Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

But if your color of the patch fur is off, bright sunlight can kick up the differences real well (between old and patched parts), and the film may boost the contrasting colors even more.

Which in my opinion, is what we see a lot of in this film ..

There is a real good piece ( again, IMO ) that supports these observations, about how a real animal's coat appears under enhancement

compared to the subject of this film.. I'll try to dig it up..

Bill,

Another quick observation ..

You make a lot of comments about what you, and other industry professionals would and would not

do with regard to a suit, as if that somehow rules out, or makes unlikely, what Patterson, an amateur and one-time suit maker, did ( if he made a suit ) ..

Relatively few people, myself included, think the suit looks very good at all ..

Of course, I expect the usual ( not necessarily from you ) " Well, if it is so bad, why can't you or anyone duplicate it ? "

I suspect you, better than most anyone here, would understand that it would not be any easier to accurately replicate a bad

suit as opposed to a good one. In some respects it would be harder.

It's important to keep in mind the difference I am making between replicating the subject in the film, and just throwing together another bad suit..

A meticulous professional would find it counter-intuitive to accurately duplicate an amateurs mistakes, not to mention the

problem of assembling the hodge podge of materials the amateur may have started with .

Edited March 2, 2008 by Skeptical Greg

[Bill]

Greg:

When i make statements about what I might do, or what I might assume other profesionals would do, that doesn't ever exclude what an amateur might do. Suffice to say, amateurs (which I'm defining here as people who don't do it for a living, not as a measure of skill) can do things just about any way that is physically possible. And occasionally, it does work. So be assured when I talk of what i might do, or expect other pro's to do, it does not say alternatives can't be done. They can. It would simply be improbable, and perhaps lees likely to succeed (since one of the basics of professional practices is that they deliver proven results reliably).

I'll never say "well if it is so bad, why can't you or anyone duplicate it?" because that's an improper question. No one capable of a serious attempt would likely undertake the task without funding, and apparently no one is offering to pay for a serious attempt to reproduce it. That factor, as pragmatic as it seems, usually stops the idea long before any discussion of method or potential for success comes to play.

Actually you are right in that many professional people, if hired to do an "amateurish job", just can't do it. Their professional practices are just too ingrained, and they always fear being misjudged by critics who might say "I saw what he did and it was so amateurish" without any consideration that this condition was requested by the employer. They like to avoid their professional capability being trashed by fools who don't look at the real truth of the job specifications, and just criticize results. Happens a lot.

Bill

[Guest longtabber PE]

I provided the bolding in longtabber's post.

Jeff Cooper's four rules:

RULE 4

Be Sure Of Your Target

You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

http://www.donath.org/Rants/TheFourRules/

Edit: ****, Bill. I apologize, too, for further detraction from your (once again) quite brilliant thread.

Heres where ( once again) people take things out of context- twist it to what they want it to be and proceed with reckless abandon

( seems to be common place here) so let me set the record straight ( once again)

COLONEL Coopers rules are the "gold standard"- nobody disputes that- the problem here is that you have placed then ( accidently or on purpose) OUTSIDE the context in which they were written.

The situation/circumstance of my "encounter" ( based on what I posted long before it became an issue here) doesnt fall in a standard shooting decision. We had a real time TACTICAL situation ( not a shooting or hunting situation) that required IMMEDIATE reaction

Since you want to quote Col. Cooper- are you EQUALLY familiar with his "colors"?

Let me post them for your review

>>>The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation is, according to Cooper, neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in Principles of Personal Defense.[2]

In the chapter on awareness, Cooper presents an adaptation of the Marine Corps system to differentiate states of readiness:

White - Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will probably be "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

Yellow - Relaxed alert. No specific threat situation. Your mindset is that "today could be the day I may have to defend myself." You are simply aware that the world is an unfriendly place and that you are prepared to do something, if necessary. You use your eyes and ears, and realize that "I may have to SHOOT today." You don't have to be armed in this state but if you are armed you should be in Condition Yellow. You should always be in Yellow whenever you are in unfamiliar surroundings or among people you don't know. You can remain in Yellow for long periods, as long as you are able to "Watch your six". (In aviation 12 o'clock refers to the direction in front of the aircraft's nose. Six o'clock is the blind spot behind the pilot.) In Yellow, you are "taking in" surrounding information in a relaxed but alert manner, like a continuous 360 degree radar sweep.

Orange - Specific alert. Something is not quite right and has gotten your attention. Your radar has picked up a specific alert. You shift your primary focus to determine if there is a threat (but you do not drop your six). Your mindset shifts to "I may have to shoot HIM today." In Condition Orange, you set a mental trigger: "If that goblin does "x", I will need to stop him." Your pistol usually remains holstered in this state. Staying in Orange can be a bit of a mental strain, but you can stay in it for as long as you need to. If the threat proves to be nothing, you shift back to Condition Yellow.

Red - Condition Red is fight. Your mental trigger has been "tripped" (established back in Condition Orange). You take appropriate action.

The U.S.M.C. also uses "Condition Black" as actively engaged in combat, as do some of his successors, but Cooper always felt this is an unnecessary step and not in keeping with the mindset definitions.

Also note that the Color Code was never meant to be a warning system. Rather, the Color Code was designed to be a mental crutch. It was designed to allow someone to "get over" the resistance that a normal person has in pointing a pistol at the center of someone's chest and pulling the trigger.

In short, the Color Code helps you "think" in a fight. As the level of danger increases, your resistance to shoot decreases. If you ever do go to Condition Red, the decision to use lethal force has already been made (your "mental trigger" has been tripped).

So, which one most accurately describes the scenario I was in?

Its ok if you admit you are wrong or dont have a clue- if you have never been there, its only logical that you cant even begin to comprehend ( much less understand) a threat scenario.

Any more no threat, no combat armchair comments? Any more snide and irrelevant comments? Ever been there?

Just curious? You ever been in a threat situation? Ever been in combat? Got a CIB?

If the answer is NO then why are you even commenting? Its obvious you dont understand the concept so why are you "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" this?

Argue all you want- I made a decision as a CHILD even ( good training) and under the circumstances that day- I (we) made the RIGHT one and I'm good with it. Until you have "been there,faced it and done it"- I dont consider your thoughts or opinions valid.

Any more "armchair expertise" you want to offer? Get some EXPERIENCE then come back and tell me how it is!

Another REMF without a clue

[Guest longtabber PE]

Tabber

Just to help you out a little bit, you were actually replying to statements made by someone else when you unleashed your vitriol on me, but that's cool because you don't intimidate me with your intellect or your bravado. You really hate to be disagreed with don't you. It's almost pathalogical how you toss out "Ad Hom" in one breath and then illustrate its effective use in the next. But Tabber, this isn't a chest thumping competition, so you can go ahead and button your shirt.

You are a real piece of work. Nothing in your scenario meets the justification for deadly force. The only thing you could fall back on, which based on your personality is simply impossible for you to do, is to admit that in your youth and your state of panic, ya'll simply screwed up.

This wasn't a case of infantry tactics in Indian country. I believe this was South Carolina. Maybe in your neck of the woods people kill other people after a mere verbal challenge. Up here, idiots like that go to jail.

You slay me: "After proper challenge, it was identified, it was designated as THREAT ( dont need a nametag for that)"

It was identified as what, exactly? You didn't identify squat! You still don't know what you saw. So articulate the threat for me. What did it say in return? Nothing? So then, what did it do that was threatening other than appear to be approaching in your direction? You had guns. What were you afraid of?

"We made the challenge as well as warning and a warning shot to enforce it."

And then you question "my" competence? You're right! As usual. Oh wait, I'd bet you can't find a regulation in any legitimate law enforcement agency that authorizes the use of warning shots or deadly force at an unidentified threat. It's just not done "old boy" as my Brit friends like to say.

"After ignoring all warnings- it moved forth" It moved forth? Jeeez, did your boss let you write purple prose in your reports?

So, it's already been established that you are in fact an expert on every subject between the covers of the Encyclopedia Colliers, but friend, you ain't an expert on deadly force. Further, anyone on this forum who is actually a cop or has been one, will know you stepped on your wheezer pretty badly. You may be an expert on infantry tactics, specialized warfare, HALO, Air Sea Rescue and jungle survival. Next time I want to know about things like that, I'll be sure to ask.

As for you and your little friend's encounter in the wilds of SC...it appears you saw something that scared the prepubescent turds out of ya. Not to worry. It happens. But don't try to justify those actions by challenging my knowledge of the rules of deadly force, or trying to question my credentials. Unlike you, I have not seen the need to continually emphasize to anyone who will listen, how friggin important I believe I am somewhere to some unknown entity. In my own little corner of the world, I'm satisfied with the little things I've accomplished and I doubt I'd be any more impressed with your tracks than you would be with mine.

So. I will let you have the last word. It's much more imprtant for guys like you.

K

SPARE ME please

>>>Just to help you out a little bit, you were actually replying to statements made by someone else when you unleashed your vitriol on me,

No, I was responding to you specifically

>>> but that's cool because you don't intimidate me with your intellect or your bravado.

It had nothing to do with intimidating- it had to do with correcting ( bravado aside)

>>>You really hate to be disagreed with don't you. It's almost pathalogical how you toss out "Ad Hom" in one breath and then illustrate its effective use in the next.

