Jump to content

Patty's Bust


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kit:

for that four panel chart, showing Patty and three costume images (which I put together)

here's the text that accompanies the chart:

The two images at right do indeed have a circular fold instead of a vertical crease, but the fold sits far too high to resemble any real anatomy. And it generally can be produced only by fillering the rubber compound with some type of woven mat filler, which is added to give the suit greater tear resistance. This fillering practice is not generally used for creature suits, but reserved for some types of wetsuits or hazard duty work suits. So aside from the anatomical problems of the fold occurring far to high to be realistic, the manufacture process is not a common film industry suit practice. So the two images at right, above, are irrelevant to the PGF analysis.

That brings us to the green sheet foam example above (in the lower left corner of the image). The armpit contour looks very nice. It's just too bad this type of foam material isn't a surface material, because what we are seeing in the PGF's Figure is a surface, not an underlying structure. And the fact that the green sheet foam IS NOT (emphasis added) a surface material means that even if you make this piece, you must cover it with some type of surfacing and hair, and that surfacing material must have the shape we want, not the foam underneath. The green foam is a soft, spongy material which conforms to any shape imposed upon it, and the surface material will impose a new shape on this sheet foam.

So let's say you have this wonderful green sheet foam shape made. Now what? The options are:

1. Tailor a fur costume to go over it, and the furcloth tailoring shape will overrule this foam shape, and as I noted above, a furcloth material will not give the look we need to replicate the PGF armpit fold. Won't work.

2. We can put a rubber molded chest prosthetic over this, with the sculpted shape of the armpit, and then ask, why did we bother to do this green foam thing when we do it again in a molded foam, and then get the arm vertical crease we don't want? Won't work.

3. We can stipple liquid latex on the green sheet foam to try and give it a latex surface we can paint, texture, and glue hair to, but the sheet foam has a open cell structure, and the liquid latex will soak into the foam sheet, and won't dry easily. It will make a thick and near solid mass out of the sheet foam, and inhibit it's elasticity and flexibility, and it will crease when the arm is lowered. Won't work.

4. We can paint the green sheet foam and glue hair directly onto parts of it, but if we use a spray paint, we'll see the cell structure of the foam emphasized, and it will look exactly like porous foam, not skin. If we use any other type of paint, it will just soak into the foam and make a mess.

If we try to glue hair to the foam, using spirit gum (the adhesive used to glue hair to the skin of actors for beards, mustaches, and the like), the foam will soak up the spirit gum adhesive and may never set, and if it does, it will solidify the foam to be almost immobile. (Using spirit gum will also cost you a small fortune, because it's cost per ounce is very high, as adhesives go, and by soaking into the foam, you'll need a lot of this adhesive).

If we use a rubber cement to glue the hair (something like "Barge" craft cement), it will soak deep into the foam, so trying to glue hair on the surface is a waste because the glue has sunk down into the foam instead of sitting on the surface to hold the hair in place.

Plus, the rubber cements have a characteristic called "residual adhesion", meaning it remains sticky after drying. So once the glue dries, if you then try to press any hair to the surface to attach it, (or press the surface inward for any reason) the foam will collapse and the residual adhesion of the glue will fuse the foam structure into the collapsed state, permanently collapsing it and stiffening it tremendously.

Then, if you like, you can glue hair onto this collapsed and very stiff foam-glue surface, but of course you've destroyed every reason to use the sheet foam to begin with. Won't work.

The point of this discussion is to emphasize that while the green sheet foam may look like a likely option to replicate what we see in the PGF, the real fact (which a real professional makeup artist would know and amateurs would fail to understand) is that this green sheet foam is simply an interior usage material, not a surface material for a final outer appearance in a suit or costume.

So offering the green sheet foam shape as an example of a way to replicate the PGF subject look is a foolish gesture by an ignorant person, because you must show outer surface materials, not inner padding materials, to make a valid comparison. You might as well post a head x-ray of yourself on your Facebook Page, and see how many people think you look attractive. When we are talking about outer appearance (as in the PG film), images of inner structures alone just don't sell the idea.

Similarly, people thinking the green sheet foam illustration is comparable to what we see in the PGF are woefully ignorant of the makeup and prosthetics suit fabrication process. The green sheet foam shape is an irrelevant distraction to this discussion, and does not merit any further consideration in relation to an analysis of the Patterson Filmed Subject (PFS) anatomy and appearance. And it proves nothing!

SOURCE of chart and text: Munns Report 1H - Two Year Review, Part Two)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad example of cherry picking a diagram and ignoring the text accompanying the diagram, because the text refutes what you are trying to prove or claim.

Usually you are better than this.

Bill

Bill, I didn't ignore any accompanying text because there was no accompanying text. This is where I got the image from...

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11305

It's a photo album, not any particular post. Cherry picking would be if there had been some explicit information there telling me I should not use that example. There was not and Patty's arm as shown in that arm swinging gif looks highly unnatural to me. Can you think of any examples of humans or other apes that have extremely flabby loose tissue on the arms yet would be ripped in the back or legs as some people think Patty is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit:

for that four panel chart, showing Patty and three costume images (which I put together)

here's the text that accompanies the chart:

Thanks for that. I'll review it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote:

xspider wrote:

Do you really think that Patty's calf muscles don't 'bulge' (or rather, "flex") naturally??

C8F310F311CalfFlexCompAG1.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...

Thanks for re-posting the gif, xspider... :)

How about that RANT-tastic response to your question, from kitakaze, XS?? ;)

He answered your question by stating that he 'doesn't think Patty's calf flexes naturally'....but then proceeds to ignore the issue of the calf contracting/flexing.....and, instead, deflects attention to "other aspects" that appear unnatural to him.

kitakaze can only say that he doesn't think Patty's calf is flexing/contracting like a real calf muscle....but, he can't support what he says by showing how it's illegitimate.

