Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

Guest

What's laughable is how desperate Patty proponents become, how angry they get, how emotionally vested and emotionally reactive. It's worse than kids. You tell a kid, "sorry sweetie, there really is no tooth fairy, it's been a fun little thing we all do until we're old enough to know better..." and what do the little gems do? Fight to the death over the reality of the tooth fairy, bring up ridiculous arguments, try to make mom and dad look like idiots by twisting their words? Nope, they recognize the game, realize that the tooth fairy does not exist, and eventually grow up into adults, happy to have had the fantasy while it lasted. Patty fans don't seem able to make that transition. And that's what is really laughable, the reasoning (if that's what you want to call it) brought into play to defend the fantasy.

T, succinct you ain't. It's way more work reading your posts than it needs to be. Your verbosity forces me to skim. Mostly because of the rants you post like the above quote. Why do all your posts have to get personal and derogatory? Just some advice; if you stuck to the facts re the PGF and backed them up and stop insisting that the proponents are delusional, then you could avoid the need to post insulting/angry responses to the opposition.

Sorry for the derail..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

G, thanks for the reality check. I'll try harder to take your advice, which is good advice by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

No more ridiculous than your purposely inaccurate version of what the Patty suit was. You misrepresent my assessment of the Patty suit. I have never advocated that the Patty suit was no more complicated than Bob H shoving pillows down a gorilla suit. You've made that up. A cute, but clumsy deception. Let me be clear, I do not think that Bob H shoved pillows down a gorilla suit, never did, never said it, never implied it. You seem to have gotten really confused by my suggesting you shove pillows under your sweats to simulate walking with foam padded bulk to see if it automatically made you fall down, as you seem to suggest padding would. I don't see how you could honestly have confused the two things.

I will hold to the logical reasoning that if I "simulated" padding by shoving pillows down the legs and arms and body of my sweats, my dexterity would be absolutely effected. I just had a conversation with a Hollywood make up artist last night and they concur that suits are very DIFFICULT to maneuver in. And that suits are generally worn by a stunt man TRAINED to use suits! Add to that that Bluff Creek is not a hollywood movie set with safety feature built in? And your hypothesis for Bob H. being in a suit with that type of complexity is even less credible.........

I'm not pissed off at all. I just think you're being intentionally obtuse and argumentative. You want to believe Patty was the real deal at all costs, so you avoid accepting what might whittle away at Patty proponent dogma. You somehow think it reasonable to compare a bigfoot suit with a Big Bird suit in terms of visibility? Do you know how Big Bird sees? Through a tiny mesh panel, in that case, in the tie. The guy walks around with one arm extended over his head the entire time, operating the head and mouth. He cannot turn his head. He cannot see what's below him at all. Patty, by comparison, can see as well as you or I, can look right, left, up and down, has complete freedom of movement. Patty also walked a single line, no cliffs, no stage edges, no acrobatics, no dancing, all the while perfectly capable of watching where he was going, never being in the same difficult situation as Big Bird.

First of all, I'm not the one being rude and argumentative.........you are. Second of all, you evidently do not read my posts, which makes me wonder if your even worth debating at all. I made it very clear above that PATTY COULD BE A HOAX, but I find the current explanation by the Bob H. camp to be preposterous.....

You brought up Big Bird...........I did not. And I really don't care about this line of reasoning because it's a moot point. We cannot debate how the suit is safely operated if we cannot even make the man fit in the suit. So here........now........for the record I'm done with Big Bird.

What's laughable is how desperate Patty proponents become, how angry they get, how emotionally vested and emotionally reactive. It's worse than kids. You tell a kid, "sorry sweetie, there really is no tooth fairy, it's been a fun little thing we all do until we're old enough to know better..." and what do the little gems do? Fight to the death over the reality of the tooth fairy, bring up ridiculous arguments, try to make mom and dad look like idiots by twisting their words? Nope, they recognize the game, realize that the tooth fairy does not exist, and eventually grow up into adults, happy to have had the fantasy while it lasted. Patty fans don't seem able to make that transition. And that's what is really laughable, the reasoning (if that's what you want to call it) brought into play to defend the fantasy.

