Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The Pendulum Limbs In The Opening Frames

Recommended Posts

Guest

Sweaty posted a great gif of Patty in the opening frames. Many noted her left arm wasn't swinging to the same degree as her right, and her right arm swung close to her body as contrasted to later when it swung to a greater degree away from her body.

post-22065-0-69578200-1359401053.gif

By way of explanation, the believers offered: Roger caught her napping and she was stiff from sleeping. She was hearing impaired. She had the flu. She had recently been bitten by a snake. She had a Popliteal- Baker's cyst.

And you guys slam me for conjecturing?! :-)

I can think of other reasons she's stiff in the beginning, so allow me to continue the analysis... She was just beamed down from the alien ship. She had just finished thawing from her cryofreeze, thus completing her transport from the neolithic age.

Or maybe... Bob H (or whomever) wasn't yet acclimated to the feel of the suit, body pads and shoulder pads and took a few steps to figure out the range of motion the getup allowed for.

Watch the gif for a bit. While most people look at her calf and point to the musculature as akin to that of a body builder, I noted something about her entire body. This is the first time I really saw something that didn't look natural:

First, the shoulder. There is a strong light reflection off her collar bone that does not change. Her shoulder does not shift its plane towards the rear as her right arm swings back. Try it yourself. Stand and swing your arm to the rear while keeping your body and head facing forward. Your collar bone shifts to the rear. By contrast, Patty's arm appears to move like a pendulum in a grandfather clock with the frame -- the shoulder -- remaining immobile.

post-22065-0-60395200-1359402178_thumb.j

This is true of her entire shoulder blade region. It doesn't move at all. Her arm is simply a pendulum.

post-22065-0-36491100-1359402626_thumb.j

And there's the butt. I realize this has been discussed previously, but this opening-frame gif really highlights the issue. The right glute has a strong light reflection that never varies in shape. Were the glute flexing or stretching in conjunction with right leg's motion, the reflection pattern would change. Also, the left and right halves are "glued" together. The separation and overall shape never varies. The depth of the crease does not vary.

post-22065-0-47319900-1359402151_thumb.j

When you look at the butt, the back, and the shoulder together, i.e. stare at the center of her back, it looks like they are one solid unshifting mass with two dangling attachments in the form of the right arm and the right leg.

To my eyes, these stabilized opening frames speak more directly to a person inside a suit than does the lookback segment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SquatchinNY

Maybe it was just the way she moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Harry Man

That would be the widest suit with the longest arms ever made. Then to have a human inside to control it. Don't see it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

HDL:

Nice to see you are doing your homework, so to speak.

In the matter of the buttocks area, on many women who are mature and have adipose tissue deposits in that region, casually walking produces no motion whatsoever of the underlying musculature. I've verified this with real female models. Same for the shoulder area.

In the matter of people in costumes, when somebody calls "action" and the camera starts, the performer tends to be pumped up for a dynamic performance, the opposite of what Patty is doing. And a person suited up has plenty of time to get used to the feel and motion characteristics of the costume before the camera rolls. Keep in mind, if it were a hoax, Bob H (or somebody) would be suited up fully, then Roger goes back across the creek to get to his camera start position, and get the camera ready, so the person in the suit has more time to get used to the suit than the whole time the PGF is filmed.

I will agree the lack of dynamic motion in the right arm during the opening is important, and fascinating. I've been evaluating it for quite some time.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Arm swinging is one of those traits that is not by any means a constant throughout species. I've met people whose arms dont swing, whose arms swing at the same time... and when I was younger, my right arm didnt swing at all.

I'm not refuting all your claims of the PGF being a hoax... though I am a PGF believer... I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, trying to prove that arm swinging isnt a 100% make-it-or-break-it.

Edited by ForestTone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

The traps are pretty big . The shoulder blade doesn't move much (but does a little) I find the bunching up aroung the lats and teres muscles consistant with how the right arm is slinging..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GuyInIndiana

Sweaty posted a great gif of Patty in the opening frames. Many noted her left arm wasn't swinging to the same degree as her right, and her right arm swung close to her body as contrasted to later when it swung to a greater degree away from her body.

By way of explanation, the believers offered: Roger caught her napping and she was stiff from sleeping. She was hearing impaired. She had the flu. She had recently been bitten by a snake. She had a Popliteal- Baker's cyst.

And you guys slam me for conjecturing?! :-)

No. Likely for pointing out something of exTREME insignificance. Do YOUR arms always swing when you walk? Have you EVER tightened up your muscles while you were walking?

Do you REALLY think something as assinine as this somehow debunks if the film is real or not?

THOSE might be the reasons people slam you for conjecture. JMO of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I disagree with the OP, but I surely dont think it's assenine. In every hoax or real video there will be small little things that can be interpreted multiple ways that would lean towards real or hoax. It's all part of the process, and I give the OP credit for taking such small details into account when interpreting evidence.

Given, like I said, I disagree that the arm swing proves anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sorry, but you just can't progress any discussion re the PGF by starting out with expectations. Woulda shoulda coulda.

