Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

TD-40

Can someone explain the idea of hip waders under fur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

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. 

 

That may be flawed.  Do all fish inhabit all areas of the ocean?  No.  If one were to focus on the habitat of the fish they are seeking, it would seem to me that it would be easier to catch a fish than a higher intelligent primate.  Fish react on instinct much moreso than a primate (that may have some level of cognitive ability).  Fish commonly have a much higher population than that of a upright walking primate.

The ocean is vast, yes.  But once can easily target specific species once habitat is determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Can someone explain the idea of hip waders under fur?

 

PattySideProfile1.jpg

 

The line across the thigh.........many skeptics see this as evidence of some sort of hip wader used in a suit. Bill Munns proved that this "fat line" is present in older female Homo Sapiens.

^^ 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?

 

Not necessarily. If a muscular man or woman put on a suit of that era without stretchy fabric or velcro could we see the muscles underneath? Or would it look more like this?

 

gorilla-suit-black.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^ 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?

 

FWIW to anyone who has claimed to have never done an in-depth study of the intricacies of the mechanics of the Patterson Creature's movements because of an initial gut reaction to seeing the film, I want to state that it is not enough to just show ways of faking the appearance of muscle under a suit, but to also do it so to show such muscles working in correlation with other muscles under various weight shifts and ground pressures in the manner that nature had intended them to be.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

*image removed

 

The line across the thigh.........many skeptics see this as evidence of some sort of hip wader used in a suit. Bill Munns proved that this "fat line" is present in older female Homo Sapiens.

 

Not necessarily. If a muscular man or woman put on a suit of that era without stretchy fabric or velcro could we see the muscles underneath? Or would it look more like this?

 

*image removed

 

 

The line across the thigh? Was this demonstrated by Bill Munns to be present on the outside of the thigh, as in Patty, or on the rear, lower buttock, as in the picture you provided earlier?  

 

My other comment was a response to you Norse where you said it was your understanding that based on suit technology of the time that we should not be seeing muscles at all. I was simply pointing out that you are assuming that what you are seeing are muscles. What if they are not and only appear to be muscles?  I am just trying to determine if you are saying that a suit of that time period would not be able to reflect the muscles of the person wearing it OR you are saying that suits made then could not display fake muscle movement.  That is all. Just a point of clarification.

FWIW to anyone who has claimed to have never done an in-depth study of the intricacies of the mechanics of the Patterson Creature's movements because of an initial gut reaction to seeing the film, I want to state that it is not enough to just show ways of faking the appearance of muscle under a suit, but to also do it so to show such muscles working in correlation with other muscles under various weight shifts and ground pressures in the manner that nature had intended them to be.

 

Bigfoothunter

No, not gonna build a suit for you Bill.

Edited by chelefoot
quoted image removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
No, not gonna build a suit for you Bill.

 

dmaker,

 

No one asked you to build a 'suit of the time' showing muscles not only under the fur, but also working in correlation with other muscles and forces just as nature intended them to be. To do that would take a very complex undertaking .... would you not agree. My response was in reference to the usual simplistic way skeptics, like yourself, reference what could and could not be done without even knowing by your own admission what intricacies were even displayed by the Patterson subject.

 

Many of us just watched a thread unfold about the track depth left behind on the P/G site sandbar ... according to an observation that Michael Dennett made years ago. Skeptics relied on Dennett's simplistic approach as well, only to find out that his 'smoking gun' was shooting blanks. We witnessed the result of what happens when skeptics lay claims of what can and can and cannot be done without first studying and or testing the very evidence that they are criticizing.

 

I only raised a valid point because I once listened to a body building instructor discuss the Patterson subject and how its muscles had not only developed with use, which gave some possible insight as to how it functions in the wild, but also the details he gave as to what is observed on the film as to how those muscles worked in correlation with the other muscles at the precise times they would in the real world. Your response didn't seem to have considered those things is all I was getting at. I certainly didn't expect you to be able to build anything that could mimic with perfect what only nature can. And I certainly didn't expect a response any better than the one you gave in return.

 

Bigfoothunter

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Dmaker wrote:

The line across the thigh? Was this demonstrated by Bill Munns to be present on the outside of the thigh, as in Patty, or on the rear, lower buttock, as in the picture you provided earlier?  

 

Outside of the thigh, and if you look closely the picture I posted has it as well.

 

I found it:

 

 

 

Around 39:00 minutes.

 

My other comment was a response to you Norse where you said it was your understanding that based on suit technology of the time that we should not be seeing muscles at all. I was simply pointing out that you are assuming that what you are seeing are muscles. What if they are not and only appear to be muscles?  I am just trying to determine if you are saying that a suit of that time period would not be able to reflect the muscles of the person wearing it OR you are saying that suits made then could not display fake muscle movement.  That is all. Just a point of clarification.

 

Then I would say that you would have to demonstrate to me that in 1967 the muscle suit technology was there to deceive me. Because I do not think that its just an artifact of the film or someone's wranglers underneath the costume.

 

They are convincing enough to me that either they are real, or someone put them there............with each choice being quite spectacular in it's own right. 

 

A) Unknown species.

B ) Cowboy invents muscle suit 20 years before Hollywood does.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

Those lines could not have been made by hip waders. Back then, waders were made of neoprene or latex as thick as a bicycle tire. I don't think even a baggy wader used for bulk would have had lines like those pictured. Todays waders are made of a thin Gore-Tex material, and a baggy pair would have made those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

'Hip Waders' have about as much to do with the PGF subject as 'Hippies wading in a pool' do... :smoke:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

patty2.jpg

 

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

 

 

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.

Patty's gastrocnemius appears to be severely displaced.

 

 

 

raising-calves.jpg

052c24ef-d01f-4c8a-bcb1-9a91e7454aaf_zps

 

Wouldn't this alignment be more realistic, if we are looking at a real calf muscle on a real bigfoot?

Edited by Romano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

More light and shade lines on fur found on a low quality film copy that you interpret to be muscle bulges, Romano?

 

Bigfoothunter

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Wouldn't this alignment be more realistic, if we are looking at a real calf muscle on a real bigfoot?

 

You know the muscular makeup of a bigfoot calf?

 

Or are you demonstrating that a human could not have a muscle composition as what is seen?

 

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TD-40

I don't expect the physiology of a human calf to match Patty's. They occasionally get down on all fours--we don't. They have a different step. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

yes

That may be flawed.  Do all fish inhabit all areas of the ocean?  No.  If one were to focus on the habitat of the fish they are seeking, it would seem to me that it would be easier to catch a fish than a higher intelligent primate.  Fish react on instinct much moreso than a primate (that may have some level of cognitive ability).  Fish commonly have a much higher population than that of a upright walking primate.

The ocean is vast, yes.  But once can easily target specific species once habitat is determined.

depends on the fish

but I still don't think the subject is relevant to Bigfoot in a meaningful way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

If we are to assume that the calf muscle of a unidentified upright walking Ape is exactly the same as our own? I think you would be correct, yes, to a degree.

 

But I've already addressed this in previous posts concerned her apparent "pigeon toedness" and compliant gait.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...