Patty's Bust

[Guest]

Ok, here's the rebuttal to the "unnatural bustline" arguement.

First, Patty, with annotations by me showing the relevant anatomical lines. I only outlined the general countour of the right breast as too much of the left is hidden by perspective and shadow. My outline of the lower part of the breast is a little off (the underside is too high), but this is just for general discussion anyways.

As you can see, if you look at the WHOLE of the contour, the bustline extends up around the armpit line as one would expect it to.

And here's a picture of a gorilla with similar pendulous breasts in a post from Xspider:

I've got some stills of real women with similarly situated breasts, but I'm not sure I'm allowed even to link to them. I can provide links or images by IM or email.

Or you can Yahoo search using the term "pendulous breasts" with safe search OFF.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Mulder

[PBeaton 2,904]

The subject filmed is a unique primate, I see nothin' strange about havin' unique breasts.

Pat...

[Guest]

^Several of the MIAS (Man In A Suit) proponents have stated that they find the bustline too low on the torso and/or too full to be a legitimate real animal, citing that as proof that Patty is a suit.

I'm simply rebutting their assertions on both positioning and contour.

[Guest vilnoori]

If they were higher on the chest they would logically stick out that far. If they were lower down as they are, they would be flatter. Get me? Its the combination thereof that does not look natural. Also look at the way the cloth bags on the back, upper thigh, as the subject moves. You see motion there, but not in the knockers. Where's the logic.

[PBeaton 2,904]

^Several of the MIAS (Man In A Suit) proponents have stated that they find the bustline too low on the torso and/or too full to be a legitimate real animal, citing that as proof that Patty is a suit.

I'm simply rebutting their assertions on both positioning and contour.

Mulder,

I agree with you. If that's thier idea of proof...ha !

Pat...

[Guest]

If they were higher on the chest they would logically stick out that far. If they were lower down as they are, they would be flatter. Get me? Its the combination thereof that does not look natural.

Not necessarily. As I said, I did some checking and you can have full breasts that are also pendulous. The evidence is just a Yahoo search away.

You see motion there, but not in the knockers. Where's the logic.

I see motion in the breasts. It's subtle, but it's there. It's more of a slight swing or "roll", than a jiggle. What you are expecting is more "bounce", but remember that Patty is moving with a so-called "compliant" gait. It is a very smooth gait that doesn't produce a lot of vertical movement in the torso.

[PBeaton 2,904]

If they were higher on the chest they would logically stick out that far. If they were lower down as they are, they would be flatter. Get me? Its the combination thereof that does not look natural. Also look at the way the cloth bags on the back, upper thigh, as the subject moves. You see motion there, but not in the knockers. Where's the logic.

vilnoori,

The subject filmed clearly has unique physical characteristics. Basin' what is visible in the know primates an comparin' it to the subject filmed, although is interestin'...is pretty much like comparin' the buttocks of a gorilla to that of a human.

I'm a little lost with "the cloth bags on the back, upper thigh," ?

Pat...

ps; I agree Mulder, slight movement visible to breasts.

Edited November 4, 2010 by PBeaton

[Guest]

^Not sure what is meant by the back, but the "cloth bags on the thigh" is a feature that can just as easly be the result of a hernia in the leg.

[Guest River]

What are those two lines above the breast supposed to be? Looks like shoulder pads under a fur suit to me.

Also, those breats appear to come out of the chest/belly area closer to the hips than to the neck/shoulders. That is certainly something I would not expect in a "real" animal.

Edited November 4, 2010 by River

[Guest parnassus]

Patty's Bust because Parnassus requested it

Ok, here's the rebuttal to the "unnatural bustline" arguement.

M,

you rascal; I really should call you a bunch of names for misquoting me. But you're so lovable. So I won't.

imho this is one of those cases where the video/gif gives more information than the stills. On an image of a cone, you could pretty much draw a line in any one of several directions. The cones are particularly oddly shaped if one accepts the concept advanced by a noted fantasy-movie worker/bigfoot reporter: that the subject is a sort of flabby over the hill female.

The cones positioned too low, are not drooping down from the pectoralis as they should, nor are they moving with the shoulder/pectoralis movement, nor do they show any momentum related movement.

Without disputing your considerable experience with the subject at hand, M., I must reject your argument.

p.

Edited November 4, 2010 by parnassus

[PBeaton 2,904]

What are those two lines above the breast supposed to be? Looks like shoulder pads under a fur suit to me.

Also, those breats appear to come out of the chest/belly area closer to the hips than to the shoulders. That is certainly something I would not expect in a "real" animal.

River,

Pectoral muscle. You are talkin' bout the two lines above the breast, which also happen to be infront of the shoulders. Look at them relative to the armpit, looks natural to me.

Pat...

[Guest gershake]

You shouldn't either, really, because you're doing the same thing to Bill Munns all the time.

(EDIT: Directed at parnassus)

Edited November 4, 2010 by gershake

[PBeaton 2,904]

Be nice ta see an apology one of these days....no names mentioned parnassus...oops !

C'mon...man-up to it.

Pat...

[Guest]

What are those two lines above the breast supposed to be? Looks like shoulder pads under a fur suit to me.

The angled line on the left (as the legend I included indicates) is the line of the arm up to the armpit area.

The curved line(s) are the visible contour of the right breast, showing that they are NOT "belly missiles" or "rockets" as some here have claimed, but are in fact rather full, pendulous breasts similar to the ones in the gorilla photo linked to and other photos in (of real women) in my possession that I did not upload because the last time I even linked to such a photo I got a 30 day "vacation" from Stacey on the old forum.

Also, those breats appear to come out of the chest/belly area closer to the hips than to the neck/shoulders. That is certainly something I would not expect in a "real" animal.

No they do not, if you follow the natural contour line on the unlined original image at the left you can clearly see the continuity.

imho this is one of those cases where the video/gif gives more information than the stills. On an image of a cone, you could pretty much draw a line in any one of several directions. The cones are particularly oddly shaped if one accepts the concept advanced by a noted fantasy-movie worker/bigfoot reporter: that the subject is a sort of flabby over the hill female.

They are not "cones". The line is exactly what you would expect to see from a real pendulous breast with a rather full cup, a "fat-bellied fish-hook" shape.

You also have to take into account the play of light and shadow on the breasts, as well as the roll of the chest hair in obscuring the exact line.

The cones positioned too low, are not drooping down from the pectoralis as they should, nor are they moving with the shoulder/pectoralis movement, nor do they show any momentum related movement.

This also is not the case, as the photo plainly shows, and the other photos reinforce.

Edited September 3, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY

[Wheellug 109]

^Several of the MIAS (Man In A Suit) proponents have stated that they find the bustline too low on the torso and/or too full to be a legitimate real animal, citing that as proof that Patty is a suit.

I'm simply rebutting their assertions on both positioning and contour.

Oh I beg to differ- their statements are generally of "Cones" and "Torpedoes".

Which I can only assume they are giving such a crass description because it helps to belittle the subject and not provide an accurate description.

EDIT.. oh.. on the pic provided, it may show the linear connection, however if you view the shadow, you can clearly see the breast is sagging.. appears very natural.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Wheellug