistically the same as Sweaty's reported estimate for Patty. Finally I shifted my position about an inch (to simulate the inability to pin down the exact location of my spine relative to my elbow) and I got to just over 22". Even closer.
So then I measured my elbow reach with my arm forward, as the dance instructor's appears to be in Sweaty's latest photo comparison. I got 13".
I next twisted my body back to create the impression of foreshortening when viewed from behind. This got me to 9".
So there you have it. A tallish man with a smallish frame can, depending on the angle of measurement and the apparent bulk of his elbow demonstrate a similar "elbow reach" to that SweatyYeti is claiming to measure on Patty. However, my controlled measurements here in my office also varied by 13" as a function of the angle of my arm forward-to-back. So the potential error has an enormous influence on any apparent measurement like this without precise control over the angle from the body and the position of the arm front-to-back.
I suppose once we have a real bigfoot on a slab we can measure this elbow reach thing with accuracy and precision, and we could do the same thing with Bob H. (Let's have Bob Gimlin do it - he's in the neighborhood!) Then we'll know for sure if Bob H's elbow reach is outside the range possible for a bigfoot, and that'll provide irrefutable evidence that bigfoot is real. Oh wait . . .
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sweaty, I have some important questions regarding Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty. I am willing to accept for the sake of argument that your drawing lines on 2D PGF stills in an attempt to measure the distances between Patty's spine and elbow at certain points establishes the impossibility of Heironimus having told the truth. Let's say that you're right, and that your elbow reach thing trumps or negates Bob's claim. Let's say that there really is about two feet from spine to elbow when Patty extends her elbow straight out from he body at a 45° angle.
Now this thread is called "Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty." This thread is about Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty. Hence, I am going to discuss Bob's claim, including addressing it as a lie.. If the elbow reach eliminates Bob from contention, it is salient to discuss the elements of his claim. We don't simply say, "OK, Sweaty was right. Close the thread and don't ask anything about Bob Heironimus." You see, Sweaty, if Bob was lying, that leaves some very important and mysterious anomalies regarding his situation and how his claim came to be known by the world.
The following posts contain relevant questions which address those would-be anomalies in the event of Bob lying...
The point is to proceed with the assumption you are correct. Will you address those questions? Yes or no.
Now this thread is called "Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty." This thread is about Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty. Hence, I am going to discuss Bob's claim, including addressing it as a lie.. If the elbow reach eliminates Bob from contention, it is salient to discuss the elements of his claim. We don't simply say, "OK, Sweaty was right. Close the thread and don't ask anything about Bob Heironimus." You see, Sweaty, if Bob was lying, that leaves some very important and mysterious anomalies regarding his situation and how his claim came to be known by the world.
The following posts contain relevant questions which address those would-be anomalies in the event of Bob lying...
The point is to proceed with the assumption you are correct. Will you address those questions? Yes or no.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Keeping everyone updated...
My next interview will not be with Bob. The next people I will be speaking to are Philip Morris, then Greg Long. They are important players in this story. Suggestions for questions for these men are welcome.
My next interview will not be with Bob. The next people I will be speaking to are Philip Morris, then Greg Long. They are important players in this story. Suggestions for questions for these men are welcome.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
My question for Morris is prefaced by a series of statements.
If I have my facts right, Morris has asserted that Patterson purchased a mail-order gorilla suit from his shop. However, to my eye the PG figure is not wearing a standard-issue gorilla suit, available in retail costume shops in the 60s. The fur has a realistic look to it, for one thing, and for another it clearly has breasts or pharyngeal sacks or tummy rocks or whatever. Also, the "fur" of the PG figure appears to be homogenous throughout, covering the evidently modified head, feet and "breasts", none of which could have been original to the suit as Morris sold it.
My question, then, is two-fold:
1) What specific work would Patterson have had to do to modify Morris' mail-order gorilla suit to achieve the suit we see on the PG film, and
2) In Morris' professional opinion, could this work have been done by a non-professional sewer/costumer? Or would specialized skills, such as knowledge of taxidermy, have been required?
