Jump to content
Guest

Parnassus' "comparison" Mclarin/patty Pics

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Kerchak, Ha ! Ha ! Reckon he needs time ta think about it ? The paddin' won't help the height, an I think the idea of one inch paddin' accountin' for the width is a bit much to. But hey, love ta hear the explanation ! :) Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Am I incorrect in my understandin' of what you claimed ? Pat...

Yes, you are, as usual.

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

Maybe it's because some of us don't live out our lives in these forums, and have better things to do that hang out waiting to post. Track my posting history (again) if you want to take not that I tend to be long gone during the weekends, and in general far more of the time than I used to. So when I go away, I'm not desperately waiting for my next visit. And not only that, I tend to ignore questions answered previously several times.

Oh, and Pat, 1/2 inch of padding? Not quite what I said, but you never seem to care about accurately quoting what I say anyway.

Kerchak, Ha ! Ha ! Reckon he needs time ta think about it ? The paddin' won't help the height, an I think the idea of one inch paddin' accountin' for the width is a bit much to. But hey, love ta hear the explanation ! :) Pat...

The height's been intentionally exaggerated to make Patty seem like a forest giant, and at every turn someone is always trying to jack it back up past that 6' height that comparing the films demonstrates. Now we're looking at contrast bloom to make the 14.5" foot into a 16" foot so we can add another chunk of height back onto Patty. Anything to get Patty taller than a human. Patty was 6' tall, regardless of what tricks and maneuvers get used to try to change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

Tontar you still haven't answered Pat question on the size comparison. Why? next to McClearen she is massive her thigh as big as his waist. forget the hieghth.... Lets hear your answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Adam, Patty is massive in girth because of padding. Well laid out padding. There have been numerous drawings posted as to how the padding was laid out. There is a video of Dfoot with his Patty suit replicating and even surpassing Patty's massive size, as well as leg width. Similarly, the admittedly cheap and poor attempt by Blevins also duplicated Patty's girth, thickness, illusion of size, etc. The explanation is simple, padding under the fur suit.

I realize that people like to use Patty compared to McClarin as a size comparison, but I will post another normal human compared to McClarin and Patty for a further comparison of what mass and size can really look like, heights being equal. Probably won't get to it until next week, but I'll do that to try to answer the question further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Tontar, Care to explain ? An I'm sorry Tontar, I stand corrected, not half in paddin', one inch paddin', as you quoted me below your mentionin' my mistake. Been chit-chatin' with you so much lately even I'm startin' ta make things smaller than they are. ;) Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

There is a video of Dfoot with his Patty suit replicating and even surpassing Patty's massive size, as well as leg width.

Do you mean the video in this thread?

http://bigfootforums...ax/#entry688765

That video only shows his suit on a mannequin, and other footage of him wearing an undersuit. I see no footage of him wearing his costume with the undersuit to replicate Patty.

Don't you find is strange that he had both the costume and undersuit, but didn't include any footage of him wearing both in this video? That seems a bit deceptive in making it appear that Patty's features could be replicated, while wearing only an undersuit.

If there is another video out there I'd love to see it.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is a comparison I made about a year ago....comparing Patty's and Jim's 'arm proportion'...(Patty's image is spliced-in with the appropriate position/scaling)...

PattyJimMcClarinWalkArmProportionComp1C.jpg

Note: Even though Patty's image is appropriately scaled...it doesn't mean that a height comparison is necessarily valid. I think that at this point in their walks, Jim is further back in the scene than Patty is.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

SweatyYeti, She still looks bigger than McClarin' in my opinion. Here's Tontar's comparison, although I don't know why he has the yellow line suggestin' McClarin's height so high. Pat...

post-279-0-92396000-1359268190_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti, She still looks bigger than McClarin' in my opinion. Here's Tontar's comparison, although I don't know why he has the yellow line suggestin' McClarin's height so high. Pat...

That is a strange placement of the yellow line, for Jim's height, Pat! ;) Who knows why Tontar placed it there... :unsure:

Regarding Patty's height...based on the 'foot ruler' measurement, and on a comparison with Jim McClarin....I'm thinking that Patty's 'full standing' height is just about the same as Jim's. I'd put it somewhere within a range of 6'3" to 6'6".

In the comparison with Jim.....Patty...(as seen, with slouched posture)... appears to be just about the same height as Jim. But, if she is closer to the camera than Jim is....then her image needs to be downscaled, to correct for that. But, then we have to add several inches to her height, to correct for her slouched posture...and that brings her height back up, closer to Jim's.

Those two corrections would, to a large degree, off-set each other.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Tontar, I watched your video. And thank you for posting it.

I don't have alot of time to respond today, but I really think the video you posted proves my point.

The little boy in his Hulk costume (which is really cool that his parents took the time) doesn't appear to be able to put his arms down to his sides very well. For everyone that wants to cut past the building process you can see him running around with the costume at about 2:47. You be the judge. Which is what I was trying to show you with my barrel photo and the Christmas story movie.

I will agree that it did add bulk to his shoulders and chest, but not so much in the waist and legs.

