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 -

Patty size comparison


tyrant lizard

Recommended Posts

I think........lololol.

This would be the same feller who found Bob Gimlin hiding in amongst the trees, ballistic strikes on Patty, braided hair on Patty, Patty carrying a stick, Patty falling over and showing hemorrhoids...that feller? The only thing he hasn't found in this footage (so far) is Elvis.

The pics were taken years apart from different positions (of both camera and subject) and with different cameras. No way to get any accurate measurements, but below is a more realistic comparison. The subject is further away than Patty (towards the bushes) and the camera position was closer when filming Patty (as foreground log shows). All of which should make Patty appear unrealistically larger in comparison, yet even so, the subject (Jim McClaren) is clearly still quite a bit taller than Patty.

PattyMcClarin.gif

There is also the "foot as a ruler" method which shows Patty at 5'4". It shows how many of Patty's 1'-2" feet stack up to 7' as opposed to how high he really is (around 5'-4"). So either the tracks are fakes (most likely) or Patty is really quite small (about the same height as Roger Patterson?).

 

foot-1.jpg

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to offer some comments based on the science of photogrammetry, except...  I don't bother going to sites with names like cryptosightings.com

Call me psychic - I know exactly how much of value will be found there, and I have better things to do with my time...

 

And lemme take a coupla wild stabs...

1. I'm guessing it's an anonymous report, ie no real name or email contact details for the storyteller...

2. I'm guessing the report is VERY thin on details, and contains no link to the *actual* study/original source.  There will be no maths or geometry supplied, just handwaves.

3. I'm guessing the 'analyst' is not a recognised or published scientist (neither am I, but read on..)

4. I'm also guessing the 'analyst' does not provide a proper report or the full methodology, nor shown any previous checkable situation where he/she has *proven* the technique to work, including using verifiable measurements, not just claims about how high things are...  If I was doing that, those would be the very first steps - show the exact same technique working somewhere we can verify it, using measurement tools and maths that are repeatable and checkable.

 

Frankly, these people are generally amongst the lowest scum on earth, only interested in ripping off the terminally gullible.

Harsh?  Damn right- and I'll GLEEFULLY and humbly apologise if proven wrong in this case...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I'd be happy to offer some comments based on the science of photogrammetry, except...  I don't bother going to sites with names like cryptosightings.com

Call me psychic - I know exactly how much of value will be found there, and I have better things to do with my time...

 

And lemme take a coupla wild stabs...

1. I'm guessing it's an anonymous report, ie no real name or email contact details for the storyteller...

2. I'm guessing the report is VERY thin on details, and contains no link to the *actual* study/original source.  There will be no maths or geometry supplied, just handwaves.

3. I'm guessing the 'analyst' is not a recognised or published scientist (neither am I, but read on..)

4. I'm also guessing the 'analyst' does not provide a proper report or the full methodology, nor shown any previous checkable situation where he/she has *proven* the technique to work, including using verifiable measurements, not just claims about how high things are...  If I was doing that, those would be the very first steps - show the exact same technique working somewhere we can verify it, using measurement tools and maths that are repeatable and checkable.

 

Frankly, these people are generally amongst the lowest scum on earth, only interested in ripping off the terminally gullible.

Harsh?  Damn right- and I'll GLEEFULLY and humbly apologise if proven wrong in this case...

 

Its done by an enthusiast and is nothing more than a comparison of photos from someone walking the same path as 'patty'. Lighten up homie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in other words... I was right on all my numbered guesses?  :D:D

Except that last bit where I assumed it was related to some way of making money... but hang on, was Horta incorrect when they said it was by someone involved with the BigFoot money-making circus?

 

Brighten up, farmer - I ain't your 'homie', nor does it sound as cool as you think to use that sorta slang on a global forum.

