The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[makaya325]

Patty's arms are practicaly as long as her legs, which is not typical for a human. Still, i have seen people who are of odd proportions

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

I absolutely can't say that Patty is walking straight from that.

But of course! Why go out on a limb...and admit that Patty is walking without leaning over to her left, or to her right?!









BTW...."Patty just happened to be leaning to her right"....(causing her arms to appear longer than an average human's )....was just added to the growing list of "lucky draws" that Roger got, when he took his camera out into the wilds, and filmed "Bob".


Keep 'em coming, boys!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Now.....let's sit back and watch the "skeptics" try to extricate Tube from his "shortcoming"....

Done before you even sat down. Post #2197. Enjoy.

Quote:

A good idea.............when one is faced with something they find disturbing, is to look away from it, and focus on something else.

This may be the most sincere thing Sweaty has ever said on this forum. Spoken like a true king...



Oops, she's gonna blow...



I would take a couple of minutes to provide some of the better examples of Sweaty's intellectual cowardice but I know I'm dealing with things that are common knowledge, so meh...

Quote:

(Don't like the 'fingertip-to-feet' comparison.....just switch-over to the 'fingertip-to-shoulder' comparison.....and......feel good! )

(snip)

Is it wrong...illegitimate...meaningless...."inaccurate" .....to compare the distances from their fingertips to their feet?????

I would like to use this fingertip to feet measurement for Patty you keep talking about, Sweaty. For me it is 26.5 inches or 35.81% of my total body height. Additionally, the distance from the ends of my arms to my kneecaps is 6 inches. Can you give me the same reliable measurement for Patty?

Thanks so much.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

But of course! Why go out on a limb...and admit that Patty is walking without leaning over to her left, or to her right?!

My goodness, you just ignored all of the substance of my post wherein the flaws of your arguments are pointed out and focused on and responded to a single comment that was inconsequential to the post and arguments within. It's like I'm dealing with someone who is rather conniving and intellectually dishonest?

Why would you do that, Sweaty? Is fear crippling you so much? I'm not talking about any listing. Want to deal with me? No, I don't think you do. I think you know where that's going to go.

Try actually addressing that post (#2200). The one where I show your screw-up with the tube comparison is post #2197.

Quote:

BTW...."Patty just happened to be leaning to her right"....(causing her arms to appear longer than an average human's )....was just added to the growing list of "lucky draws" that Roger got, when he took his camera out into the wilds, and filmed "Bob".

1)



2)





Luck off the scale.

Keep the dodging coming!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Now, I haven't made any arguments about listing. I have other flaws that were more apparent to me. It can certainly be that there are a number of flaws in any of Sweaty's gobbledy-gook logic failures. What I find interesting is the hilarious faceplant Sweaty just pulled with the post the above image is from...

1) Astro says that a specific comparison is flawed because it shows Patty at that point listing to the right. Sweaty counters with images from a completely different part of the film. The point being that this was a creekbed and Sweaty's logic is functioning as if she walked a nice, flat sidewalk the whole film. Fail.

2) The image that he does post is a blurry mess that reaaaallly doesn't help the case for saying that Patty has inhuman limb proportions. Fail.

Keep 'em coming, Sweaty.

[SweatyYeti]

Fresh out of the oven....Tube's (upper) arm......deep-fried......






The knee joints (bent, and clearly located) are lined-up....along with their eyes, and body-heights.......and, as USUAL....Patty's arm (in this case...the upper arm, especially) appears LONGER than your average, typical, modern human being...... Amazing!

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

Is fear crippling you so much?

No, I just don't have time to respond to all of your CRAP, right now, kitty-Poo.


I'll look it over again, later....and see what I can do.

[SweatyYeti]

Bonus long-arm image.....just for laughs...

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Even though this image is a blurry mess from a distance in which Patty's feet are obscured and her posture is not straight, let's see how she compares to me with some of my numbers, including Sweaty's fingertip to feet...

The blur that is Patty measures about 5cm on my screen. Where she actually starts and stops is very hard to say, but anyway...

