To better understand part of what Bill Munn's is attempting to do with The Munns Report (Munns, 2009), I put together a model that acknowledges, incorporates, and discloses the effects of the considerable uncertainties involved. My initial model was an attempt to reflect Bill's state of knowledge as I understood it at the time from reading the height assessment portion of his report, as well as from statements he has subsequently made in relevant fora here. I soon found myself generating a version of the model to reflect MANGLER's state of knowledge -- more specifically, my interpretation of his state of knowledge from what I could glean from his report (MANGLER, 2009) and his relevant posts. I also generated a version of the model to reflect my interpretation of Gigantofootecus's (Gf's) state of knowledge based on my reading of his report (Gf, 2009) and his relevant posts.

After re-reading all three reports, and obtaining additional information from Murphy (2004), I began to refine my model inputs and realized it was no longer appropriate to refer to my models as reflecting the state of knowledge of others, as I was begining to form my own knowledge base using information from the various reports and other publications. I am currently rereading Meldrum (2006), and reading, for the first time, Glickman (1998). It therefore seems inappropriate to put anyone's name to my model except my own. It can thus be known as the Gc Model, but it changes fairly frequently, so the day's version of the model should be specified. The lens focal length for a particular model should also be specified.

I post here yesterday's version of my model, Gc Model (07-20-09). I assume the lens has a 15-mm focal length, but my Excel worksheet is configured such that I can easily substitute a different focal length. If I want to assess the effects of model uncertainty, I can define the focal length to not only be uncertain with regard to manufacturing tolerances, but also with regard to what lens was used. The model estimates Patty's walking height in frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin film. The model is easily extended to provide an estimate of standing height, but, given the uncertainties in walking height alone, I want to limit discussion to estimating walking height before moving on. For the same reason I want to limit discussion to frame 352 at this time.

The model presentation is organized as follows:

- The equation, presented algebraically with all input and output variables defined qualitatively;
- The input variables, defined quantitatively and graphically, including assumptions the quantitative definitions are based on;
- The output variable, including a graphical representation along with statistical description; and,
- The sensitivity analysis showing a graphical representation of which input variables are driving the uncertainty in the output variable.

The purpose of posting the model is to elicit input from members of BFF to be used in refining the model -- in the hope of reducing uncertainties. While Patty has one true walking height in frame 352, I'm resigned to never being able to know what that true height is, but I would like to know with some degree of certainty what range of values her true walking height in the frame may lie within.

During the course of elicting inputs for model refinement, it is easy to separate the people who are problem solvers from those who are problems. Problem solvers follow up any criticism of a set of assumptions or rationale for them with an alternative set of assumptions and rationale. I am aware that there are other approaches that can be used to estimate Patty's walking height. I am not interested in hearing about other approaches in this thread.

The software I'm using to do the modeling is Oracle's Crystal Ball (www.oracle.com/crystalball), which is an add-on to Microsoft's Excel (www.microsoft.com/office/2007-rlt/en-US/Excel).

In developing probability distributions to represent uncertain input variables, I use unbiased estimates of the population standard deviation (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbiased_estimation_of_standard_deviation) to prevent under-representing uncertainty.

I've tried to keep this post brief, but I've obviously failed. However, I could easily drone on about the methodology. So, if there are any questions on my methodology that aren't addressed herein, I'll be happy to answer them.

Equation

Bill's optics equation is simply:



where O is the subject's height (in this case, Patty's walking height in PGF frame 352), D is the distance from the camera lens to the subject, A is the height of the image of the subject on the film, and F is the camera lens focal length. This equation strictly applies only when the lens is focused at infinity, but because we are considering distances on the order of 100 ft, any correction factor for Patty being less than an infinite distance from the camera lens is infinitessimally small and is thus ignored here.

Each of the input variables is represented as an uncertain value described by a probability distribution, and these distributions are presented in the next section. However, Crystal Ball does not allow me to define F directly as an uncertain variable using Bill's bench test results for a 25-mm lens (this matter is discussed below). So, I need to multiply F by an external uncertainty factor, u_F. Because the uncertainty factor is bi-directional (positive half the time, negative the other half), I need to multiply the external uncertainty factor by a direction factor, d. As a result, my working version of the above equation becomes:



These two additional variables are unitless.

Input Variables

D, Distance from Patterson's Camera Lens to Patty in Frame 352.

Murphy (2004) reports that Grover Krantz estimated D to be 102 ft. He also reports that he found an estimate by Rene Dahinden, after Rene's death, of 101 ft. Dahinden's estimate is based on a stick he obtained from the site that Patty stepped on or near in the PGF. Thus, he had an exact measurement of the length of the stick. Exactly how these two estimates were derived, I don't know. But the mean and standard deviation of these two estimates can be calculated: 101.5 ft, and 0.8660 ft, respectively. When one's knowledge constraints consist of a mean and standard deviation (in an arithmetic framework), the maximum entropy solution (i.e., the most uncertain probability distribution possible) is a normal distribution, which I denote here as N(101.5, 0.8660) ft, and is depicted as:

.

The 2.5th percentile of this distribution is 99.80 ft; the 97.5th percentile is 103.2 ft.

A decent, relatively simple introduction to maximum entropy is provided in Harr (1997). The principle was first discovered by Shannon (1948), and later expounded upon by Jaynes (1957, and 2003).

Many of the inputs are reported to only two significant digits (D here is reported to three significant digits); thus, the output must be limited to two significant digits. To avoid significant rounding error in the calculation, however, I will retain four significant digits for each of the inputs.

A, Height of Film Image of Patty in Frame 352.

Munns (2009) reports the height of a full frame of 16 mm film to be 0.292 in. He further demonstrates that Patty's image is 15% of a full frame. Thus:



Gf (2009) provides three estimates of A. In one he notes the height of the film frame to be 7.6 mm, and Patty's image (not in frame 352, but in a relatively nearby frame) to be 16%. Thus:



In the same report he later states the film frame height (looks like frame 352 to me, but he says it's frame 350) is 1,786 pixels, while Patty's walking height is 268 pixels. Assuming the frame height is 7.6 mm:



Finally, in http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...6877&st=363, post #371, Gf shows a copy of frame 352 in which the film height is 961 pixels and Patty's image is 156 pixels. With his previous estimate of the film frame height being 7.6 mm:



The above four estimates of A -- 1.113, 1.152, 1.216, and 1.234 mm -- have a mean of 1.179 mm and a standard deviation of 0.06099 mm. The maximum entropy solution is N(1.179, 0.06099) mm:

.

