Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Patty And The Subducting Thigh Line

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

Another hoax argument is based on the so called subducting line on Patty's thigh. If this is indeed a real feature doing exactly as proponents of the subduction maintain should we not see it as a regular feature appearing in all of Patty's steps. I believe that this feature like the thigh bulge is not a true feature appearing as it seems to appear but rather an artifact or another feature that is distorted by digital artifacts. For instance the thigh bulge (hernia) appears more than once and is most likely the effect of the hand brushing against the thigh. However the subduction appears to be a one off instance. If its the real thing why does it not appear as a constant feature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The subducting line is real and no digital artifact.

Reposting here...

Kit let us know how many times the subducting thigh line appears in the 300+ frames of the PGF.

Xspider has easily provided a nice selection of primates with Patty like detail patterns and those patterns were the thrust of the discussion and not of the so called subducting thigh.

I've created a thread for the subducting thigh to be discussed. In any event it requires a certain myopia to ignore the patterns we see on known primates that are also present on Patty.

The subducting line appears once at the only point in the film where Patty is stable in the frame.

4 times, 4 strides in the following version...

The PGF is 953 frames, so your 300+ needs about several more pluses. Please do your homework. And feel free to break out a red circle on any photo that shows an ape with a subducting line running horizontally across the middle of its thigh the way folding fabric does. Myopia means shortsightedness, meaning I'm OK with things close up. My vision is 20/20, but if you get that photo I'm asking for, I'll put my face right in there to see it if I have too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Another hoax argument is based on the so called subducting line on Patty's thigh. If this is indeed a real feature doing exactly as proponents of the subduction maintain should we not see it as a regular feature appearing in all of Patty's steps. I believe that this feature like the thigh bulge is not a true feature appearing as it seems to appear but rather an artifact or another feature that is distorted by digital artifacts. For instance the thigh bulge (hernia) appears more than once and is most likely the effect of the hand brushing against the thigh. However the subduction appears to be a one off instance. If its the real thing why does it not appear as a constant feature?

Advance to 6:53 to view a portion of a first generation copy of the original PGF, that Bill Munns obtained from Patricia Patterson. According to the documentary, Bill created a stabilized, HD version of the clip.

The horizontal subduction line is easily seen in at least 3 of the strides.

I believe this shows that it is a real feature, and not an artifact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

While I agree that this line is a real feature of the subject of the film, I don't think it is proof or even supporting evidence of any theory (hoax/real).

There isn't enough information to make a determination. We can't even say for sure if the line is "subducting".

There are valid explanations for the line in both theories (hoax vs. real). But beyond identifying that we see a line there, everything else is speculative.

For me, it's a total non-issue, and does not help or hurt either/any theory. Fur/hair does weird stuff. Just looking at myself in the mirror when I wake up tells me this, and yes, I've seen weird straight lines in my own hair. I would also expect fake fur to be similarly effected.

IMO, this is one of those features that people will tend to latch on to in support of their favorite theory, and I just don't think it has any value to anyone. We've already seen plenty of "line drawings" from both sides of the fence, and all have shown reasonable potential as an explanation. More lines in more posted pics of more animals and suits isn't really going to change anything.

It's just a line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Exactly! Trying to identify suit flaws is pointless. No one can claim that lines or bulges are unnatural for a sasquatch. It's the debunker's burden not to use these kind of arguments. Like claiming it's a suit because it walks like Bob H or because there is no such thing as a BF. These kind of arguments have no legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The subducting line is real and no digital artifact.

Reposting here...

The subducting line appears once at the only point in the film where Patty is stable in the frame.

4 times, 4 strides in the following version...

The PGF is 953 frames, so your 300+ needs about several more pluses. Please do your homework. And feel free to break out a red circle on any photo that shows an ape with a subducting line running horizontally across the middle of its thigh the way folding fabric does. Myopia means shortsightedness, meaning I'm OK with things close up. My vision is 20/20, but if you get that photo I'm asking for, I'll put my face right in there to see it if I have too.

Kit there are barely 400 frames in the PGF that supply details that can be assessed for details. The frames in the very beginning and shortly after the turn sequence could for most intents and purposes not exist at all concerning details of the figure. I base my number of 300+ frames because that is near the cutoff of the frames researchers find useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Exactly! Trying to identify suit flaws is pointless. No one can claim that lines or bulges are unnatural for a sasquatch. It's the debunker's burden not to use these kind of arguments. Like claiming it's a suit because it walks like Bob H or because there is no such thing as a BF. These kind of arguments have no legs.

On the contrary, acceptance of questionable aspects of the subject on the basis of not knowing what the true biology is of these beings is no more reasonable or scientific. Say for example that there were a glaring flap on the back of the neck. Some might see it as evidence of a mask seam or flap, while this sort of argument would claim that it isn't a seam or flap necessarily, because it might just be a natural part of the bigfoot biology that we are not aware of yet. When it comes to biology, there are most often parallels from one similar animal to the next. Something that stands out and makes no anatomical sense should not be dismissed as a possible new sort of biological "feature".