Her arm looks to be about 2.4cm and distance to feet from arms looks like 2cm. That gives me her arms as 48% of total body height to my 43.23% (mind you, I'm not hunched over). Now from the ends of her arms to where it seems the feet should be () I get 40% of total body height to my 35.81%.

So by Sweaty's preferred measurement, my arms hang significantly closer to the ground while standing full erect. Looks like I'm more Bigfoot than Patty is according to Sweaty logic.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:



No, I just don't have time to respond to all of your CRAP, right now, kitty-Poo.


I'll look it over again, later....and see what I can do.

What you'll do is look at it again and do little to nothing. The simple fact is that in a debate, I am perfectly adept at demolishing your flawed arguments head-on, as you present them. You, OTOH, are so ineffectual as to not be able to deal with the arguments as they are presented to you. Everyone sees countlessly that you dodge, flee, obfuscate, divert, and hide. You know full well that you can never again claim that you don't evade skeptics. Just try it, I dare you.

Another dare - I dare you to actually step into a real debate with me. One where you can't be chicken on the run. One question or point from you and I must address before any other post. Then it's my turn. You could not handle that. You would go white as a sheet. You could not function in an honest debate where you are not allowed to be conniving and dishonest.

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Wrong, Astro.

Take another look at the "made-up" Bunny skeleton...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Skeletons6.jpg

Why is the word made-up in quotation marks? Do you contend that the cartoon bone figure is an accurate representation of an actual, existing skeleton? Which one? Where can I locate this skeleton? If I cannot view it in person, is there at least a photo of it online somewhere? It certainly is a must see.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Notice how the distance from the 'shoulder to the top of the head' is greater in Patty than it is the the typical human skeleton.

You're interpreting that dfference as "Patty is leaning to the right".....but that simply isn't the case...[edit]

You are using Pattybones to analyze the film? Sweaty, you used Pattybones as the template for Plywood Patty, didn't you? Complete with square frame and column-like shoulder and humerus.

[makaya325]

Well, Captain, Sweaty has two Skeletons to choose from: A human skeleton, and a bigfoot skeleton. Even though he could use the human skeleton, which we know exist, why must he use the skeleton of an unconfirmed beasty?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by captain koolaid

Why is the word made-up in quotation marks? Do you contend that the cartoon bone figure is an accurate representation of an actual, existing skeleton? Which one? Where can I locate this skeleton? If I cannot view it in person, is there at least a photo of it online somewhere? It certainly is a must see.

That is the exact sentence that came to my mind when I saw that.

Tell us, Sweaty, what is the science that makes that skeleton a reliable representation of the bones inside Patty?

[Vortigern99]

Measuring arm length from the eyesocket to the fingertips, or from the fingertips to the feet, appears to be the best way to preserve the delusion that the proportions under review are in any way inhuman. The obvious, logical and accurate method of measuring arm length is not from the eyesocket to the fingertips -- which is a patently absurd and willfully stupid method -- but rather from the shoulder to the fingertips, i.e. the actual length of the arm.

In short, Patty's shoulders are lower in the pic under review not because "its" proportions are inhuman, or because "it" is doing something humans can't or don't do, but because "it" is engaged in the easily achievable human action of walking with "its" shoulders hunched. This hunching lowers the joint of the shoulder to below the point that Tube, in the comparison pic, is holding his. In other words, Tube is not hunching and Patty is.

The same dynamic is in play if one chooses, for whatever delusion-strengthening reason, to measure from the fingertips to the feet. As I've pointed out repeatedly upthread, if one walks with shoulders hunched, the fingertips are lower and therefore closer to the ground.

How anyone could miss these obvious and logical observations is a question for the ages.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Again, with this blurry mess image I did some crude measurements. Blurriness, Patty hunched, and obscured feet were the first big problems. I used a tape measure and toothpick to try and get the measurements close-ish.

Patty is 8cm with arms 3.5cm, legs 5cm, and distance from arm to ground as 3cm.

Arm length/total body height = 43.75% vs kitakaze 43.23% (I'm not hunched)

Arm to ground = 37.5% vs kitakaze 35.81%

Again, I am more squatchy than Patty is by Sweaty's own preferred method.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by captain koolaid

Why is the word made-up in quotation marks? Do you contend that the cartoon bone figure is an accurate representation of an actual, existing skeleton? Which one? Where can I locate this skeleton? If I cannot view it in person, is there at least a photo of it online somewhere? It certainly is a must see.

