Guest Skeptical Greg Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 "Lighting illustrates things better ? Really ? What year of physics did you latch onto that gem?"Holy crap Greg...are you even suggesting that lighting is not often used to illustrate contour? If you are, you don't even belong in this company! Sorry k, I forgot to use the sarcasm motie .. Thought you might get it… My bad.. What I do see here, is someone who, like a trifling puppy, nips at the heels of people who do a lot of careful and meticulous study, without actually giving them credit for their work. It's as if you have proven that they are wasting their time. Not because they will never discover a fact that will seal the evidence, but that they will "never" discover a fact, no matter how telling, that will "seal" it for you. You will always shift to another question, without saying...ya got me there! Good show!K What you see, is through your “ I’m never wrong blinders “ and projecting it on me .. Other members here, who matter, can attest to my forthrightness when it has been shown I've screwed up . You have failed to address the fact, that the very point you are having a problem with, was acknowledged by Bill as a valid concern, though we disagree on the significance in this instance. Bill: ...I readily agree with your fine observation that "We have seen time and again, how changes in lighting and angle give the illusion of changing form.." This is a very important consideration and you were wise to bring it up ... What part of ' readily agree ' are you having a problem with ? Why are you dogging me, instead of Bill on this issue ? You are obviously have a problem with the messenger rather than the message. Understandable though, in light of your lack of comprehension of the message, in the first place ..
Guest Remember November Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 (edited) Bill: I went on youtube to look for more bulges and also to see if I could capture an image. Here's what I found: Edited February 29, 2008 by Remember November
Guest Killain Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 "Sorry k, I forgot to use the sarcasm motie .. Thought you might get it… My bad.." I should have gotten that...but my experience shows that professional scoftics are routinely humorless as a race. "You have failed to address the fact, that the very point you are having a problem with, was acknowledged by Bill as a valid concern, though we disagree on the significance in this instance." I didn't address Bill's comment, because it wasn't the focal point of my observation, which is, the length of a snippet you feel is inordinately short, vs someone who has miles and miles of experience over both you and I saying the snippet length is not that important. Why Am I you dogging you instead of Bill on this issue? Because no matter what he says; no matter what point he makes; no matter what intriguing observation he brings to our attention...you will never return the same compliment he gave you and that is to give him credit for the thousand or so hours of effort and thought he's brought to this discussion. Regards K Bill:I went on youtube to look for more bulges and also to see if I could capture an image. Here's what I found: RN It's not enough to take evolutionary quads and observe them when they are bipeds. Heck, cats have 99% of the same muscle groups as humans do as well. It would be better to google "belly bumping" contests in hopes of catching some "elusive" lumberjacks with their shirts off. If you want to illustrate fur patterns and shadows, yes, but fat just isn't going to lay the same way. You would be able to find all the examples of fat in nature by googling bears. Photographs of them are far more abundant than gorillas, but the tale they will tell will be no more valid. Look for photos of big naked people...and blur out the parts we don't need to see (or leave them in if they have pretty faces).
Guest Remember November Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 This is from messing with sasquatch. It's the best I could find.
bipedalist Posted February 29, 2008 BFF Patron Posted February 29, 2008 Hi My example..... Opp's were talking BF Peace Tim Junior "Bilbub" will teach us much in how to apply fat folds to our brethren with the big feet, however will we get the bf to pose for such a charming sit down pic though :coverlaugh: This is from messing with sasquatch. It's the best I could find. I knew it, in this jacklinks commercial "lift off" scene, bf groins the guy between the legs before launching him, beware fellow male bf researchers 8O
Guest Skeptical Greg Posted February 29, 2008 Posted February 29, 2008 Killain: ......Because no matter what he says; no matter what point he makes; no matter what intriguing observation he brings to our attention.you will never return the same compliment he gave you and that is to give him credit for the thousand or so hours of effort and thought he's brought to this discussion. In other words, it is a matter of the messenger and not the message .. It's obvious you don't have anything to bring to the discussion, other than ad hom and criticism of opinions you don't agree with ..
Bill Posted March 1, 2008 Author Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) Just wanted to add the photos below of primates with apparent soft body tissue that is easily apparent and non-muscular, and the potential for the skin and hair (on the Proboscis monkey) to form rolling contours around the torso midline sides. The orang is shown to simply illustrate that large soft tissue deposits in the animal may form naturally and be substantial enough to be readily apparent, as the orang's chest pouch (I believe called a dewlap) shows. On the proboscis monkey, he has several sections of his body where folds and contours occur which don't follow a muscle pattern so much as a soft tissue fold. These simply validate the premise that a primate may have soft tissue pouches and folds, non-muscular in form, which may be easily observed on the body of a primate at a presumed normal health and weight. Bill edited to try and correct my spelling, which has never been my strong suit. Edited March 1, 2008 by Bill
Guest Remember November Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Bill: those are some strange bulges on the proboscis. Interesting. I did a search on anatomy. I'm wondering if the bulge on Patty is the gluteus medius.
