• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crow,
The palm can be rotated as the whole forearm ( with hand attached ) rotates at the elbow.

That said, even if the hand is rotating at the wrist; how would that adjust bias away from a costume ?
 
Diogenes said:
Crow,
The palm can be rotated as the whole forearm ( with hand attached ) rotates at the elbow.

That said, even if the hand is rotating at the wrist; how would that adjust bias away from a costume ?
Click to expand...

It dosen't. But it does suggest that the arm/hand/wrist was capable of a rotation that didn't cause unnatural issues such as wrinkles etc. Bill Munns is the one to explain the nuts and bolts, opps, needle and thread of rotation especially with the issue of a flappy largely empty glove. However if you subcribe to the notion that its a long arm with a large hand attached efficently filling the big glove the we have all the flex movement and rotation that anyone could want. But the rotation does seem to exist in many of the frames since we get no forward thrust showing palm yet there are several showing palm on the back thrust.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Here we can see the left "mitten", and it's not overexposed, nor is it very bright or white. It's a very odd looking hand.

deeba473.gif
Click to expand...

What??? You mean you can't see the individual fingers? :D

RayG
 
Crowlogic said:
It dosen't. But it does suggest that the arm/hand/wrist was capable of a rotation that didn't cause unnatural issues such as wrinkles etc. ......
Click to expand...
The resolution of the film does not support fine wrinkles..

And Mr. Munns seems to be avoiding the issue of large wrinkles, like the subduction of the upper thigh into the pelvic area and the upper arm into the shoulder ..

On the other hand, a real animal could have loose skin with an appearance of wrinkles; but try to tell that to the Patty fans who insist she is so buff..

Patty is what you want her to be.
 
Greg show us some photos of animals with loose skin that could be wrinkles as in a suit. Purpose breed dogs and cats of course don't qualify.

While you're doing that I've posted some photos of banding not unlike what's seen on Patty.





 
Last edited:
I don't agree that they are not unlike ...

The common argument from Patty cakes, when some anatomical feature not consistent with known morphology is pointed out, is that since we don't have a Bigfoot body - how do we know feature XYZ is not unique to Bigfoot/Patty ?

You missed the point about the wrinkles ..

You seem to be arguing that since Bill Munns cannot identify any wrinkles that he feels are consistent with suit technology, it makes a case for real animal vs suit ..

It does not - because a valid counter argument to that - would be that any animal exhibiting wrinkles like those found in a suit, could possibly be a mime in a suit .

But that is not a good argument - because in spite of the wrinkles - we have much more valid evidence that any given Shar Pei is not a suit.

By the same token, the preponderance of evidence ( or lack thereof ) would lead most rational people to conclude Patty is a mime in a suit, all arguments from personal incredulity notwithstanding ...
 
Greg where are the photos of wrinkled animals? Now you made the statement that animals have banding that do not run in the patterns of the PGF subject. I've posted a photo marking the PGF banding. And I've posted photos of known animals, primates no less that exibit banding patterns of a simillar type. I did not say that the primate banding was identical. To say something is not unlike is another way of say similar. If I was going to term them identical I would have said so.

That you haven't posted "wrinkled" animals suggests to me at least that you've got nothing to show.
 
Diogenes said:
..

On the other hand, a real animal could have loose skin with an appearance of wrinkles; but try to tell that to the Patty fans who insist she is so buff..

Patty is what you want her to be.
Click to expand...

Your above quote does not specify what type of animal may exibit wrinkles. You say only that a real animal might exibit wrinkles.
 
I don't feel like digging up pictures or arguing with you Crow ...

If you really believe the subject of the PGF is anything besides a human in a suit, any effort on my part is a total waste of my time ..

In spite of some fun moments, I'm embarrassed that I have wasted so much time already ..
 
Diogenes said:
I don't feel like digging up pictures or arguing with you Crow ...

If you really believe the subject of the PGF is anything besides a human in a suit, any effort on my part is a total waste of my time ..

In spite of some fun moments, I'm embarrassed that I have wasted so much time already ..
Click to expand...

Then why did you bother to start another thread? You can never go home Greg. You had you 15000 posts it set a record but its toast done. YOu should have known when to quit.
 
kitakaze said:
Ah yes, like Patty piloerection, you mean.
Click to expand...

I posted the photos. However you didn't keep your word that you'd post the wrist band photo. That came from someone else. Walk your talk honey!
 
Last edited:
Can someone please explain me why some people (yep, usually those defending the "Patty is a real bigfoot" position) fail to realize that costumes can effectively change human proportions?

And why some of them also fail to realize that perspective issues, if not propperly dealt with, cripple comparisons between subjects' proportions and sizes?

And why they also ignore the fact that for such comparisons to be valid, camera-related issues must also be taken care of?
 
Crow, the palm does not rotate at all, imo. It's in the same position in both frames of the animation, imo. Background colors confuse the issue, but it's in the same position imo.

The animation is from WP, btw.
 
Crowlogic said:
I posted the photos. However you didn't keep your word that you'd post the wrist band photo. That came from someone else. Walk your talk honey!
Click to expand...
LTC did it before me. Why would you need me to post it again? I asked for a clear demonstration of piloerection from you. I certainly didn't see it in the two sets of images you posted. If that's all it takes for you to call piloerection then pretending to think the PGF is a hoax is the least of your problems.
 
kitakaze said:
LTC did it before me. Why would you need me to post it again? I asked for a clear demonstration of piloerection from you. I certainly didn't see it in the two sets of images you posted. If that's all it takes for you to call piloerection then pretending to think the PGF is a hoax is the least of your problems.
Click to expand...

That's too bad.
 
kitakaze said:
As it relates to Bob Heironimus as Patty I am reposting my 28 "I know" post (now 29) with a couple edits thanks to William Parcher:
Click to expand...

Wheres the proof that patterson tricked people? Not the pgf. Bob H is also full of it
 
Kit, you say sightings are unreliable, yet you accept the testimony of bob h. whos friends and family backs up?
 
makaya325 said:
Kit, you say sightings are unreliable, yet you accept the testimony of bob h. whos friends and family backs up?
Click to expand...

Now that's disappointing. You asked for proof and I gave you proof. Put it right under your nose lickety-split like I Dream of Genie. You didn't make a peep about it, just changed the subject. You asked for proof of Patterson deceiving someone without referring to the PGF as that example and I did.

I don't blindly accept Heironimus' testimony. I'm inclined to believe based on the serious amount of supporting evidence that. I know without concrete evidence to connect BH with the actual suit that my inclination is not without flaws. Still, it's better than any other.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom