Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

norseman

patty2.jpg

 

Don't know why but looking at this picture, her calf and tricep really "pop" out at me.

 

calf%20anatomy.jpg

 

raising-calves.jpg

 

In that old film, I can actually see the split between the two halves of the Gastrocnemius muscle. That's pretty incredible to me.........your mileage will obviously vary.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

Norse, would you be able to show a close up of that calf muscle on patty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I think I've already posted this side-by-side comparison before...but, here it is again.. :) ...

 

PattyHumanCalfComp2.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

My mileage is the same on that norseman: her calf muscles do "pop out" as should probably be expected and they look real.  There is just about a zero chance that such a dynamic feature was added to a fur costume in 1967.  As far as Heironimus' muscles being seen through jeans, hip waders AND a 1967 fur costume, those chances should be exactly zero imo.  8  )

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have surveyed many Skeptics by asking this question:

 

Do you see ANY muscle movements on the PGF?

 

You would think they might admit to something but the answer most willing to answer give is NO.

 

I am also impressed norseman.  I don't know how some are not blown away by the muscle movements that move in a functional way. That is, it is not just the muscles bulge in a place or two but the fact these muscles work the way they should work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Hip waders/irrigation boots.

 

Examples are out there on the forum.

 

Search to save bandwith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I have surveyed many Skeptics by asking this question:

 

Do you see ANY muscle movements on the PGF?

 

You would think they might admit to something but the answer most willing to answer give is NO.

 

I am also impressed norseman.  I don't know how some are not blown away by the muscle movements that move in a functional way. That is, it is not just the muscles bulge in a place or two but the fact these muscles work the way they should work.

I'll paraphrase a response to this very assertion that I read on another forum. This post was by Saskeptic, a well known and respected  poster here, who also happens to have a phd in biology.

 

The popliteal fossa ( knee pit) is angled outward while the subject is closer to perpindicular to the camera. This suggesting that PAtty was extremely pigeon-toed, which is not replicated in the tracks, or it is suit artifacts.
 
Also, the thigh is a mess of concave shapes. A well-muscled leg should apear convex in a photo, not concave. Specifically the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis.  This is not how it should loook. 

 

I am paraphrasing a post from him. I do not, however, have a phd in biology. I am merely curious to see  what the PGF advocates would say in response. 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

^^^^^^^^^^

 

D, concerning just the calf, I fully agree with Saskeptic in the fact that he rightly sees Patty as pigeon toed. This is actually known to Meldrum and others, and is apart of the compliant gait. Although the foot swings back parallel to the route of march just before the foot is planted again.

 

About 3:35 on this video:

 

 

Also.........what happened to my picture?



F72CS-Comp2.jpg

 

This one is from our own forum, disregard bathing suit man to right.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I have surveyed many Skeptics by asking this question:

 

Do you see ANY muscle movements on the PGF?

 

You would think they might admit to something but the answer most willing to answer give is NO.

 

I am also impressed norseman.  I don't know how some are not blown away by the muscle movements that move in a functional way. That is, it is not just the muscles bulge in a place or two but the fact these muscles work the way they should work.

I am a skeptic . The answer to your question is yes.  I see muscle movement . I see groups of muscles. This is the only so called evidence  I do not dismiss. I will never trust witnesses and foot prints. Capture and or kill  is the only real evidence available.  I would think by now that would have been  accomplished by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD

Thanks Sweaty, I have seen that pic in fact :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 I will never trust witnesses...

 

 

I was just at a meeting of the NSRS this last weekend, in Hudson Falls, NY....and had the pleasure of hanging out for the afternoon with Brian Gosselin, who claimed to have seen a Sasquatch back in 1976. He's been actively searching since then, trying to cross-paths with another one of these creatures. That's only 37 years worth of active interest in the subject of 'Bigfoot'.

 

At the meeting, Brian said that he would love to be out there searching 6 days a week, if he had the freedom to do it.

 

 

As for myself....I trust his verbal testimony....since it has been backed-up by 37 years of active searching, and a close friendship with Bill Brann...along with the other members of the Group.  :) 

Thanks Sweaty, I have seen that pic in fact :)

 

 

You're welcome, Aaron! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

How does 37 years of searching for something and NOT finding it somehow bolster one's position?  That is ridiculous. Bigfooting must be the only enterprise where consistent, long periods of failure somehow make you a  revered expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

The coelacanth was rediscovered after a period much longer than 37 years. That's just one example of a discovery. Then there was the Wollemia tree, found in 1994, in Austrailia. It was in plain sight the whole time >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia. Biologist were more than happy to jump on the bandwagons, to bolster their positions. As I suspect many skeptics will, once BF is proven to exist.

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

How does 37 years of searching for something and NOT finding it somehow bolster one's position?  That is ridiculous.

 

 

Simple....'Actions speak louder than Words'. :)

 

There are only two possible explanations for Brian's alleged sighting....either he lied....or he saw a real, live Sasquatch. In Brian's case...his verbal testimony is strengthened by his actions.....37 years worth of them.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ Sorry, but that makes no sense Sweaty. How is his verbal testimony strengthened by 37 years of subsequent failure? And why is simply being mistaken not an option as an explanation for his sighting? Just because you don't like to think witnesses can possibly be wrong, does not remove the option from the table, no matter you think or feel.   :)

 

Any comments on the concave thigh muscles? I thought there would be more response since people here love to talk about how anatomically correct Patty is and all....   :)

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...