Yo, Captain....I don't have the time to get into answering all those TOUGH questions about the Vision Realm Patty skeleton.


Here are my thoughts about it, though... ...


I think the Vision Realm skeleton very closely matches the skeleton that would be appropriate for Patty's body dimensions...(the visible body dimensions.)

Quote:

You are using Pattybones to analyze the film?

Yup.

Quote:

Sweaty, you used Pattybones as the template for Plywood Patty, didn't you? Complete with square frame and column-like shoulder and humerus.

Nope.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

That is the exact sentence that came to my mind when I saw that.

Tell us, Sweaty, what is the science that makes that skeleton a reliable representation of the bones inside Patty?

See my post, directly above.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Tell us, Sweaty, what is the science that makes that skeleton a reliable representation of the bones inside Patty?

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I think the Vision Realm skeleton very closely matches Patty's body dimensions...(the visible body dimensions.)

A-ha.

Heavy science from SweatyYeti. He thinks. It's art. He likes it.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Yo, Captain....I don't have the time to get into answering all those TOUGH questions about the Vision Realm Patty skeleton.

SweatyYeti - Ridiculous smugness, yes. Explanation of quotes around "made up" and why the art is not art, not so much.

It's a Sweaty world.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

A-ha.

Heavy science from SweatyYeti. He thinks. It's art. He likes it.

Yup......me likes it.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Yup......me likes it.

But what bearing does your subjective opinion have on the actual validity of Vision Realm's artistic interpretation of what they think Patty's skeleton looks like?

And how can it enter into a discussion of objective measurements of Patty's proportions?

Fear is the mindkiller. Don't dodge, don't flee. Grow some mental beans.

[captain koolaid]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Originally Posted by captain koolaid

You are using Pattybones to analyze the film?

Yup.

So, you are employing a made up skeleton, to analyze a made up monster, that featured in a made up screenplay, for a made up movie, that doesn't seem to exist anymore?

Outstanding. The results are bound to be concentrated awesomeness. Carry on.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

But what bearing does your subjective opinion have on the actual validity of Vision Realm's artistic interpretation of what they think Patty's skeleton looks like?

And how can it enter into a discussion of objective measurements of Patty's proportions?

Sorry, kitty....but I'm just not interested in proving the VR skeleton's validity....to the "skeptics"....(scoftics, actually)...of Jref. From the overlays of the skeleton over Patty....in LMS....it looks to me to be a very good fit.

Others are free to have their own opinion of it.

Quote:

Fear is the mindkiller... Don't dodge, don't flee. Grow some mental beans.

And Comparisons are the killer of the myth of Tube's, Bob H's....and others...arm length "equality" with Patty.......







Ooops for Tube!

Eventually....I'll post a nice montage of killer comparisons.

[Vortigern99]

A few months ago, I created a crayon/MS Paint image that overlays known human musculature onto Patty, as a kind of experiment to see if human anatomy could correspond to the surface shapes I was seeing on the figure.

(At the time, I believed that the Patty suit was a muscle-costume similar to the Star Trek Gorn suit, with padding under the surface to approximate human muscle-forms. I am no longer certain this is the case, but that is another discussion, which I'm willing to elaborate on by request.)

The image is attached below. Please note that I do not believe these muscle-shapes to be actual, living tissue. However, their placement is convenient for indicating the general areas of anatomy on the person who is inhabiting the suit. Note that the deltoid/shoulder muscles, in blue, are located along a line that is not parallel with the ground, but is tilted at a considerable angle (as Astrophotographer has correctly noted upthread). As a result, the right arm is significantly lower than the left, including the hand and fingertips.

Also note that the trapezius muscle of the upper back, in purple, is not outside the range of normal human muscles in terms of its shape or its location on the body.

This is in all probability a person in a large, padded suit, the gloves of which, along with the hunched, low-held shoulders, make the arms appear to be slightly longer than the arm of a normal human being.

