Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

But just to humor you so you keep the simple animations coming,

I'll keep the animations coming, Tontar...whether you humor me...or ignore me. I don't care. I don't need anything from you...to continue doing my analysis.

And, regardless of what you have to say about my animations/work...(talk is CHEAP).....they will be 'moving onward', beyond these Forum walls. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
I'll keep the animations coming, Tontar...whether you humor me...or ignore me. I don't care. I don't need anything from you...to continue doing my analysis.

And, regardless of what you have to say about my animations/work...(talk is CHEAP).....they will be 'moving onward', beyond these Forum walls. :)

That is very interesting coming from a person doing so much ignoring and un-quantified talking about physical analysis that shows average human proportions fitting Patty.

You've been ignoring the question and the analysis below for weeks now. A simply physical experiment shows that Poser 7 does not violate physics in the foreshortening of the rotation of the skeleton's shoulders. The cheap talk is that the scaling on the wall changes and thus the experiment is meaningless. When asked to quantify that change and thus its effect on the experiment, you refuse it. When the quantifying is done for you showing zero effect to the foreshortening and you are asked if the foreshortening has been compromised, you completely go Silence of the Lambs and refuse to ask one simple question...

Does the scaling on the wall in the physical test using the Spiderman figure and thus the camera perspective change in a way that affects the foreshortening of the figure in a way that nullifies the physical recreation of the Poser 7 skeleton?

So...kitakaze "confirms" the validity of error-riddled CG skeletons...with error-riddled Spiderman... :lol: ...

I aligned the two images of spidey, at the point of the yellow dot....and you can see the scaling of the wall change, between images...

spidercrapAG1.gif

Spiderman...like the skeletons....is loaded with errors...and is therefore, quite meaningless. :)

Please feel free to quantify it.

No thanks....Spidey and the Skellys are all error-riddled, non-matching, meaningless, unnecessary third-party pieces of gar-bage.

SweatyYeti, does the scaling on the wall in the physical test using the Spiderman figure and thus the camera perspective change in a way that affects the foreshortening of the figure in a way that nullifies the physical recreation of the Poser 7 skeleton?

Bigspideymeasure.jpg

Bigspideymeasure2.jpg

Bigspideymeasure1.jpg

SweatyYeti refuses to answer simply questions regarding his claims and analyses. He badgers others to answer a question in exactly the manner he would like them to be answered, attempt #1, attempt #2, #4, #6, etc, while at the same time, bizarrely, refusing to answer simply questions for him to clarify his own observations.

Indeed, tho I'm skeptical of Bigfoot now, I used to be a huge believer and I would be very excited for the evidence to turn out to be on the level!!!

+1. In this we are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar wrote:

"The hands fall at exactly the correct position for them to be real hands, with no arm extensions, since the arms are of the same length and proportion as a human's arms..."

OOPS....you blew another tire, Tontar... :lol: ...

PattyFingerBend-BobCompAG1Lined.gif

Seriously? Check the entire arm, upper arm and forearm, Schwetty. The entire arm pitches forward, while you line up the wrist and talk (talk is cheap?) about the fingers flicking around, why don't you go the extra distance and make the arm line up so that the relative angle or flick of the fingers meshes with the position of the arm? Seems like a reasonable thing to ask, eh? With the shoulder [itching forward by a fair amount, that equates to several degrees of rotation when you anchor the wrist as the rotation point as you have. Rotate the entire image so the arms line up full length, THEN gab about your fine analysis. Can you do that? Rotate the images? Or would you like me to do it for you?

And just so you know, it matters little that Patty's fingers or wrists show minute movement in the film. I would expect them to move. Were it an actor in a suit, or a real bigfoot, there is no reason in the world why the hands and fingers would not be able to move. Of course there are no arm extensions, none were needed to achieve the human proportions that Patty demonstrates. So the hands Patty is swinging around at the end of her arms, are either bigfoot hands, which should have finger movement, or human hands disguised as bigfoot hands, and we know that human hands generally have plenty of dexterity and freedom of movement.

