Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
norseman

Patty in taxidermy form and comparisons

56 posts in this topic

No way. Anyway you spin this the Danny Vendramini hypothesis is nothing more than kool aid drinking tin foil wearing retardedness with ZERO evidence to back any of it up.

 

If you want to discuss his madness start your own thread.

 

As far as Lucy being a direct human ancestor? Maybe, maybe not...........but as a UPRIGHT walking African hominid? 

 

She is certainly somewhere in the bushy Homo or pre Homo family tree.

 

Is Sasquatch in the same family tree or is it something else?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no way conventional anthropologists renditions of these extinct apes are accurately representative of the actual fossils.  No way.

 

You showed some artistic interpretations of various species, and asked if we thought they were accurate.

 

Anyone can look for themselves at the Vendramini representation of the Neanderthal, and see a very different artistic interpretation of the identical, same skulls.

 

I also gave specific reasons Lucy wasn't accurate.

 

Or did you really not want differing opinions?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The focus is on the Sasquatch recreation!!!

 

I added the others to give us a measuring stick by which to judge it by.

 

Obviously in your case that does no good because you have bought into some grand anthropology conspiracy theory and would rather listen to some nut job from Australia that wouldn't know a femur from a frickin door stop. Your choice, but I expected better from you.

 

Anyhow can we get back to the topic at hand?

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to study what I'm seeing regarding Patty. I've looked up another photo because even though I've claimed a bunch of times that Patty was a hottie ;) the recreation appears to give the model quite the relatively curvy looking waistline. The video shows a boxier look to the torso. The model's breasts look slightly too low and the hands too big with too much hair. Something mildly wrong with the head too. Maybe a bit too elongated- somewhat narrower looking. Would like to compare these observations to anything your have, Norseman. And if I may add? Too much of a neck showing with not enough general muscle tone in the pectorals and thigh areas. 

 

The whole thing, as good as this guy is, is a bit off. One last thing to add. This is a professional taxidermist. Wonder just how long it took to make the suit covering the mold.

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long time for three cowboys and a horse hide!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Do I get the brass ring? Other than that what did you notice? I mean I've seen a lot a taxidermy and some of it is pretty amazing. There's a local seasonal restaurant in these parts that has some pretty amazing black bears, wolves, and ungulates along with some smaller animals and of course LL Bean up in Freeport that has some very good likenesses. I realize that the taxidermist who did Patty didn't have much to go on but I wonder if he actually consulted with anyone on the project. This Forum would have been an ideal place for getting some consult. Bill Munns would have been the prefect tap for such a project. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, norseman said:

The focus is on the Sasquatch recreation!!!

 

I added the others to give us a measuring stick by which to judge it by.

 

Obviously in your case that does no good because you have bought into some grand anthropology conspiracy theory and would rather listen to some nut job from Australia that wouldn't know a femur from a frickin door stop. Your choice, but I expected better from you.

 

Anyhow can we get back to the topic at hand?

 

 

 

I'm not the one who's bought into a grand anthropological conspiracy theory.

 

You did.  

 

I just don't rely on the sanitized, approved, twisted, stretched, absolutely absurd crap they're selling.  I actually spend time looking at the nuances and actual fossil findings - rather than regurgitating the broad narrative quickly found on the internet and wiki.

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it looks close. And I think it looks very ape like. I don't think it's a hairy Neanderthal or anything like that. It looks like and is built like a Gorilla with a hooded nose.

 

The recreations I have seen were associated with the Heronimous claim.

On 2/20/2017 at 7:53 PM, PBeaton said:

:)

 

 

Plussed!

On 2/20/2017 at 9:04 PM, FarArcher said:

 

I'm not the one who's bought into a grand anthropological conspiracy theory.

 

You did.  

 

I just don't rely on the sanitized, approved, twisted, stretched, absolutely absurd crap they're selling.  I actually spend time looking at the nuances and actual fossil findings - rather than regurgitating the broad narrative quickly found on the internet and wiki.

 

 

 

You watched a video produced a nutjob. And you bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

Cat freakin eyes FA!!!!???? I'm part freakin Neanderthal FA....how come I don't have cat eyes!!!??? (Do not start with DNA conspiracies as well)

 

The reason why every major university on the planet has rejected this scumbag is because it's not supported by the evidence.

 

Evidently you need to start reading something peer reviewed, instead of watching B rated monster movies on the scyfy channel!

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable text.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it's certainly close and if they're out there then there may be a female that looks just like the model. I've also looked at artist's renditions like Sybilla Irwin's and other's. A bit idealistic sometimes but she would have been a good consult as well.

 

As a side note, it still amazes me that at a distance of three miles from camp the boys got all that in only one take. I mean, dang, if it was Bob Heironimus in the suit I shouldn't be fawning all over the babe like I have been? ;) 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to share some other recreations of Patty to compare please do so Hiflier.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea, Norseman. This is the thread for it so yeah, I'd be more than happy to look around.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey!  Jenius!  You didn't watch the video you're referring to - or you'd see a photo of one variation with cat's eyes, but then you'd see round eyes as well.  

 

I never said I bought anything - how quickly you are to attribute words to me I never said - I've seen it since I first got here - much to your irritation.

 

I only said look at the artists rendition.  Get it?  You want artists renditions and the opinions on how close they are to the actual fossils?  Well TAKE A LOOK at THIS rendition!

 

Peer reviewed?  Is that your standard of truth?  Where every few years the "Peer Reviewed Truths" have to be re-written?

 

Man, no wonder you got things so sideways.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said....and I won't say it again!

 

Take your pseudo science crackpot theories and start yer own   thread to discuss them til you pop like a tick. I could care less.......

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.

 

You're upset!

 

You can say something again, not say something again, or just whistle a tune - no matter to me.  Maybe sing the chorus portion!

 

It's been several years, but I put in close to 200 hours on Lucy, and here "first family" fossils alone.  Johanson I think, started out as an honest anthropologist - and he initially wrote that there was nothing human-like about Lucy - but when White got to him, he suddenly became aware of the dollars available if he changed his story - and Johanson even said that he regretted his initial papers - and wishes he'd never have written them.  Sure enough, he made a good living off that change of mind.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that the field of anthropology is a game.  It's a game where they are continually moving the goal posts, the foul lines, the out-of-bound lines, and even the scoreboard and points allowed.

 

You value peer-reviewed publications?  I have a very close friend - we've worked on a few things in the past - and he's looking forward to late Summer as we'll be working on several things once again.  He's been peer-reviewed AND PUBLISHED 25 times.  And yet he says his discipline is full of crap.  It's a real feather in a professional's cap to get published just once - he's a young man - and published 25 times.  He blows it off to "following a formula."  He actually disagrees with many, many elements he "professionally" repeats back as his peers wish - but he personally knows better.  It would be professional suicide to disagree publicly.

 

That's how it works.

 

If you aren't interested in differing artistic interpretations of the same fossils - maybe next time you shouldn't ask.  

 

'Cause if I have some - I'll bring them to your attention.  And apparent irritation.

 

 

1 minute ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

 

 

Edited by FarArcher
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0