Ultimately it comes down to how big Patty is.........until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt how big that film subject was, I just think we are all pounding sand. But the comparisons Ive seen make me tend to lean towards something larger than 6 feet or below.

I've said it once and I'll say it another million times............we need a body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

You can certainly add bulk and width to the body, with padding...but you cannot extend the horizontal distance between the elbows...(for any given 'arm angle')...

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1C.jpg

The elbows have a set 'reach' from the centerline of the body, and from each other. And, padding cannot significantly change the position of the 'centerline', nor lengths associated with the elbows, and the center of the body.

A small version...

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1Small1.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1C.jpg

Sweaty, I am not going to argue with your point because that is true, you cannot change a skeletal structure with a costume

BUT, you can't compare these images, look at the legs, shoulders and backs, they are on two different paths away from the camera....of course the widths are different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

That video only shows his suit on a mannequin, and other footage of him wearing an undersuit. I see no footage of him wearing his costume with the undersuit to replicate Patty.

Don't you find is strange that he had both the costume and undersuit, but didn't include any footage of him wearing both in this video? That seems a bit deceptive in making it appear that Patty's features could be replicated, while wearing only an undersuit.

I am pretty sure that I have said that I felt that particular undersuit, the amount of padding that was used, was more than I personally thought was necessary to achieve Patty's bulk. That once fur was added it would be too bulky. But as it stood, that undersuit of foam and fabric was bulkier than Patty. My point being that clearly patty's bulk could be duplicated or surpassed by a guy in a suit, and that such a suit would not necessarily be clumsy or difficult to get around in.

I wish he would have completed his project, absolutely. I don't find it at all strange. I don't find it the seed of some mystery, or indicative of anything at all, such as it not working out, or he couldn't get the desired realism or any of that. Life goes on outside of bigfoot culture, and if he had become completely convinced that Patty was a fake, I can see how his interest would eventually fade and he'd be on to something that wasn't built on a myth, or hoax, or that came with such hostility at his involvement. I think it's admirable he went as far as he did with it before he bailed. Consider that he was working with his own time, his own funds, taking time away from family, friends and work, and the people he was doing it for didn't like him at all, and it was likely that they would reject anything and everything that he'd come up with, he actually went further than anyone else could be expected to go.

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1C.jpg

Sweaty, I am not going to argue with your point because that is true, you cannot change a skeletal structure with a costume

BUT, you can't compare these images, look at the legs, shoulders and backs, they are on two different paths away from the camera....of course the widths are different

There are other considerations that have always invalidated the comparison of Patty in 1967 to Bob H modern day. The guy is an old man, settled physically, not at all the younger, taller guy of his early years. Comparing photos of Patty to young Bob H just can't work fairly.

But one thing you can see in that set of images is the location of Patty's real shoulder and the angle of her upper arm. The shoulder in that image is crazy far below where Sweaty likes to normally place it. But one can see it is quite a bit lower than the neck, lower than the head, and not at all long in comparison to the forearm.

Is it time to bring back the Mangler animation to show how well Patty's moving, articulated image matches up with a normal human figure? Wrist, ankle, knee, elbow, shoulder, they all fit wonderfully within the outline of Patty's figure, which sheds a bright light on her dimensions, proportions, and human suitability.

I've said it once and I'll say it another million times............we need a body.

I'm 100% with you there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I wish he would have completed his project, absolutely. I don't find it at all strange. I don't find it the seed of some mystery, or indicative of anything at all, such as it not working out, or he couldn't get the desired realism or any of that. Life goes on outside of bigfoot culture, and if he had become completely convinced that Patty was a fake, I can see how his interest would eventually fade and he'd be on to something that wasn't built on a myth, or hoax, or that came with such hostility at his involvement. I think it's admirable he went as far as he did with it before he bailed. Consider that he was working with his own time, his own funds, taking time away from family, friends and work, and the people he was doing it for didn't like him at all, and it was likely that they would reject anything and everything that he'd come up with, he actually went further than anyone else could be expected to go.

He didn't make the suit for the opponents, he made it to squash the opponents just like any other skeptic would.

He then went on to make a video to deliberately insult his opponents and give the impression that he succeeded, without actually demonstrating the meat of his claim. What's admirable about that? That all seems really childish to me.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

You can certainly add bulk and width to the body, with padding...but you cannot extend the horizontal distance between the elbows...(for any given 'arm angle')...

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1C.jpg

The elbows have a set 'reach' from the centerline of the body, and from each other. And, padding cannot significantly change the position of the 'centerline', nor lengths associated with the elbows, and the center of the body.

A small version...

Patty-BobBodyWidthComp1Small1.jpg

The first impression I get is that Bob is much closer to the camera than Patty is. Which bodes even worse for the comparison if your in the Bob H. camp. Her buttock and upper thigh are the same size as his waist, and that is if we simply want to compare apples to apples here which is a problem, if she is farther away as it looks like to me? Then Houston we have a SERIOUS problem........

As Tontar has shown you can add simulated bulk to make a costume look bigger. But I still hold to the line that simulated bulk has it's limitations.

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...