[Vortigern99]

Also, once again, measuring arm length from the eyesocket is an absurd and delusional method of measurement. Differing placements of the head and shoulders between subjects will affect and distort the measurement.

To measure the arm, one measures from the shoulder joint. Following this method will produce arms of nearly identical length in both Tube and Patty.

[Vortigern99]

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

And Comparisons are the killer of the myth of Tube's, Bob H's....and others...arm length "equality" with Patty

Comparisons are as lame as the person who is presenting them. I have no doubt that you could compare and Elephant to a Giraffe and then say they were the same creature. Numbers Sweaty, Numbers is the key. How about giving us some real values because your comparisons get more absurd by the day. They prove nothing. Keep trying to convince yourself.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

The film's resolution is too crappy to make out any kind of Muscle/fabric detail.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by makaya325

The film's resolution is too crappy to make out any kind of Muscle/fabric detail.

Fair enough. Please provide an alternate hypothesis as to what the shapes I've indicated might be, because they are 1. highlighted, indicating raised areas catching the light, and 2. angled in the direction we would expect folds and drapery to angle.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

Not sure what you're pointing at in 6. Left arm? Bottom of the scapula?

12 looks like the highlighted bicep femoris (somewhat distorted).

19 & 21 are the same foreground foliage. They are not even part of the leg.

Mostly, I see a pretty snug fit, suit or skin. Except maybe the butt could use some work.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Not sure what you're pointing at in 6. Left arm? Bottom of the scapula?

12 looks like the highlighted bicep femoris (somewhat distorted).

19 & 21 are the same foreground foliage. They are not even part of the leg.

Mostly, I see a pretty snug fit, suit or skin. Except maybe the butt could use some work.

First, let me apologize for the limitations in the images and software I'm using. I'm a professional freelance illustrator and art instructor; however, I do not use computer graphics in my work -- it's a personal, professional choice -- and as a consequence my "graphics software" is extremely limited.

That said, everything I'm indicating can clearly be seen on the frames under review with a minimum of attention and scrutiny of the images.

In 6, my arrow indicates a horizontal line that bisects the left half of the back, cutting across the dark, central line of the spine on a line perpendicular to the spine. This line is in the approximate location of the teres major muscle, or slightly below it; however the actual teres does not cross over the spine and is not a straight muscle as seen in the image. This highlighted, perpendicular, non-teres, spine-bisecting line can be seen in several successive frames of the film, remaining in the same location on the figure as it moves, so we know it is not a film artifact or a piece of foliage.

In 13 (not 12), I'm not indicating the biceps femoris, as that muscle runs along the anterior (front) of the thigh, and cannot be seen from this posterior angle. What I'm indicating here is the high-lit, diagonal slash that runs from the inner upper right thigh, down to the exterior lower right knee area. The arrow head indicates the endpoint of this high-lit slash. This same slash can be seen in 6, though in that pic the slash tapers off mid-way across the thigh, exactly as we would expect a material fold to do in this position.

19 & 20 cannot be foreground foliage because, again, these high-lit slashes can be seen on successive frames of the film, and they move with the figure, remaining in the same place on the figure as it locomotes. Foreground foliage would remain fixed as the figure moves behind it.

In my opinion as a professional illustrator, these are fabric folds. They behave according to the principles of drapery (which rules can easily be seen/verified by parading oneself in front of a mirror in loose-fitting clothes).

There are many smaller lines that also appear to conform to these principles of drapery, but I have only indicated the most prominent. For one example, in 6, at the base of the right foot, one can make out a series of three high-lit lines, arranged in a kind of pyramid form, radiating from the base of the calf muscle, exactly as we would expect fabric to radiate from a single attachment point, according to the aforementioned principles of drapery.

Primate skin (at least, the skin of every known and studied primate) is tight-fitting and does not behave in this way.

[Óðinn]

As Vort mentioned, measuring the arm must be an exercise in relative scaling. If you don't know how far Patty or McClarin are from their respective cameras, they can't be accurately scaled and compared. Also, their bodies were in different orientations and they likely weren't the same height either, walking or standing. But we don't know how the torsos were proportioned w.r.t. body so you need the entire body lengths (heights) to compare their relative arm lengths. Which is missing from these images.