It sounds like your projecting here. As I said above and for like the second or third time now, I'm not a desperate Patty proponent. I just like my answers to scientific questions to be much less grounded in fantasy than the question posed...........your mileage may vary of course.

Here's another one of those goofy ideas, trying to create the idea that a small guy would even try to be in an oversized Andre suit. Absurd.

And here is another example of you side stepping the very very astute point of how the hoax was accomplished........this is the crux of the whole debate. And yet you can write volumes about Big Bird and yet this is the response in dealing with the biophysics problem of adding 3x simulated mass to a person and expect them to walk or run or turn and look back. Huh........

The question is not about WHY a small man would put on a "Andre suit". The question is how would you propose that a small man OPERATE a Andre suit given his stature and physical size limitations?

You must still be in the Patty is over 7 feet tall camp. I see where that would cause you problems. But Patty was not over 7 feet tall, she was barely 6 feet tall, which means, yep, that it could have been a 6' tall man in a bigfoot suit with, nope, not pillows stuffed in it, nor a bunch of ridiculous accouterments, but very simply a bigfoot suit custom tailored to his size, with appropriately padded dimensions to create the illusion of mass and bulk, with the unfortunate mistake of leaving void areas in the legs that give the suit away. There would be no need for animatronics, as there is nothing in need of mechanical articulation. The arms are human length, so the hands could easily be covered with gloves, allowing for a bit of hand and finger movement. The head is a simple mask, with no articulation, so no need for anything complex there either. There is no muscle movement visible, so again, nothing unique and high tech needed. Just well placed and laid out padding, a tightly fitting fur suit, and a decent head mask. Patty is not that complex a creature, and her size is nowhere near a size that would require a specialized human to wear the suit. Of course, if you are still making the mistake of believing Patty was 7 1/2 feet tall, well, "sorry sweetie, that's just a story made up to fool you..."

First of all? I'm not your sweetie.........and I would appreciate it if you simple called me by my forum name, thank you Tontar.

Second of all? Again, it's not Patty's height that I take issue with, it's her bulk, but I would estimate her height to be somewhere close to that of McClarins, by visually looking at comparisons and land marks within those comparisons. Of course Patty is more hunched over in her compliant gait than McClarin is, so it stands to reason that if you stretched them both out prone and measured she probably would be taller than he is. Not much, but taller.

It still doesn't answer HOW her thighs are bigger than his waist.........that's EACH thigh. Her chest depth is 4x that of his........and here is where my barrel analogy really starts rearing it's ugly head. If your structural pivot points reside INSIDE the framework of the barrel, then nothing is going to work correctly.......your arms and legs begin to get forced straight out and like my Christmas story says "My brother looked like a bloated tick about to pop".

You? Probably not. But anyone else with a desire to give it an honest test? probably. I can pad out my skinny son to a width and bulk equalling my own. Foam padding. Sheet polyfoam. It's kind of cheap, easily obtainable at most any variety store. If you just want to listen to what other people say is not possible because that's he version you like to hear, that's great. But it's not an accurate view of reality. Polyfoam is great stuff. You can cut and glue it into amazing shapes, mage huge costumes that are lightweight and nimble, while appearing to be huge and heavy. But, you can only do that if you believe you can. If you don't think it's possible, you'll never try, and if you believe it's not possible ad give it a try, you are sure to prove it is not possible for yourself. But Patty's mass is not that significant. A single layer of 1" polyfoam works great to mimic Patty, with a second layer in the butt. Works great, in fact. Less than 3 pounds of foam to do an entire body worth of padding. Talk about nimble.

Cool.........let's see it. And your projecting again.

Wow, I wonder who suggested that Patty was Bob H wearing a barrel under that fur coat.

The barrel represents the added mass which poses a problem to the wearer. If the barrel was foam instead of wood, his arms would be in a no less precarious position unless he pushed really hard into the material which at that point it would look like his arms where melding into the costume.

Again, you CANNOT change the joints of the wearer, you can either find a bigger person to better accommodate the costume or then you have to result in animatronics to over come those short falls.

Of course you feel the film subject is under six feet, But even if the film subject was 6 inches shorter than McClarin (which it is not) then you still cannot simply explain the bulk away.