This kind of "analysis" where you make a proclamation that Patty's hands move, her fingers move, therefore she is not a rigid, fiberglass robot, is silly stuff. It is silly stuff. Of course the hands will move, why wouldn't they? Seriously, why wouldn't they? You want to argue that they move, and that the fact they move is some revelation, some sign that Patty is the real deal. based on what? Why wouldn't they move if Patty was not real? Spell it out. Here's a secret, maybe you can use it for your next animation; Patty's legs move too! She walks! She shifts side to side, swings one leg in front of the other, takes real steps, we see her taking steps in the film, and we can see her take those steps even better if we have a two frame animation showing her move her legs. Animation #5, Patty's arms swing! Yeah, so what? Arms swing, legs walk, hands swing, wrists bend, head turns, knees bend, and on and on. Proving what?

Patty, real or fake, has every right to move those legs, swing those arms, and flick those wrists and bend those fingers. Your point with that is what? Arm extensions? It's clear Patty's arms are human length, so no arm extensions are needed to achieve that hand position. Human proportions don't need arm extensions. No arm extensions means real or fake, the hands can be alive, flexible, dextrous. So regardless of real or fake, demonstrating hand movement is pointless as far as proving anything. It only makes a difference if you buy into the myth, the clear myth, that Patty has inordinately long arms, which she doesn't. Maybe other reports of other bigfoots claim long arms, but so what. Patty does not demonstrate the long arms in those reports, so it's apples to oranges, other reports to the clear and measurable images of Patty. Just because other people say they see bigfoots with long arms does not mean you can apply that "rule" to Patty, who doesn't demonstrate an adherence to that "rule". Patty has human length arms, and so there would be no surprise if her hands moved, real or fake. That doesn't address whether you can see them move or not in the film, that's debatable, and so far has only been proven if you accept junk animations that don't align the arms. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

"Patty, real or fake, has every right to move those legs, swing those arms, and flick those wrists and bend those fingers. Your point with that is what?

Arm extensions? It's clear Patty's arms are human length, so no arm extensions are needed to achieve that hand position."

Ooohhhhh....Tontar blows yet another tire... :lol: ...

'Hand extensions'.....Bob needs 'em....Bob gets 'em....in his Morris suit "recreation"...

ArmExtensions5.jpg

STIFF hands....that is.

Again....note the difference in arm lengths...

BobPattyArms-FingerMoveAG2.gif

Tontar wrote:

Of course the hands will move, why wouldn't they?

:lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar wrote:

"Patty, real or fake, has every right to move those legs, swing those arms, and flick those wrists and bend those fingers. Your point with that is what?

Arm extensions? It's clear Patty's arms are human length, so no arm extensions are needed to achieve that hand position."

'Hand extensions'.....Bob needs 'em....Bob gets 'em....in his Morris suit "recreation"...

ArmExtensions5.jpg

STIFF hands....that is.

Again....note the difference in arm lengths...

BobPattyArms-FingerMoveAG2.gif

Tontar wrote:

Of course the hands will move, why wouldn't they?

:lol:

As I said, Patty's arm lengths match a human's arm lengths, proportionally, so no arm extensions would be necessary to achieve that look. Any further debate about hand movement then becomes a waste of time. Reintroducing those junk image comparisons with the Crayola lines on them is nothing more than manipulating various information to try to make an invalid case. There have been more than enough images as well as full motion figure mapping that demonstrates Patty has human proportions, in other words, was capable of being a man in a suit, so again, no arm extensions necessary to achieve that look. Post your man-calf if you want, post any images that you want, I think I've seen your entire catalog of "evidence" so far, and it is just so shabby that it's not even worth looking at again.

I can go with the idea that Patty is a possible bigfoot, as long as that bigfoot has extremely close to human proportions, combined with the motion on the film being human as well, so I can go along with bigfoot/Patty being a form of human or human-like primate not far removed from us, or I can go with Patty being a man in a suit. But nothing, absolutely nothing so far has been convincing in the slightest that Patty has apish proportions, long arms, short legs, or any of the silly nonsense that proponents like you try to tweak to make her/it look inhuman, or to argue against the possibility it is a human form, or a human in a suit. You keep beating the same dead horse with your stuff, nothing new, and it always fails. It's junk analysis as far as I'm concerned. Pure junk, used to prop up an inaccurate dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

As I said, Patty's arm lengths match a human's arm lengths, proportionally, so no arm extensions would be necessary to achieve that look

OOPS....there goes Tontar's 4th tire... :lol: ...