I'm actually as light as a feather, and just love watching circuses like this trying to justify themselves, not realising just how much of a laughing stock they are.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So, in other words... I was right on all my numbered guesses?  :D:D

Except that last bit where I assumed it was related to some way of making money... but hang on, was Horta incorrect when they said it was by someone involved with the BigFoot money-making circus?

 

Brighten up, farmer - I ain't your 'homie', nor does it sound as cool as you think to use that sorta slang on a global forum.

I'm actually as light as a feather, and just love watching circuses like this trying to justify themselves, not realising just how much of a laughing stock they are.

 

 

Yeah but you come across as an unbearable ******* on an unexplained mysteries forum, homie. I guess I just dont understand why, if you're not even willing to open the links , you are even here. 

I know I know my bad for feeding the troll. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horta said:

I think........lololol.

This would be the same feller who found Bob Gimlin hiding in amongst the trees, ballistic strikes on Patty, braided hair on Patty, Patty carrying a stick, Patty falling over and showing hemorrhoids...that feller? The only thing he hasn't found in this footage (so far) is Elvis.

The pics were taken years apart from different positions (of both camera and subject) and with different cameras. No way to get any accurate measurements, but below is a more realistic comparison. The subject is further away than Patty (towards the bushes) and the camera position was closer when filming Patty (as foreground log shows). All of which should make Patty appear unrealistically larger in comparison, yet even so, the subject (Jim McClaren) is clearly still quite a bit taller than Patty.

PattyMcClarin.gif

Actually, if you compare where the waist is in each photo, you can see that Patty appears to be on a lower piece of ground than McClaren, and has a relatively larger/longer torso. Unless we assume Patty has unusually short legs then the apparent size differential between the two can only be attributed to McClaren standing on higher ground and thus appearing taller.

2 hours ago, Horta said:

There is also the "foot as a ruler" method which shows Patty at 5'4". It shows how many of Patty's 1'-2" feet stack up to 7' as opposed to how high he really is (around 5'-4"). So either the tracks are fakes (most likely) or Patty is really quite small (about the same height as Roger Patterson?).

 

foot-1.jpg

Who is it said that Patty's feet measure only 14 inches in length? The size of the sole appears in the photo to be almost as long as the whole lower leg (tibia). If this was an average human that would make the sole approx 16 inches long. If it was a larger bipedal animal, then obviously the sole length increases proportionally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

Actually, if you compare where the waist is in each photo, you can see that Patty appears to be on a lower piece of ground than McClaren, and has a relatively larger/longer torso. Unless we assume Patty has unusually short legs then the apparent size differential between the two can only be attributed to McClaren standing on higher ground and thus appearing taller.

 

No, you can't really, because you can't see below a certain height, or the feet, or the ground itself. Though you can imagine whatever you like.

The topography had also changed in the year or two later when the pics were taken (floods etc). McClaren is also further away than Patty (which would make you wonder how, if he was supposedly following Patty's tracks). There is no possibility of genuinely accurate comparisons (lack of data) but there also really isn't anything to indicate that Patty is beyond the height of a garden variety human. This is only to point out the unrealistic claims based on simplistic overlays the op's linked study is based on, are just that. 

 

Quote

Who is it said that Patty's feet measure only 14 inches in length?

The (supposed) track casts themselves do.

dennett1.jpg

According to researcher John Green (who took the above pics of Mclaren)...

"The prints of the creature on the other hand, sank about an inch deep, indicating tremendous weight. Its feet measured fourteen inches in length, five inches in width at the ball, and four inches at the heel."

"Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" by John Green, Hancock House, Saanichton BC Canada 1978, page 118.

 

 

 

Quote

If this was an average human that would make the sole approx 16 inches long. If it was a larger bipedal animal, then obviously the sole length increases proportionally.

If...if...if....

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'd be happy to offer some comments based on the science of photogrammetry, except...  I don't bother going to sites with names like cryptosightings.com

Call me psychic - I know exactly how much of value will be found there, and I have better things to do with my time...

 

And lemme take a coupla wild stabs...