There is yet another visible anomaly in Patty's "biology", and that is an apparent fold in the front of her armpit. It can be seen reasonably clearly when one looks closely, not just on the closest side, but also on the armpit furthest from the camera. I mentioned this privately to a friend, and he also dismissed these obvious protrusions as who knows what, certainly not as evidence of a suit, but rather as evidence supporting Patty as real. How can that be? Because bigfoot is a mysterious creature and we cannot possibly relate her physiology to what we are familiar with, they likely have many dissimilar features which we would find unfamiliar or anomalous to our own or to known primates.

So, since these two anomalies are clearly and repeatedly visible in the film, they really should be considered more seriously than dismissing them as unknown or unfamiliar biology. My understanding is that bigfooters want to be taken seriously by skeptics and the scientific community, and if that truly is the case, then using open, unbiased reason is a requirement. Refusing to see what is easily seen, refusing to allow for alternate possibilities, refusing to allow that one may in fact be mistaken or wrong, are all hallmarks of fanaticism and not of science. Unbelievers (skeptics truly is he wrong term for those who don't believe), might be completely wrong; bigfoot may exist and Patty may be a real one. Just the same, bigfooters may also be wrong, bigfoot may not exist and Patty may be a fake. Not allowing for those possibilities pretty much makes any and all discussion worthless.

Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit there are barely 400 frames in the PGF that supply details that can be assessed for details. The frames in the very beginning and shortly after the turn sequence could for most intents and purposes not exist at all concerning details of the figure. I base my number of 300+ frames because that is near the cutoff of the frames researchers find useful.

According to who? Quibbles. Let's stay focused. Your OP...

Another hoax argument is based on the so called subducting line on Patty's thigh. If this is indeed a real feature doing exactly as proponents of the subduction maintain should we not see it as a regular feature appearing in all of Patty's steps. I believe that this feature like the thigh bulge is not a true feature appearing as it seems to appear but rather an artifact or another feature that is distorted by digital artifacts. For instance the thigh bulge (hernia) appears more than once and is most likely the effect of the hand brushing against the thigh. However the subduction appears to be a one off instance. If its the real thing why does it not appear as a constant feature?

Artifact distorted by digital feature? No. One-off instance? No. Constant feature. Yes. How many times? 4 strides where we can see Patty stabilized. No artifact. It is a real feature on Patty's leg and it acts like no living thing and everything like a suit.

Crow, I think this is like you saying "the total lack of tracks and activity marks" regarding the PGF site. It's something you could easily know not to be true if you took the time to look.

1 step. 2 step. 3 step. 4.

4 times. There is your answer. It's not an artifact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

On the contrary, acceptance of questionable aspects of the subject on the basis of not knowing what the true biology is of these beings is no more reasonable or scientific. Say for example that there were a glaring flap on the back of the neck. Some might see it as evidence of a mask seam or flap, while this sort of argument would claim that it isn't a seam or flap necessarily, because it might just be a natural part of the bigfoot biology that we are not aware of yet. When it comes to biology, there are most often parallels from one similar animal to the next. Something that stands out and makes no anatomical sense should not be dismissed as a possible new sort of biological "feature".

There is yet another visible anomaly in Patty's "biology", and that is an apparent fold in the front of her armpit. It can be seen reasonably clearly when one looks closely, not just on the closest side, but also on the armpit furthest from the camera. I mentioned this privately to a friend, and he also dismissed these obvious protrusions as who knows what, certainly not as evidence of a suit, but rather as evidence supporting Patty as real. How can that be? Because bigfoot is a mysterious creature and we cannot possibly relate her physiology to what we are familiar with, they likely have many dissimilar features which we would find unfamiliar or anomalous to our own or to known primates.

So, since these two anomalies are clearly and repeatedly visible in the film, they really should be considered more seriously than dismissing them as unknown or unfamiliar biology. My understanding is that bigfooters want to be taken seriously by skeptics and the scientific community, and if that truly is the case, then using open, unbiased reason is a requirement. Refusing to see what is easily seen, refusing to allow for alternate possibilities, refusing to allow that one may in fact be mistaken or wrong, are all hallmarks of fanaticism and not of science. Unbelievers (skeptics truly is he wrong term for those who don't believe), might be completely wrong; bigfoot may exist and Patty may be a real one. Just the same, bigfooters may also be wrong, bigfoot may not exist and Patty may be a fake. Not allowing for those possibilities pretty much makes any and all discussion worthless.

Aaron

Perhaps if you are keeping score, but what does that accomplish? I'm not saying ignore these issues, but have any of these speculations got us any closer to the truth? Unless they are somehow conclusive, then they are not relevant, IMO. No one is obligated to accept anyone's conclusions based on these proclaimed "red flags", because they don't prove anything.

Would you please post the frame with the "armpit" anomaly you speak of? I've always been impressed by the armpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

The subducting line is real and no digital artifact.