The 2.5th percentile of this distribution is 1.059 mm; the 97.5th percentile is 1.299 mm.

F, Focal Length of Patterson's Camera Lens.

As my efforts presented herein started as an attempt to quantify the uncertainty in Bill Munns's estimate of Patty's walking height, I am using a focal length of 15.00 mm. The model can easily be run with a 25-mm lens assumed, and I will post results for that after getting this version posted.

The uncertainty factor for F I derived from Bill Munn's bench test of a 25-mm lens. The maximum entropy solution is a double exponential distribution, which is not an option in Crystal Ball. Therefore, I have to create the uncertainty factor distribution by multiplying two other distributions together, then multiplying the result (actually, 1 less the result) by F. The two other distributions are defined below.

u_F, Uncertainty Factor for F.

Bill Munns, in post #217 at www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=26877&st=198, bench tested the focal length of a 25-mm lens and arrived at an effective focal length of 25.4 mm. Therefore, the error relative to the 25-mm specification is:



Because negative errors are possible, we take the absolute value to fit a distributioni. If this value represents our best estimate of the uncertainty, and if we further assume that the lower bound of possible errors is 0 (a physical constraint), the maximum entropy solution is an exponential distribution, denoted e(0.01600):

.

To accomodate negative errors, the distribution should be negative half the time. This is accounted for in the next variable.

The 2.5th percentile of this distribution is 0.0003945; the 97.5th percentile is 0.05855.

d, Direction Factor for u_F.

To make u_F negative half the time and postive the other half, it needs to be multiplied by -1 50% of the time and by 1 the other 50%. This is accomplished with by defining a custom distribution in Crystal Ball and I denote that distribution as CD(-1, 0.500; 1, 0.500):

.

The 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles are -1.000 and 1.000, respectively.

When F is multiplied by (1-u_Fd), the resulting uncertain representation of F for a 15.00-mm lens is:

.

The 2.5th percentile of F is 14.28 mm; the 97.5th percentile is 15.72 mm.

Output Variable

The model was evaluated by means of a 1,000,000-trial Latin hypercube simulation. The results for O are:

.

Statistics: Forecast values
Trials 1,000,000
Mean 8.0
Median 8.0
Standard Deviation 0.46
Variance 0.21
Skewness 0.074
Kurtosis 3.1
Coeff. of Variability 0.057
Minimum 5.8
Maximum 11
Range Width 4.9
Mean Std. Error 0.00046

Percentiles: Forecast values
2.5% 7.1
50% 8.0
97.5% 8.9.

With 95% of the values spanning a 1.8-ft range, this cannot be regarded as a precise estimate. There is no easy way to validate the results, but they can be compared to some historical values. One must remember that the

Murphy (2004) reports that Patterson's initial impression of Patty's height was that she was 6 ft or greater; Gimlin's is reported as 6.5 to 7 ft. Murphy doesn't specify whether these are walking height or standing height estimates, but because Patty was walking for most of the time she was observed, and because Patterson's horse fell when Patty was first encountered, at which time she stood and looked at her intruders for a while before walking away, I'm assuming that these initial impressions are based on her walking height. Only 1.4% of the values of O presented above fall into the range of 6 to 7 ft.

Murphy also reports six independent historical height estimates (in inches):

72 (Krantz),
75.5 (Leclerc),
77 (Grieve),
78 (Bayanov & Bourtsev),
80 (Green), and
87.5 (Glickman).

These six values fit a lognormal distribution with an arithmetic mean of 6.532 ft and an arithmetic standard deviation of 0.4500 ft, denoted LN(6.532, 0.4500) ft. The 2.5th percentile of this distribution is 5.7 ft; the 97.5th percentile is 7.5 ft. The estimate of O above differs from this distribution by an average of 1.4 ft. A difference of 0 lies at the 1.3rd percentile of the distribution of the difference, indicating that O is significantly higher than the distribution derived from the historical values.

Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis shows which input variables the model output is most sensitive to. The highly sensitive inputs are the best candidates for refinement, as any reduction of uncertainty in them will result in a significant reduction of uncertainty in the output. The measure of sensitivity is rank correlation between a given input and the output. By squaring the rank correlation coefficient, the contribution to uncertainty is obtained. These contributions are additive, so the contribution to uncertainty in O due to F can be obtained by summing the contributions from u_F and d.

The sensitivity analysis is presented below as a chart:

.

The model is most sensitive, by far to A. Because this is the input variable that I would think should be the easiest to measure, I am hoping that careful measurements can be made to refine A substantially. But, regardless of the degree of refinement, O is clearly sensitive to small changes in A.

The focal length, F is the input the model is next most sensitive to. Gf and MANGLER have both stated that manufacturing tolerance for lenses is typically 10%, but no documentation has yet been offered. If their position is true, the uncertainty in F will be will become greater than it is now.

Distance from lens to Patty is currently the most certain variable, but I expect that reviewers may well find me guilty of being overconfident about how D is currently defined. If so, refinement may increase the uncertainty in D and, thus, in O.

Literature Cited

Gigantofootecus, 2009, Review of "The Bill Munns Report": a PG Film Analysis, www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm.

Glickman, J., 1998, Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon, North American Science Institute.

Harr, M.E., 1987, Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering, McGraw-Hill.

Jaynes, E.T., 1957, Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics, Physical Review 106:620-630.

Jaynes, E.T., 2003, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, Cambridge University Press.

MANGLER, 2009, Personal Perspective of the PGF, notthemunnsreport.com.

Meldrum, J., 2006, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Tom Doherty Associates.

Munns, B., 2009, The Munns Report, www.themunnsreport.com.

Murphy, C.L., 2004, Meet the Sasquatch, Hancock House Publishers.

Shannon, C.E., 1948, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423 and 623-656; cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf.