I won't post the images showing the exceptional length of Patty's arms again....but...

....regarding 'Arm Proportion'....there is a significant difference in 'arm proportion' between Patty, and an 'average human'...

tubepatty308andthensome.gif

F62-F90ArmBendAG3Lined.gif

...But there is an even greater differential between that of Patty's...and an 'average human w/hand extension'...

PattyGorillaSuitArmProportionComp2D.jpg

With the lengths of the 'lower arms' scaled to match....note the difference in the lengths of their upper-arms...

PattyTubeArmComp5.jpg

Numbers....to follow... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

I just watched a movie with my kids "Little Bigfoot". The suits were pretty good but I was really struck by how short the arms looked..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

For what it is worth, concerning Post #19 Archie Matkoluk:

He alledges a very long duration encounter prior to media popularity. He claims it approached to within just a few meters distance and that he was able to make a detailed description, later documented by drawing and notes at the time it occurred (1960). He describee two characteristics that run counter to usual descriptions: 1- The creature was not graceful and actually seemed to have difficulty walking, and 2) the arms were normal length and not unusually long. ( On this latter characteristic he is adamant. He brought it up without my asking.)

Edited by HOLDMYBEER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

For what it is worth, concerning Post #19 Archie Matkoluk:

He alledges a very long duration encounter prior to media popularity. He claims it approached to within just a few meters distance and that he was able to make a detailed description, later documented by drawing and notes at the time it occurred (1960). He describee two characteristics that run counter to usual descriptions: 1- The creature was not graceful and actually seemed to have difficulty walking, and 2) the arms were normal length and not unusually long. ( On this latter characteristic he is adamant. He brought it up without my asking.)

Interesting. Did he say whether he thought the difficulty walking was due to basic anatomy of the thing, or age, or injury? Any ideas he might have had regarding that? And facial descriptions, human or ape preferences? I find it interesting that he would stress without provocation that the arms were not unusually long. No doubt he has not lived in a vacuum and has heard the well ingrained ideas of longer arms and wanted to counter that idea?

I find what you say particularly interesting because like many others I have watched the PGf many, many times, probably too many times actually, and I honestly have not seen the sort of silky smoothness that some note as an iconic trait of Patty. In the cropped, close up clips, it's fairly easy to see Patty's shoulders dip from side to side with each step, that reminds me more of a tired, plodding man, not a graceful, elegant forest nymph. That side to side trudging, like a swagger in a way, always has looked a bit labored to me. Walking IS a labored effort more so for bipedal things like people, and presumably bigfoots as well. Life in the wild is not the kindest nor most comfortable way of life, and animals of all kinds break down. Observing wild animals in their natural environment exposes that roughness far more than an Edgar Rice Burroughs book will portray. :-) Nice to hear about a report that is not so flowery and sexy.

OOPS....there goes Tontar's 4th tire... :lol: ...

Numbers....to follow... :)

More cherry picking, deja vu.

The day you come up with something as well done as the Mangler animation is the day you will get somewhere outside of your gullible circle of back slappers. Sorry to say it that way, but you consistently cherry pick images, scale them as you need to to prove your invalid points, then continue to post them over and over again, in every thread, whether on topic or off topic, it doesn't matter to you.

The report mentioned above is on topic, it mentions a sighting that happened in 1960, a bigfoot that seemed to match Patty's description far better than most others, as in height, bulk, hairy breasts, arm length, swaggering gait, and so on. If the observer has notes and drawings that were drawn way back then, and not simply drawn in the present and attributed to then, well, I would give it a lot of merit. Far more than repetitious images and animations calculated to manipulate reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Interesting. Did he say whether he thought the difficulty walking was due to basic anatomy of the thing, or age, or injury? Any ideas he might have had regarding that? And facial descriptions, human or ape preferences? I find it interesting that he would stress without provocation that the arms were not unusually long. No doubt he has not lived in a vacuum and has heard the well ingrained ideas of longer arms and wanted to counter that idea?

