This question is a spinoff of the wonderful work Bill Munns has done, along with Gigantofootecus and Apeman, which prompted me to think, "Are there other images, in picture, or video, format where the site can be revisited and the subject measured accurately?".
We've seen how much Bluff Creek has changed in 40+ years. That hasn't helped video analysis. It would be interesting to find an image, or another video, return to the scene where shot and essentially do what Bill has done with captured images of Patty at Bluff Creek.
If one could return to a site that has not changed much since since the image was captured perhaps height could be determined with precision. Let's say, for illustration purposes, that the subject was found to be 7' tall. That would not prove the subject captured was real but it would geometrically reduce the odds of it being a man in a suit. Those odds could be calculated accurately and everyone could make their own judgment about what the results mean.
Full Version: Measuring height of images of BF
QUOTE(wiiawiwb @ Jun 26 2009, 07:43 AM) 
This question is a spinoff of the wonderful work Bill Munns has done, along with Gigantofootecus and Apeman, which prompted me to think, "Are there other images, in picture, or video, format where the site can be revisited and the subject measured accurately?".
We've seen how much Bluff Creek has changed in 40+ years. That hasn't helped video analysis. It would be interesting to find an image, or another video, return to the scene where shot and essentially do what Bill has done with captured images of Patty at Bluff Creek.
If one could return to a site that has not changed much since since the image was captured perhaps height could be determined with precision. Let's say, for illustration purposes, that the subject was found to be 7' tall. That would not prove the subject captured was real but it would geometrically reduce the odds of it being a man in a suit. Those odds could be calculated accurately and everyone could make their own judgment about what the results mean.
We've seen how much Bluff Creek has changed in 40+ years. That hasn't helped video analysis. It would be interesting to find an image, or another video, return to the scene where shot and essentially do what Bill has done with captured images of Patty at Bluff Creek.
If one could return to a site that has not changed much since since the image was captured perhaps height could be determined with precision. Let's say, for illustration purposes, that the subject was found to be 7' tall. That would not prove the subject captured was real but it would geometrically reduce the odds of it being a man in a suit. Those odds could be calculated accurately and everyone could make their own judgment about what the results mean.
Which is exactly what everyone does now so what's the point? But if someone does perform a height analysis he or she MUST RELEASE THE RAW DATA so the results can be reproduced.
The point is that if it could be determined that a "subject" in a picture or film were 7' tall then the probability of a person in a suit is diminished exponentially. The taller a subject is found to be the lower the odds of it being a human in a suit.
So, for example, if a subject were filmed next to a tree and that location could be found perhaps a very accurate analysis could be made of the height.
Clearly, if such an endeavor could be done, and a subject was determined to be 8' (not 7'), then no one could ever argue that it's 7'8" person in a suit.
Maybe there are no such pictures or videos where the location can be found. This thread is merely me wondering out loud.
So, for example, if a subject were filmed next to a tree and that location could be found perhaps a very accurate analysis could be made of the height.
Clearly, if such an endeavor could be done, and a subject was determined to be 8' (not 7'), then no one could ever argue that it's 7'8" person in a suit.
Maybe there are no such pictures or videos where the location can be found. This thread is merely me wondering out loud.
Well the Marble Mountain footage is something that has received some attention lately and we may be able to see the results soon, hopefully to include a size comparison if they can determin exactly where in the hill it was. there is also the Star Mountain photo that was Posted on the BFRO site that hopefully receive some attention, particularily to height (i for one would be very interested to see any results on this one). Lastly, in my select series of examples were the Ogg photos that Rick Knoll did some work on. i did some enhancements on the pics posted after the BFRO follow up investigation and concluded that the subject of the photos was just short of 9' tall. Thats some taxidermist bill!
Megatarsal
Megatarsal
Go to the Marble Mountain thread. Doug Devine is (arguably) the worlds leading authority on doing difficult and unusual measurements. He and his crew did exactly what you are asking for with the MMF.
This is what he came up with:
Height: 6' 7"
Waist: 56"
Chest: 58"
Weight: 683 lbs.
Stride: 56"
Arm Length: 43"
Leg Length: 40" approx.
He was also scheduled to be flown into Bluff Creek on this past Valentines Day to do the same sort of measuring on the PGF but the weather was too bad for the helicopters to fly. The USFS closes the roads into the Bluff Creek area when wet due to the potential transportation of a deadly (to trees) root fungus. I'm guessing they will be going in sometime this summer.
Now if his measurements are grossly inaccurate then this is all irrelevant but don't tell the worlds great scientific organizations or he may be out of a job.