Thanks for all your efforts, Kitakaze. You're doing good work and I hope that in the end it will amount to something substantial.
If I have my facts right, Morris has asserted that Patterson purchased a mail-order gorilla suit from his shop. However, to my eye the PG figure is not wearing a standard-issue gorilla suit, available in retail costume shops in the 60s. The fur has a realistic look to it, for one thing, and for another it clearly has breasts or pharyngeal sacks or tummy rocks or whatever. Also, the "fur" of the PG figure appears to be homogenous throughout, covering the evidently modified head, feet and "breasts", none of which could have been original to the suit as Morris sold it.
My question, then, is two-fold:
1) What specific work would Patterson have had to do to modify Morris' mail-order gorilla suit to achieve the suit we see on the PG film, and
2) In Morris' professional opinion, could this work have been done by a non-professional sewer/costumer? Or would specialized skills, such as knowledge of taxidermy, have been required?
Thanks for all your efforts, Kitakaze. You're doing good work and I hope that in the end it will amount to something substantial.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Your body dimensions are pretty similar to Bob's, Shrike....and, to mine also.
I'm 6'0" tall, and with my arm straight out to my side, fully horizontal, my elbow-reach is the same 20".....as yours and Bob's...(give or take an inch)...
In the graphic above...I made measurements for Bob's elbow-reach at 15-degree intervals.....and, at the half-way point...(45-degrees)...his elbow reaches about 17-18" away from his spine.
If you measure your arm at that same angle, I bet it'll measure almost exactly the same.
But, your elbow-reach doesn't come close to matching Patty's....when yours and Patty's figures are compared at comparable arm-angles.
There is one important factor that I didn't include in my comparison from earlier today....it's the 'correction factor' for the angle-of-view, of both Patty and the Ballet teacher.
In the graphic above, with Bob, I did include it for Patty....(using a modest estimate for the 'angle-of-view', of 25-deg.)....and the apparent length of 19", for her elbow-reach, adjusts to it's actual length of 21".
If I had applied the 'angle-of-view correction' in my earlier graphic, Patty's elbow-reach would adjust upwards...to approx. 26-27".
Likewise, the woman's elbow-reach would also increase, by a few inches.
Her arm is out at a greater angle from the body, than Patty's is....and greater than 45-degrees...so her elbow-reach, at that angle, should be close to it's maximum.
I don't think that's an accurate statement, Shrike. I think there must be an error, or two, in your figuring.
One error, for sure, would be due to the missing 'angle-of-view correction factor' for Patty, in my earlier graphic. (Sorry about that.
)It's true that there are many different combinations of angles, that the arm can be positioned in....but, this is still pretty basic geometry...and there's a lot that can be determined, with a high-degree of accuracy, in measuring the arm/elbow positions.
In other words, the arm and elbow positions, and their measurements, are not as 'chaotic' or 'nebulous', as one might think they are, at first.
This analysis just needs to be expanded on, more...that's all.
Last edited:
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Just a couple of questions for SweatyYeti: Do you think anyone here, or in the world of science is buying what you're selling? If so, who? If not, why should we continue to read your interesting points about the PGF? What do you hope to gain?
Nothing personal, just a few honest questions.
Nothing personal, just a few honest questions.
Well, I for one don't read his posts. Again and again the guy keeps fudging his measurements, like the lady in the dance studio. He measures Patty from the spine to the elbow and then makes a measurement on the lady that isn't to the spine and isn't to the elbow. Same with all of his other comparisons where he's edited the Patty frames to "suit" his purposes. The film doesn't need to be a hoax with that guy supporting it, because half the stuff he fudges and the other half doesn't make any dang sense, and I got to say I can barely get to the real good stuff in this thread because I just scroll right on down past his posts and responses to them.
