Jump to content

Patty's Bust


Recommended Posts

Fister:

You are right. The breast motions are potentially one of the more powerful prospects of proof, because both real and artificial beasts can be studied as to motion replicating the lookback walk, and such studies can show what fake breasts really do. The nipple thing, on the other hand, even if detected with cnfidence, means nothing because it can be put on a suit. The breast fluidity cannot.

I know people will offer up the "well, Charlie gamora was using waterpouches since the 40's so what's the big deal about some water baloons on the chest here?" Problem is, Charlie's gorilla chest is likely the only example of a water filled prosthetic, and it was in th belly, so his gorilla costume would have a natural weight in a quadrapedal stance. Nobody has ever done fluid filled breasts, back then or even near after. Look at **** Smith's work on Katherine Ross for "The Stepford Wives". Magnificent achievement, and **** Smith was truly one of the great masters and innovators, yet even he couldn't get a fluid filled breast to work. So you want to tell me ol' Roger the saddlemaker was better and more innovative than **** Smith?

Anyways, the breast motion is ideal for actual experiments to verify anatomical motions on real females and on costumes with breast shapes.

When it gets done, it'll slam a lot of doors shut on the suit idea.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Fister:

You are right. The breast motions are potentially one of the more powerful prospects of proof, because both real and artificial beasts can be studied as to motion replicating the lookback walk, and such studies can show what fake breasts really do. The nipple thing, on the other hand, even if detected with cnfidence, means nothing because it can be put on a suit. The breast fluidity cannot.

I know people will offer up the "well, Charlie gamora was using waterpouches since the 40's so what's the big deal about some water baloons on the chest here?" Problem is, Charlie's gorilla chest is likely the only example of a water filled prosthetic, and it was in th belly, so his gorilla costume would have a natural weight in a quadrapedal stance. Nobody has ever done fluid filled breasts, back then or even near after. Look at **** Smith's work on Katherine Ross for "The Stepford Wives". Magnificent achievement, and **** Smith was truly one of the great masters and innovators, yet even he couldn't get a fluid filled breast to work. So you want to tell me ol' Roger the saddlemaker was better and more innovative than **** Smith?

Anyways, the breast motion is ideal for actual experiments to verify anatomical motions on real females and on costumes with breast shapes.

When it gets done, it'll slam a lot of doors shut on the suit idea.

Bill

Bill, as you know, I and others were ready to support as best we could the multiple-project you designed some months ago.

I wonder--in this post, have you just identified a smaller scale, do-able project whose results might be enough to set more funding-balls rolling?

Is it worth your while pitching for funding just on a breast-project?

Fister

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The nipples are obviously only a side issue, and of course, potentially a contentious one regarding whether or not there is sufficient resolution to see them at all.

The nipples are a good potential subject for a long pointless squabble between us all, and that of course is why the original respondee to my post pounced on Davis' mentiion of them.Squabbbles are his thing.

Many thanks to Bill for his calm dissolution of the issue.

Is somebody not calm? We're talking about Bigfoot boobs. And I'd appreciate it if you attacked the argument, not the arguer. There's a very simple point. In post #65 you offered up MK Davis' report for examination, specifically the part devoted to Patty's breasts, and told the membership that you would love to see what we think of MK's method and results.

This member's thoughts on Davis' results is that he says the film data supports the nipples being visible. I therefore want to know who supports this conclusion by MK and agrees that the nipples are seen. This is the same person arguing the presence of braids, turds, shotgun wounds, etc. Regardless, I have seen images of Patty where it looks like nipple can be discerned. It's not as if putting nipples on breasts is rocket science. One would expect if you were going to use breasts to cover the front chest portion of a suit, even comically hairy breasts that jutt out from the abdomen like toothpaste filled SCUD missiles, you would think to putt the cherries on top, so to speak...

776647ebb96b21099.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Is anyone conversant with the method MK Davis has used to make the breasts more visible?

I would really like to know if his method is held to be legitimate by knowledgeable members here, or if 'artisitc interpretation' has played a role, as it sometimes has in previous efforts by those seeking to clarify what the film portrays.

For example, in 'removing the hair' from the breasts, has MK revealed breast shapes which are actually emergent in the film ,or has he merely 'interpreted' those clear shapes into existence?

Also, can we see more clearly whether or not there are any artificial -looking structures associated with the breasts in his clearer gifs/ stills? Are there any straps etc you can see? Skeptics?

Tontar, any lessons in this stuff?

Fister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fister:

"Is it worth your while pitching for funding just on a breast-project?"

Because it involves building several costumes (to test several ways back then a breast could be made) and involves hiring several female models for filming tests,it's not a cheap experiment.

Bill

On your question about Davis' work, ideally he should explain exactly what processes he uses for altering the images, so others can replicate the process. So a detailed description should be offered of image enhancement process. That would at least increase our confidence that his method is correct and accurate.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

...hairy breasts that jutt out from the abdomen like toothpaste filled SCUD missiles...

What "PGf" are you looking at? I can't be the same PGf that this came from:

(click to animate)

post-131-029365800 1314500618_thumb.gif

Since Bill explained that water-filled costume appendages of the time didn't bounce like we see above, how do you really explain it? Scud missles filled with toothpaste is a typical skoftic joke but, as always, that doesn't explain squat about what we are seeing.