The MMF results will be made much more public (probably TV) in the future. The show will probably include several more pieces of validating evidence as to the existance of BF.
This is what he came up with:
Height: 6' 7"
Waist: 56"
Chest: 58"
Weight: 683 lbs.
Stride: 56"
Arm Length: 43"
Leg Length: 40" approx.
He was also scheduled to be flown into Bluff Creek on this past Valentines Day to do the same sort of measuring on the PGF but the weather was too bad for the helicopters to fly. The USFS closes the roads into the Bluff Creek area when wet due to the potential transportation of a deadly (to trees) root fungus. I'm guessing they will be going in sometime this summer.
Now if his measurements are grossly inaccurate then this is all irrelevant but don't tell the worlds great scientific organizations or he may be out of a job.
The MMF results will be made much more public (probably TV) in the future. The show will probably include several more pieces of validating evidence as to the existance of BF.
QUOTE(norcal logger @ Jun 26 2009, 02:15 PM)
Go to the Marble Mountain thread. Doug Devine is (arguably) the worlds leading authority on doing difficult and unusual measurements. He and his crew did exactly what you are asking for with the MMF.
This is what he came up with:
Height: 6' 7"
Waist: 56"
Chest: 58"
Weight: 683 lbs.
Stride: 56"
Arm Length: 43"
Leg Length: 40" approx.
He was also scheduled to be flown into Bluff Creek on this past Valentines Day to do the same sort of measuring on the PGF but the weather was too bad for the helicopters to fly. The USFS closes the roads into the Bluff Creek area when wet due to the potential transportation of a deadly (to trees) root fungus. I'm guessing they will be going in sometime this summer.
Now if his measurements are grossly inaccurate then this is all irrelevant but don't tell the worlds great scientific organizations or he may be out of a job.
The MMF results will be made much more public (probably TV) in the future. The show will probably include several more pieces of validating evidence as to the existance of BF.
This is what he came up with:
Height: 6' 7"
Waist: 56"
Chest: 58"
Weight: 683 lbs.
Stride: 56"
Arm Length: 43"
Leg Length: 40" approx.
He was also scheduled to be flown into Bluff Creek on this past Valentines Day to do the same sort of measuring on the PGF but the weather was too bad for the helicopters to fly. The USFS closes the roads into the Bluff Creek area when wet due to the potential transportation of a deadly (to trees) root fungus. I'm guessing they will be going in sometime this summer.
Now if his measurements are grossly inaccurate then this is all irrelevant but don't tell the worlds great scientific organizations or he may be out of a job.
The MMF results will be made much more public (probably TV) in the future. The show will probably include several more pieces of validating evidence as to the existance of BF.
I haven't yet reviewed his raw data or his analysis, but the results look a little odd. He's saying that 40" legs generate a 56" stride? Was the creature running?
No, just walking. These measurements came from someone on the BFRO discussion board who claims to have been at the Eagle Point, OR library presentation which was made a few months ago.
That stride does seem a little odd, now that you mention it. Using geometry, the angle between the legs would be nearly 89 degrees. Of course, the actual pivot point when walking is at the center of the hip joint which would in effect decrease the angle between the legs. Maybe the creature was suffering from prickly heat.
That stride does seem a little odd, now that you mention it. Using geometry, the angle between the legs would be nearly 89 degrees. Of course, the actual pivot point when walking is at the center of the hip joint which would in effect decrease the angle between the legs. Maybe the creature was suffering from prickly heat.
thanks norcal, thats 8" taller than me, and 3.5 times my weight!!! can't help thinking that's a bit optomistic, even though it did appear to be pretty wide. 43" arms would be half way down my lower leg. 
Megatarsal
Megatarsal
QUOTE(norcal logger @ Jun 26 2009, 03:49 PM)
No, just walking. These measurements came from someone on the BFRO discussion board who claims to have been at the Eagle Point, OR library presentation which was made a few months ago.
That stride does seem a little odd, now that you mention it. Using geometry, the angle between the legs would be nearly 89 degrees. Of course, the actual pivot point when walking is at the center of the hip joint which would in effect decrease the angle between the legs. Maybe the creature was suffering from prickly heat.
That stride does seem a little odd, now that you mention it. Using geometry, the angle between the legs would be nearly 89 degrees. Of course, the actual pivot point when walking is at the center of the hip joint which would in effect decrease the angle between the legs. Maybe the creature was suffering from prickly heat.
Nahhhh, playing too much twister with Mr. Bigfoot!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.