25-mm Version of the Model

Post #1 above provides the 15-mm version of the model, as of 07-20-09. This post provides the 25-mm version.

Equation

The equation used here is identical to that described in post #1.

Input Variables

All input variables are identical to those defined in post #1, except for F, which is now 25 mm.

The same uncertainty factor is applied to F. The result is:

.

The 2.5th percentile of this distribution is 23.81 ft; the 97.5th percentile is 26.20 ft.

Output Variable

The model was evaluated by means of a 1,000,000-trial Latin hypercube simulation. The results for O are:

.

Statistics: Forecast values
Trials 1,000,000
Mean 4.8
Median 4.8
Standard Deviation 0.27
Variance 0.075
Skewness 0.072
Kurtosis 3.1
Coeff. of Variability 0.057
Minimum 3.5
Maximum 6.3
Range Width 2.8
Mean Std. Error 0.00027

Percentiles: Forecast values
2.5% 4.3
50% 4.8
97.5% 5.3


Ninety-five percent of the values span a 1.0-ft range, so this cannot be regarded as a precise estimate, either. The results are compared to the same two sets of historic values that the 15-mm results were compared to. Given that I didn't finish a sentence in post #1, I'll finish it here. One must remember that the historic estimates are not gold standards, so conformity to one or both would not constitute proof of this being a valid model, nor would failure to conform with one or both mean that this model is in obvious error. The same caution applies to the 15-mm version of the model.

As a reminder, the two historic benchmarks are Patterson's and Gimlin's initial impressions (6 to 7 ft), and six independent estimates of Patty's walking height, which yields the distribution, LN(6.532, 0.4500) ft. Far less than 0.1% of the values of this model version lie within the range of Patterson's and Gimlin's intial impressions. The 25-mm estimate of O differs from the distribution derived from six historic height estimates by -1.7 ft. A difference of 0 lies at the 99.98th percentile of the distribution of the difference, thus demonstrating that the model, as currently defined, is significantly lower than the distribution derived from the historical values.

Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis is presented below as a chart:



The sensitivities are virtually identical to those seen in the 15-mm version of the model.

Gc...I retract my compliment to you from March out of politeness. You are now an official ass.

Gc,

I'm not meaning to be one of those "problem" people, but I'm going to post a minor criticsim without presenting a solution.

I question using Patterson and Gimlin's estimates for anything. If it was a hoax, then these numbers are just stories. I also question the "historic" estimates unless you know that a reasonable method was used to reach each estimate. For example, Bourtsev is the same guy who bought Janice Carter's story hook, line and sinker...I would question anything connected to him. Unfortunately, all (or most) of these estimates are from biased sources (even though some may have made non-biased evaluations)

Thanks.

G.c.- I think I see what you're doing (and have some statistical objections) but can you clarify your actual objective with this exercise?

Thanks.

A

comncents,

I'm not meaning to be one of those "problem" people, but I'm going to post a minor criticsim without presenting a solution.

I question using Patterson and Gimlin's estimates for anything. If it was a hoax, then these numbers are just stories. I also question the "historic" estimates unless you know that a reasonable method was used to reach each estimate. For example, Bourtsev is the same guy who bought Janice Carter's story hook, line and sinker...I would question anything connected to him. Unfortunately, all (or most) of these estimates are from biased sources (even though some may have made non-biased evaluations)

In post #2 above, I state:

"Given that I didn't finish a sentence in post #1, I'll finish it here. One must remember that the historic estimates are not gold standards, so conformity to one or both would not constitute proof of this being a valid model, nor would failure to conform with one or both mean that this model is in obvious error. The same caution applies to the 15-mm version of the model."

To give you an opportunity to become part of the solution, what would you compare the results to? I realize it's a difficult question to answer, and perhaps there is no good answer.

Just because someone buys into what may well be a fairy tale doesn't mean that person can't arrive at a valid height estimate. I must reject ad-hominem arguments as the invalid fallacies they are.

Except for Glickman's, I don't know how the other five estimates cited by Murphy were derived. I don't make representations that any of the six estimates is accurate or valid. I provide the information only to show that historic estiamtes of height are widely variable. I would not presume to accuse any of the six investigators of being biased in his analysis.

G. canadensis

Apeman,

can you clarify your actual objective with this exercise?

As I state in post #1: "The purpose of posting the model is to elicit input from members of BFF to be used in refining the model -- in the hope of reducing uncertainties."

I don't have all the knowledge needed to make significant refinements. I'm hoping that others here can contribute. For example, of the six historic estimates of Patty's walking height cited by Murphy, I'm sure others here have ready access to source documents that can be reviewed to determine how valid each estimate is. In reading Glickman, I found a thread here discussing his approach to estimating height where Gf provided a critique. I didn't understand all Gf's objections, but is it possible that Gf could help refine Glickman's assessment? Glickman admits he did not perform an error analysis.

The size of Patty's image on the film is the variable contributing most to the uncertainty in Patty's walking height. I'm using four estimates that I can glean from Bill's and Gf's reports and posts. It seems to me that this variable should be amenable to careful measurement with hopefully significant uncertainty reduction. I can glean three different estimates from Gf -- the difference in one or two may be because it wasn't frame 352. If Gf confirms that's the case, perhaps those two estimates should be eliminated as irrelevant. Gf states a film frame height of 7.6 mm. Glickman cites the specification for the film height as 7.605 mm and claims to have measured 7.60 mm. Is this where Gf gets his value? Bill states a film frame height of 0.292 in, which converts to 7.42 mm. 7.60 mm converts to 0.2992 in -- could Bill have inadvertently dropped a '9' while writing the measurement in his report? If he can confirm that he did, some quick and hopefully substantial information gains can be made.

Not specifying which height one is referring to -- walking or standing -- is a problem that may well have caused all sorts of confusion over the years. In delving into historical height estimates, we may well find that some standing height estimates were interpreted as walking height estimates by Murphy.