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

I have already mentioned my skepticism about Patty's breasts because of their unnatural bouyancy. Patty if real, like all other bra-less larger primates would have flat swingy breasts if they were large enough to be seen at all. The nipples would not be erect and visible at all, and would not point forwards but rather relaxed and pointing downwards. Google some pictures of African women au natural who have never worn a bra and you will see that very early on in life breasts lose most of the natural support, especially if they have had a breastfed baby by the age of 14 or so as most have had.

It seems evident to me that a cowboy or any American male of the 1950's or 1960's (when breasts were a bit of an obsession) building a female bigfoot suit would not know this and would use a stock concept of a breast complete with nipple--essentially the image of breasts that Hollywood and the fashion industry have sold us over the years. Reality does not match, even for women who have worn a bra most of the time.

JMHO. Also, come to think of it, if the breasts were made of rubber and were in some kind of leather or fabric pocket there would indeed be bounce which could explain it.

Edited by vilnoori
Link to post
Share on other sites

vilnoori:

There are some motions of the breast that no suit or makeup effect technology of the time can do, unless you want to argue that Roger was the greatest, most innovative special effects makeup artist of his time.

I'm hoping to have some new scans done soon that will show the motion in a way to illustrate this issue, because most scans to date aren't really ideal for study of this issue.

The shape is not impossible for a natural breast, but the motions are essentially impossible for costumes.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

MK used some program to extract a single color to remove the chromatic aberration that you get from different colors refracting slightly differently and not focusing in exactly the same place. Then he typically changes the color to black and white.

That procedure is certainly valid but it isn't certain what the grain size is since we don't have the original film. It looks in some of the recent cibachromes or whatever they are called that you can see some of the original grain. If, and that is a big if, that is the original grain, then it looks to me like a nipple should be easy to theoretically see along with the areola. It would probably be distorted by relatively large grain size and motion blur so it would likely be distorted. I have seen some of those pictures that look pretty convincing as a nipple. I think it was that big red one where MK made a life sized enlargement for his talks. I haven't seen that picture for years. I would be much more convinced if the feature was duplicated in another frame.

post-77-002828600 1314518431_thumb.jpg

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

even comically hairy breasts that jutt out from the abdomen like toothpaste filled SCUD missiles, you would think to putt the cherries on top, so to speak...

Do you even know what an abdomen is?

Cleary not. Your knowledge of anatomy is zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

vilnoori:

There are some motions of the breast that no suit or makeup effect technology of the time can do, unless you want to argue that Roger was the greatest, most innovative special effects makeup artist of his time.

I'm hoping to have some new scans done soon that will show the motion in a way to illustrate this issue, because most scans to date aren't really ideal for study of this issue.

The shape is not impossible for a natural breast, but the motions are essentially impossible for costumes.

Bill

Sounds intriguing, Bill... :)

In addition to that (potential) 'impossible motion', for a costume/padding....there is the movement of Patty's right calf muscle....the right quadracep...(along with the appearance of a 'pop-up' bulge which only a few seconds later doesn't re-appear when the thigh ripples)....apparent movement of Patty's mouth and eyebrows.....and, relative movement between the lower-back and buttocks.

Personally, I don't think it'll be too long before this Film is a 'wrap'. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nipples are obviously only a side issue, and of course, potentially a contentious one regarding whether or not there is sufficient resolution to see them at all.

The nipples are a good potential subject for a long pointless squabble between us all, and that of course is why the original respondee to my post pounced on Davis' mentiion of them.Squabbbles are his thing.

Many thanks to Bill for his calm dissolution of the issue.

What about the substantive issue? The breasts themselves? Unless some of you guys with technical savvy can shoot down what MK has done, the breasts now become evidence of authenticity, in my opinion. They look very natural, very difficult to have fabricated or to duplicate, and they move in breast-like fashion.

Or am I wrong?

Fister

Is anyone conversant with the method MK Davis has used to make the breasts more visible?

I would really like to know if his method is held to be legitimate by knowledgeable members here, or if 'artisitc interpretation' has played a role, as it sometimes has in previous efforts by those seeking to clarify what the film portrays.

For example, in 'removing the hair' from the breasts, has MK revealed breast shapes which are actually emergent in the film ,or has he merely 'interpreted' those clear shapes into existence?

Also, can we see more clearly whether or not there are any artificial -looking structures associated with the breasts in his clearer gifs/ stills? Are there any straps etc you can see? Skeptics?

Tontar, any lessons in this stuff?

Unless some of you guys with technical savvy can shoot down what MK has done, the breasts now become evidence of authenticity, in my opinion. They look very natural, very difficult to have fabricated or to duplicate, and they move in breast-like fashion.

Fister, I honestly do not see anything that MK has done that has tipped the scales one way or the other.

As far as the multi framed gif goes, I agree with roguefooter: 'just more digital anomalies'.

Are there any straps etc you can see? Skeptics?

Yes, I can clearly see a strap, since you asked.

breast-stripped.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure it's not just more digital anomalies?

As far as the multi framed gif goes, I agree with roguefooter: 'just more digital anomalies'.

I'm sure.
Also, can we see more clearly whether or not there are any artificial -looking structures associated with the breasts in his clearer gifs/ stills? Are there any straps etc you can see? Skeptics?
Yes, I can clearly see a strap, since you asked.

breast-stripped.jpg

I made it clear that it was in the single frame image that I could see the strap, and, that it was the multi framed gif that revealed just digital anomalies.

I can highlight the strap if you'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to hear you explain what the strap does, why it was built into a fabricated costume, and why it should show through a fur or latex surface covering?

Bill

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