Anyways, Kit, I commend you on taking the initiative on interviewing Bob Heironimus, but I got to say it's difficult to buy what the guy is saying. Each time he gets any new information from somebody else he goes with it and changes his story, the problem here is obviously the guy's testimony is contaminated, and the evolution of it has been witnessed by most who have paid attention to it.
So first off in the book he says the costume stank, and in the same sentence says Roger skinned a dead red horse. Patterson's cousin or nephew (it's been a few years) says the rumor was Bob H. was hoaxing people by the road side in a grey horse skin suit (which Byrne independently had heard as well). Coincidentally Patterson's last sketch and report in his book talks about a then contemporary sighting west of Yakima of a silvery white haired sasquatch spotted on the side of the road.
He describes it as having a pillow in the butt and maybe shoulder pads, no other padding, and made out of fur coats sewn together and wigs. football helmet for the head. Bedroom slippers for feet. He says the hands were work gloves. The fur was patchy which is why you see the light blotches on it, when in reality it is the specularity of the fur.
This thing goes public, and he starts saying publically (KOMO) Chambers made the suit, despite that Long already was going with Morris making the suit. Then later Morris makes the recreation suit and so now he says it was Morris, and it was made out of Dynel. He now can describe the padding in it, but was this out of the recreated suit? Seems like it, because he's now trying to clarify that the suit itself didn't stink, and wasn't made out of a dead red horse, but instead the mask stinks and was made out of leather. Which is kind of weird for a cowboy to think leather stinks, and really, if this was a morris suit, why would Patterson bother making a whole new mask out of leather when he could easily modify the gorilla mask?
For reasons I'll get into at another time, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe he wore his clothes under the suit, especially since it wasn't the first time he wore it.
I believe it was Korff who said in the initial interview with Jeff Rense that Bob H. wore his boots in the suit, as an explanation for the "midtarsal break". Yeah, second hand.
I was a little disappointed the whole horse thing wasn't addressed, Bob H. says they only had two horses there when it's been alleged by P&G they had three. Of course, I don't know of any footage showing all three horses, but going by what Bob H. said Patterson was riding Chico, as shown in the "Cowboy footage", I'm guessing the little white pack horse was peanuts, which if I remember correctly it was Les Carlson (sp?) who said Peanuts was his horse and let Patterson borrow it, and if Gimlin ever gets his story straight from what I understand he was riding his own horse. Of course with the lack of photographic evidence that might be neither here nor there, but the big one is Bob H. claiming Patterson stayed on the horse and just moved the camera up and down and side to side, when it's obvious he was running and then stopping while filming the subject.
I also have problems with the time frame he gave of the possession of the suit. Again, going by memory, he does the filming, goes to the nearest town and mails it off and stays in a hotel, drives home the next day which takes like 13-14 hours and crashes out for the night and doesn't go anywhere, the following day is Sunday and his mom and nephew see it in the trunk on their way to church, then that night P&G grab it from the trunk.
Yet others claim he was at the bar showing it off to his buddies and making a big deal about it, where and when does that fit in?
I mean, a lot of this stuff sounds like he decided he wanted to claim being in the suit, for whatever reason, watched the A&E special showing the film, and then formulated his story around that and revised it with what he heard from the people promoting him. The ONE saving grace he has is that Chico was actually there and Gimlin stayed quiet about it for 2 years.
Anyways, Kit, I commend you on taking the initiative on interviewing Bob Heironimus, but I got to say it's difficult to buy what the guy is saying. Each time he gets any new information from somebody else he goes with it and changes his story, the problem here is obviously the guy's testimony is contaminated, and the evolution of it has been witnessed by most who have paid attention to it.
So first off in the book he says the costume stank, and in the same sentence says Roger skinned a dead red horse. Patterson's cousin or nephew (it's been a few years) says the rumor was Bob H. was hoaxing people by the road side in a grey horse skin suit (which Byrne independently had heard as well). Coincidentally Patterson's last sketch and report in his book talks about a then contemporary sighting west of Yakima of a silvery white haired sasquatch spotted on the side of the road.