There is only 1 way to compare the arm lengths when you don't know the scale of the subjects; work backwards. Scale the arms to the same size, then compare their bodies. Whoever's arm is the longest, their body gets underscaled (shrunk) the most. We would expect McClarin to be a bit underscaled because his arm would be longer than 6' tall Patty's. Probably by about 1.5" or approx 6% of his arm length. This is not very intuitive mind you, since it's a negative covariant relationship. The longer the arm length, the smaller the body scales to the other subject and vice versa.

First you have to assume that their arms aren't appreciably foreshortened or that they are similarly foreshortened. Which is a big if. Averaging over several frames would tell. Then estimate the endpoints of the 2 arm vectors (radius & humerus). For McClarin his wrist and elbow appears well defined, so we have his radius down. The top of his humerus looks tricky though. When I measured my own humerus/radius ratio, it came to 1.13 (no error est). So applying that ratio to McClarin's radius helped place the top of his humerus. This doesn't have to be exact as long as we do the same for Patty. I used frame 350 instead of 352 because Bill Munns scan was too dark to locate the elbow and wrist. But frame 350 is from an unknown source and I'm taking a chance that the aspect is correct. Seems to be.

You can use the frames adjacent to 350 to pin down the approx position of the elbow. Then the wrist band is assumed to be the bottom of the radius (unless a prosthetic hand was used). Note Patty flips her hand backwards at the wrists (which she does in several frames, which is an odd thing to do unless the hands are flopping around). Then apply the radius/humerus ratio again to get the top of Patty's humerus. Now we have arm vectors which can be scaled to the same lengths and we can see if McClarin could have been wearing the suit. If it was his arm in there, his body would fit too.

This is all about placement of the joints, which must be done over several frames as the joints articulate. Human membral ratios can fill in the gaps. It's ok to assume Patty is a guy in a suit as long as we can locate his elbows.

This is a very informal comparison of McClarin's and Patty's arms. The most important point, however, is that the aspect of their images is correct. IMO, it's very close.



The length of the arm vectors were scaled the same for McClarin and Patty. We should expect to see McClarin approx the same size as Patty since his arms are longer. He's 6' 5", she's 6' 1", so his image would be underscaled (shrunk) by 6% to fit his longer arm over Patty's shorter arm. But instead what we see is Patty's body is underscaled. This shouldn't happen unless Patty's arm to height ratio is greater than McClarin's. But it wouldn't be by much. Patty's body is underscaled the same percentage as her arm is longer than McClarin's. Maybe by 10% or so. Not a ton, but significant.

So the arms appear to be a few inches longer than say, Bob H's arms (without hand extensions), but probably not outside the human range. If tube was in the suit (same height) then the arm does seem a bit long without extensions.



Every person I've measured the arms against show Patty's arms are approx 10% longer. Is this enough to suggest that hand extentions were used? The elbow says no. Now what about the ASH ratio?

[Vortigern99]

Here are some crude overdrawings, indicating in white the location of each major fold.

ETA: Compare with the "original" (Davis-enhanced) pics, in an above post on this page.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

First, let me apologize for the limitations in the images and software I'm using. I'm a professional freelance illustrator and art instructor; however, I do not use computer graphics in my work -- it's a personal, professional choice -- and as a consequence my "graphics software" is extremely limited.

That said, everything I'm indicating can clearly be seen on the frames under review with a minimum of attention and scrutiny of the images.

In 6, my arrow indicates a horizontal line that bisects the left half of the back, cutting across the dark, central line of the spine on a line perpendicular to the spine. This line is in the approximate location of the teres major muscle, or slightly below it; however the actual teres does not cross over the spine and is not a straight muscle as seen in the image. This highlighted, perpendicular, non-teres, spine-bisecting line can be seen in several successive frames of the film, remaining in the same location on the figure as it moves, so we know it is not a film artifact or a piece of foliage.

Shoulder pads or odd shaped scapula? BF anatomy can be anything it wants tho.

