Back to main "Is It Real" 

Recently, in a Monster Quest program (7/8/09), Bill Munns, using sophisticated software, came to the conclusion that Patty (PGF subject) was 7'4" 2". He didn't say if this was her height in walking posture or standing erect. Which ever, I believe this is impossible, given known, measured or calculated  facts. It is a matter of elementary math.

    Fact one; Patty's foot (track) is ~14" as reported and cast at the scene.

    Fact two; Patty's walking height is 4.56 times her own foot length as measured in frame 72. You can check this yourself.

    Fact three; It is impossible to add more than ~6" to overall height by standing erect from Patty's walking posture in frame 72. Test this yourself.

    Fact four; If her foot length is ~14" as reported, then her walking height is ~66.12" or ~5'-6" (14.5"*4.56=66.12"). Adding ~6", makes Patty ~6'0" standing erect. 

    Fact five; If Patty is ~7'4" walking posture, then her foot must be ~19+" long (88"/4.56=19.298"). But this is not what was reported from the scene.

Below is proof of this elementary math using CAD and two frames of PGF (one frame 72 and the other unknown number in profile). Perspective error is addressed below as well. A test of this method is near the bottom of this page.

 I have the greatest respect for Bill Munns and his work on the PGF, but I do believe his assessment of her height is in error.

horizontal rule

Measuring Patty (PGF frame 72) with CAD Software

TurboCAD Professional v. 12.3

Click on photo (drawing) above for full size

Bloom in the foot, Fr. 72

There does appear to be some bloom in the foot in frame 72. I have allowed for this as shown in this photo blow-up.

Perspective Error

Since perspective is a concern of some, I'm including a drawing showing how perspective effects measurement in frame 72. It has been reported that frame 72 is about 100 feet from the camera (actually slightly over). At this distance the error due to perspective in frame 72 is .003"/foot. It would take a micrometer to measure that. In the example below, notice that the error at 10' is 3"/ 20' it is 1"/foot.....and at 30' it is "/foot. For each ten feet added, it halves. In this example at 100' the error is only .006"/foot. In frame 72, Patty's left foot is about 12" (forward and aft) from any other measuring point and roughly in the center of all the points. See drawing below. This would make the error due to perspective about .003"/foot.

Overhead view showing measuring points in relation to left foot (scaling plane)



horizontal rule

How accurate is this CAD method?

To answer that question, I took a photo of a ladder at 105 feet from the camera. This is the approximate distance of Patterson to Patty in frame 72 according to reports. The piece of plywood is exactly 15.25" long (tall) and placed on the second step of the ladder. The photo is loaded into my CAD program and scaled to the piece of plywood (aspect ratio is locked). Then I took CAD vertical* measurements of various points on the ladder and compared them to actual measurements which I put in parenthesis alongside the CAD measurements. Even though the plywood is not on the same plane as other measuring points, the CAD measurements are extremely close to the actual measurements, proving that error due to perspective is negligible at 105 feet and that this method is very accurate. Patty's walking height is 5'-6" in frame 72 if her foot is, indeed, 14.5" long. Adding ~6" would make her ~6'-0" standing erect. There is a margin of error, but that error is in the placement of the measuring points, not in the CAD program. CAD is very precise. You can readily see the measuring points to make your own judgments as to margin of error.

* I was not concerned with width (horizontal) or other angled dimensions in this exercise.

Permission to copy this page granted as long as proper credit is given.


hidden counters
Since 1/22/2009


Copyright 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 (HMDS)                                                            
Last modified: May 12, 2011