Jump to content
hiflier

Patty's Shoulder Width

Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

I am no expert in shoulder pads . I am an expert in being  a 7 foot weightlifter. The creature and or costume wearer is wider than me and bulkier with  calves that I am envious of. If a person with glued on hair . I am impressed . Very impressed.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

That 'person with glued on hair' is the person Bob Hieronimus claimed that he was. But he said it was a two piece costume. Either way, he's not the guy. And you are right about the calves, for a girl Patty was sure jacked! And just so you know I;m not dissing female body builders,he was also just BIG.

 

4 hours ago, JustCurious said:

Going back to the OP, here is a visual representation of what is being described: sag lines.jpeg

 

Note that shoulder pads that reach to just short of the elbows achieve width in the shoulders.  You can tell where the human hand is and arm extensions are inserted to keep the arms from looking too short.  However, notice how droopy the extended arm looks and how unnatural the shoulder looks.

 

Exactly my point, Just Curious. At least a half dozen people have beat me to it though. I think at this point all I've done is drive the above point home. Pretty cool how the 'sticks' that extend the arms also limit the ability for the arms to swing back behind the body in natural fashon. Because shoulders are not meant to do that when stuck out sideways from a Human Torso. If that's Philip Morris in the photo? It's one of the worst Gorilla suits that I have ever seen. The folds and how the suit hangs are a joke.

 

9 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Thanks for the mention, Wiia. :)  

 

I have already posted some analysis of Patty's upper-body, and shoulder width.....several years ago....on both the BFF and on JREF. The images probably aren't displaying, at this point, though. 

 

Here is a quote of mine on JREF, from 2009.....replying to a post of Gigantofootecus'/Odinn's...

 

 

 

One key point regarding Patty's exceptional shoulder width, is that it means her elbows would reach further away from the center of the body/spine...with her arms stretched out to the side, than an average human's would. And then, factoring in the exceptional length of her upper-arms.....the differential in the reach of the elbows would be even greater.

 

Using actual numbers....if Patty's shoulder width is 4" greater, per side, than an average human's....and if her upper-arm length is 3" longer than an average human's....then, with her arms out-stretched....her elbows would reach 7" further away....(per side)....from the center of the body, than an average human's would reach. 

Even though we don't see Patty with her arms fully outstretched to the side....the "extra" lengths of the shoulders and upper-arms still place Patty's elbows in a position which is measurably beyond where a human's elbow would reach. 

 

These two film frames show Patty's right arm out away from the body....with the exceptional 'reach' of the elbow...

 

Patty_Elbow_Reach_Two_Frames2.jpg

 

 

Here is a comparison with an 'average human'. Placing 3 dots on the subjects...

 

Patty_Elbow_Reach_Two_Frames3.jpg

 

 

.....we can see that the total area of a triangle involving the 'center of the body' and the 'elbow position'....(points unaffected by a suit, and padding)....is significantly larger on Patty, than it is on an average human subject.

That triangle accounts for the exceptional width of the shoulders....in addition to the exceptional length of the upper-arm.

 

 

What can, and should, be done....is an entire 'Upper-Body Geometry' analysis. It would include measurements of Patty's upper-arm length.....upper-torso width....shoulder width....'elbow reach'....and the space/gap between the side of the torso and the upper-arm.

 

The 'open space' between the side of the torso and the upper-arm is a key detail...because, if a person's 'torso width' is widened, via padding...then the (limited) open space between the upper-arm and the side of the body disappears, or becomes greatly diminished. That is one way of telling whether the subject's actual shoulder-joint has been altered/hidden by a bulky suit. (If a suit is made which widens a subject's shoulder-width....it would naturally also be made to widen the torso. Otherwise, the subject would look kinda silly.)