The shoulder should look like this.

The butt should look like that.

The left arm should move more.

Expectations carry no weight.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Forrest, thank you.

Bill, I will not dispute any of your post, as I have not conducted the live field tests of women replicating PGF nor been in the presence of persons walking in creature suits, so I trust your representations fully.

The pendulum arm does not look natural and appears to me like an arm swinging below a set of shoulder pads (my son plays football). However, I recognize that this is a small number of frames depicting a limited scope of motion. Aside from this pendulum effect, I have never thought the film appeared to be a man in a suit, and if it is, it exceeds the quality of contemporaneous suits used in 60's television and the quality of modern reproduction attempts.

However, the big caveat is that I've not seen any suit of any quality filmed with a K-100 in a similar setting (woods, Sun position). Doing so may reveal glaring differences that highlight the biological fact of Patty. The suit may have such obvious defects that mere tweaking of fur quality or padding positions cannot be expected to close the gap. Or the opposite may occur, various motions may result in folds and flexes that mirror what we see in Patty to the degree that we must reexamine whether these can occur solely in a biological entity.

While we can observe those fold and flexes using a man in a suit anywhere, anytime by filming them with a modern camcorder, it wouldn't be a valid comparison. This is because the folds and flexes we see in Patty are an artifact of light shifts which we interpret as depth, bulges, and other 3D elements. Change the lighting, change the perceptual clues. Lighting entails both the actual light: the position of the sun, atmospheric conditions, reflectivity of the surface, brightness of the background (trees vs sky), plus the perceived lighting: the film resolution, contrast, saturation, and copy degradation.

It could very well be that filming a good-enough suit in similar lighting using similar film in a similar setting and creating a copy of the original results in a representation that mirrors Patty. Or it may appear as fake as do the high-resolution shots of modern recreation attempts. Either way, it would go a long way to bolstering the authenticity claim or, conversely, make the fakes appear less fakey and more really.

Can't we take a suit that's decent, i.e. not worry about whether it's 60s authentic, into the woods and, using a K-100 and Ektachrome, film an actor walking across a sandy foreground from 100' distant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

HDL:

Preparations are being made to test exactly what you describe.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I cannot see much movement in the butt, however, the animated sequence HDL has posted, definitively does show movement in the shoulder, at least as definitively as it does not. You can see the shine increase and decrease between the center of the back. Looks like subtle movement to me. It appears as the arm is forward, the whole shoulder shifts slightly forward, and you can see the "shine" area increase.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

HDL. I cannot see the point of you starting new threads about the PGF, when, with a little research on your part, you can find and discuss all your points in the many PGF threads already provided, and in most cases answered your current queries? The points you are making have been hacked, slashed, stabbed and kicked to death in other threads. Just a point of information as to why there is a search button at top. :)

I'll do you a favor. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/872-reasons-not-to-consider-the-pgf-a-hoax/page__st__2460__hl__+patterson%20+gimlin#entry671130

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

JohnC, I don't see the movement in the shoulder, other than the first frame of the gif, in which the motion blur smears all shadowing.

Thermal, yeah, I know the suit has been argued and reargued. I am a fan of having different topic titles for each element of the controversy, rather than burying it in an 88 page thread as post 2500.

I wish there was a separate section with pinned threads confined to their respective narrow subjects, the diaper butt, the glass eye, the arm/pectoral stretch, the glute skin fold, the thigh pad fur, the zipper lines, the pendulum arm, the block foot, etc.

I enjoy that Wikipedia has separate entries for the D-Day battle versus Battle of the Bulge vs Liberation of Paris and not one giant entry on the European Front of WW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

One of the things I think is important in these kinds of discussions is honesty. You honestly cannot see the area of brightness between the shoulder and the back change as the arm swings forward? You really cannot see that, and realize it implies movement in the over shoulder, showing the shoulder move forward with the arm? If you cannot see that, then I don't know what to say, because its like telling the sky is not blue, or the grass is not green, and expecting me to believe you believe that. I could probably search the net, and provide you examples of the same type of movement, in every thing from body builders, to gorilla's, as has been done so many times before. I question your claim to have had read the previous threads on all this, it really has been beat to death, and every aspect of the butt, etc, that you can point out, examples can be given of it occurring naturally. There is an entire thread on Patty's butt, I suggest you read it, and view the pictures, and be honest with yourself in your assessments.

I am going to do my best not to participate in this again, its all so repetitive, and more often than not, the skeptic will take obvious examples of the same traits in nature, and try to proclaim them subjective. This is nothing more than an exercise in frustration. I have never been one to attempt to persuade someone of the authenticity of the film, instead what draws me into the discussion is when I see people attempt to make false claims. Saying the shoulder does not move, is simply that, a false claim. It moves, the dark area's and light area's change as the arm swings. Period. It is not subjective, or opinion, its very clear they change. If you cannot see this, then you are not objective, and there is no sense in discussing anything with you an further. Go get a copy of Long's book, you will like it.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...