Quote:

In 13 (not 12), I'm not indicating the biceps femoris, as that muscle runs along the anterior (front) of the thigh, and cannot be seen from this posterior angle. What I'm indicating here is the high-lit, diagonal slash that runs from the inner upper right thigh, down to the exterior lower right knee area. The arrow head indicates the endpoint of this high-lit slash. This same slash can be seen in 6, though in that pic the slash tapers off mid-way across the thigh, exactly as we would expect a material fold to do in this position.

Must be my triscadecaphobia. I meant 13. Whatever it is, it is a fixture of the leg. The outside muscle or tendon (or padding) that can be seen in subsequent frames. But not a fold in the fabric.

Quote:

19 & 20 cannot be foreground foliage because, again, these high-lit slashes can be seen on successive frames of the film, and they move with the figure, remaining in the same place on the figure as it locomotes. Foreground foliage would remain fixed as the figure moves behind it.

Nope, foliage. I can post a GIF for you demonstrating this, if you like. You can track it as Patty steps thru.

Quote:

In my opinion as a professional illustrator, these are fabric folds. They behave according to the principles of drapery (which rules can easily be seen/verified by parading oneself in front of a mirror in loose-fitting clothes).

There are many smaller lines that also appear to conform to these principles of drapery, but I have only indicated the most prominent. For one example, in 6, at the base of the right foot, one can make out a series of three high-lit lines, arranged in a kind of pyramid form, radiating from the base of the calf muscle, exactly as we would expect fabric to radiate from a single attachment point, according to the aforementioned principles of drapery.

Primate skin (at least, the skin of every known and studied primate) is tight-fitting and does not behave in this way.

I don't see anything that is definite fabric. Because if it was, it would have to be snug one second and loose the next. Is that a principle of drapery?

Also, keep in mind these are pretty fuzzy images.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Shoulder pads or odd shaped scapula? BF anatomy can be anything it wants tho.

Well, no, BF anatomy cannot be anything it wants. Form follows function. Did you know that chimpanzee muscular anatomy is almost wholly identical to human anatomy, even though chimps are quadrupeds? A bipedal primate of some unknown species would have similarly identical musculature, especially one that is so close to human morphology as Patty visibly is. There is no functional purpose for a muscle (or bone) that stretches across the spine in the way we can see in these images.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Whatever it is, it is a fixture of the leg. The outside muscle or tendon (or padding) that can be seen in subsequent frames. But not a fold in the fabric.

How can you make that claim with such confidence? Initially you identified that muscle as the biceps femoris, which indicates to me you're not as well-versed in muscular anatomy as you would have us believe. The musculature of the leg does not run at a 45-degree angle as seen in the images; the posterior thigh muscles, the semimembranosus and semtendinosis, along with the lateral/profile muscles vastus externus and the ilio-tibial band, run parallel to the line of the leg; they do not cut across it at a diagonal, as seen in the pic.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Nope, foliage. I can post a GIF for you demonstrating this, if you like. You can track it as Patty steps thru.

I reiterate that the shapes move with the figure and do not remain fixed, as foreground foliage would. I'm looking at a multiplicity of images that corroborate this observation as I type. Please post a GIF providing evidence of your claim.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I don't see anything that is definite fabric. Because if it was, it would have to be snug one second and loose the next. Is that a principle of drapery?

Also, keep in mind these are pretty fuzzy images.

Yes, as the underlying form moves it provides an anchor point from which the drapery radiates. The fabric is snug in one area and successively looser as the material radiates away from the anchor point. As the underlying form moves, the anchor point vanishes (observe your elbow straightening and bending in succession while wearing a loose-fitting shirt), which means that tight fabric will turn into loose fabric, then tight, then loose again during the repetitive movements of the underlying form.

That the images are fuzzy does not explain how high-lit streaks and slashes are moving precisely as drapery would be expected to do.

[makaya325]

Quote:

He's 6' 5", she's 6' 1",

Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!

We are assuming that Patty is Bob H. Hence the thread title.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

We are assuming that Patty is Bob H. Hence the thread title.