Delving into Krantz's and Dahinden's estimates of distance from the lens to Patty may well show that variable is far more uncertain than what I'm now assuming. Historical measurements of the scene imply that an object in front of Patty's location in frame 352 is 85 ft from the lens, while the nearest measured object behind her is 143 ft from the lens. That leaves a lot of wiggle room around Krantz's estimate of 102 ft. Bill claims an object in front of Patty is 94 ft from the lens, so she can't be closer than 94 ft. What would that distance be with a 25-mm lens? Can something closer than 143 ft be found behind her to provide an upper bound of the estimate?

Can documentation be found as to the tolerances of lens focal lengths? Right now, I'm using the result of a bench test of a single lens.

There is uncertainty in the site geometry due to a lack of cross directional measurements of the scene. But, I gather from the various figures folks have plotted that the scene measurement data consist of distances and angles. Thus, can't one calculate some cross directional distances using geometry? I'd be happy to take a stab at it if I could read the angle measurements.

There are all sorts of questions that can be asked and enhancements that can be made.

G. canadensis

Dr. Krantz was pretty certain about her size. She had a ruler with her in the film, her 14 and a half inch foot. This was based on the footprints cast at the site. If she is real, her cast footprints are certainly real. He simply used her feet on appropriate frames where her foot is about 90 degrees to the camera and visible to measure her height. It isn't perfect but I can't see how it can be too far from her real height, 6 and a half foot stretched out or about 6 foot walking. I liked Glickman's logic generally except I think he blew it on her height. It seems to me that trying to figure it out using other methods with many uncertain variables is just not as elegant as that method. As I haven't posted much recently, I can only assume I am with the majority on that opinion.

We've been here before, but I'll post the link again. I've refined it some (added another frame)and, at the bottom of the page, I've tested the process. The foot is a definite "ruler". If the foot is 14.5" then Patty is 66.12" walking in frame 72. I can't see how Bill Munns comes up with 7'04"±2". That seems impossible given the facts.

Fact! As reported and cast, Patty's track is 14.5"
Fact! Patty height is 4.56 times her own foot length as measured in frame 72.
Fact! 4.56*14.5"=66.12" = Patty's walking height in frame 72.
Fact! It is impossible to gain more than ~6" standing erect from Patty's walking posture.

Measuring Patty with CAD

Since it's entirely possible that Roger Patterson hoaxed the prints, I don't think it's valid to go by the cast footprints for measurements.

To me, the biometrics tell you more, particularly the arm-length. The problem is, there's an exception for almost anything. It appears that no arm extensions were used, but you can't be certain.

What are you basing your "it's entirely possible" on? That everything in life is possible or do you have something more concrete than that?

So a walking height of 5'6" can produce a consistent 41" step? You mention in your link to "try it'. How about you try this. Find someone with a walking height, of a mere 5'6", that can consistently, and fluidly, produce a 41" step.

I don't think that would be much of a problem. I'm only 5'6" standing erect (about 5'-1" in Patty's posture, frame 72) with a 28" inseam and I can step 41"....(not easily, for sure). If I can do it, with my short legs, I doubt a 6'-0" person (or sasquatch) would have much problem doing it. It may be a "normal" step length for many of this stature.

Any 6 footers care to comment on their step length?

Would a "compliant gate" make a difference in step length?

Walking height is not a constant. 5'-6" in frame 72 would be different in frame 73, 74, 110, etc. Because she is 5'-6" (walking) in one frame doesn't mean she is 5'-6" (walking) in all frames. She's in motion and walking height will change with her posture at any given moment.

Finding (or not) someone that can step 41" does not change the facts. Patty's walking height is 4.56 times her own foot length in frame 72. That's a fact. If her foot is 14.5" long, then she is 66.12" or 5'-6 1/8" walking height in frame 72 (4.56*14.5"=66.12"). That is a fact. Both calculated and measured.

I would challenge anybody, and I mean anybody, to camcord themselves consistently making 41" steps then post it to YouTube so we can all see how choppy and ridiculous the step looks. Patty's strides are as smooth as glass and are made effortlessly even as she turned.

I've seen Tube's recreation and his movements were nothing like Patty's. What he was doing was more akin to a Groucho imitation and that's not a criticism of him at all. He took the time and effort to try to recreate that movement.

So my challenge remains. Show me anyone, at any height, much less a 5'6" standing height human, who can fluidly move like Patty all-the-while consistently stepping 41". Camcord it then YouTube it.

I'd gladly eat my words if anyone can prove me wrong.

I'm confused. What would be the point? Are you trying to prove she's real? Or not? I believe she's the real McCoy, so finding someone that can walk smoothly with a 41" step wouldn't mean anything to me. They aren't a sasquatch. It's been said, many times, she walks with a complaint gate. Humans do not. I'm not sure what a compliant gate is, exactly, but to me it means she doesn't walk like a human. So your challenge is puzzling to me.

How do you know that the subject seen on film is taking 41" steps to begin with? You're of course assuming that the trackway was left by a real animal, and not faked. IMHO the trackway was faked. If we take a close look at the film and check the distances using photogrammetry we're left with some inconsistencies. If we are to believe that a 25 mm lens was used and the distances are correct we're left with a subject in the same height range as patterson and gimlin. If we use a 15mm lens theory then we're left with a subject around 7' 4" walking height. The problem is, when we use those tracks that were left (assuming by the feet in the film) it does not add up. The foot as a ruler method shows the height to be around 6'. See the problem? The only physical evidence left at the scene does not support a height of patterson and gimlin, nor the 7' 4" height. So what are we left with? We're left with either some weird camera/lens combination that hasnt been determined yet, or the distances were massively wrong. Which is it?

It is my contention that the distances that were measured were fairly close, and the lens used was a 25mm lens. This makes the walking height of the subject seen on film under 5'. (which would indeed support one of the two men on the scene in a suit) The trackway was made later. (note the depth of the tracks were said by bob gimlin to have been "deeper than the horses" which also provides an interesting twist. exactly how does that happen? )



Basically, if we are to believe that the trackway was left by what is seen on film, its approximately 6' tall. None of the camera/lens combinations support this without changing the distance by almost 1/3 more. Interesting isnt it. The film proves itself a fake (imho again) by the evidence in the film, and the distances from camera to subject, along with the physical evidence that was left. None of the evidence supports each other.

Why? Because the film was a hoax.