1. I'm guessing it's an anonymous report, ie no real name or email contact details for the storyteller...

2. I'm guessing the report is VERY thin on details, and contains no link to the *actual* study/original source.  There will be no maths or geometry supplied, just handwaves.

3. I'm guessing the 'analyst' is not a recognised or published scientist (neither am I, but read on..)

4. I'm also guessing the 'analyst' does not provide a proper report or the full methodology, nor shown any previous checkable situation where he/she has *proven* the technique to work, including using verifiable measurements, not just claims about how high things are...  If I was doing that, those would be the very first steps - show the exact same technique working somewhere we can verify it, using measurement tools and maths that are repeatable and checkable.

 

Frankly, these people are generally amongst the lowest scum on earth, only interested in ripping off the terminally gullible.

Harsh?  Damn right- and I'll GLEEFULLY and humbly apologise if proven wrong in this case...

 

It's the work of MK Davis, who you are likely to find is quite approachable. Your other points would be quite accurate though. The gif I put up was from someone on another forums who "claims" to be experienced in photogrammetry (and gave a basic explanation). At any rate it looks far more realistic

MK Davis has been known to find some rather strange (to say the least) things within this film.

Edited by Horta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Horta said:

It's the work of MK Davis, who you are likely to find is quite approachable. Your other points would be quite accurate though.

Approach the 'analyst' on the basis of the content of that page (which I did take a quick peek at)?  Such contact might lend credibility that is clearly not warranted.... :D

Perhaps more importantly than my other points being accurate (which they were), you and Leonardo have both just begun on the process of showing why such an analysis is completely and utterly flawed - we have nowhere near enough data/reference points to even begin trying something like that.  And that would be if you could justify the analysis in the first place - even if this approach was (it isn't) capable of producing some sort of usable height range... usable for WHAT?  What is the point?  Proving it's not 2 feet tall or more adult-giraffe-ish?  How exactly would even an accurate figure, let alone range, help in proving something?

 

So, when my guesses were right, and that's added to the obvious impossibility of doing this accurately given the changes in the scene, unknowns of ground levels, etc, AND the pointlessness of the overall exercise, which seems to have no objective whatsoever...  well, I think I'm justified in acting like one of those asterisked naughty words that Farmer loves...

 

Farmer - why don't you take it from here?  I'd like to see your expert opinion on this approach - worthwhile?  What do you expect will come out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

No, you can't really, because you can't see where their feet, or the ground itself, is. The topography had also changed in the year or two later when the pics were taken (floods etc). Though you can imagine whatever you like. McClaren is also further away than Patty (which would make you wonder how, if he was supposedly following Patty's tracks). There is no possibility of genuinely accurate comparisons (lack of data) but there also really isn't anything to indicate that Patty is beyond the height of a garden variety human. This is only to point out the overly simplistic overlays the op's linked study is based on, are just that. 

Which would make you wonder if he was indeed "following Patty's tracks". I'm not saying I don't applaud the experiment of getting someone to walk in the area the film was shot, but there appear to be some differences between the film and the recreation (the angle of the shot is one I noticed) that suggests nothing conclusive can be drawn from the attempt.

in the shot McClarin's waist appears to be maybe 6" higher in the shot than Patty's, with half his thigh clearly visible. Patty, in contrast has the thigh barely visible. You mention "McClarin was walking in Patty's tracks", but McClarin only visited the site several months after the film was shot - in June 1968. I strongly doubt the tracks were visible at all given the time that had gone by let alone that he could "follow in the footsteps".

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

 

The track casts do.

dennett1.jpg

Who made those casts, Horta?

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

If...if...if....

Well, we both are basing our propositions on "ifs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Leonardo said:

Who made those casts, Horta?

