The PGF Hoax

No, what I'm saying is there are a few shots were Patty's feet are view able and her entire body. Obviously it's not going to be exact but you could easily get an approximate height within 4-5 inches using the known 14.5". I actually think she is a little shorter than 6' 6". Really looking forward to see what Munns comes up with in his latest experiment. The reason I bring it up is I feel the group that try to push her height over 7' are way off.

Bigwill wrote:No, what I'm saying is there are a few shots were Patty's feet are view able and her entire body. Obviously it's not going to be exact but you could easily get an approximate height within 4-5 inches using the known 14.5". I actually think she is a little shorter than 6' 6". Really looking forward to see what Munns comes up with in his latest experiment. The reason I bring it up is I feel the group that try to push her height over 7' are way off.

I agree with you that. Many people have tried to determine Patty's height and the 6' 6" range seems to be the most popular. I definitely think she would have been under 7' . Some have tried to put her weight above the 350 - 400 lbs. that Patterson estimated.

There was already the comparison with a person at the same site done back in the 60s and patty was smaller than the guy, I think he was 6 foot+

There seems to be a huge effort to show patty is 7 foot or more, not sure why because that will still not prove its not a hoax.

Another thing to consider with the latest site survey is that there could be various different height estimations because of the lens options and distance fom the subject.

It's somewhat analogous to my experience with UFO reconstructions, where a 20m diameter disc supposedly 3km away can be indistinguishable fom a 20cm disc a few metres from the camera (especially at low resolution with motion blur).

So you could use the site survey to digitally model the camera view using different lenses and different distances, where Patty is positioned identically in the camera frame each time, but film height, focal length and environment measurements result in a number of different height estimates.

Unlike my UFO analogy, where it's difficult to judge an objects distance from landscape markers, I think that accurate mapping of the locale should help to narrow down the most likely estimate.

Some of the factors mentioned above could however account for the varying height estimates we currently have.

On the one hand an estimate within human range bothers me (as it makes the possibility of hoaxing more likely) but then again what we know about recognised great ape species and the problem with eye witness testimony leads me to think that many Bigfoot sightings are exaggerated.

They estimated it to be about 7'2" to 7'4" and at least 400lbs based on width of steps and depth of the footprint and checking scales of trees within the film. I'm pretty sure they went back after a few days later and did all the measurements and footprints.

Forget about the height: the simplest model for the problem is that of similar right triangles where in the 1st triangle one leg represents the distance from Roger to Patty and the other leg Patty's height . In the second triangle, the corresponding legs are the distance from Rogers feet to a tree behind Patty and the height of a marker on the tree. Then we have Pattys Height=(Roger to Patty distance)*(height of marker/Roger to tree distance). Errors on the right mean errors in pattys height. Of course the focal point of the camera lens is not at Rogers feet and this equation is naive 9th grade trig, but that is the point: a sophisticated model will have more variables in need of guesstimates and will yield a larger margin of error.
Forget Patty's height if you want to show the suit hypothesis is unlikely, an average size male will fall within range of the error margin. The point of attack is the limb proportions as alluded to by TimeTunnel earlier.

But there seems to be some doubt about the lens used. The lens Patteson mentions makes no sense when it comes to the viewing distance.

So either he got the lens spec wrong, or the distance wrong, or both. But when you explore either possibility it's possible to come up with different height estimates. Let's hope the new survey clears things up.

Even if the analysis points to a subject that falls within the parameters of human physiology, there's plenty of other evidence to suggest that further exploration is worthwhile. Even as a sceptic I don't see the logic in the notion that it's Patty or bust.

Tony123 wrote:The point of attack is the limb proportions as alluded to by TimeTunnel earlier.

I agree. It's one of the few factors that makes me doubt the 'man in a suit' hypothesis.

However I can appreciate that camera angles can lead to misleading assumptions about anatomy. Consider the way that known animals have been mistaken for cryptids that supposedly exhibit anatomy impossible according to accepted wisdom.

That doesn't mean that I reject Patty - it's just a major doubt that needs to be addressed. I'm still on the fence.

Tony,

Given the validity of your views, I wish you would register as a proper forum member....if only to distinguish yourself from the usual trolls.

Thanks Woodwose, I think I will register. The comment section on Shawn's blog is a lot of fun, but it is also nice to have a place for discussions that are a little more serious and detailed. The skeptical approach to the subject taken by you and some others is also appreciated; I like to think a thinly distributed small population of large pleistocene relics is extant, and if that is true, like all truths, it can withstand skepticism.

Tony123 wrote:Thanks Woodwose, I think I will register. The comment section on Shawn's blog is a lot of fun, but it is also nice to have a place for discussions that are a little more serious and detailed. The skeptical approach to the subject taken by you and some others is also appreciated; I like to think a thinly distributed small population of large pleistocene relics is extant, and if that is true, like all truths, it can withstand skepticism.

I wish there was a props or like button.

+1

Not all anons are trolls!