1 step was at LEAST 41". More if Patty's height was >6' and change.

If Patty's standing height was 6'2" and she was angled approx. 40 deg from the line of sight, then her step length was 41" in this frame.


Using the foot ruler:
Walking height = 5'6"
Standing height = 6'2"

Using photogrammetry and a 25mm lens, 123' from the camera (frame 352) the numbers are the same.

Otherwise, at least 1 step in the trackway was 41".
Click to view attachment


Roger's estimated position was out by 20%. Green missed it by ~10%. McClarin also missed the trackway. IMO, not too surprising.


IMO, the estimated positions of Roger are the culprit. When you think about it, Roger's tracks were all over the place. How could you possibly know where he stood exactly for any given frame of film? Nobody had a consensus on his exact position.

For frame 352 the estimated distance from Patty to Roger ranges from 105ft (Krantz/Titmus), 98ft (Munns), 102ft (Dahinden), 123ft (me), Green was over 130ft from McClarin, who missed the trackway.

So let's just say that the distance estimates had the largest source of error in the mix. The focal length of the lens was likely close to spec, which IMO was just under 25mm. So for a 6'2" (standing height) figure, this means the distance from the camera was close to 120ft at frame 352.


Divide a horse's weight by 4 then divide by the surface area of a hoof (for a rough estimate of the downward force/sq.in. if the horse is standing). However, a bigfoot steps heel 1st, which is a small area taking the full weight. Might go deeper. I dunno.


I disagree. We just haven't nailed down the error uncertainties to make any claims yet. But I still think it can be done.


Maybe. But I have never seen a piece of footage that has stood up to such scrutiny as the PGF. IMO, the trackway fits, the step length fits, the casts fit. I think the subject in the footage created the tracks, hoaxed or otherwise. I don't see the need to replace footprints that are already 14.5" long, 41" apart, do you?

I'm still waiting for anything damning in the PGF to surface. This is 1 stubborn film!

What is the left/right distance between the 2 prints?

I agree with your height estimate based on the foot as a ruler (I did the same thing for 4 different frames and came up with a range of 5' 10" and 6' 3") I also agree it is hard to nail down the positions of roger during the filming.


(my bolded) I think you may have meant by 2 not 4 because a horse walks with two feet on the ground at the same time. Also the area of a horses track is going to be much smaller than the tracks left by the subject in the film dont you think? (probably less than half, wouldnt you think?) It would also explain some of the nearly pristine tracks that were cast. It would explain a lot of the inconsistencies.



I think that scrutiny is close to proving with the details that this may have been one of the best delivered hoaxes we've seen in modern times. ;-)

"I think that scrutiny is close to proving with the details that this may have been one of the best delivered hoaxes we've seen in modern times. ;-)"

Huh? Scrutiny, or science for that matter, is about as close to proving PGF was a hoax as I am to reaching out and touching the sun.

What am I trying to prove? That a human can't do what Patty did. That a human being can not be found that is able to walk as smoothly as Patty employing 41" steps with a compliant gait. Keep in mind that, after the pushoff, their lower leg must be parallel to the ground as Patty's is.

I'd really like to see someone prove me wrong but that won't happen. G-u-a-r-a-n-t-e-e-d.

This isn't exact.....I can't tell how much plaster overrun there is, if any. And I can't make out the toes in the other foot. But it should be close.

Sorry, by left/right I meant left foot vs. right foot. It looks to me like the prints are in line with each other.

There are many points in this film that can be made for it being a hoax. A great question I would like to see you or anyone else answer is this one. How do you suppose the subject in the film left foot prints in the same substrate as the horses, and it managed to leave tracks (by walking , not jumping or running) deeper than the horses by a substantial amount? (quoted from this source, an interview with bob gimlin himself) Some cuts from the interview.







My bolding. Now please explain to me how a 1400 lb horse could leave tracks not as deep as the subject in the film. Despite the fact Bob Gimlin is mistaken, and stated that the horse was walking with all four feet on the ground at once. A horse walks with two feet on the ground at the same time. Subject seen on film left tracks that were "as big as three of the horses feet" yet the horses tracks were "better than half as deep but they weren’t as deep as the tracks of the creature"


How exactly is that possible?


Also if you take the trackway to be real, the subject in the film is around 6' tall. Not the 7' 4" estimate tossed around. So we have a subject that apparently is 6' tall and weighs more than a 1400 lb horse by a substantial amount? uh..... sure. This is only one of the MAJOR inconsistencies with this film supporting a real animal. Trackway was faked...


If you were investigating anything other than something you wish to be true, lets say a crime scene. Would this stand out to you at all? Would it be a "red flag" to you? Or are you content to ignore all evidence that doesnt support your theory of this being a real animal.

You are the one who purposesly used the word "proving". There are "many points" that can be made to buttress the argument that the PGF is real. Do those "many points" constitute proof?

If you are going to use words like "proof", "proven", "proved" or "proving" you better be able to present a better case than you have.

I believe there are too may variables to make much of differing depths of tracks of two or more different creatures.

motions of each creature are different
number of feet are different
locations and therfore ground conditions are different (we don't know what is under each track)
weight distribution from one foot to another is not constant
weight distribution over one foot varies during a step (a foot doesn't come down flat, but rolls from heel to toe)

It's impossible IMO to make track comparisons or to judge weight with so many unknowns.

Ok lets do the math here. Bob Gimlin states that a single track left by the subject in the film are equal to about three of the horses. The horse weighs estimated 1400 lbs. To leave tracks of a similar depth to the horses with three times the area, it would take 2200 lbs to make them the same depth. The tracks the subject in the film left were DEEPER than the horses so minimally the subject seen on film had to weigh more than 2200 lbs at a height of around 6 feet. IMPOSSIBLE.

Also, take a look at those photos of the tracks being cast. Does that look like something stepped there while walking? It looks more like something stamped directly into the ground. I'm sure if you check the weight distribution of a horses hoof when it hits the groundwhile walking it varies across the hoof also as the weight moves forward.

The believers love to ignore the evidence, but why? Why not take a closer look at it to support your theories instead of turning your back on it. No one can explain how the tracks were of that depth compared to the horses tracks in the same location because its impossible. (if you believe it was left by a real animal) Again, only one of the MAJOR inconsistencies.