Nice try but no cigar- has nothing with your false pretense of being "disagreed with"- it has to do with accuracy, context and factual information ( something you seem to selectively ignore when convenient) I have yet to see you address a single point in an intelligent manner.

>>> But Tabber, this isn't a chest thumping competition, so you can go ahead and button your shirt.

I rest my case

>>>You are a real piece of work. Nothing in your scenario meets the justification for deadly force.

This I have to hear- by all means, explain this to me in detail ( with your agencies doctrine)

>>>The only thing you could fall back on, which based on your personality is simply impossible for you to do, is to admit that in your youth and your state of panic, ya'll simply screwed up.

Yes youth was involved but that doesnt invalidate the above- lets hear it- IN DETAIL mind you ( I'm personally waiting on this one with baited breath) and the answer is already prepared ( with references) I'm just waiting on the specific agency to quote.

>>>This wasn't a case of infantry tactics in Indian country. I believe this was South Carolina. Maybe in your neck of the woods people kill other people after a mere verbal challenge. Up here, idiots like that go to jail.

OK sweetcheeks, what state do you live in that doesnt outline personal self defense, what state doesnt recognize what we did as a legitimate attempt to reduce the potential threat? I'm once again waiting with baited breath to hear you explain this. ( you do a good job so far when it comes to tapdancing around specific points- lets see how well you do with direct questions)

>>>And then you question "my" competence? You're right! As usual. Oh wait, I'd bet you can't find a regulation in any legitimate law enforcement agency that authorizes the use of warning shots or deadly force at an unidentified threat.

I not only question your "competence" but your intelligence, professionalism and field experience as well. I'm waiting ( as before mentioned) for your explanations then I will critique you on the general rules regarding presentation and use of deadly force. ( and enjoy it) You have been in combat and threat situations how many times? Was it ZERO? ( you never did answer that)

>>>Up here, idiots like that go to jail.

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6

>>>You slay me: "After proper challenge, it was identified, it was designated as THREAT ( dont need a nametag for that)"

Thats correct- I guess you needed a DEAD team mate before you decided to lock and load- thats why you wouldnt cut it on any REAL team

>>>So, it's already been established that you are in fact an expert on every subject between the covers of the Encyclopedia Colliers, but friend, you ain't an expert on deadly force.

Its not so much "expertise" as it is EXPERIENCE ( how many threat situations have you been in again- zero?) I'm sorry, I forgot

>>>Further, anyone on this forum who is actually a cop or has been one, will know you stepped on your wheezer pretty badly.

No, actually, YOU are the only dissenter ( that says what it says) Whats it like to be a REMF? Are "butt blisters" considered a "Line of Duty" injury? I'm sorry to hear about that.

>>>You may be an expert on infantry tactics, specialized warfare, HALO, Air Sea Rescue and jungle survival. Next time I want to know about things like that, I'll be sure to ask.

You might ought to ask about those things you seem to think you know ( and certainly should) because you are remarkably deficient in what you SHOULD know. I suspect you need reinforcement training.

>>>As for you and your little friend's encounter in the wilds of SC...it appears you saw something that scared the prepubescent turds out of ya. Not to worry. It happens.

I said that ( and made it quite clear)- how was your first "threat" situation? ( or have you ever had one?) Let me guess- the answer is no? AAH, another REMF expert commenting about a book he has never read regarding a situation he has never encountered. ( I'll remember that, nest time I'm teaching THEORY)

>>>But don't try to justify those actions by challenging my knowledge of the rules of deadly force, or trying to question my credentials.

Your "knowledge" ( and lack of it) speaks for itself that was illustrated in your "knowledge" of MOPP and US policy in another thread. You have demonstrated no better "knowledge" here in this thread and this subject

>>>Unlike you, I have not seen the need to continually emphasize to anyone who will listen, how friggin important I believe I am somewhere to some unknown entity. In my own little corner of the world, I'm satisfied with the little things I've accomplished and I doubt I'd be any more impressed with your tracks than you would be with mine.

Thats probabily for the best

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Bill,

I may be getting ahead of you, but I wanted to get your opinion of another anomaly I see.

We might need to add this to another thread, existing or to be started, if it is decided it would be more appropriate..

I actually started a thread about this a while back; but it was before you added your expertise to

these discussions..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=15455&hl=

However, the images I linked to, were being hosted at a site I no longer have access to, which makes the discussion

difficult to follow..

First I present a graphic of a primate shoulder ( human in this case ) compared to what we see on the subject in

the film.

I have outlined the deltoid muscle group in blue, and the shape we see in the film in red .

( I have also added the blue outline to the film subject to point out the difference )

Not a very good match; but it could be argued that the true underlying muscle structure is being

obscured by fur/hair ..