I find what you say particularly interesting because like many others I have watched the PGf many, many times, probably too many times actually, and I honestly have not seen the sort of silky smoothness that some note as an iconic trait of Patty. In the cropped, close up clips, it's fairly easy to see Patty's shoulders dip from side to side with each step, that reminds me more of a tired, plodding man, not a graceful, elegant forest nymph. That side to side trudging, like a swagger in a way, always has looked a bit labored to me. Walking IS a labored effort more so for bipedal things like people, and presumably bigfoots as well. ...............

.........The report mentioned above is on topic, it mentions a sighting that happened in 1960, a bigfoot that seemed to match Patty's description far better than most others, as in height, bulk, hairy breasts, arm length, swaggering gait, and so on. If the observer has notes and drawings that were drawn way back then, and not simply drawn in the present and attributed to then, well, I would give it a lot of merit. Far more than repetitious images and animations calculated to manipulate reality.

He is the son of Ukrainian immigrant parents. They lived on a farm in the boonies of Manitoba. He was at home during break from school and had the encounter while chopping wood. I believe he said they had no television but I will check that. In any case it would have been a time and place where there was significantly less media coverage of sasquatch topics.

He also made a point of describing the lack of grace in walking but I will have to refer to the recording for actual words. He brought it up, I didn't.

My purpose in talking with Archie was to get details from an encounter and report that occurred prior to the PGF. I am attempting to get copies of his original notes and drawing. He said he saw a program about sasquatch on Outdoor Living Network last year and was aggravated by the facts presented and conclusions drawn. He retrieved his 50 year old notes and took them to the local paper with the idea he could straighten some things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

He is the son of Ukrainian immigrant parents. They lived on a farm in the boonies of Manitoba. He was at home during break from school and had the encounter while chopping wood. I believe he said they had no television but I will check that. In any case it would have been a time and place where there was significantly less media coverage of sasquatch topics.

He also made a point of describing the lack of grace in walking but I will have to refer to the recording for actual words. He brought it up, I didn't.

My purpose in talking with Archie was to get details from an encounter and report that occurred prior to the PGF. I am attempting to get copies of his original notes and drawing. He said he saw a program about sasquatch on Outdoor Living Network last year and was aggravated by the facts presented and conclusions drawn. He retrieved his 50 year old notes and took them to the local paper with the idea he could straighten some things out.

Cool, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seriously? Check the entire arm, upper arm and forearm, Schwetty. The entire arm pitches forward, while you line up the wrist and talk (talk is cheap?) about the fingers flicking around, why don't you go the extra distance and make the arm line up so that the relative angle or flick of the fingers meshes with the position of the arm? Seems like a reasonable thing to ask, eh? With the shoulder [itching forward by a fair amount, that equates to several degrees of rotation when you anchor the wrist as the rotation point as you have. Rotate the entire image so the arms line up full length, THEN gab about your fine analysis. Can you do that? Rotate the images? Or would you like me to do it for you?

Oh no you don't, you can't rotate/cut/paste/spindle or mutilate the image to match up their orientations. At least that's what you told me. The only important criteria is whether their scales are correct. If they are in Sweaty's comparison, then Patty's arms are longer than Bob's. Deal with it. You don't need to reorient the arm, just measure the length. The million $ question is to what degree their armlengths are foreshortened? Your only defence is to claim that Bob's armlength is foreshortened and not maximal. Funny how that's always been the case..so far. ;)

But you know, it's straightforward to measure this. Draw standing height vectors from the top of Bob's head to hips to knee to the ground and measure that (on the screen with a ruler). Now measure from Bob's shoulder to his elbow to wrist, then approximate his hand length and add that to the armlength. Measure the same distance on your own arm and divide it by your height. If Bob's arm/height ratio is smaller than yours, then it is likely foreshortened. The difference in your ratios indicates the % of foreshortening. You can then "unforeshorten" Bob's armlength, THEN do your comparison, which will of course show us that Bob's arm is the same length or longer than Patty's. :)

And just so you know, it matters little that Patty's fingers or wrists show minute movement in the film. I would expect them to move. Were it an actor in a suit, or a real bigfoot, there is no reason in the world why the hands and fingers would not be able to move. Of course there are no arm extensions, none were needed to achieve the human proportions that Patty demonstrates. So the hands Patty is swinging around at the end of her arms, are either bigfoot hands, which should have finger movement, or human hands disguised as bigfoot hands, and we know that human hands generally have plenty of dexterity and freedom of movement.

How do you know Patty's arms are humanly proportioned? No comparison has ever demonstrated that. Not even Chabal. Only the minimally foreshortened frames can decide this anyway. We need to agree which frames those are. To make your claim, you require any human comparison that at least matches the arm length of Patty at her maximum length. Then you have to show how you scaled them. Good luck with that.

This kind of "analysis" where you make a proclamation that Patty's hands move, her fingers move, therefore she is not a rigid, fiberglass robot, is silly stuff. It is silly stuff. Of course the hands will move, why wouldn't they? Seriously, why wouldn't they? You want to argue that they move, and that the fact they move is some revelation, some sign that Patty is the real deal. based on what? Why wouldn't they move if Patty was not real? Spell it out. Here's a secret, maybe you can use it for your next animation; Patty's legs move too! She walks! She shifts side to side, swings one leg in front of the other, takes real steps, we see her taking steps in the film, and we can see her take those steps even better if we have a two frame animation showing her move her legs. Animation #5, Patty's arms swing! Yeah, so what? Arms swing, legs walk, hands swing, wrists bend, head turns, knees bend, and on and on. Proving what?

Fake hands can move, but fake fingers don't articulate without a sophisticated mechanism, which a Morris suit did not have.

Patty, real or fake, has every right to move those legs, swing those arms, and flick those wrists and bend those fingers. Your point with that is what? Arm extensions? It's clear Patty's arms are human length, so no arm extensions are needed to achieve that hand position. Human proportions don't need arm extensions. No arm extensions means real or fake, the hands can be alive, flexible, dextrous. So regardless of real or fake, demonstrating hand movement is pointless as far as proving anything. It only makes a difference if you buy into the myth, the clear myth, that Patty has inordinately long arms, which she doesn't. Maybe other reports of other bigfoots claim long arms, but so what. Patty does not demonstrate the long arms in those reports, so it's apples to oranges, other reports to the clear and measurable images of Patty. Just because other people say they see bigfoots with long arms does not mean you can apply that "rule" to Patty, who doesn't demonstrate an adherence to that "rule". Patty has human length arms, and so there would be no surprise if her hands moved, real or fake. That doesn't address whether you can see them move or not in the film, that's debatable, and so far has only been proven if you accept junk animations that don't align the arms. :-)

The only thing clear is that Patty's arms are not the same length as Bob's in that animation. Try using a ruler (serious). They don't have to be in the same orientation, only similarly foreshortened. And are they scaled correctly? I'm not saying they are, but are they? Measure the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tontar wrote:

As I said, Patty's arm lengths match a human's arm lengths, proportionally, so no arm extensions would be necessary to achieve that look

OOPS....there goes Tontar's 4th tire... :lol: ...

I won't post the images showing the exceptional length of Patty's arms again....but...

....regarding 'Arm Proportion'....there is a significant difference in 'arm proportion' between Patty, and an 'average human'...

tubepatty308andthensome.gif

F62-F90ArmBendAG3Lined.gif

...But there is an even greater differential between that of Patty's...and an 'average human w/hand extension'...

PattyGorillaSuitArmProportionComp2D.jpg

With the lengths of the 'lower arms' scaled to match....note the difference in the lengths of their upper-arms...

PattyTubeArmComp5.jpg

Numbers....to follow... :)

I think you see what you want or expect to see SY. I see these figures as not too different from each other. Also remember that human proportions are variable. There is quite a range of arm length proportions out there. We're not all built exactly alike. I suspect that real BFs are similarly ranging in their proportions. If "Patty" is a real BF she has similar bodily proportions to humans.