Ok then, I apologize for jumping the gun.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Well, no, BF anatomy cannot be anything it wants. Form follows function. Did you know that chimpanzee muscular anatomy is almost wholly identical to human anatomy, even though chimps are quadrupeds? A bipedal primate of some unknown species would have similarly identical musculature, especially one that is so close to human morphology as Patty visibly is. There is no functional purpose for a muscle (or bone) that stretches across the spine in the way we can see in these images.

I'm talking about pointing out a feature and saying "that can't be a sasquatch, look at the scapula, it's all wrong."

Quote:

How can you make that claim with such confidence? Initially you identified that muscle as the biceps femoris, which indicates to me you're not as well-versed in muscular anatomy as you would have us believe. The musculature of the leg does not run at a 45-degree angle as seen in the images; the posterior thigh muscles, the semimembranosus and semtendinosis, along with the lateral/profile muscles vastus externus and the ilio-tibial band, run parallel to the line of the leg; they do not cut across it at a diagonal, as seen in the pic.

I'm certainly no anatomy expert. So you're right, probably semimembranosus and semtendinosis. You know..whatever that persistent band on the outside of the leg connected to the knee is supposed to be. But not a fabric fold.

Quote:

I reiterate that the shapes move with the figure and do not remain fixed, as foreground foliage would. I'm looking at a multiplicity of images that corroborate this observation as I type. Please post a GIF providing evidence of your claim.

I'm not at my home PC, but I'll cobble something together when I can. What say others on JREF? This was originally what was used to suggest the calf muscle was flexing. I think the consensus was foliage.

Quote:

Yes, as the underlying form moves it provides an anchor point from which the drapery radiates. The fabric is snug in one area and successively looser as the material radiates away from the anchor point. As the underlying form moves, the anchor point vanishes (observe your elbow straightening and bending in succession while wearing a loose-fitting shirt), which means that tight fabric will turn into loose fabric, then tight, then loose again during the repetitive movements of the underlying form.

Maybe, but I don't believe it's happening on this film. We can't easily interpret what we see, for example when you thought some foreground object was a part of the suit.

Quote:

That the images are fuzzy does not explain how high-lit streaks and slashes are moving precisely as drapery would be expected to do.

Wishful thinking? It happens on both sides of the fence.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I'm talking about pointing out a feature and saying "that can't be a sasquatch, look at the scapula, it's all wrong."

I'm talking about pointing to a feature and saying "that can't be a primate, look at the scapula/teres group, it's all wrong." Form follows function. Chimps (and other apes) have nearly identical musculature to human beings, and in this case a bipedal primate would have identical or nearly identical musculature as a human being. There is no muscle on any primate that cuts across the spine.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I'm certainly no anatomy expert. So you're right, probably semimembranosus and semtendinosis. You know..whatever that persistent band on the outside of the leg connected to the knee is supposed to be. But not a fabric fold.

The ilio-tibial band is what you're referring to. It's not a muscle proper, but a band of tissue connecting the joints of the leg, and it runs along the side/profile of the leg, not the posterior/rear of the leg. Also, you're neglecting my point that the semimem. and semitend. muscles run parallel to the leg; they don't cut across it at an oblique angle. Material folds do that; muscle groups do not.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I'm not at my home PC, but I'll cobble something together when I can. What say others on JREF? This was originally what was used to suggest the calf muscle was flexing. I think the consensus was foliage.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Maybe, but I don't believe it's happening on this film. We can't easily interpret what we see, for example when you thought some foreground object was a part of the suit.

You haven't shown that "foreground object" is any such thing, so please don't get ahead of yourself. The same shapes run continuously on the same area of a moving figure; they don't remain in place while the figure moves behind them.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Wishful thinking? It happens on both sides of the fence.

I have no agenda apart from the truth. As to "wishful thinking", I can assert that I want there to be a bigfoot out there somewhere. I wish there were a BF; I really, really do. I would love it if Patty were proven to be a real non-human North American primate. So by your logic, if "wishful thinking" were at play, I should be attempting to discredit the idea that these streaks are fabric folds, not supporting it.

It's important to note here that you're ignoring key points, forcing me to repeat myself, which indicates a degree of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Are we having a legitimate debate in which we address each other's observations, or are you intentionally dodging points for which you have no response?