Kilaak Kommander
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 343
Maybe it's the junk in the trunk. Or the vague smell of beef jerky.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3
- Thread starter JcR
- Start date
- Status
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Well I guess I did get caught up in the way she looks back, just like when you check out a good looking chic walking bye ya, then she turns to see if you're watching ~
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Just don't let her get on top of ya !
Dude, bigfoots make the best lovers. Just ask this doe. There are two bigfoots in this picture. (invisible ones) You know what they say, big feet....
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
14.5" would only be a little longer than my normal shoe. I doubt It would make my leg lift so exaggerated.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Might be a fun experiment. It's been done in a similar fashion before by a poster previously. (with shorter fins) If you were wearing floppy costume feet that were several inches longer than your foot it would alter your walk. Combine that with walking over a sand bar in a bulky costume and I'm betting it's going to look an awful lot like the patty walk. (no weird instructions required, just try and walk)
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Cowboy boots tend to be long anyway, don't they? Unless the fake foot is way longer than your actual shoe, I can't see it affecting your walk much.
My shoe is 12.5" long. If I add an inch at the back and an inch at the front, I'm at 14.5" and I probably don't even notice it as I walk.
I can easily see Roger telling the actor to lift his feet high for a good scene of the "big" feet...
DozingConsciously
Student
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 31
You might be surprised.
Owing to poverty as a student, I once walked around for nearly a year in a pair of boots that were one size too big for me, and it was more cumbersome and intrusive than you might expect. Granted, they were of the Timberland / Caterpillar type and so were chunky anyway -- and I have very large feet (ironically for this subject) so the difference between a $massive and a $massive+1 shoe size is semi-substantial in absolute terms, but the difference was noteworthy. Adding two whole inches might inconvenience you much more than you'd expect.
Cowboy boots taper sharply at the tip. Bigfoot feet not only don't do that, they actually do the opposite and flare out. That can make a substantial diffence in terms of manoeuvrability, particularly front-end pivot angles.
But we're nominally 'scientists'; you could always perform an empirical test to find out.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I sometimes wore larger boots in the Army. Mickey Mouse boots and also the MOPP booties, and even the regular boots were longer then my street shoes. I don't recall any lasting awkwardness as compared to my street shoes. A minute or so of adjustment, perhaps, when switching.
I suspect that even if 2" longer shoes were awkward initially, one would quickly adapt and begin walking fairly normally. 2" would probably not require a huge leg-lift, even with the 2" out front, imo.
When I watch the PGF, I don't see Patty maintaining the high leg lift, anyway.
The flippers in the demos seem to be considerably longer in front than would be necessary for a 14.5" foot/shoe.
I just measured, and the shoe I am wearing is actually 13" long.
Many people suspect that BH wore the Patty suit. Seems like he'd have fairly large feet, which would make it easier. That could be wrong, though, and BH might need more of an extension than I think.
If I were Roger, I'd look for a guy with big feet already.
Of course, Roger really only needs to get the feet to appear big on camera. There's no need for those feet to leave any good tracks. That simplifies the task.
It's a shame that no one really documented the site of the PGF very well at the time. A few photographs of key spots, and one good overall shot, would have been so informative.
It's not like it was an important spot for footers, after all...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Just as an exercise, what if Patty's lower leg were 4 feet long? That is, the bottom of Patty's foot is roughly 4 feet closer to the camera than the rest of Patty. Does the "foot as ruler" exercise still work?
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
At the distances reported, it would still be fine. There would be very minimal changes. (anything 100' or over) At shorter distances, and with different lens perspectives those things can be a factor.
Last edited:
Correct. If Patty was 100' from the camera and her lower leg was 4' long her foot would be at 96' so you'd have a difference of roughly 4% if it's directly in line with the camera, and if the leg is perfectly vertical.
Meaning the foot in the photo would measure roughly 4% larger than it really was.
Too many unknowns to get an accurate number -
- distance from camera
- length of lower leg
- position of foot relative to body (is it really 4' closer to the camera or is the leg moving forward?)