Roger Patterson (originally), on the day he filmed patty (or so the story goes). Though afaik you can purchase copies from Jeff Meldrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Approach the 'analyst' on the basis of the content of that page (which I did take a quick peek at)?  Such contact might lend credibility that is clearly not warranted.... :D

Perhaps more importantly than my other points being accurate (which they were), you and Leonardo have both just begun on the process of showing why such an analysis is completely and utterly flawed - we have nowhere near enough data/reference points to even begin trying something like that.  And that would be if you could justify the analysis in the first place - even if this approach was (it isn't) capable of producing some sort of usable height range... usable for WHAT?  What is the point?  Proving it's not 2 feet tall or more adult-giraffe-ish?  How exactly would even an accurate figure, let alone range, help in proving something?

 

So, when my guesses were right, and that's added to the obvious impossibility of doing this accurately given the changes in the scene, unknowns of ground levels, etc, AND the pointlessness of the overall exercise, which seems to have no objective whatsoever...  well, I think I'm justified in acting like one of those asterisked naughty words that Farmer loves...

 

 

I only pointed out that your item #1 was incorrect. He is far from anonymous concerning his "research" and is generally approachable. 

The rest I don't disagree with at all. The bottom line in all of pseudo evaluations about Patty that don't have enough data to ever be conclusive is, that nothing about Patty precludes an actor in a costume. Unless you are willing to accept some rather unrealistic conclusions based mostly on your imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tiny nitpick - in point #1 I specifically referred to the storyteller/presenter of the article, as distinct from the researcher himself.  The presenter of that article was "Cyptoguy" - not sure if that's meant to be a joke, or just incompetent spelling..  I was indirectly referring to the usual way these 'studies' are presented, namely on some anonymous blog (tick) by an anonymous poster (tick), rather than from the 'researcher/analyst' him/herself.

So I think that's all 4, direct hits....

But other than that, Yes, we agree. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies then, my misunderstanding.

The bigfoot world is full of this stuff. It generally amounts to promoting non falsifiable (for lack of genuine data), non definitive and fanciful claims as if fact, then a concerted attempt to reverse the burden onto sceptics to disprove the claims lol (ie. bigfoot exists until you prove it doesn't).

No bigfoot or part of one in the entire natural history of NA = lol bigfoot.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 9:03 AM, Horta said:

Apologies then, my misunderstanding.

The bigfoot world is full of this stuff. It generally amounts to promoting non falsifiable (for lack of genuine data), non definitive and fanciful claims as if fact, then a concerted attempt to reverse the burden onto sceptics to disprove the claims lol (ie. bigfoot exists until you prove it doesn't).

No bigfoot or part of one in the entire natural history of NA = lol bigfoot.

 

Yes, that seems to be the extent of Bigfootery.  They make something up, talk about it long enough that it becomes Bigfootery dogma and soon it is up to the non-believer to prove them wrong when they never had anything but imagination to begin with.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it seems that after Farmer77 threw the insults, he's not coming back.  Such is the intended audience, such are the folks from whom the scammers make a buck.

As stated above, I did visit the page, saw that it was horribly flawed pretty much exactly as I expected (and has been covered adequately by others as well). 

But Farmer is not interested in content, slinks off hoping no-one notices .. and is expecting future credibility......?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Finally watched the video and can't argue with ChrLzs' initial assessment.  Absolute garbage (the linked video, not ChrLzs' post) but I have no need to elaborate past ChrLzs above post as it is spot on. 

It's amazing to me that Bigfootery, the whole thing, is based on a film that is so mired in controversy that it is absolutely worthless as evidence yet the chicanery continues.  Here is a guy, with nothing to base his beliefs on but other believer's stories, analyzing a video made by another guy, with nothing to base his beliefs on but other believer's stories, and then it is posted here for further analysis and defended by a guy (who I do like), with nothing to base his beliefs on but other believer's stories.  What an amazing thing Bigfootery is.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2016 at 1:24 AM, Horta said:

I think........lololol.

This would be the same feller who found Bob Gimlin hiding in amongst the trees, ballistic strikes on Patty, braided hair on Patty, Patty carrying a stick, Patty falling over and showing hemorrhoids...that feller? The only thing he hasn't found in this footage (so far) is Elvis.