 

 

 

SweatyYeti, for the sake of precisionand and after a closer look, the yellow dots on the Human's back, and on the elbow, are not anatomically located where Patty's are. They are both too high. Lowering them slightly will in no way affect the significance of what they are showing regarding Patty's larger dimensions.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

This thread will be a week old tomorrow. So far? No rebuttals, slams or debates. At least I think everyone is thinking little more about this. As far as parts of the Human body go the span of the shoulders (vs.arm swing, vs. elbow location, vs. hand and finger movement) is the one thing that is difficult to artificially make wider by 10 inches or more and still have a Human inside a suit operating that suit in such a natural way as what's in the PGF. The bending elbow location, the flexing wrist, the moving fingers. WOW! Patterson and Company circa 1967 was some kind of over-the-top genius outfit. Better that any other in the industry- and without any training no less, had managed to create a realistic-looking enigma that stands to this day? It's these kinds of thoughts that have driven this thread and created the idea for it even though others in the past had made the same observations. I cannot think of a better time to have it all resurface and get investigated with today's computer tools. Go for it.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

This thread will be two weeks old tomorrow so I have a question. It has been often said in the past that the wearer of the Patty 'suit' wore football shoulder pads in order to make Patty's shoulders look massive. See just about anything stated by Philip Morris and 'Mr. change-the -story-three-times-Bob Heironimus' himself. But the shoulder pads idea fails for Patty's shoulder width of 30 plus inches. Bob Hieronimus' shoulder span at just under 20 inches STILL means that his elbows would only protrude from the suit about 3 inches on a side. It would mean that even with shoulder pads (if they could even be so wide) the entire shoulder area would consist of Bob's elbows having to stick out past even the shoulder pads.

 

So the question is this, actually it's a bunch of questions: Does anyone think that someone holding their arms say 80- 90 degrees from their body, under shoulder pads, with their forearms pointing down at the ground is even feasible. And then to do it while walking  with at least a three foot stride and keep it up for at least a minute? While holding sticks in their hands, with gloves on the ends, so that their wrists act like elbows in order to look like normal arms hanging down and swinging loose, relaxed and natural from 30 inch shoulders?

 

And then, on top of that, put that Human inside the Patty 'suit' with the added weight of the material and padding around the 'fake arms' and have everything rehearsed in such a way as to make people think it's a real creature. Real enough to have debated it for the last 50 years? And then think of everything that could make it go wrong in order to make everything go right? And most importantly, why would any one back then even think 30 plus wide shoulders would even be necessary in the first place?

 

Does anyone still believe such a thing? That ALL of these things were thought of in advance, designed, constructed, to include breasts and THEIR OWN movement, and then employ everything in a matter of days with the materials available in 1967? And have it all come together to look like the subject in the PGF? With Roger Patterson and, Gimlin, and Bob Heironimus all choreographed to pull it off? And then drag the entire operation out to Bluff Creek and do it in one take in the last minute of a reel of 16mm film? And (with no other footage shot after all of that, even though a second reel of film was on site) never to be done again? 

 

Because everything mentioned above would have to have taken place and be true, just as I laid out, or NONE of us would be here, skeptic or otherwise.     

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

This thread will be two weeks old tomorrow so I have a question. It has been often said in the past that the wearer of the Patty 'suit' wore football shoulder pads in order to make Patty's shoulders look massive. See just about anything stated by Philip Morris and 'Mr. change-the -story-three-times-Bob Heironimus' himself. But the shoulder pads idea fails for Patty's shoulder width of 30 plus inches. Bob Hieronimus' shoulder span at just under 20 inches STILL means that his elbows would only protrude from the suit about 3 inches on a side. It would mean that even with shoulder pads (if they could even be so wide) the entire shoulder area would consist of Bob's elbows having to stick out past even the shoulder pads.

 

So the question is this, actually it's a bunch of questions: Does anyone think that someone holding their arms say 80- 90 degrees from their body, under shoulder pads, with their forearms pointing down at the ground is even feasible. And then to do it while walking  with at least a three foot stride and keep it up for at least a minute? While holding sticks in their hands, with gloves on the ends, so that their wrists act like elbows in order to look like normal arms hanging down and swinging loose, relaxed and natural from 30 inch shoulders?

 

And then, on top of that, put that Human inside the Patty 'suit' with the added weight of the material and padding around the 'fake arms' and have everything rehearsed in such a way as to make people think it's a real creature. Real enough to have debated it for the last 50 years? And then think of everything that could make it go wrong in order to make everything go right? And most importantly, why would any one back then even think 30 plus wide shoulders would even be necessary in the first place?