Reposting here...

The subducting line appears once at the only point in the film where Patty is stable in the frame.

4 times, 4 strides in the following version...

The PGF is 953 frames, so your 300+ needs about several more pluses. Please do your homework. And feel free to break out a red circle on any photo that shows an ape with a subducting line running horizontally across the middle of its thigh the way folding fabric does. Myopia means shortsightedness, meaning I'm OK with things close up. My vision is 20/20, but if you get that photo I'm asking for, I'll put my face right in there to see it if I have too.

kitakaze,

Homework...you said 953 frames, don't you mean 954?

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No. It's 953 still frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

No. It's 953 still frames.

Are you suuuuuuuure ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yes, I am sure. Unless the 1982 United States District Court ruling by Judge Justin L. Quackenbush (sweet mother, that name) on the frames, NASI report, Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal, Henry Franzoni on digitizing each frame, MonsterQuest, Bill Munns, and about 40 other sources flubbed it by one frame, it is 953 frames.

I have done my homework. Is there a point to the hectoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

On the contrary, acceptance of questionable aspects of the subject on the basis of not knowing what the true biology is of these beings is no more reasonable or scientific. Say for example that there were a glaring flap on the back of the neck. Some might see it as evidence of a mask seam or flap, while this sort of argument would claim that it isn't a seam or flap necessarily, because it might just be a natural part of the bigfoot biology that we are not aware of yet. When it comes to biology, there are most often parallels from one similar animal to the next. Something that stands out and makes no anatomical sense should not be dismissed as a possible new sort of biological "feature".

There is yet another visible anomaly in Patty's "biology", and that is an apparent fold in the front of her armpit. It can be seen reasonably clearly when one looks closely, not just on the closest side, but also on the armpit furthest from the camera. I mentioned this privately to a friend, and he also dismissed these obvious protrusions as who knows what, certainly not as evidence of a suit, but rather as evidence supporting Patty as real. How can that be? Because bigfoot is a mysterious creature and we cannot possibly relate her physiology to what we are familiar with, they likely have many dissimilar features which we would find unfamiliar or anomalous to our own or to known primates.

So, since these two anomalies are clearly and repeatedly visible in the film, they really should be considered more seriously than dismissing them as unknown or unfamiliar biology. My understanding is that bigfooters want to be taken seriously by skeptics and the scientific community, and if that truly is the case, then using open, unbiased reason is a requirement. Refusing to see what is easily seen, refusing to allow for alternate possibilities, refusing to allow that one may in fact be mistaken or wrong, are all hallmarks of fanaticism and not of science. Unbelievers (skeptics truly is he wrong term for those who don't believe), might be completely wrong; bigfoot may exist and Patty may be a real one. Just the same, bigfooters may also be wrong, bigfoot may not exist and Patty may be a fake. Not allowing for those possibilities pretty much makes any and all discussion worthless.

Aaron

Excellent post, Tontar. Welcome to the BFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

According to who? Quibbles. Let's stay focused. Your OP...

Artifact distorted by digital feature? No. One-off instance? No. Constant feature. Yes. How many times? 4 strides where we can see Patty stabilized. No artifact. It is a real feature on Patty's leg and it acts like no living thing and everything like a suit.

Crow, I think this is like you saying "the total lack of tracks and activity marks" regarding the PGF site. It's something you could easily know not to be true if you took the time to look.

1 step. 2 step. 3 step. 4.

4 times. There is your answer. It's not an artifact.

There's a very good reason why the very early frames and the later post turn frames haven't been used to study creature details. It's reasonable to assume that if someone (especially a proponent) were to uses those frames I mention to call attention to details of the creature you would be among the first and loudest to raise the flag that those frames are too distant,shaky, obstructed and blurred to yield information. It's no mystery to me at least why efforts such as the MK Davis stabilization only utilize the very best frames in the film. Now if you feel that those other frames are suitable for scrutinizing for detail why not present us with examples of those details.

The "subducting" line then is not purely an artifact but its unknown whether or not the line is actually behaving in the manner some believe it is. Many believe the hernia is a hernia but sharp observers both here and elsewhere have concluded that it's not a hernia at all.

Well Kit please point me in the direction of the text that claims that there were mysterious ground markings raising the possibility that surface details were intentionally disguised or obliterated to hide evidence of activity counter to the story P&G intended to present to the public. There isn't a single example I know of. Yes MK Davis mentions all kinds of equipment tracks/marks as a means to fuel his fantasy at Bluff Creek. The aerial photo shows a fairly smooth terrain devoid of machinery markings, holes and depressions. Also the subsequent ground shots don't show equipment scarring either. I believe you're trying to make it sound like the sand bar was a veritable hub of machinery activity and I don't agree at all based on the photo evidence from the site.

Whether the film is 954 or 953 frames is trite Kit. Now have you yourself counted the frames of all film versions out there? If not why do you believe any of the frame counts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...