KIT KANT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote:

I think this is a powerful demonstration for Patty having loose fitting suit arms.

I think this is a powerful demonstration for a bony 'elbow-joint' protruding from the back of Patty's arm.....an incredible similarity to the gorilla's protruding elbow...

PattyF307GorillaElbowPoint1C.jpg

I only say that....because I can SHOW that... :rolleyes:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He answered your question by stating that he 'doesn't think Patty's calf flexes naturally'....but then proceeds to ignore the issue of the calf contracting/flexing.....and, instead, deflects attention to "other aspects" that appear unnatural to him.

Pointing out the loose material on the arm is addressing why I don't think the calf is contracting, but I'd be more than happy to show why focusing exactly on that given area. Let's call the frames in your gif here 1 and 2...

C8F310F311CalfFlexCompAG1.gif

These following frames are then therefore 2 and 3...

Bigelbows6.gif

And these would be 0, 1, and 2...

PattyToesGif7AAA.gif

The problem I see is that what you are insisting is calf muscle contraction may not be happening at all. We can see on the lower right leg in those frames that there is a crescent ark of light and shadow. We can also se that the ground behind is not purely uniform bright light colour. We can see patterns on the ground as well as artifacts on the filmi popping in. You can say, "Well, clearly that is muscle contraction," but you don't really know. Up and down both legs there are details that pop in and out. For example, in your last gif sequence there, there is something that looks very much to me like a rumpling of the suit. To believers, bah, that's just hair. We don't know who is right and who is wrong. Therefore, immediately, while it may be fascinating to you and capture your attention, it is not at all reliable evidence. It is not something that everybody looks and and are constrained to say yes, that is indeed muscle contraction.

Also, Sweaty, I think it would help you to keep in mind that if you take issue with me addressing one feature of Patty by highlighting another that I think is related (flappy loose arms and ripped calves), you should not make arguments like the following where you try and dismiss one skeletal animation demonstration by addressing a completely different one altogether...

mangler produced those 2 images using Poser 7.....and they violate the Laws of Physics. If ONE computer-generated pair of skeletons is bogus/flawed/garbage....then all of the computer-generated images are capable of being flawed/garbage/meaningless/worthless.....and are therefore, at the very least...suspect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a powerful demonstration for a bony 'elbow-joint' protruding from the back of Patty's arm.....an incredible similarity to the gorilla's protruding elbow...

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Arm%20Comparisons/PattyF307GorillaElbowPoint1C.jpg

It could be. Or it could be where I think it is just above there...

Bigelbows6.gif

Or you could go frame by frame and show that is not in an inhuman or freakish place...

i48174_bigposer7.gif

I only say that because I can show that.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit:

"Can you think of any examples of humans or other apes that have extremely flabby loose tissue on the arms yet would be ripped in the back or legs as some people think Patty is?"

I don't think she's "ripped in the back" and I don't think the armpit fold is flab, so I wouldn't look for an example of any such combination.

On your source of the chart, I know that theres a sda but prevelant practice of copying things and not trying to source or properly attribute them. But I think we should try to wean ourselves away frad using such unidentified material.

I'm changing over to labeling my charts better, so the source information only gets lost if somebody deliberately obscures it.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good idea. I had no idea the image comparison was not made by Jeff Pruitt. That's why I usually would label things as well. As you can see, I was neither cherry picking, nor disregarding your arguments.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote:

but I'd be more than happy to show why focusing exactly on that given area. Let's call the frames in your gif here 1 and 2...

Posted Images

The problem I see is that what you are insisting is calf muscle contraction may not be happening at all. We can see on the lower right leg in those frames that there is a crescent ark of light and shadow. We can also se that the ground behind is not purely uniform bright light colour. We can see patterns on the ground as well as artifacts on the filmi popping in. You can say, "Well, clearly that is muscle contraction," but you don't really know. Up and down both legs there are details that pop in and out. For example, in your last gif sequence there, there is something that looks very much to me like a rumpling of the suit. To believers, bah, that's just hair. We don't know who is right and who is wrong. Therefore, immediately, while it may be fascinating to you and capture your attention, it is not at all reliable evidence. It is not something that everybody looks and and are constrained to say yes, that is indeed muscle contraction.

kitakaze "shows" why the apparent calf muscle contraction is most likely not due to real calf muscle......by RANT-ing.

KIT KANT.....but he sure can RANT... :lol:

I see a calf muscle contracting... :) ...

C8F310F311CalfFlexCompAG1.gif

I say that...because I can SHOW that. No Rants required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could go frame by frame and show that is not in an inhuman or freakish place...

i48174_bigposer7.gif

That's a good idea. Here is one Frame, of the latest computer-generated piece of ....

CGJunkComp2A.jpg

The Torso is short on width...the upper-arm is too short...and the lower-arm is too long.

Other than those small details....the comparison is absolutely Perfect!! :lol:

Edited to remove implied language. Chris B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Placing an arrow and writing elbow does not make it so. When the film is in motion and the arms are swinging the Poser 7 skeleton and Patty's elbow are in the same location.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you can see, I was neither cherry picking, nor disregarding...

Very few seem to 'see that', kit. Your arguments are not convincing many people who know much at all about the PGf. And, in regard to your lame quote mining (which has nothing to do with this) if you don't consider the possibility of ghosts, UFOs or, anything else that you don't know about then, whatever. It must be nice to know everything. I wouldn't argue too much with you about that but, I will say that the indications for your final and convincing de-bunk are bleak.

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...