Jump to content
Guest

Patty's Bust

Recommended Posts

Guest

I like how the "fabric" does that ripple jiggle as she stomps that right foot down.....

Actually,you know what? Stand up, and watch your right leg,and give a nice firm stomp, and watch how your flesh reacts,if your not beefy enough,grab a friend,there has to be some weight and mass there.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Really, all I see are shadows. There is very little detail to see and a whole lot of room for speculation. many of these muscle "contractions" have also been claimed to be folds in fabric.

Sure they could be shadows and folds in fabric, but what are the odds that you would have them fall in place of real muscles and replicate their movement? The odds would have to be pretty astronomical for that to happen.

Just look at the folds in fabric and shadows on the clothes you're wearing right now. How many of them resemble actual muscle shapes, contours, and movement when you walk?

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Even when I am naked,I look like I am wearing a loose human suit,dam it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^^ + +

I think the breasts are an important aspect of the definitive proof that the creature is real. And, Bob H. didn't mention those in numerous interviews nor are they in the accounts of how those in Yakima supposedly reacted when they supposedly saw a Morris gorilla suit in BH's trunk. The PGf cannot be shown to be a Bigfoot costume in any way, shape or, form. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Biggie

Even when I am naked,I look like I am wearing a loose human suit,dam it

I got a good chuckle out of that John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The film has been digitally photographed, frame by frame, stabilized,and every other fancy thing they can do to it. If you cannot see the thigh muscles,and the triceps, and the breasts, and the facial movements,and the calf contractions,then I really don't even know what to say to that,honestly,its like pointing in the night sky and saying there is the moon, and someone saying, sorry,there is a touch of haze, I cannot definitively say its the moon, so it must be a blob.

Remember we are talking about a"suit" made in the sixties, you think Hollywood would consider that a poor suite in the sixties??? I hate to say it again..........really? Really???? have you watched any sixties sci fi at all?

If you cannot see the thigh muscles,and the triceps, and the breasts, and the facial movements,and the calf contractions,then I really don't even know what to say to that,honestly,its like pointing in the night sky and saying there is the moon, and someone saying, sorry,there is a touch of haze, I cannot definitively say its the moon, so it must be a blob.
JohnC, as an opponent of the PGF, I find it just as incredulous that you can, apparently, discount the anatomical anomalies, impossibilities, and improbabilities that are on display every time Paddy trots across Bluff Creek. It's like you're pointing into the mid day sky, staring directly at the sun, and wondering why the moon is so bright. Makes as much sense as your analogy. :)
Remember we are talking about a"suit" made in the sixties, you think Hollywood would consider that a poor suite in the sixties??? I hate to say it again..........really? Really???? have you watched any sixties sci fi at all?
The purpose of the Hollywood creature suits created during the sixties was for entertaining movie goers for an hour and a half, or two. Audiences were willing to suspend their disbelief, in exchange for being entertained. Roger Patterson created a suit that was designed for the purpose of fooling as many people as possible for about ten seconds at a distance of about one hundred feet. Opponents of the PGF fine it very difficult to suspend their disbelief in light of what they believe the film reveals. Really.

Hollywood of the sixties would not have considered the Paddy suit for anything other than, perhaps, short takes at distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Hollywood of the sixties would not have considered the Paddy suit for anything other than, perhaps, short takes at distance.

It's good to see that the skeptic ESP is in full working order there and that it even works on thoughts that happened over 40 years ago. -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's good to see that the skeptic ESP is in full working order there and that it even works on thoughts that happened over 40 years ago. -_-

Spider, just responding to JohnC's question, "...you think Hollywood would consider that a poor suite in the sixties??? I hate to say it again..........really? Really???? have you watched any sixties sci fi at all?"

I don't believe that it's necessary for either opponents or proponents of the PGF, to begin or end every declarative sentence with, "IMO". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Spider, just responding to JohnC's question, "...you think Hollywood would consider that a poor suite in the sixties??? I hate to say it again..........really? Really???? have you watched any sixties sci fi at all?"

I don't believe that it's necessary for either opponents or proponents of the PGF, to begin or end every declarative sentence with, "IMO". :)

But if we didn't leave IMO at the end we would have to support our every statement. If we say IMO then we don't have to so much. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Even when I am naked,I look like I am wearing a loose human suit,dam it

JohnC,

That was a good'n ! Can't believe no one gave ya a point for that one, so I did !

Thanks for the laugh !

Cheers !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wufgar

I always felt that they behaved similar to human breasts that have little to no regular support. Being a lifelong observer of all breasts ever created, I speak with certain authority. I observe at the gym when the breast owners are using stationary cardio devices, and Patty's breasts seem consistent with the motility of those human breasts. I enjoy and encourage this type of research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

brilliant post + 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeG

I may be only a trainee Mod, folks, but even I can spot a thread that might go wrong. I urge some restraint here please, and a care for the rules. Particularly Rule 2B:

B. Please do not post pictures or links of an adult or objectionable nature in any area of the Forum. Please keep the conversation away from topics that could be considered obscene or objectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See-Te-Cah NC

Guys, I merged the topic Patty's Breasts started on 3-25-12 with this thread.

Just a heads-up.

See

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

OK, look here. I lived for almost a decade in West Africa in the "pre-bra" era--women had typically 2 pieces of cloth--one to wrap around the waist and the other to hold up a baby on their back. Unsupported breasts do not look like Patty's! They are flat and long. The older the subject the flatter and the longer. Even young women in their early 20's had some that went down to the belly button, easily.

Patty's are not at all that way. It is totally a USA 1960's artist's idea of what unsupported breasts are like. Jiggle can happen in prosthetic ones too. They just did a good job. Either that or Patty is a closet bra user. Or very very young and plump...

Edited by vilnoori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...