Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why does Patty shift in size?


Vidgange

Recommended Posts

So, recently I've taken an interest in Bigfoot and Patty (again). What struck me is that Patty seems to change size depending on who is analysing the (in?)famous Patterson/Gimlin film. Why is this? Some people clearly thinks they can fit a man inside Patty, while others violently disagrees with this - they think Patty is close to 8 feet. But how can the same image yield so different interpretations? Let me list a few examples:

f1le9.png

VS

thum_2324a21fbe03ae69.jpg

What's up with that difference in size!? Both pictures uses the tracks from Patty as the measurement of how tall Patty is, yet they show pretty big differences in size... Is Patterson holding up TWO different casts?!

Or how about these:

Height-Bigfoot-Patterson-human-comparison.jpg.w560h320.jpg

jimgreenpatty.jpg

fig06.jpg

All three images uses real people on the actual site to determine the size of Patty, and gets different results...

These two pictures shows how a man CANNOT fit in the suit, while another one shows it's actually POSSIBLE?

tubeglove.gif

Tom-Pate.jpg

Is there anyone here that's a bit smarter than me that can explain how the same images can yield so different results?!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem is that sizing an object cannot be done from the film itself. There is no standard of measure in the film. Those that want to exclude humans just make the image one size. Those that propose it is a human in a suit use a different size. What would be needed for a good size estimate is to go back to the site and find where the images were taken. Then it would be possible to get a height estimate. That has been done to some degree and the estimates I recall were in the 6 foot range, maybe 6 1/2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that sizing an object cannot be done from the film itself. There is no standard of measure in the film. Those that want to exclude humans just make the image one size. Those that propose it is a human in a suit use a different size. What would be needed for a good size estimate is to go back to the site and find where the images were taken. Then it would be possible to get a height estimate. That has been done to some degree and the estimates I recall were in the 6 foot range, maybe 6 1/2.

But what about those track casts Patterson's holding up? The same casts can be used to either make Patty huge, or normal human size...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can skew results to fit their agenda. Thats why things like the 9/11-inside job and other conspiracies gain so much traction. Anyone can juggle the facts and misrepresent the numbers to prove one thing or another. The same thing happens with global warming, Obamacare and tons of other controversial issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about those track casts Patterson's holding up? The same casts can be used to either make Patty huge, or normal human size...?

The tracks being help up are a different issue. The issue would be whether or not those tracks are from the events of the Patterson footage.

From the wikipedia we learn this. But the following statement does not mean that the tracks in the photographs are the same as the ones taken by a different person.

Forestry worker Lyle Laverty happened upon the site a day later and photographed the tracks. Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his brother-in-law nine days later. Titmus made casts of the creature's prints and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film

We are also told the following. Are these the same prints?

They returned to the initial site, measured the creature's stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them.

If they are we see from the last photograph in your post that the Patty foot is quite a bit larger relative to the body size than the shoe to the human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about those track casts Patterson's holding up? The same casts can be used to either make Patty huge, or normal human size...?

Bigfoots sometimes change size when they transition back and forth from the dimension they use to urinate, defecate, comb their hair and die. :w00t:

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The markings on the photos in the OP seem a bit sloppily placed to me. For the human feet, bigfoot's feet and the plaster casts, it seems that the markings are arbitrarily placed slightly above, slightly below, or at about where the edge of the object in question (feet and plaster casts) actually is. The result is that when you try to scale it alongside a similar object, that if your markings are out by an inch or so on any of them, scaling them up you get all sorts of potential errors creeping in for the size of bigfoot in the PG film. That and bigfoot's foot doesn't seem very well defined anyway given that it's a smallish object in an inherently unsharp video anyway.

Way to much room for errors to creep in resulting in person X determining BF is 5'5" and person Y determining he's 8' because of those compounding errors being multiplied by each other. Add that to any preconceived ideas one might have about bigfoot and it's hardly scientific analysis IMO.