You're right! Patty looks like she's got a good 1" of polyfoam padding under the fur suit, with at least another layer or even two in the butt area alone. It's absolutely amazing how foam padding works, isn't it? Creates such a great illusion of bulk and mass, with virtually no weight added. The fur cloth would weigh more than the foam padding. So what you think looks like 400 lbs of flesh can be accomplished with only a couple pounds of foam and cloth. I realize it doesn't make any sense that something that takes up as much space as foam padding does could weigh so little, but it does. It weighs next to nothing. So what appears to be hundreds of pounds of meat and fat can weigh as little as a couple of pounds. Miracle material, actually. and just think of all the people that have been successfully fooled by foam and fur cloth all these years, who only see the outer dimensions of Patty, yet don't manage to see how none of that bulk and mass sloshes, shifts, jiggles, shakes. It does nothing as she walks, gives away no hints that it is real flesh. It is almost immune from the effects of gravity because it weighs so little. A real meat animal would show motion in its flesh with each step, where Patty shows none.

I'll take Janos's word on the film subject over yours........thanks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Norseman wrote:

You brought up Big Bird...........I did not. And I really don't care about this line of reasoning because it's a moot point. We cannot debate how the suit is safely operated if we cannot even make the man fit in the suit.

So here........now........for the record I'm done with Big Bird.

'Plussed', Norseman! ;)

45 years of analyzin' this Film.....we all should be well beyond using 'Big Bird', in the analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

I will hold to the logical reasoning that if I "simulated" padding by shoving pillows down the legs and arms and body of my sweats, my dexterity would be absolutely effected. I just had a conversation with a Hollywood make up artist last night and they concur that suits are very DIFFICULT to maneuver in. And that suits are generally worn by a stunt man TRAINED to use suits! Add to that that Bluff Creek is not a hollywood movie set with safety feature built in? And your hypothesis for Bob H. being in a suit with that type of complexity is even less credible.........

Okay, I won't argue with you that you feel your dexterity would be affected. It might be. But I have done just that, and my dexterity was not affected noticeably. I could do just about whatever I wanted. So our mileage varies. My opinion is that the person wearing the Patty suit was not wearing such extensive padding that his movements, limited as they were, suffered for it. All Patty did was walk, turn its head, then continue walking. Not a big job, and not a difficult job. No acrobatics involved, simply walking.

I'm not unfamiliar with current Hollywood creature suits. I realize that a body sculpted, foam casted body suit can be stiff and heavy and ungainly. I am not arguing that it is otherwise. However, I am also not advocating that Patty was that sort of suit, not at all. To me it appears that Patty was composed of a fur suit, with polyfoam (or something similar) padding strategically cut, formed and installed by any of various methods under the fur. Not at all similar to the current state of the art creature suits. So not as heavy, not as stiff, not as durable, and not as difficult to use.

First of all, I'm not the one being rude and argumentative.........you are. Second of all, you evidently do not read my posts, which makes me wonder if your even worth debating at all. I made it very clear above that PATTY COULD BE A HOAX, but I find the current explanation by the Bob H. camp to be preposterous.....

I'm sorry for being rude. I'll try to be more polite, and concise. I do read your posts, by the way.

I don't count myself as a member of the Bob H. camp. He may, and he may not have been the guy in the Patty suit. I don't know, and quite honestly his being Patty does not factor into my feelings about Patty being a suit. But because I am pretty sure Patty was a suit, I don't think that it would rule out Bob for his physical reasons. The backstory can deal with that, but if a suit, I figure to would have fit him as well as anyone else. But I really don't care about Bob H that much.

You brought up Big Bird...........I did not. And I really don't care about this line of reasoning because it's a moot point. We cannot debate how the suit is safely operated if we cannot even make the man fit in the suit. So here........now........for the record I'm done with Big Bird.

I brought up Big Bird for one specific reason. remember what that was? It was to illustrate the relative disconnect between Patty's very stiff upper body, and her much more articulate legs. Patty's torso is extremely stiff, it does not show much dynamic action. Big Bird, Scout wearing the ham costume in To Kill A Mockingbird, were both used as examples exaggerating that discontinuity between the legs and the body.

