Jump to content
Drew

Trying To Draw The Look Back Frame

Recommended Posts

Guest

I am also an artist, and the image youv'e chosen has the same problem that bad, blurry photos that people want me to do portraits from have, and why I refuse to work from them. The reference isn't clear enough to do a good drawing. It's also the reason we are still arguing over the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galahad

I believe every footer that likes to put pencil to paper with an artistic flair has attempted to draw Patty. I do agree there is not enough information to create the perfect rendering. That being said I found it a wonderful exercise of shadow and light. I have an original copy of the February 1968 issue ARGOSY magazine that broke the PGF story. I scanned it to my computer. I enlarged the look back scene to fill the screen. I put tracing paper over the image and traced the outline. Then I went to work with pencil, letting the shadows and light define my interpretation. I also enlarged the face using the same methodology.

Attached are my interpretations.

post-1117-0-28734500-1392168172_thumb.jp

post-1117-0-67886400-1392168206_thumb.jp

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That's a fantastic drawing, Drew. Patty's breasts look just ridiculous to me, always have. Like 60's cowboy conception of what an ape-woman's breasts would look like. Hairy missiles jutting from the torso at nearly 45 degrees. And this is supposed to be an animal which has never seen anything like a bra.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Yeah because we all know that's how dumb and naïve cowboys are. If he were a DJ then I'm sure he would have been scientifically accurate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Thanks to Roger's plagiarism, we already know how he conceived She-foot breasts...

Mort-K%C3%BCnstler-Patterson.jpg

 

Hairy breasts are a lot easier to achieve for a suit than having to make something this size...

Lund-Patterson%2Bwith%2BDrawing.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Patterson made it pretty clear that he thought size was a breed issue, not a gender one.

 

o8xm4k.jpg

 

It's amazing how many times you'll reuse the same old debunked arguments. Maybe we forgot by now, huh?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Do you want people to believe that Patterson envisioned male Bigfoots being in human size range?...

Patterson%2BLineup.jpg

sas008.jpg

 

img048-1.jpg

As tall as a brown bear...

img055-1.jpg

Even a boy Bigfoot is seven feet...

img058boy.jpg

 

It's amazing how many people are incredulous of the notion of making a female Bigfoot for a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^There is nothing that Patterson has done that states a male can't be the same size as a female. Showing me a comparison scale drawing where no gender is specified does nothing for the argument. Neither does his drawings of other people's accounts.

 

There is nothing on his comparative foot size drawing that indicates the smaller non-giant "Bigfoot" and "Sasquatch" shown on the chart are female only. Patterson made no such claim.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's not about whether or not Patterson ever indicated that male Bigfoots could be the same size as females. The fact is that when he chose to depict male Bigfoots, he routinely represented them to be huge, well outside of human range. When he drew females, he showed them to be within human range. For people that are incredulous of the idea that in doing a hoax, Patterson would make a female, it's very simple; making a female allows Patterson to show a Bigfoot within human size range.

 

It's a digression. The breasts of Patty are not in any way natural for primate breasts, human or otherwise. How lucky that Patterson would have an encounter that matches nearly word for word the encounter story that got him into Bigfoot, a creature never seen again there, a place he never returns to, a secretly developed film, don't ask, thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Galahad you've made a pretty good drawing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

It's not about whether or not Patterson ever indicated that male Bigfoots could be the same size as females. The fact is that when he chose to depict male Bigfoots, he routinely represented them to be huge, well outside of human range. When he drew females, he showed them to be within human range. For people that are incredulous of the idea that in doing a hoax, Patterson would make a female, it's very simple; making a female allows Patterson to show a Bigfoot within human size range.

 

Most people today still don't even realize Patty is a female- that's how much of a non-issue it is. Has anyone ever claimed Patty's height was because of being female?

 

How lucky that Patterson would have an encounter that matches nearly word for word the encounter story that got him into Bigfoot

 

 

The Bigfoot having a similar description and behavior is a far cry from being "word for word". You have to ignore a long list of differences to make that claim.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/631-is-it-really-almost-identical-to-the-william-roe-encounter/page-1

 

 

a creature never seen again there,

 

 

No, just a lot more tracks at Bluff Creek and a load of sightings in the surrounding areas.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The fact some wish to show Roger having bigfoot way way out of the human range in size seems to throw a wrench in a roger built Bigfoot suit under 7' tall.   I mean, how does such a hoaxer explain he has ran around telling everyone bigfoot is as big as a bear or a VW bug and yet the film he brings in a little taller than Jim McClarin? (oh so a female is smaller --- yea right)

 

It matters little what Roger or others thought of or assumed prior to the Bluff Creek.  What matters is What Is On That Film.  It's obvious how attacking the messenger is the last reserve for those who can't debunk the message.

 

Now, before we have a list of every person out there who might accuse Roger of being a crook or have a warrant for his arrest, I would have you explain to me how OJ Simpson is innocent because Mark Furman is an admitted liar.

 

In any statistical group you have a range of good and bad. You have all kind of ranges. 

 

What is on that film matters.  If it was easy to show it was a hoax and how it was hoaxed, it would not matter if the Patty Film was in fact filmed by Mother Theresa.  Since they cannot in fact take a 1967 era suit and pull off a Patty Demo they tell us how bad roger is. 

 

And let's not forget if there was a hoax then by definition Bob would have to be in on it. Why no character attack of Mr. Gimlin.?  I have never met the man but he not only seems credible.  Could it be because Gimlin is still alive? 

 

Once again, I would love to see one of those people go up the younger version of Bob Gimlin and say some of this stuff to his face.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 For people that are incredulous of the idea that in doing a hoax, Patterson would make a female, it's very simple; making a female allows Patterson to show a Bigfoot within human size range.

 

 

 

Roger could easily have found someone who was about 6' 5" tall...and, with a cone-shaped costume head that adds 3" to the person's height....he could easily have had a Bigfoot subject of 6' 8" in height. That would have sufficed, for a male Bigfoot.

 

There is no significant argument against the Film's authenticity...based on "needing to make the subject a female, because of a height issue".

 

 

And....there is no "Patty suit". :)

 

Hey kit....got POOF?? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Patty's breasts look just ridiculous to me, always have.

 

Her breasts looked ridiculous to you even back when you were convinced that she was the real deal?? 

 

post-131-0-34226900-1392400455.jpg

 8 )

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Too funny, xspider... :lol: 

 

I think I can have some fun with that quote of kit's in the Tar Pit section. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...