The pics were taken years apart from different positions (of both camera and subject) and with different cameras. No way to get any accurate measurements, but below is a more realistic comparison. The subject is further away than Patty (towards the bushes) and the camera position was closer when filming Patty (as foreground log shows). All of which should make Patty appear unrealistically larger in comparison, yet even so, the subject (Jim McClaren) is clearly still quite a bit taller than Patty.

PattyMcClarin.gif

There is also the "foot as a ruler" method which shows Patty at 5'4". It shows how many of Patty's 1'-2" feet stack up to 7' as opposed to how high he really is (around 5'-4"). So either the tracks are fakes (most likely) or Patty is really quite small (about the same height as Roger Patterson?).

 

 

What is the guy standing on ?  We can't see his feet.  For all we know he could be 6' tall and standing on a 5 gallon bucket.  Unfortunate for the debunkers that we can't see his feet.  I'm calling a debunking hoax.  Also, indeed, "who was it who said patty's feet measured 14"?  My son's feet measure 14".  I'd assume 16-18" which seems to be the average for bigfoot print casts.  If 16", then "Patty the female BF" is 6.6" if she was standing up straighter.  If 18", she would stand right around 7' standing straighter.  That would be in keeping with some BF reports seeing families where the "female" looks shorter.  Just like in our species, often is the case.  Big male BF average 8'.  Smaller female 6-7' tall.  Younger ones, 5-6' tall.  Also regionally, the "skunk ape" often is reported a mere 6 feet or so, maybe a little taller.

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Big male BF average 8'.  Smaller female 6-7' tall.  Younger ones, 5-6' tall.  Also regionally, the "skunk ape" often is reported a mere 6 feet or so, maybe a little taller.

Can you show us evidence that these creatures are these sizes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but Dr. Jeff Meldrum can.  He has a bunch of very large footprint castings with dermal ridges and from there, most scientists can extrapolate height and approximate weight; like they do with dinosaurs etc. where they find often only partial remains.  Same with ancient human fossils.  They find just a jawbone or part of a leg bone and from there they somehow can calculate height etc.  Plus, the eyewitness accounts seem to line right up with Dr. Meldrum's dermal-ridge footprint castings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say, forget dermal ridges. Anyone who's ever used either plaster or latex has spotted those as artifacts of casting. Even if that isn't the case, and I've nothing but personal experience to support what I'm saying there, can you point to any independent study of Meldrum's casts, where such common doubts are addressed? 

And scientists only attempt to extrapolate from track ways, or reconstruct from fragmentary remains, when they either have a more complete specimen of the same species to work from. A shown, or hypothesised close relationship to a more completely understood species, or an actual or hypothesised living analogue.   

They don't just pluck it out of the air, it has to be based on prior knowledge.

 At least that's the theory. In fact mistakes in science are regularly, and gleefully, identified and seized upon by other scientists. Both before, during and after the peer review process. 

The scientific literature is full of people who've overreached themselves and come crashing down on their faces. 

Can you demonstrate anything which shows Meldrum's work has been through a similarly rigorous process?

Edited by oldrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to second guess the scientist Dr. Meldrum.  I'll take him at face value.  He admits there are many cases that appear to be hoaxes but some that are genuine in his opinion.  It's his PhD, his area of expertise.

But what I have seen him do is hold up the ones he says are genuine, and they look to be about 16-18" long and between 6 & 8" wide at the widest spots.  So, my son has around 13-14" feet, about 4" wide at the widest.  He stands 6' 1".  So a 16-18' print from 6-8" wide would be you know, between 7 & 8 feet.  Seems perfectly reasonable.  And between 7'-8' is the average range reported by the predominance of BF reports from eyewitnesses.  So it all fits rather nicely. 