 

Does anyone still believe such a thing? That ALL of these things were thought of in advance, designed, constructed, to include breasts and THEIR OWN movement, and then employ everything in a matter of days with the materials available in 1967? And have it all come together to look like the subject in the PGF? With Roger Patterson and, Gimlin, and Bob Heironimus all choreographed to pull it off? And then drag the entire operation out to Bluff Creek and do it in one take in the last minute of a reel of 16mm film? And (with no other footage shot after all of that, even though a second reel of film was on site) never to be done again? 

 

Because everything mentioned above would have to have taken place and be true, just as I laid out, or NONE of us would be here, skeptic or otherwise.     

 

I would say with time we get better at things. 

 

The first rocket attempts were crude and just getting a satellite into orbit or a man in space was a major accomplishment.

 

As far as the suits go, many of the suits now have a muscle suit and then add a stretch fur suit over that suit look pretty good.  This is obviously due to advances in suit tech and methods just as far as the suit only.  Then add lighting, camera effects, editing and so on and you help sell the suit. 

 

A suit of today can look pretty good and it can even look at time a little bit like the PGF effect in some respects.  The key continues to be the fact the film was made 50 YEARS AGO and suits at that time were not convincing.  It is also easy today to think what we can do today easily we could do then as well.  Not so.  This is even mentions by the Jim Henson guys who say, "I don't know how they would have done that (PATTY)  in 1967" even though the demonstrate stretch fur they he would use today to explain what he sees.

 

We could watch some 1970's Baby Sitter show where some Psycho to call her on the phone.  Later the police call her and say, "We have traced the call, its coming from inside the house.  Get out!"     Today kids would just laugh and say, "Why don't they just use Caller ID" and so on.  It is the same with the suit thing.  We assume you could just take some junk suit from 1967 and throw some football shoulder pads under it to bulk it up and it would fit just right.   In fact, it would fit and function very convincingly.   Sure.  I doubt it.

 

I don't know what the football shoulder pads would do as far as an inch here or a arm length there.  What I can say is the fact the suit claimed to be Patty was not originally designed to have someone take football shoulder pads and throw them in there.  (oh, and lets not forget the added breasts)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

And with the difficulty of producing a convincing suit for a movie,  why would two cowboys add complexity of breasts?     If you want a scary creature for a movie,   you would not think lactating female since that is the only time apes have prominent breasts.     You would want a big scary male and throw in fangs and claws for good measure.     None of that is evident in the PGF.     Now I suppose some skeptic will naively argue that they had to make Patty look like like reports at the time,   forgetting that previously they have argued the BF phenomena started with the film.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I'm curious which skeptics have argued that the BF phenomena started with the PGF film, hard to make that argument seeing how prior to the PGF Patterson was already attempting to cash in on the BF subject.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Several have made that claim and assume at the same time if they can prove the film a hoax, then the BF phenomena will simply go away.   The most ardent of them have lost their forum access.     Why else would skeptics be arguing over a 50 year old film?    Real or hoax,  the film has no bearing on the existence of BF,  since no one,  skeptic or believer,    should accept the film as proof of existence.       I certainly don't because it does not meet the scientific standards required.     

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
55 minutes ago, Twist said:

I'm curious which skeptics have argued that the BF phenomena started with the PGF film, hard to make that argument seeing how prior to the PGF Patterson was already attempting to cash in on the BF subject.  

 

Packman on XCreatures 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
7 hours ago, Backdoc said:

What I can say is the fact the suit claimed to be Patty was not originally designed to have someone take football shoulder pads and throw them in there.  (oh, and lets not forget the added breasts)

 

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

That ALL of these things were thought of in advance, designed, constructed, to include breasts and THEIR OWN movement, and then employ everything in a matter of days with the materials available in 1967?

 

Heh, I didn't BD. I mean who could forget THOSE on such a hottie as Patty was ;) They were enough but toss in those 30 inch shoulders and she was quite a wom.......uh.......gir......uh.......female. Yeah, that's it, female. That's the ticket, that's what I meant. 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×