Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today I received an interesting e-mail from Tom Pate, the man who created the excellent video regarding how over sized prosthetics tend to cause one's lower leg to naturally lift, suggesting the unique gait of the film subject is not at all "inhuman."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K9V1uUzu-U

His e-mail included a graphic which I've posted at the bottom of my webpage on the subject. In my opinion Pate has managed to create a very compelling comparison between himself and the film subject:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/does-the-patterson-gimlin-film-subject-exhibit-an-inhuman-gait/
 
hey... THAT"S ME!

this photo was made as i was doing passes in front of my cameras at varying distances and heights to see how accurately i could measure a subject's height given one known measurement (my 12 inch shoe vs Patty's 14.5 inch foot).

this pic is what i got when i scaled the Patty subject's foot to roughly 2 1/2 inches longer than mine.

i am 6' tall and measure 5'6" slumped over with the leg bend. the shot was taken from 60ft away at 53" on a tripod with a Kodak Zi8. (just for reference)
 
Voodoosix: I like your videos. You're good at explaining things in a simple way. Thumbs up.
 
That's not the final nail in the coffin, that's the whole coffin...and it's getting sand kicked in its face. And so simply explained too.

A long time question of mine about the 'compliant gait' has been why would mother nature allow a purported 'superior in every other way' creature to develop such a seeming inefficient/unnatural mode of walking given 'traveling' is by all accounts one of the things Bigfoot supposedly does a helluva lot of and really well. Heck, there's been numerous delusions reports from any number of people who claim to have witnessed Bigfoot running (down the middle of a road in bare feet) 30-40-50 MPH. Seriously! Can anyone see Patty running (or being able to run) even 10 MPH?
 
Walking with a compliant gait is an efficient way to walk quickly without breaking into a run. Try it sometime when you are jaywalking! That said, it's also a physically tiring way to move, as you are essentially doing part of a deep knee bend while walking. How would evolution favor this for long term locomotion? It obviously selected for locked knee bipedalism in humans for walking. Bigfoot advocates can and will rationalize anything, so it's easy to conjure up some scenario where Bigfoot escapes from danger using a compliant gait...

The posture that we see in the montage comparison is from the early part of the Patterson film, and is not present later on.

In my opinion the montage is excellent in that it simultaneously debunks Barbara Wasson's claim that: "A human being cannot walk in this fashion. When attempted it produces an extremely awkward movement and cannot be reproduced.” It also shows that the fundamental landmarks of joints and height of the film subject are well within human limits.
 
That is an excellent video, V6, and will augment this nicely...

Bigblevins1.jpg


The Patty fans said that Blevins not having his leg at the angle Patty meant she was really Bigfoot.
 
Why does Patty have such "white feet" ? You would think they would get really dirty.. or have some pigment to them ?
 
is it ok if i laugh at Bill Munns' dismissal of my findings because "motion blur" wasn't taken into account? (which is one of the reasons i gave +/-6" margin of error and said 6'6" at a very generous max height) i almost spit my drink out when i read that.

does "motion blur", in a shot that clear, account for a 22* inch margin of error? if so this demolishes pretty much any analysis made by Munns himself, and Sweaty can put away his crayon box because Munns just dismissed all of their efforts. now every lip curl, eyebrow raise and finger move can be dismissed within that margin of motion blur.

* 22 inches being the difference between my calculation of 5'6" (being generous with my 6" +/- margin of error) and his calculation of 7'4" (with a 2"+/- margin of error)

note that my 5'6" is a traveling height and not full standing height, i personally registered a 5" to 6" difference between traveling and full standing height when measured on myself which makes my measured height in the photo above about 5'6" rather than my full 6' height.
 
Last edited:
Bob H is 6'2" i believe, the 5'6" is a "traveling" height with bent legs and a stooped posture not standing heights. Bob H does fit inside my margin of error.
 
Voodoosix said:
is it ok if i laugh at Bill Munns' dismissal of my findings because "motion blur" wasn't taken into account? (which is one of the reasons i gave +/-6" margin of error and said 6'6" at a very generous max height) i almost spit my drink out when i read that.

does "motion blur" in a shot that clear account for a 22* inch margin of error? if so this demolishes pretty much any analysis made by Munns himself, and Sweaty can put away his crayon box because Munns just dismissed all of their efforts.
...
Click to expand...
Yes, no film measurements will be allowed from here on. LOL. Where does that leave Bill????

Actually the foot length is probably free of motion artifact, more so than any other part of the subject, because the foot is barely moving in the vertical plane at that point in the gait. It is changing from moving up, to moving down and to do that it has to slow down to zero. So there should be no motion blur in the vertical direction, which is the way the foot is oriented.
 
i see more motion blur in the photo of me, yet my calculation is right on the money when used on myself at 60ft, i dont get his objection at all.
 
He objects because it proves him wrong....Footers don't like being wrong. Whereas skeptics go "huh, wouldya looky there! I was wrong!"

Not very often mind you, but we do say it from time to time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom