Jump to content

Patty's Bust


Recommended Posts

PBeaton

kitakaze,

Didn't have chance to read everythin', but, perhaps simply lookin' at how light reflects of hair would help. Reasons Not To Consider..Hoax, post 1353, gorilla video stuff, simply note how arm covered with hair reflects the light differently as it moves.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gigantofootecus: "Bunk. Frame 352 is nearly the same as frame 351, which is significantly different than frame 350, which is no illusion. Is the hand a fingerless ball the whole time? Better explain again how frame 352 debunks anything."

Gigantofootecus: "Bunk. Frame 352 is nearly the same as frame 351, which is significantly different than frame 350, which is no illusion."

You posted frames 350 and 351 as a continuous, alternating gif; two frames, switching back and forth, without any kind of a pause or fade after frame 351. Combined with the very obvious background shadows of Bluff Creek, this creates the illusion of hand movement. Am I correct or incorrect that this is what you were attempting to illustrate with your gif?

The subject's hand shows no finger definition in frame 350 as it enters into the background shadows of Bluff creek. In frame 351 it moves a little higher into the field of background shadows. It is still a fingerless ball. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the fingers are extended, or partially extended in frame 351?

Gigantofootecus: "Is the hand a fingerless ball the whole time?"

Yes, in fact, if you look at this three frame color gif again, the subject's right arm appears to end in a rather blunt looking stub in all three frames. Are you suggesting that the fingers are extended in frames 351 and 352, since you believe they are "nearly the same"

Gigantofootecus: "Better explain again how frame 352 debunks anything."

Frame 352 breaks up the illusion of hand movement created by the continuous switching back and forth of frames 350 and 351, as I mentioned above. All three frames show a blunt, fingerless stub at the end of the right arm.

I see virtually no difference in the subject's right hand, in the three frames, other than their locations.

Edited by Romano
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gigantofootecus: "Bunk. Frame 352 is nearly the same as frame 351, which is significantly different than frame 350, which is no illusion."

You posted frames 350 and 351 as a continuous, alternating gif; two frames, switching back and forth, without any kind of a pause or fade after frame 351. Combined with the very obvious background shadows of Bluff Creek, this creates the illusion of hand movement. Am I correct or incorrect that this is what you were attempting to illustrate with your gif?

The difference between the 2 frames seems obvious to me. And that's taking the background into consideration.

The subject's hand shows no finger definition in frame 350 as it enters into the background shadows of Bluff creek. In frame 351 it moves a little higher into the field of background shadows. It is still a fingerless ball. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the fingers are extended, or partially extended in frame 351?

Yes, the fingers are bending in frame 350 and rolled into a ball by frame 351 (or merely angled away from view).

Gigantofootecus: "Is the hand a fingerless ball the whole time?"

Yes, in fact, if you look at this three frame color gif again, the subject's right arm appears to end in a rather blunt looking stub in all three frames. Are you suggesting that the fingers are extended in frames 351 and 352, since you believe they are "nearly the same"

That's why I posted the other graphics. Obviously, Patty's hand does not remain a fingerless ball. You must have your skepticals on.

Gigantofootecus: "Better explain again how frame 352 debunks anything."

Frame 352 breaks up the illusion of hand movement created by the continuous switching back and forth of frames 350 and 351, as I mentioned above. All three frames show a blunt, fingerless stub at the end of the right arm.

I see virtually no difference in the subject's right hand, in the three frames, other than their locations.

Really? Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

The notion that simply excess body hair is to account for the appearance of loose material along the length of Patty's arm is refuted easily by simply examining the armpit area. That's not hair. It can only be a loose suit or extremely loose sking and tissue. If the latter is tha case, Patty can not be extremely flabby while being also ripped at the same time.

Copy8FR352WalkAG7.gif

Yes, I do. Patty looks very unnatural in many aspects to me. I think in either case, Patty exhibiting natural or unnatural things is not going to be a problem for you...

Why, if Patty exhibits anything particularly unnatural, you need only handily invoke the supernatural. No fuss no muss.

kitakaze,

I'm tryin' ta see how or where you see some kind of sign of loose anythin', but I just can't seem to see anythin' that remotely looks like anythin' loose or even flabby, nothin'. Could ya try an be a little more specific as to where ta look. I know ya mentioned up at armpit area, I see the subjects bicep area appears a little lighter, armpit looks fine to me. A favor, explain what gives ya the impression of loose material please, I'd just like to see what it is.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now.. clearly frame 352 shows thumb with fingers pulled back in a sort of fist position. The other frames not showing such detail is merely a testament to the fact this is not a high quality film that has detail continuity from frame to frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest StankApe

I was catching up on the old threads in here and I must say that a few things have really popped out at me in regards to Patty that i had never considered before.

The bresats having a fairly uniform hairyness- no great apes have that much hair on their boobs. Chimps have a bit , but it's much lighter and thinner than the rest of their body

The emptiness in the behind area- I had never noticed how much it seems to move around at the thigh/butt joint.

Finally, the arms actually do seem to be too long at first, but if you consider that the shoulder joint in a suit is often built up to ride on top of the shoulder (so as to build muscle mass appearance) the actual shoulder may exist several inches lower than it appears.

Prior to joining this site I was just baffled by what to think about PGF. One minute I would be sure it was real, the next an obvious hoax...etc I would get one good piece of evidence for one side ... then another interesting one on the other.

I'm not saying I've fallen off the fence to the "hoax" side just yet. But I can feel my leg starting to slide... Yet i still see "weight" in Patty that appears bigger than a man in a suit!!! ARGHHHHHHHH!!!

Honestly, no wonder everyone argues over it, many of us end up arguing with ourselves over it! :lol:

Edited by StankApe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

The bresats having a fairly uniform hairyness- no great apes have that much hair on their boobs. Chimps have a bit , but it's much lighter and thinner than the rest of their body

Chimps live in hot climates. Patty would live in an area with cold winters.

This Japanese snow macaque (which has to survive snowy cold winters) looks to have a lot of hair over the beast area except for the nipple:

pd785633.jpg

Finally, the arms actually do seem to be too long at first, but if you consider that the shoulder joint in a suit is often built up to ride on top of the shoulder (so as to build muscle mass appearance) the actual shoulder may exist several inches lower than it appears.

That would not explain how low the hands reach nor the relative shot forearms and low elbow joint.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

That would not explain how low the hands reach nor the relative shot forearms and low elbow joint.

:)

That's a monkey.... I said Great Ape... It would seem that Bigfoot would follow that type if it's actually closer to us than Chimps... And what about the distribution across the country? anyway, I don't know enough about monkey's to even bicker over that.

The second thing (and what i quoted) If the should was higher it would create the illusion of the arm being lower relative to everything else.

If I look at something with a hominid shape I will see the shoulder relative to the waist to the knee and the arms... cuz that's what humans do we recognize familiar body types very well. So when we see a shoulder say

HERE---------

BUT IT'S ACTUALLY HERE---------

then everything else seems to be lower from the outside (meanwhile inside the suit the guys arms haven't changed at all, but looking outside what you see looks like an arm 4 inches longer than the man insides arm actually is (because of the built up shoulder) If I put on shoulder pads and a pro makeup person covered them in flesh and hair and such added a wee bit of extra sleeve, I would look like I had uber high shoulders and very long arms from a side view. When you add a head with a wide neck on top of all that, (covering the obviousness from the front that I had built up shoulders) Granted the subjects head isn't truly fully inside the mask (in fact it would be probably looking out the mouth) but it WOULD give the appearnce of lower joints relative to the shoulder.

I'm not saying this is what happened at all. But it is something I had never thought of before.

EDIT: I forgot to discuss your assertion about how low the arms are. I just stood up bent my back forward slightly and took some steps swinging my arms and they touch my knees. I'm 6'3" and 235. Not to mention that if you had monkey suit gloves on they could add a few inches to each finger..... Just sayin, It's an easy thing to pick on and an easy thing to buy into that dadburn PGF

Edited by StankApe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

That's a monkey.... I said Great Ape... It would seem that Bigfoot would follow that type if it's actually closer to us than Chimps...

But no 'great apes' live in snowy cold climates so it's a strange analogy comparing Patty to a chimp etc, which lives in a tropical climate.

An example of a fur covered primate which lives in a cold snowy climate is the Japanese snow macaque and I think it's a reasonable comparison.

And what about the distribution across the country?

But we are talking specifically about Patty aren't we? The mountains northern California, where Patty was filmed, have cold snowy winters so there is no need to bring in other areas.

If there are bigfoot in other (much warmer) areas then it may be that the fur on the breasts isn't as thick as Patty. I don't know. I haven't seen any footage of a bigfoot from Louisiana yet. :)

The second thing (and what i quoted) If the should was higher it would create the illusion of the arm being lower relative to everything else.

But it's not an 'illusion' that the hands hang low. They really do hang low, as numerous images and measurements have shown. The elbow location is also noticeably low. Shoulder pads would have nothing to do with the low position of the elbow and hands.