What's harder to believe is that these prints taken from the middle of nowhere, more often than not, off the beaten path, are being made by random hoaxers with the hope that somehow some people will come along and cast them before a rain comes and washes them away...effort all for naught.  That's the harder thing to believe than that there's just a wily larger primate which has been discovered but only a few random body parts recovered and most of those seem to have disappeared.  There have been many large skeletons unearthed in the early days of American settlement/ farming; but for some reason the Smithsonian keeps misplacing them. : )

Edited by SSilhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

I'm not going to second guess the scientist Dr. Meldrum.  I'll take him at face value.  He admits there are many cases that appear to be hoaxes but some that are genuine in his opinion.  It's his PhD, his area of expertise.

But what I have seen him do is hold up the ones he says are genuine, and they look to be about 16-18" long and between 6 & 8" wide at the widest spots.  So, my son has around 13-14" feet, about 4" wide at the widest.  He stands 6' 1".  So a 16-18' print from 6-8" wide would be you know, between 7 & 8 feet.  Seems perfectly reasonable.  And between 7'-8' is the average range reported by the predominance of BF reports from eyewitnesses.  So it all fits rather nicely. 

What's harder to believe is that these prints taken from the middle of nowhere, more often than not, off the beaten path, are being made by random hoaxers with the hope that somehow some people will come along and cast them before a rain comes and washes them away...effort all for naught.  That's the harder thing to believe than that there's just a wily larger primate which has been discovered but only a few random body parts recovered and most of those seem to have disappeared.  There have been many large skeletons unearthed in the early days of American settlement/ farming; but for some reason the Smithsonian keeps misplacing them. : )

I'd say never take anyone at face value.  As far you (one) are able, always check whether what someone's saying stacks up. Whether they're experts or amateurs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

I'm not going to second guess the scientist Dr. Meldrum.  I'll take him at face value.  He admits there are many cases that appear to be hoaxes but some that are genuine in his opinion.  It's his PhD, his area of expertise.

But what I have seen him do is hold up the ones he says are genuine, and they look to be about 16-18" long and between 6 & 8" wide at the widest spots.  So, my son has around 13-14" feet, about 4" wide at the widest.  He stands 6' 1".  So a 16-18' print from 6-8" wide would be you know, between 7 & 8 feet.  Seems perfectly reasonable.  And between 7'-8' is the average range reported by the predominance of BF reports from eyewitnesses.  So it all fits rather nicely. 

What's harder to believe is that these prints taken from the middle of nowhere, more often than not, off the beaten path, are being made by random hoaxers with the hope that somehow some people will come along and cast them before a rain comes and washes them away...effort all for naught.  That's the harder thing to believe than that there's just a wily larger primate which has been discovered but only a few random body parts recovered and most of those seem to have disappeared.  There have been many large skeletons unearthed in the early days of American settlement/ farming; but for some reason the Smithsonian keeps misplacing them. : )

Dr. Meldrum, apparently, second guesses himself as he has never published his research for peer review or on an official science publication.  Of Bigfoot he has said "My book is not an attempt to convince people of the existence of Sasquatch,” the 49-year-old Meldrum says emphatically; rather it argues that “the evidence that exists fully justifies the investigation and the pursuit of this question.”  which means he doesn't have proof of its existence, as you seem to think, just evidence that further investigation is warranted.  

Most/all of his colleagues don't agree with him on that belief but Meldrum has the right to do as he pleases on his own time.   I guess he doesn't believe in the axiom that 1,000 pieces of inconclusive evidence do not add up to a piece of conclusive evidence.  Lastly, don't give hoaxers such short shrift, they are an incredibly inventive group, dedicated to their craft and always in search of that next Bigfoot dollar.  They know as well as you that a "footprint" in an easily accessed spot isn't worth much anymore since there are so many hoaxers at work so they go out of their way to find an inaccessible spot (that always, somehow, seems to be accessed) to plant there evidence so as to convince folks like you that the evidence is real and, as per the above, it works!

 

  • Like 1
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.