"too many variables"

"motion blur"


I wonder what other excuses can people come up with in order to ignore important evidence that doesnt support their theories. Dont worry wiiawiwb, and Jack... I will be making a post and presenting more evidence to support my own theories in the near future. (not just this point) I'm waiting on Bills final report before I release anything. I'm curious to see how hes going to address this point and the foot as a ruler.


In the mean time please point out to me how its possible for the tracks to have been left at such a depth and how this 6 foot creature can weigh at least 2200 lbs. (to match the depth of the horses tracks, not even deeper as was stated by BG)

No explanation necessary. It's impossible to make comparisons between a hoofed animal and a soft footed animal/human. Even a set of horse tracks will vary in depth depending on the ground it is made in. One track may be in 2" of sand and another 6" of sand....or mud or soft earth. What's under the track? A rock or stick buried in te earth will make a big difference. Without those answers, your making a big leap to make comparisons or judgments of weight. There is no control to compare with.

Well for starters, 2200 lbs isn't right. And we don't know what print of BG's horse he was referring to. When a horse comes to a stop, the last step supports approx. 1/4 of the horses weight. Otherwise, it's 1/2 its weight (very roughly since a horse is front heavy). But it's POSSIBLE that BG's horse created a track with only 350 lbs of applied pressure, spread evenly over the area of 1 hoof.

The other variables that Jack mentioned are also significant. Patty had substantial forward momentum with each step which added to the force of her foot into the ground. Each foot took her entire weight + the step force as her heel entered the substrate. What if she weighed over 500 lbs? What's the surface area of her heel?

You can't just compare the surface area of a horse's hoof and a BF foot. The hoof is rigid and tends to spread the force evenly. A BF foot rolls and does NOT apply the force evenly over the surface of the foot. Patty's entire weight + forward momentum was concentrated over a smaller area (heel) than a horse's hoof. This isn't as straightforward a comparison as you think.

How variable was the compliancy of the substrate? Did BG's horse avoid the softer sand? Was BG mistaken? Did he exaggerate? Did he overestimate the horse's weight? How many prints did he compare and which prints?

If BG is telling the truth about the depths of the tracks, how did RP & BG create such deep tracks then? Piggyback on BH? I doubt these prints could have been stamped with this amount of force without some obvious sand splash. They had to be pressed & rolled with great weight. So how then?

IMO, the only way to demonstrate that BG's claim is impossible (unlikely) is to conduct an experiment using similar conditions and extreme scenarios. Very tricky to claim something is impossible, otherwise. Until then this "red flag" should be downgraded to yellow, IMO.

I'm pleased that you now use "theory" to describe your thoughts or opinions. They were never proof.

Dude, I never claimed to have "proof". What I said exactly was



That still holds true. If this issue (and others) bring up no red flag for you, that is sad.

I do have some evidence to present to back up my theories about the film. I do not dismiss the evidence because it does not support my theories and I do not personally invest myself into the theories presented. What I do try to do is take a good look at what evidence is there. Clearly, there are some real problems with this being a real animal depicted in the film. This is only one of the issues, and its a big one.


Clearly the foot leaving the impressions in the ground left them deeper than the horses. (as stated by Gimlin) He also stated that the estimated weight of the horse with him on it was 1400 lbs. He also stated that the impressions left by the subject in the film were "deeper" than the horses and that the impressions were three times the size of the horses tracks. So we have a horse that leaves tracks with two feet down (horse has to get there some how, it cant be dragged to that spot) so we have 700 lbs per hoof force. The tracks left by the subject in the film were THREE TIMES THE SIZE of the horses track and deeper. You do the math. You have three times the area, and deeper prints. What conclusion do you come up with? You see no red flag and suggest in response that only 350 lbs of force was used to make the horses tracks. Horse s**t. You can choose to ignore the obvious if you want. le sigh.

Granted a biped (human) walks differently than a horse as far as applying their weight onto their feet as they walk. Do you seriously think what was seen on film is capable of leaving tracks deeper than a horses at a height of around 6 feet? (if the subject seen on filmn left those tracks its impossible for it to be 7' 4" as previously claimed) If so please explain to me how this walking subject 6 feet tall with a foot three times the size of the horse can have this much mass as to leave deeper imprints than a 1400 lb horse. I'd love to hear this one.


Seriously, instead of dismissing important physical evidence take a closer look and do the math for yourself. No red flags? You're only fooling yourself. I'm going to remain silent until Bills final report is given. I think important facts are being overlooked by many that want to believe this film to show a real animal.

Excellent vid showing a horse walking. Note how the horse steps down with the back part of the hoof meeting the ground first and rolls the weight towards the front of the hoof at the end of the step, and that two feet are in the air at the same time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC6kj0sqEjs...feature=related

RiverRun:

"I'm going to remain silent until Bills final report is given. I think important facts are being overlooked by many that want to believe this film to show a real animal."

In fairness, you may have a long wait. I'm working on the walk pattern now, from a biomechanical standpoint, to try and match a digital human figure to every frame of a 200 frame sequence, and render each frame pose out both from correct camera angle and from true orthographic side view, and i have to determine the body angle from camera and well as the size diminishing factor, so the camera view renders align right, and then check the true ortho side views of each frame pose to make sure the walk cycle (frame to frame) has a constant rate of change for various body parts (since the laws of physics and inertia do apply to Patty), further refine the programmed walk poses and then finally render out the analysis data.

Then, of course, i have to document the methodology of the analysis.

Then i have to analyze the data.

Then there's the motion blur analysis still needing to be done, so we know if motion blur is a factor, and if so, by how much.

Then i have to interrupt all this to do things to pay the rent.

So what you're waiting for might be awhile.

Bill

Interesting discussion. For those more gifted than me in math and physics (that's probably every one of you), could you comment on the different foot structure between an presumed hominid and a horse? RiverRun has been focusing on cross-sectional area of each foot and the amount of weight it must support, but what about difference between a fleshy sole and a hard hoof? I would assume, weight supported being equal, that a horse's hoof would cut deeper into the substrate than something more like a human foot that spreads on contact with the ground.