And here is another example of you side stepping the very very astute point of how the hoax was accomplished........this is the crux of the whole debate. And yet you can write volumes about Big Bird and yet this is the response in dealing with the biophysics problem of adding 3x simulated mass to a person and expect them to walk or run or turn and look back. Huh........

Take a look at this video. It's basic, oversimplified,. and it's a toddler wearing the finished suit, but clearly the kid is getting around pretty well with his bulk increased well beyond normal. He doesn't fall down.

The question is not about WHY a small man would put on a "Andre suit". The question is how would you propose that a small man OPERATE a Andre suit given his stature and physical size limitations?

I don't propose anything of the sort. I don't propose that a person shorter than Patty wore a giant suit. I propose that Patty was not very tall, only normal human height, and so there is no conflict with a normal sized human wearing the Patty suit. Therefore the Andre thing is moot. Patty was normal human height, and a normal human wore the suit. The only question would then be how was Patty's bulk made to look so impressive. Foam padding most likely. Possibly fiberfill, but most likely foam padding.

Again, it's not Patty's height that I take issue with, it's her bulk, but I would estimate her height to be somewhere close to that of McClarins, by visually looking at comparisons and land marks within those comparisons. Of course Patty is more hunched over in her compliant gait than McClarin is, so it stands to reason that if you stretched them both out prone and measured she probably would be taller than he is. Not much, but taller.

We can disagree on the height issue for now. I don't think it's that relevant, since I don't think Patty was all that tall. I also don't propose that McClarin was Patty, so comparing his skinny body with hers is not that relevant. I could just as easily post a photo of a couple of guys that I candidly took photos of at the mall, which posted side by side with McClarin's image would give a similar impression as Patty. Normal people can be quite bulky, especially compared to McClarin. So McClarin is only valuable to me in terms of comparative height, not comparative bulk. We can inset any number of normal people with McClarin and Patty and see how they compare in terms of bulk.

It still doesn't answer HOW her thighs are bigger than his waist.........that's EACH thigh. Her chest depth is 4x that of his........and here is where my barrel analogy really starts rearing it's ugly head. If your structural pivot points reside INSIDE the framework of the barrel, then nothing is going to work correctly.......your arms and legs begin to get forced straight out and like my Christmas story says "My brother looked like a bloated tick about to pop".

If you wrap a guy with an inch of polyfoam, that adds a huge amount of visual bulk. If you add fur cloth over that, it increases a great deal more, without actually having that much greater true surface increase, so that physical increase is limited while the visual increase (due to the loft of the fur) is substantial. That is why I also proposed that Dfoot's Patty suit was over padded, with the padding approaching or even exceeding Patty's visual dimensions. Add fur to his suit and I felt it would end up too robust. Go back to that polyfoam wrap, and if you insert a second layer of 1" polyfoam in the back, for a full two inch total back depth, you end up with a huge barrel shaped torso, which is not so thick on the sides that the arms need to stick out to accommodate it.

Similarly, the padding on the legs need not be wrapped completely around the legs like a hotdog bun, it would only need to be a 3/4 wrap if that, on the thighs. Again, if it is 1" polyfoam, that adds two inches of depth front to rear, which is a significant amount. Don't compare to McClarin, compare to Patty. Compare Patty to a person padded up like Patty, that's going to be the best way to tell if the recreated Patty actually looks like Patty. We aren't trying to visualize how to recreate McClarin, we're after a method to have produced Patty.

The barrel represents the added mass which poses a problem to the wearer. If the barrel was foam instead of wood, his arms would be in a no less precarious position unless he pushed really hard into the material which at that point it would look like his arms where melding into the costume.

The answer is to pad appropriately to get the desired shape. Great depth from front to rear means padding the back up more so than the sides. Don't pad that heavily on the sides. After all, in the rear (ish) views of Patty, her width is more apparent in the shoulders, not in the torso nor the hips and legs. The shoulder width is the remarkable thing, not the entire body. IN act, in the later sequences, her hips look awfully narrow compared to the shoulder width, which is odd considering the side view bulk.

Again, you CANNOT change the joints of the wearer, you can either find a bigger person to better accommodate the costume or then you have to result in animatronics to over come those short falls.

No animatronics. No joint issues, no size issues. Patty is proportionally the same as a normal human, a human in a padded fur suit.

