Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

dmaker

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.

No one was actively looking for the coelacanth...they just stumbled across it. Locals had been eating it. We have live specimens now. There is no winning comparison between coelacanth and Bigfoot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

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. 

 

I would say a couple things, #1)  Let's use the term "alleged" biologist ;-), #2) Does this biologist have expertise in primate anatomy? (Seems to me Sask is a bird biologist) #3) When did this biologist study Sasquatch leg anatomy to know exactly how the muscle groups should look?

 

Same sort of questions that can be posed to BF proponents when they start discussing behaviors and what-not.

Oh, and isn't Saskeptic a female?  (not that it matters either way).  Maybe I'm wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Not sure Saskeptic's gender. Avatar is male, so I just assumed. Dunno...

 

As for the rest, yes Saskeptic studies birds. But you do not start out studying birds. All of your undergrad and some of your graduate studies would be in general mammalian biology. So I think this person is qualified to comment on something as general as thigh muscles in a primate. 

 

But also by your same logic should people now stop saying how anatomically correct Patty looks like since we have no type specimen  to look at?  But just using layman observational skills, it does seem rather odd that the thigh muscles would be concave. I mean look at pictures, look at your own even...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stan Norton

Saskeptic's avatar is the renowned biologist Ernst Mayr who among many other things developed the biological species concept. Its use may give the impression that he/she is a wise old bird who is the font of all biological knowledge...as I've said before I'm related to a PhD who I wouldn't trust to change a plug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Hi dmaker:

 

Say, by chance can you direct me to a frame that exemplifies the concavity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

Not sure where to get frame by frame pics, but pause at 05:25 and the thigh looks rather more concave than I would think normal. Also looks a lot like hip waders under the hair to me too.



Saskeptic's avatar is the renowned biologist Ernst Mayr who among many other things developed the biological species concept. Its use may give the impression that he/she is a wise old bird who is the font of all biological knowledge...as I've said before I'm related to a PhD who I wouldn't trust to change a plug.

But of course every word spoken by Krantz, Meldrum or Bindernagel is Bigfoot gospel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

WHOA!

 

I'm not here to talk about ancient fish, someone's lack of search skill............OR Patty's thigh.

 

Sweaty Yeti: 

 

Thanks for posting that up.

 

Dmaker:

 

Did my response to you with the compliant gait make any sense to you?

 

Also, her tricep, in that photo I can clearly see the shoulder and tricep muscles.



 

Not sure where to get frame by frame pics, but pause at 05:25 and the thigh looks rather more concave than I would think normal. Also looks a lot like hip waders under the hair to me too.



But of course every word spoken by Krantz, Meldrum or Bindernagel is Bigfoot gospel....

 

Munns has proven that you can get that exact concave "hip wader" line to appear on real women because of fat deposits.

 

fat-thighs1.jpg

 

But this is not what we are here to talk about..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

So the answer is, "NO" they do not admit or see there is any muscle movements under the hair/fur.   If a person does not SEE the muscle movements then it matters little if they have a PhD or a 3rd grade education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No one was actively looking for the coelacanth...they just stumbled across it. Locals had been eating it. We have live specimens now. There is no winning comparison between coelacanth and Bigfoot. 

 

One of my least favorite topics when connected to bigfoot.The other probelm with the coelacanth is that there is a huge difference between the environments.  I can only assume that finding an animal in the ocean is more difficult than finding a large ape in North America. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^ Sorry, but that makes no sense Sweaty. How is his verbal testimony strengthened by 37 years of subsequent failure?

   :)

 

 

Because actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter that he hasn't had another clear sighting....(he has encountered plenty of further evidence).....what matters is what he has done.....his 'actions'. They strengthen and support the integrity/honesty of his verbal testimony.

 

 

dmaker wrote:

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.   :)

 

 

 

Because of a combination of details....the closeness of the sighting, along with the very loud/very deep vocalization of the subject. Brian is 100% certain that what he claims to have seen was not a guy in a suit.

 

Also, a few other people claimed to have seen it over the course of two nights....and they would also have to have been mistaken.

 

There are only two possible scenarios, in this case.....lying.....or seeing a real Sasquatch. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So the answer is, "NO" they do not admit or see there is any muscle movements under the hair/fur.   If a person does not SEE the muscle movements then it matters little if they have a PhD or a 3rd grade education.

settle down

 

I can't really say for sure what I'm seeing.  The quality is obviously a little rough but I can't say that the muscle movements are not happening.  IMO there are some very interesting frames that I cannot explain but then there are also some frames that feature what I consider problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Can you see the line on the calf that I'm talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If we see some detail in the calves or other muscles in great detail or we see some of it in mild detail, the detail we do see suggests a functional movement.  That it, while no one knows for sure how a man ape is suppose to move for comparison, we do have experts in same or similar movements. 

 

I become more impressed with some of these movements or the bulk when I fail to see the effort to successfully mimic it by the nay sayers. 

 

The calves  and other muscle movements react in a way that matches the functional expectation of the movements we witness. The right Quad and thigh group react in a manner like we would expect from patty turning and stepping down on the 'money shot'

 

These things by themselves do not make patty real. What they suggest is the muscle movements observed match the expectation of what we should see biomechanically when compared to the closet thing we have to go on. that is, the walking movements of humans.  In this way, I am talking about the muscles. There are other non human qualities such as the heel to the buttock that is non human and interesting to observe.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

It's my understanding that we shouldn't be seeing muscles at all, considering the technology of suits at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ I assume you mean "fake muscles" Norse? As in the quality of suits at the time preclude displaying what might be perceived as muscle movement?

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...