Edited by JesseCuster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple. People try to make Patty the size of the thing they are arguing for. In the film she looks about 7 foot or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would he something we'd be able to better estimate in a modern video recording. But the Patterson footage is so old there is no standard of measurement used, so I don't think there's any way to be truly accurate. I don't know anything about film though, so take this with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the source for the photo on the left?

I don't know, I just googled for Bigfoot Patterson Gimlin size comparison or something like that. Sorry I can't help you more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The size and photo comparisons depend who is analyzing of course. Debunkers claim its 6'1" Bob H., while believers claim it's a 7'4" middle-aged female Sasquatch. Like an above poster said, the film is so old woth little to go by and compare objects to. Unless a suit is found to match or an actual creature, we will never know 100% either way. I Believe the film is not a hoax and could argue forever, but I don't have time to start that tonight :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, recently I've taken an interest in Bigfoot and Patty (again). What struck me is that Patty seems to change size depending on who is analysing the (in?)famous Patterson/Gimlin film. Why is this? Some people clearly thinks they can fit a man inside Patty, while others violently disagrees with this - they think Patty is close to 8 feet. But how can the same image yield so different interpretations? Let me list a few examples:

The whole "Patty" thing seems a way of shifting attention from the fact that there is nothing, nor has there ever been anything, to physically indicate that bigfoot exists.

It seems obvious that if you are trying to show this film as depicting a really real bigfoot, there is no point in trying to use genuine analysis (as bigfoot doesn't exist) or realising the quality isn't really there to do this, beyond a very basic level. There is enough poor quality and ambiguity here that you can use perspective and various angles etc. to show it in whatever way you like.

It's interesting to note why scientists have little interest in it (apart from a few fringe dwelling pseudo scientists like Jeff Meldrum). There is nothing about this footage that precludes a modern human in a costume. It is human sized, has human proportions, has basic human locomotion. I watched one bigfoot show with amusement when a couple of anthropologists concluded that nothing ruled out a modern human in costume. In fact one of them concluded that prosthetic feet accounted for the walk (which was duplicated). While Meldrum agreed that nothing precluded it being fake, he just chose to "believe" it was a real bigfoot and continues to promote it is if it is some sort of fact (after all, we know he can't be fooled... :rolleyes:) . He also promotes it as being well over 7' tall, despite having nothing to back this up with, other than a bogus study that was discredited by it's author years ago.That's science bigfoot style. :yes:

It's also interesting to note the way many of the more fanatical proponents cling to and protect this film from anything resembling genuine critique. A big no no is to look at the circumstances surrounding it's creation, we must stick only to what is on the (grainy, blurry, shaky, often out of focus and distant) film itself. :blush: At a certain point it seems "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate" (abandon all hope, ye who enter) is a requirement. If PattyRogerBob is fake, there goes a mainstay of bigfootery. Within the fringe cult(ure) of bigfoot, which obviously relies on pretending that bigfoot exists, this won't be allowed to happen and will be reasoned away. Leon Festinger explained this peculiar aspect of belief a long time ago.

It's a shame Tom Pate (in one of your pics) had his youtube shut down, he had some good stuff. A futile pursuit though (as Festinger noted). Show that bigfoot is human proportions (as Pate did) and they claim the walk can't be replicated. Show the walk being replicated and they just say "yeah, but he wasn't wearing an ape costume". Nothing will ever discredit it to those who have chosen to pretend /believe.

While only very basic things can be gleaned (such as the morphological incongruities), I think this height estimate is not only very basic but is at least reasonable enough to rule out the more ridiculous height claims. While it won't be accurate, it won't be out so much that it allows an 8' tall creature. At the most, standing up straight, it could be slightly over 6' tall. A basic height estimate would be somewhere around 5.5-6' tall. It doesn't rule out Patterson himself being the subject. Foreshortening will be negligible at the distance and closeness of the foot to the subject, that the foot might not be straight doesn't help the cause (if it were straighter, therefore of greater length, the height estimate would reduce). The only argument against it seems to be that there is some "bloom" in the toe area. Not sure it rules out being able to give an estimation that at least rules out the more ridiculous claims though (such as Meldrum's).