Of course you feel the film subject is under six feet, But even if the film subject was 6 inches shorter than McClarin (which it is not) then you still cannot simply explain the bulk away.

I'm not explaining it away. I'm trying to illustrate how that bulk could have been created, with polyfoam and fur cloth. Do you remember the Dfoot clips, where he is wearing his foam padded suit, covered by an outer skin of white spandex? He's also wearing big rubber feet. His padded suit, without fur covering, was even bulkier than Patty, significantly so. In the body, the arms and legs. He was able to produce the appearance of greater bulk that Patty with foam and cloth, and he was able to walk perfectly well with that suit on, with fake rubber feet. Dfoot's video clip of his foam rubber suit demonstrates how easy it is to create visual bulk that is light weight, easy to get around in, nimble, and so on. Did it look like Patty? Sort of, pretty much, but like I said, I think it was even bulkier than Patty, so in my opinion it exceeded the capability of adding bulk.

I'll take Janos's word on the film subject over yours........thanks.

That's fine, he was a pro. I don't discount the possibility that he was also connected to the Patty suit either. And if so, it would behoove him to comment fondly on it, even when many others in the field were criticizing it for it's obvious (to them) fake tells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

My impression is that Janos was very well respected and secure in his profession . He had earned the right not to have to sell himself . This is rare in Hollywood .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Absolutely, Janos was at the top of his game. He was extremely famous, and was in an awful lot of films and television shows, including Star Trek, and with Lucy. He was "the man". However, that doesn't mean that he was not involved with the PGF. He very well may have been, and there are plenty of suggestions that he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

First of all? I'm not your sweetie.........and I would appreciate it if you simple called me by my forum name, thank you Tontar.

LOL. :laugh:

He called me "dear one" yesterday - I thought it might have been some weird typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

' Cause you guys can just be so cute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar, Do me a favor, explain how one inch paddin' can account for this difference. 6'5" compared to a 6' or under guy with one inch paddin'...ha ! ha ! If ya wanta feel special Tontar, I have never, in my 45 years heard someone talk so huch...an say so little. Pat...

post-279-0-97826700-1359174493_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Pat, you're only 45 years old? I thought you were much older than that. Wow, fooled me.

The thing is, and I hate to sound condescending because I'm really trying to be nicer after my wakeup call, there's really not a lot I can explain to you. I never get the sense that you're interested in any answers I might give to your questions. You ask, and then you ha ha ha, drink, and what have you. You're very solidly convinced that Patty is a real sasquatch, is 7 1/2 feet tall, is gorgeous, slinky, a veritable ballerina on screen. There is absolutely nothing that I nor anyone else can possibly say to change your mind. Not even when Bill Munns adjusted Patty's height downward would you accept it.

So if you really get so tired of hearing me go on and on, quit putting your nickel in the machine. Quit asking for answers and explanations that you couldn't possible accept. You can post ha ha's as much as you want without needing me to prime them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar, ha ! Not the first time I've mentioned my age. Predictable ! When you get called out on somethin', you make a joke bout something else, bring up somethin' else, an do what you can to evade the question. I ask questions to what you say Tontar, that simple. You say things like they are, an that that I hear, begs me to ask questions. An I drink a 8 pk come Friday, I deserve it. Like your sayin' I think she's 7 1/2 feet tall, that BS Tontar, slinky, what the hell is slinky, an the ballerina thing is all yours an once again I'll call you on it, see how that goes. What do you come up with, well golly gee, everything I say...or someone else says...it just ain't good enough. An ya don't address the questions. Was the question in my last post to complicated ? Hell Tontar, you said half inch paddin' could account for what I showed, an what I showed was your own image comparison, a 6 foot 5 inch guy beside a 6 foot(last I heard you even said possibly under 6 foot) tall guy in your opinion. I'm not goin' ta touch how evident the angles of the torsos are, well, it would appear I have, silly me. Now...is the question to complicated ? Am I incorrect in my understandin' of what you claimed ? Pat...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Tontar, Do me a favor, explain how one inch paddin' can account for this difference. 6'5" compared to a 6' or under guy with one inch paddin'...

I see he wouldn't answer your simple question Pat. None of these cynics and skeptics ever do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...