EDIT: I forgot to discuss your assertion about how low the arms are. I just stood up bent my back forward slightly and took some steps swinging my arms and they touch my knees. I'm 6'3" and 235. Not to mention that if you had monkey suit gloves on they could add a few inches to each finger

Arm extensions at the end of the limb would make the distance from the elbow to the hand look longer, not comparatively short.

The fingers are actually seen bending at one point and the arm certainly bends at the elbow in a perfectly natural manner....yet the forearms look short. ;)

Must be an amazing and unique suit to do that. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

That's a monkey.... I said Great Ape... It would seem that Bigfoot would follow that type if it's actually closer to us than Chimps... And what about the distribution across the country? anyway, I don't know enough about monkey's to even bicker over that.

The second thing (and what i quoted) If the should was higher it would create the illusion of the arm being lower relative to everything else.

If I look at something with a hominid shape I will see the shoulder relative to the waist to the knee and the arms... cuz that's what humans do we recognize familiar body types very well. So when we see a shoulder say

HERE---------

BUT IT'S ACTUALLY HERE---------

then everything else seems to be lower from the outside (meanwhile inside the suit the guys arms haven't changed at all, but looking outside what you see looks like an arm 4 inches longer than the man insides arm actually is (because of the built up shoulder) If I put on shoulder pads and a pro makeup person covered them in flesh and hair and such added a wee bit of extra sleeve, I would look like I had uber high shoulders and very long arms from a side view. When you add a head with a wide neck on top of all that, (covering the obviousness from the front that I had built up shoulders) Granted the subjects head isn't truly fully inside the mask (in fact it would be probably looking out the mouth) but it WOULD give the appearnce of lower joints relative to the shoulder.

I'm not saying this is what happened at all. But it is something I had never thought of before.

EDIT: I forgot to discuss your assertion about how low the arms are. I just stood up bent my back forward slightly and took some steps swinging my arms and they touch my knees. I'm 6'3" and 235. Not to mention that if you had monkey suit gloves on they could add a few inches to each finger..... Just sayin, It's an easy thing to pick on and an easy thing to buy into that dadburn PGF

StankApe,

Regardin' shoulder pads, they tend to increase the width between the top of the shoulder/deltoid an the armpit. I don't see this, nor do I see evidence of shoulder pads from the back(or the side), I see contours that are perfectly natural such as the protrussions created by the shoulder blades(as they stick out further just like ours), an the median furrow/line of the spine, perfectly natural in my opinion.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

I know this is futile before I say it, but the more I look at it , the more i think it's phony..... That really stinks too as it was one of my favorite bits of evidence....

The arm is too flaccid on the inside, the butt/thigh joint moves around like baggy suit... the hairy boobs thing... the weird way the foot pads look like the bottom of a suit and not an actual foot.

But yet, the face and said "weight" of the critter remain....

Maybe I should just quit looking at it.

BTW, not to step on any toes, but all the "expert" opinions on the A&P of Patty seem to have accomplished next to nothing as both sides point out valid things.... and then adequately rebut the other opinion too!!

I reckon you couldn't create a film today that could dance the line for both sides so well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I know this is futile before I say it, but the more I look at it , the more i think it's phony..... That really stinks too as it was one of my favorite bits of evidence....

The arm is too flaccid on the inside, the butt/thigh joint moves around like baggy suit... the hairy boobs thing... the weird way the foot pads look like the bottom of a suit and not an actual foot.

But yet, the face and said "weight" of the critter remain....

Maybe I should just quit looking at it.

BTW, not to step on any toes, but all the "expert" opinions on the A&P of Patty seem to have accomplished next to nothing as both sides point out valid things.... and then adequately rebut the other opinion too!!

I reckon you couldn't create a film today that could dance the line for both sides so well!

StankApe,

We're still waitin' on a hoaxer to come close, even with todays techniques an materials(let alone those from '67), but alas...the wait continues... :unsure:

Cheers !

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I know this is futile before I say it, but the more I look at it , the more i think it's phony..... That really stinks too as it was one of my favorite bits of evidence....

The arm is too flaccid on the inside, the butt/thigh joint moves around like baggy suit... the hairy boobs thing... the weird way the foot pads look like the bottom of a suit and not an actual foot.

But yet, the face and said "weight" of the critter remain....

Maybe I should just quit looking at it.

BTW, not to step on any toes, but all the "expert" opinions on the A&P of Patty seem to have accomplished next to nothing as both sides point out valid things.... and then adequately rebut the other opinion too!!

I reckon you couldn't create a film today that could dance the line for both sides so well!

StankApe,

We're still waitin' on a hoaxer to come close, even with todays techniques an materials(let alone those from '67), but alas...the wait continues... :unsure:

Cheers !

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...