Then again, this assumes that PattyRogerBob actually left the tracks Patterson cast, which itself looks very unlikely. Would make you wonder why he wouldn't just use the tracks left from the fake bigfoot? This blogger makes some interesting observations. While bigfooters claim it isn't PattyRogerBob's tracks, this overlooks that the blogger claims he has interviewed Gimlin (on mp3) who confirms that they were taken at Bluff Ck. on the day bigfoot was filmed, by himself.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com.au/

post-154672-0-87387700-1431578981_thumb.

Edited by Horta
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, you cant really judge the scale of the monster when comparing it to other photos because you simply don't know how large the objects are in each photo. The photo comparing patty to Bob H. is fitted to make it appear as if they are the same size, because the film shot of patty is obviously further away then the photos of the kid and Bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As said before, you cant really judge the scale of the monster when comparing it to other photos because you simply don't know how large the objects are in each photo. The photo comparing patty to Bob H. is fitted to make it appear as if they are the same size, because the film shot of patty is obviously further away then the photos of the kid and Bob.

That's not necessarily so, nor does it show Bob H. the same size (he appears quite a bit taller). We know exactly how big PattyBob's foot is, how big the cast is (assuming they are legit- big assumption) and how tall Bob H is.

Certainly wouldn't buy a used car from whoever did the second Patterson/bigfoot comparison though lol and the one with someone holding the pole is actually funny. With the McClarin comparison he is generally accepted to be some distance further away from where PattyBob was filmed. Which itself would make you wonder, as he claimed he was actually following "PattyBob's" tracks...(lol)

What about the one above which uses the actual foot that is attached to "bigfoot" and gives a size of around 5'4" (though admittedly stooped and legs not straight)? Assuming the tracks that Patterson cast are genuine (lol), how big do you think this bigfoot was? Still a 7-8 footer?

Not that it matters, it''ll only ever amount to evidence that Patterson stole a camera and made unlikely claims of filming bigfoot with it.

Fun to tinker with though.

These scientific analyses are probably the the most realistic and could help explain why the op finds confusion.

post-154672-0-16998500-1431628095_thumb.

thum_609048dcc14a091d5.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image comparison between Patty and John Green gives a rough idea of how tall she was. Based on that, her height is somewhere between 6'2-6'7. It's still well within human range, so her height isn't actually something that lends any credibility to the film.

Her proportions are roughly the same as a regular human's and her walking gait is almost the same as well, so I can see why people would think that it's a fake.

The copies of the film that are shown on TV give the overall impression of her being a person in a suit, but if you've seen enough Bigfoot videos where there's an actual person in a suit, you'll notice some striking differences between the those and the PGF.

Here's a comparison between BobH in the "original" suit and Patty herself

oJK3Qe0.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using other catalogued wildlife from the area whose heights are well known, standing at the same distance, yields the following.

post-154672-0-86444300-1432042365_thumb.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image comparison between Patty and John Green gives a rough idea of how tall she was. Based on that, her height is somewhere between 6'2-6'7. It's still well within human range, so her height isn't actually something that lends any credibility to the film.

Her proportions are roughly the same as a regular human's and her walking gait is almost the same as well, so I can see why people would think that it's a fake.

The copies of the film that are shown on TV give the overall impression of her being a person in a suit, but if you've seen enough Bigfoot videos where there's an actual person in a suit, you'll notice some striking differences between the those and the PGF.

Welcome to UM, OS...

2qjjdir.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The copies of the film that are shown on TV give the overall impression of her being a person in a suit, but if you've seen enough Bigfoot videos where there's an actual person in a suit, you'll notice some striking differences between the those and the PGF.

Yeah, I don't know where I fall on the PGF, it is certainly the most iconic Bigfoot image. It probably is a fake, but it has a realness quality no other bigfoot video has ever come close to capturing. It's either one of the best fakes, or the best example of a real Bigfoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I call fake because in the ensuing 45 or so years with improved camera technology etc we have not got another 60 seconds of film even close to this quality (that's not fake)

Edited by Philt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.