- angle of the lower leg relative to the camera
- maybe others
Meaning the foot in the photo would measure roughly 4% larger than it really was.
Too many unknowns to get an accurate number -
- distance from camera
- length of lower leg
- position of foot relative to body (is it really 4' closer to the camera or is the leg moving forward?)
- angle of the lower leg relative to the camera
- maybe others
Last edited:
Ballpark that would mean the subject is 14 ft tall.*Lol.
But to answer your question, an object 1% closer appears 1% larger. So in your concept, *at 100 ft, if that were not taken into account, the foot as ruler would make the subject seem 4% smaller than he actually is ie he would appear to be 13.4 feet.*
But to answer your question, an object 1% closer appears 1% larger. So in your concept, *at 100 ft, if that were not taken into account, the foot as ruler would make the subject seem 4% smaller than he actually is ie he would appear to be 13.4 feet.*
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Okay, now what lens do I need to conjure up...
It's my opinion that a 25mm lens was used to film the PGF.
All other things equal, in the lens equation calculation the subject size is inversely proportional to the lens focal length. So when for example if Munns calculated a height of around 56 inches using a 25mm lens, he easily could make it into a 7 footer by postulating a 15 mm lens because 25/15 x 56 inches = 84 inches.
The range of results that the believers* don't want for an "as is" or walking height is 60-74 inches, because allowing for posture and costume that would allow Bob H to be a candidate.
Given the deficiencies in the record, one could generate almost any height just by playing with the numbers in the lens equation.
Now the claim is that measurements at the site will allow real photogrammetry. That is, calculation of the actual distances ( within error) and by inference the focal length. But, with all due respect, a computer program doesnt make a believer into an unbiased photogrammetrist(?).
*I would classify Munns as a believer.
The range of results that the believers* don't want for an "as is" or walking height is 60-74 inches, because allowing for posture and costume that would allow Bob H to be a candidate.
Given the deficiencies in the record, one could generate almost any height just by playing with the numbers in the lens equation.
Now the claim is that measurements at the site will allow real photogrammetry. That is, calculation of the actual distances ( within error) and by inference the focal length. But, with all due respect, a computer program doesnt make a believer into an unbiased photogrammetrist(?).
*I would classify Munns as a believer.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
I'm curious to see what Munns will present as his next height estimate since he's been to the filming location (Bluff Creek) with the proper gear for obtaining more accurate ground measurements. There is still the placement of the film subject within those parameters that can be made in error. Hopefully, they will pick a frame where the film subject is very close to a stationary object that is present in the film and during their data collection earlier this year. So basically, if they obtained the measurements properly, its a matter of which lens formula they choose, and where they decide to place patty in the field of data.
Drew: As I understand it, Munns originally said a 15mm lens was used. Now he's waiting to go through the data collected at the film site to give a new estimate on height, and which lens may have been used in his opinion. Given that data was collected properly, they should be able to get some decent numbers on distances, and film subject height, as well as confirming which lens was used. (which should be obvious already due to the FOV on the film, and the comparisons with the Green footage)
Last edited:
He originally based his calculations (correctly) on the lens the camera had on it when it was rented to Patterson which was a 25mm lens, but when Patty ended up being something like 5' tall he then "assumed" Patterson somehow used a 15m lens, which got her up to over 7'. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but it's all on whatever TV program he was on if someone wants to suffer through it.
After we raked him over the coals for that nonsense be was forced to admit that he doesn't know which lens was used.
Someone showed him that his calculations are in error due the number he was using for Patty's distance from the camera. If he used a 25mm lens and adjusted that distance by 20' or so Patty would be be around 6'-3" tall, which would be correct.
He wouldn't listen.
After we raked him over the coals for that nonsense be was forced to admit that he doesn't know which lens was used.
Someone showed him that his calculations are in error due the number he was using for Patty's distance from the camera. If he used a 25mm lens and adjusted that distance by 20' or so Patty would be be around 6'-3" tall, which would be correct.
He wouldn't listen.
- Status