It can be shown that the deltoid group, is normally firmly attached to the upper arm, and as the upper

arm swings while walking, the deltoid group will move as a whole, following the arm ..

I have isolated a couple of consecutive frames from the MK Davis enhancements to illustrate my point.

It can be seen, that as the arm moves to the rear, there is some independent movement between the

upper arm and the shoulder area above it .. This same disconnect can be seen in other parts

of the film, but I picked these two frames as one of the better examples . It’s subtle, but it’s there..

Someone could point out that there is a continuous dark area, that spans the upper arm and shoulder area

and moving in unison . But, that is what you would expect with a continuous covering, be it fabric or skin .

It is the discontinuity between the underlying structure that presents a problem.

Greg

[Guest Texas Bigfoot]

Do you have any proof of this hypothesis?

[Bill]

Greg:

I have looked at the shoulder and deltoid area, and the fur does things I don't have an answer to yet. I actually focused right away on the bicep mass, in the arm back swings of the look back sequence, because of what looks like hairless skin or surface flowing into the chest material or tissue.

As you know, I'm over at "the other place" and taking questions there, so I can't give your question all the time it deserves. Will try tomorrow to do so.

Bill

[Guest]

Actually you are right in that many professional people, if hired to do an "amateurish job", just can't do it. Their professional practices are just too ingrained, and they always fear being misjudged by critics who might say "I saw what he did and it was so amateurish" without any consideration that this condition was requested by the employer. They like to avoid their professional capability being trashed by fools who don't look at the real truth of the job specifications, and just criticize results. Happens a lot.

Are you saying a pro, being payed little or nothing, would do his best out of professional pride?

[Guest colobus]

Interesting points Greg.

Certainly worth examining very closely.

I think it's important to remember when thinking about the film subject, and trying to make sense of possible underlaying musculature (assuming a real animal), that hair patterns on individuals of a given species have a huge variability, and quite often do not give much of a clue to the muscles that lay underneath. This is true of known animals, and presumably would be true of undescribed species as well.

I'm posting a picture as an example that illustrates this point.

It is important to be cautious when looking at such underlaying anatomy, as clearly the presentation of extremely variable hair patterns on live animals (and possibly clever suits) don't always correlate very well with muscles diagrammed on an anatomy chart.

[Bill]

Mooseman:

"Are you saying a pro, being payed little or nothing, would do his best out of professional pride? "

Usually, if we're paid little or nothing, we turn down the job. But yes, if I personally chose to accept a job with little or no pay, I'd take it as a showcase piece, and do my best hoping it would advertise my skill and bring me paying work.

Can't speak for other people. Some might do the same, some might just throw together any cheap thing with the attitide of "They get what they pay for".

Colobus:

love your photos. And I agree, hair of varied lengths/densities can obscure the shape of musculature. My training actually (in creating replicas of animals, is to see the surface for all its irregular intrigue, and not just the muscles.

Bill

[Guest]

In your opinion would the would be maker of the purported PGF suit be so 'unprofessional' as to miss something as obvious as the 'hip joint' flaw that so many point to as being the obvious evidence pointing to hoax?

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Colobus,

I hear what you are saying ..

I acknowledged a need to exercise caution when speculating on the underlying structure

of a covering of skin and hair .. And your gorilla pic is a good example..

It would be interesting to see that gorilla, and others with their arms in motion, to confirm

if the deltoid muscles follow the upper arm movement without any sign of independent

motion.

If I can come up with more information, that I feel adequately illustrates my point,

I will share. Even if it disputes my contention ..

P.S.

Quick check at Youtube finds an excellent video of two gorillas playing. ( though the contributor labeled it as a fight )

There is a lot of full motion arm movement, and it is clear the deltoid area and

the upper arm movement are fully locked..

I'll try to isolate a few frame later to illustrate the point ..

Edited March 3, 2008 by Skeptical Greg

[Incorrigible1]

Any more "armchair expertise" you want to offer? Get some EXPERIENCE then come back and tell me how it is!

Another REMF without a clue

You've not disputed the fact you fired at an unidentified target. Blathering on doesn't change the fact. Soldier on, my friend.

[Guest Killain]

You've not disputed the fact you fired at an unidentified target. Blathering on doesn't change the fact. Soldier on, my friend.

Blathering has worked pretty well for him so far.

K

[Guest Remember November]

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.

Hey Bill, my computer crashed at home, I do all this from work, looks like I missed a pretty good discussion. A thought on the muscle raising a leg up sideways', Patty's knees were observed on the LMS DVD to swing inwards. The knees swing in and the feet swing out. When one watches the animated skeletal overlay on the special features, this movement especially stands out. I'm wondering if this inward swing is constricting this muscle.

Thanks.