He describes it as having a pillow in the butt and maybe shoulder pads, no other padding, and made out of fur coats sewn together and wigs. football helmet for the head. Bedroom slippers for feet. He says the hands were work gloves. The fur was patchy which is why you see the light blotches on it, when in reality it is the specularity of the fur.
This thing goes public, and he starts saying publically (KOMO) Chambers made the suit, despite that Long already was going with Morris making the suit. Then later Morris makes the recreation suit and so now he says it was Morris, and it was made out of Dynel. He now can describe the padding in it, but was this out of the recreated suit? Seems like it, because he's now trying to clarify that the suit itself didn't stink, and wasn't made out of a dead red horse, but instead the mask stinks and was made out of leather. Which is kind of weird for a cowboy to think leather stinks, and really, if this was a morris suit, why would Patterson bother making a whole new mask out of leather when he could easily modify the gorilla mask?
For reasons I'll get into at another time, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe he wore his clothes under the suit, especially since it wasn't the first time he wore it.
I believe it was Korff who said in the initial interview with Jeff Rense that Bob H. wore his boots in the suit, as an explanation for the "midtarsal break". Yeah, second hand.
I was a little disappointed the whole horse thing wasn't addressed, Bob H. says they only had two horses there when it's been alleged by P&G they had three. Of course, I don't know of any footage showing all three horses, but going by what Bob H. said Patterson was riding Chico, as shown in the "Cowboy footage", I'm guessing the little white pack horse was peanuts, which if I remember correctly it was Les Carlson (sp?) who said Peanuts was his horse and let Patterson borrow it, and if Gimlin ever gets his story straight from what I understand he was riding his own horse. Of course with the lack of photographic evidence that might be neither here nor there, but the big one is Bob H. claiming Patterson stayed on the horse and just moved the camera up and down and side to side, when it's obvious he was running and then stopping while filming the subject.
I also have problems with the time frame he gave of the possession of the suit. Again, going by memory, he does the filming, goes to the nearest town and mails it off and stays in a hotel, drives home the next day which takes like 13-14 hours and crashes out for the night and doesn't go anywhere, the following day is Sunday and his mom and nephew see it in the trunk on their way to church, then that night P&G grab it from the trunk.
Yet others claim he was at the bar showing it off to his buddies and making a big deal about it, where and when does that fit in?
I mean, a lot of this stuff sounds like he decided he wanted to claim being in the suit, for whatever reason, watched the A&E special showing the film, and then formulated his story around that and revised it with what he heard from the people promoting him. The ONE saving grace he has is that Chico was actually there and Gimlin stayed quiet about it for 2 years.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
It was the eyes deep, blue and foreboding that convinced me of BF reality.
And the knees so well placed from the eyes told me of the perfect symmetry that underlay the BF physique.
Such things speak of a more than human creature.
Last edited:
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
The short answer, for now, is....it's based on the height that I assigned to the woman, of 72".
There are 492 pixels from her head, to her feet...which are then divided by 72, to give us the pixel/inch figure. The rest of the numbers are just a matter of some simple math.
More, later today, sometime.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
The Shrike
Philosopher
I'm no expert or anything, but I'm not following what makes you think that lady is a six-footer.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
Right, you just don't see too many 6' ADULT ballet dancers. At any rate, it would have to be errored-out. i.e. 5'4" +/-6" or something like that, making any calculations absurd.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
For the purpose of comparing her body proportions to Patty's body proportions, her actual height is irrelevant.
Patty's width-to-height body proportion is well outside of an 'average human's' width-to-height ratio/proportion....and the 'elbow-reach' analysis is simply one rock-solid method...(since it's completely unaffected by any type of padding)...of determining if her exceptional width is due to either artificial padding, or due to a skeletal difference.
The numbers WILL tell us which one it is.
Last edited:
- Status