Guest colobus Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 It's pretty clear that at least in captivity many gorillas can have excess fat deposits/love handles. In my opinion it's much less common in the wild, but animals also generally don't live as long in the wild. But it's clearly possible if one uses gorillas as a primate parallel for the sake of discussion. For whatever it's worth.
Bill Posted March 1, 2008 Author Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) RN: The muscle you illustrated seems about the right place. On the human model, it seems it's the muscle which would raise a leg up sideways, and would only roll into a curved contour if it constricted to do that. But for a normal walk cycle, legs moving forward/backward, I wouldn't expect this muscle to be doing much or need to be tensed up. Just a thought. Obviously a lot more anatomical study can help, and I thank you for the photo research (and respectful acknowledgement to others who have previously contributed primate images to the forum as well, good references all.) Colobus: Thanks for the input. I'm presonally not fixing on gorillas as the closest parallel or comparative reference. I tend to draw from the general primate group as a whole, simply because Patty's bipedal posture sort of "rearranges" the anatomy a bit. But of course, each researcher can indicate a preference for which, if any particular, primate references they believe are more illustrative, and we do want to be open to all alternatives here. Bill edited post script: Love the photos. :coverlaugh: Edited March 1, 2008 by Bill
Guest RedRatSnake Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Hi OK guys stop throwing Gorilla pictures out there, Were Talking BF here we know all about our Cousins the Apes 8O :coverlaugh: Peace Tim
Guest Killain Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Killain:In other words, it is a matter of the messenger and not the message .. It's obvious you don't have anything to bring to the discussion, other than ad hom and criticism of opinions you don't agree with .. \ Nothing to add to the discussion? You lookin in a mirror kid? The man writes nearly a book based on an incredible amount of carefully and thoughtfully researched data, and you can only offer half a paragraph of half-baked questions that he can probably answer to everyone's satisfaction but yours! If that doesn't put it into perspective, tell me what you're bringing to the discussion? K
Guest Killain Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) Bill, that one photo of the gorilla's back is really startling in how much it resembles the blurry features of Patty walking away, not only with the muscle groups, but the shading and lay of the fur. Well, if it was a suit, Patterson had the worse luck in the world. He could have made a lot of money and probably got to date Adrienne Barbou (sp?) As it was, he died nearly broke. He was the best animated suit maker that ever lived! Or..... Regards K Edited March 1, 2008 by Killain
bipedalist Posted March 1, 2008 BFF Patron Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) RN:The muscle you illustrated seems about the right place. On the human model, it seems it's the muscle which would raise a leg up sideways, and would only roll into a curved contour if it constricted to do that. But for a normal walk cycle, legs moving forward/backward, I wouldn't expect this muscle to be doing much or need to be tensed up. Just a thought. Obviously a lot more anatomical study can help, and I thank you for the photo research (and respectful acknowledgement to others who have previously contributed primate images to the forum as well, good references all.) Colobus: Thanks for the input. I'm presonally not fixing on gorillas as the closest parallel or comparative reference. I tend to draw from the general primate group as a whole, simply because Patty's bipedal posture sort of "rearranges" the anatomy a bit. But of course, each researcher can indicate a preference for which, if any particular, primate references they believe are more illustrative, and we do want to be open to all alternatives here. Bill edited post script: Love the photos. :coverlaugh: Bill I think the medius you refer to is tied just outside the hip ball and socket joint in the pelvis, if this is the case its function would serve to hold things together and protect that joint and tie in and under some of the big leg and butt muscles /maximus. As such it tenses up during normal striding leg function as the hips sway and rotate Edited March 1, 2008 by bipedalist
Bill Posted March 1, 2008 Author Posted March 1, 2008 Killian: Agreed, some of the photos Colobus posted do have very similar folds, plus the shading, fur, etc. And agreed, if Patterson made a Patty suit, he'd have easily won over me on the Swamp Thing suits bid, if he'd survived that long (sadly, he passes away about 7 years before the movie) Bipedalist: interesting about the muscle. So which one would cause the leg to raise up sideways, like a side leg lift? :coverlaugh: Bill
Recommended Posts