Picture a horse and a camel walking on loose sand - the camel won't sink as deep because its softer foot spreads out. Should we expect the same thing in a comparison of horse to bigfoot? Also, if Bob's horse was shoed, the hoof would even be more rigid, even if it might not cut into the substrate quite as easily.

All the impressions?


Are you assuming that a BF's weight is uniformly distributed over its foot while walking? What about the pressure ridge?


I already admitted that most walking steps would be 1/2 the weight. What about the last step before stopping? Doesn't count I suppose. I'm talking about the extreme cases here. You are the one claiming something was impossible. That must include all extreme cases, no?


Relax RR, you are the one who needs to sharpen up the math. You've oversimplified this problem and you aren't taking into consideration extreme variables before claiming it's impossible. I don't have enough info to know 1 way or another. That's all. You may be right about the track depth, but you certainly haven't considered all the variables to support your conclusion. An experiment comparing horse/human tracks would convince me. But it would only show that over the SAME strata a horse's print SHOULD be deeper. Would that make Gimlin a liar? We'll likely never know which tracks Gimlin was referring to. Was he just making a general observation? And how heavy was Patty anyway?


I already gave you a scenario where it was possible (which includes non-uniform strata, etc.) But you obviously have your mind made up.


I'm not dismissing anything or fooling myself. Where does this red flag lead us anyway? This whole issue is moot unless we had some actual comparison photos and more information. Patty's tracks weren't all uniform in depth so which tracks was Gimlin referring to? The deepest ones in the softer sand? Did he lead his horse out to the deepest tracks for comparison? For all we know Gimlin's horse was nowhere near Patty's trackway when he compared them. There's so many possibilities that could absolve Gimlin from being a hoaxer/liar, that it's pointless to speculate. He has too many outs.

A red flag? Hmm..maybe. Impossible? Not enough info for a conviction. So..unless you have more..Gimlin walks.

You are the one professing to be in the midst of "proving" that the PGF is a hoax. Your words not mine.

You can form your own opinion about what Bob Gimlin said. To me it appears he is refering to the prints left in general, not a specific one or two. Hence the question asked and the reponse as follows



plural on both accounts, I would assume that to mean more than one.



I think if you read my entire post I mentioned that bipeds and horses distribute their weight differently when walking. Also, horses do not distribute their weight equally as they walk. (as shown in the video I posted) To answer your last step before stopping question, the animal had to leave that spot also. As well as Bob gimlin is quoted as saying the following (refer to the interview if you need more clarity) My bolding.




I would assume that to mean he walked the horse through the area.





I'm relaxed trust me. Fairly comfy too I might add Please explain to me how something with 3 times the area can leave a print deeper than something that weighs less than it. Both prints (horse and the prints that were cast) were supposedly left by real animals walking. Horses also roll their weight on the hoof as they walk. Its not a flat point of contact through the stride as you mentioned. I'd even take a wild guess here and say that a horse hoof shoed of the same size and weight would probably dig into substrate such as the ground at the filming site deeper than a soft foot of the same size. Sasquatch colored glasses can make things look a little funny though.




I'm fairly sure you can see where this leads, and I'm pretty sure anyone can see that something three times the area would take quite a bit more force to make impressions the same depth, regaurdless of how the step was taken. This was a walking subject, not jumping, not running. (which in itself is bizarre for an animal fleeing humans)



Again, I'll refer you to the interview. Bob Gimlin says he walked the horse through the area. That is open to your interpretation of course. It appears to me that hes refering to the tracks in general, not a specific track.








Huge red flag. One of many...

I'm not attempting to prove a thing. Thats where you're wrong. The facts will prove what they may. I'm just pointing them out. It seems like many would rather just ignore or dismiss very important evidence in order to believe this to depict a real animal. The evidence to me points towards an excellent hoax.

I'm all for gathering and assessing all hypothesis, data and analysis available. That's a good thing. Seeing that GF has been active on this thread I hope he won't mind my mentioning another analysis of the PGF. A few ago he did a very illuminating analysis of the ASH ratio of Patty in the PGF. I think it is required reading for anyone who has not considered it and certainly warrants a second, more careful, reading for those who have read it before.

GF's analysis, together with Bill Munn's suit analysis compendium, has me utterly convinced that Patty is an undocumented bipedal hominid rather than a guy in a suit.

The scientific community will always be behind the curve when it comes to discovering an undocumented creature. Can anyone list the number of of well-funded, scientifically-backed, field studies actually trying to get to the bottom of this issue? Until the scientific community makes a fully funded, legitimate effort on its own it will always be in the who-done-it, looking-in-the-rear-view-mirror position.

First of all, I'm not convinced that the PGF wasn't a hoax. Anything is possible. But IMO your debunking attempts fall flat. A BF (if they exist) don't step down flat. You don't seem to get that you don't divide the weight by the surface area of a BF foot to get the depth of the track. At some point, a BF has ALL of it's weight on a PART of it's foot (e.g. heel). This does not represent the entire surface of the foot. Dividing the weight by the surface area of the foot is too simple. This is a flexible, rolling foot we're talking about. The horse's hoof is oranges so we can't assume too much.

If I were you, I would wait until a physical experiment verified your claims. Blind assumptions aren't admissible. Even if they are correct they cannot be verified.

RR, I think your opinions are worthy of a new thread. You should open one up stating your other red flags.

Until the scientific community is presented with some legitimate and tangible evidence that there is such an animal in existance, it wont happen. The dark cloud over the subject continues because of all the BS floating around out there. I hope with more time and study the BS is cut out of the picture. (as much as possible) This film may very well be part of that BS cloud. (and IMHO is) How can anyone expect a scientific community to invest in something like this subject considering the evidence given at the present time? Would you invest your money in it? Do you think it would be a good investment with any chance of return? Until we cross that barrier, I'm afraid that few with the facilities to do so would take interest in investments of this kind.