Fake hands can move, but fake fingers don't articulate without a sophisticated mechanism, which a Morris suit did not have.

The only thing clear is that Patty's arms are not the same length as Bob's in that animation. Try using a ruler (serious). They don't have to be in the same orientation, only similarly foreshortened. And are they scaled correctly? I'm not saying they are, but are they? Measure the film.

Fake fingers could actually appear to articulate as they will likely wiggle while the arm is in motion. This will depend on what was used to make the hands. I disagree that they need to be extensions however. I also don't think that we need to assume a fake "Patty" means Bob Heironomous was in the suit. If he admits to hoaxing he could be lying and that points been covered around here before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

... The only important criteria is whether their scales are correct. If they are in Sweaty's comparison, then Patty's arms are longer than Bob's. Deal with it. You don't need to reorient the arm, just measure the length. The million $ question is to what degree their armlengths are foreshortened? Your only defence is to claim that Bob's armlength is foreshortened and not maximal. Funny how that's always been the case..so far. ;)

... Now measure from Bob's shoulder to his elbow to wrist, then approximate his hand length and add that to the armlength. ....

How do you know Patty's arms are humanly proportioned? No comparison has ever demonstrated that. Not even Chabal. Only the minimally foreshortened frames can decide this anyway. We need to agree which frames those are. To make your claim, you require any human comparison that at least matches the arm length of Patty at her maximum length. Then you have to show how you scaled them. Good luck with that.

...

The only thing clear is that Patty's arms are not the same length as Bob's in that animation. Try using a ruler (serious). They don't have to be in the same orientation, only similarly foreshortened. And are they scaled correctly? I'm not saying they are, but are they? Measure the film.

I apologize to the forum for having to point this out for the ___th time but G., you don't know how long "Patty's" right arm is. If you continue to beg the question ie to assume that "Patty" is not a man in a suit with shoulder pads, then you are setting the upper end of "Patty's" right arm too high, and not getting a true estimate of the length of the subjects right arm. Furthermore, the color and contours and overall lack of resolution obscure the body and shoulder postures, which is doubly important because the popular style of imitating an ape is to walk hunch over with drooping shoulders; several observers in this forum have commented on the subject's drooping shoulders. Not to mention the effects of shoulder pads on apparent upper/lower arm proportions. I look forward to the day when you can bring your obvious skills to bear on what is actually the question: Can this be a man in a costume with shoulder pads? If you can falsify that, you have done something.

To put it another way, with what you are doing, all you can say is "if this is "real," then it isn't a man." To rephrase, "if this isn't a man, then it isn't a man." Well, that would hardly need proof, now would it?

I hope the forum will bear with me; I think this constant repetition of the same old Kabuki is wasting bandwidth, but then, what else are we here for?

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I apologize to the forum for having to point this out for the ___th time but G., you don't know how long "Patty's" right arm is. If you continue to beg the question ie to assume that "Patty" is not a man in a suit with shoulder pads, then you are setting the upper end of "Patty's" right arm too high, and not getting a true estimate of the length of the subjects right arm. Furthermore, the color and contours and overall lack of resolution obscure the body and shoulder postures, which is doubly important because the popular style of imitating an ape is to walk hunch over with drooping shoulders; several observers in this forum have commented on the subject's drooping shoulders. Not to mention the effects of shoulder pads on apparent upper/lower arm proportions. I look forward to the day when you can bring your obvious skills to bear on what is actually the question: Can this be a man in a costume with shoulder pads?

I hope the forum will bear with me; I think this constant repetition of the same old Kabuki is wasting bandwidth, but then, what else are we here for?

p.

parn, no offense, but I don't think you know what you're talking about here and you are arguing from a position of incredulity. You know Bob was the guy in the suit and you're intent on making him fit. To hell with science! :D

The reality here is that you are fully capable of putting your money where your mouth is. Post pictures of yourself or someone with known dimensions in the same pose as a minimally foreshortened frame of Patty from the PGF at approx the same distance from the camera and match Patty's armlength. But show us, don't tell us, otherwise, you are implying that there are no frames from the PGF that we can determine Patty's body dimensions. Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...