I agree with you on all points that the foot of any animal does not fall flat. I was never trying to infer that as you are suggesting. What I am suggesting is that a horse weighing 1400 lbs with hoofs that are 1/3 the size of the subject on film (if we are to believe the trackway was not faked that is) make this a huge red flag about the trackway being legitimate. So lets get a few things we agree on such as the subject seen on film is within a few inches of 6 feet tall (standing, not walking height.) Do you agree with this? (based on using the foot as a ruler method)


Do you feel the subject seen on film is of such mass to leave foot prints deeper than a 1400 lb horse given that the feet are three times the size?


Perhaps you are right about starting a new thread, we are off topic a bit in this one. I'm not going to present everything I've discovered just yet. I'm awaiting Bills final report and seeing his conclusions. (and yours) I respect the amount of work put into this on all sides. I just hope that there are enough unbiased opinions here to call BS when they see it. In this "bigfoot world" its not very profitable or popular to call hoax on the PGF with so many fans of the film and of Bob Gimlin. There will never be the type of scientific study that needs to be done with much of the evidence being presented of questionable nature. This film included. It may be considered the grand pooba of bigfootry, but to most scientific entities its considered a joke/hoax. Why do you think that is? Why cant it pass most of the scientific communities scrutiny?

We'll agree to disagree as I don't see the dark cloud you speak of. I was speechless, however, when I read that it is your opinion the PGF ... "may very well be part of that "BS" cloud (and IMHO is) ".

That's just plain silly (along with vulgar) and akin to saying that the Zapruder film was a "XX cloud' over the Kennedy assassination.

I know Gimlin himself estimated the horse's weight at 1400 pounds but that's actually a pretty big horse. Does anyone know of any good pictures of the specific horse (or horses) that might be somewhat measurable, preferably in profile? I'm gathering some info to help you guys answer some of the above questions (or to actually see how complicated this will get ) but it occurs to me that we might not even have an accurate estimate of the horse's weight.

-A

What you're saying is probably true.....assuming all else being equal and standing motionless. With hominid in motion, the heel strikes the ground first and you have, not only the weight on that small heel, but the motion of the hominid as well. Things in motion tend to stay in motion. This would exaggerate the weight effect and the heel strikes. Then the foot levels out and finally rolls to the ball and toes and pushes off...propelling that weight forward. Again exaggerating the depth of the track.

At least that's the way I see it.



Isn't a camels foot also larger than a horses hoof?

From the interview with Bob Gimlin I quoted before. He added his own weight in to that to say 1400 later in the interview also. He also notes that his horse takes small shoes. A size one, and they had to be trimmed down to fit the back feet. (which would make the imprints deeper a small sized shoe and a large heavy horse)





The film showing the comparison is apparently lost. Also interesting he talks about Roger mailing the film. I guess it got in the mail, developed and sent back quick. Filmed on friday, showing the film on sunday all day to people. Another big red flag. (of course IMHO)


So apparently Gimlin claims they were on the filming site until "8:30 or 9 pm" and then they went to the town to mail this (on a friday nightafter 9 pm? what postal offices were open at that time?) Pretty interesting that he was able to get that in the mail friday night that late, and it get delivered/developed in enough time to be shown on sunday? Did the postal office even deliver mail on sundays? Interesting isnt it.

But what about Patty's "compliant gait?" Doesn't her bend at the knee mean that the foot falls flatter on the ground with each step, rather than with a sharp heel strike as is typical with our own species?

I think the major problem almost everyone has in analyzing this film is being able to fully separate the objective from the subjective. To truly do this, you must eliminate any use of “the story” from P & G. I tend to agree with RR that if Patty’s tracks are deeper than a horse’s tracks, it is a red flag…unfortunately; this info is based on Gimlin’s story. At this point I’ve not seen any horse prints on film. Using the “Foot-ruler” to determine height is another example of using the “story”. It assumes that the casted tracks were made by the creature on the film. Even Bill used part of the story is his evaluation. He used the measurements from RP’s tracks to Patty’s tracks (as measured by Green and others) as his distance value. This assumes that the actual tracks made during the filming- not a hoaxed set – were measured.

I think the big point is that in order for the film to be “real”, EVERYTHING should match. The foot-ruler will match the film/lens measurements will match the stride length will match the track depth and the rest of the P&G story. The McClarin/Green film should also “fit”. IMO, at this point there are several things that don’t match (red flags). Time will tell if Bill (or anyone else) can solve these issues.

If I understand you, correctly, RiverRun, you're saying that because Patty's track is deeper than a horse track, it must be fake. Correct?

Let's examine that scenario.

To do that, let's make some assumptions.

Assume that:

Patty is a man in a monkey suit
Horse and riders weight is 1400# spread over two hooves.....700#/hoof
Ground (substrate) is identical under both horse and PGF tracks
Hoof surface area of the horse is 25 sq. inches
Surface area of Patty's (man in suit) foot is 3X that or 75 sq. inches.
Rogers, Bob's and the un-named man in the suit weigh 200# each.
Horse track is 1" deep (or whatever)

If it takes 700# to press the horses hoof 1" into the substrate, then it stands to reason that it would take 2100# to press Patty's foot the same depth into that same substrate. 3X700=2100

So Patty (man in suit) must weigh over 2100# to make that track on one foot or 4200# to make that track on two feet. Correct?

You mentioned the track must be "stamped"? Presumably by Patterson or Gimlin? Does that mean that Patty walked through that area without making any tracks, then Patterson and Gimlin came back through to stamp the tracks cast at the site?

What would they have used to stamp the tracks? It would still take over 2100# of downword force to make the tracks equal the depth of the horses track and more to make them deeper (under these assumptions) How does a 200# man produce over 2100# of downward force? How do three 200# men produce 2100# of downward force? Did they measure each track to maintain the 41" step length? Patty was tracked, later, some distance. It was reported she walked into the woods, crossed the creek and up a hill, sat and watched as Patterson/Gimlin examined her tracks. Patterson/Gimlin made all those tracks, using ....what? For what reason?

There's your red flag! The scenario is (IMO) impossible without using some major heavy equipment. Or perhaps a two legged elephant doing the "model's runway walk" with carved BF feet glued to its own feet.

Maybe. I don't know what her "compliant gate" really means. I've never seen it explained...at least in terms I can uunderstand. In some frames her legs are relatively straight...just as a humans are. See photo in post #17 of this thread.