The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Yup......me likes it.

But what bearing does your subjective opinion have on the actual validity of Vision Realm's artistic interpretation of what they think Patty's skeleton looks like?

And how can it enter into a discussion of objective measurements of Patty's proportions?

Fear is the mindkiller. Don't dodge, don't flee. Grow some mental beans.

 

[captain koolaid]

You are using Pattybones to analyze the film?

Yup.

So, you are employing a made up skeleton, to analyze a made up monster, that featured in a made up screenplay, for a made up movie, that doesn't seem to exist anymore?

Outstanding. The results are bound to be concentrated awesomeness. Carry on.

 

[SweatyYeti]

But what bearing does your subjective opinion have on the actual validity of Vision Realm's artistic interpretation of what they think Patty's skeleton looks like?

And how can it enter into a discussion of objective measurements of Patty's proportions?

Sorry, kitty....but I'm just not interested in proving the VR skeleton's validity....to the "skeptics"....(scoftics, actually)...of Jref. From the overlays of the skeleton over Patty....in LMS....it looks to me to be a very good fit.

Others are free to have their own opinion of it.

Fear is the mindkiller... Don't dodge, don't flee. Grow some mental beans.

And Comparisons are the killer of the myth of Tube's, Bob H's....and others...arm length "equality" with Patty.......

Ooops for Tube!

Eventually....I'll post a nice montage of killer comparisons.

 

[Vortigern99]

A few months ago, I created a crayon/MS Paint image that overlays known human musculature onto Patty, as a kind of experiment to see if human anatomy could correspond to the surface shapes I was seeing on the figure.

(At the time, I believed that the Patty suit was a muscle-costume similar to the Star Trek Gorn suit, with padding under the surface to approximate human muscle-forms. I am no longer certain this is the case, but that is another discussion, which I'm willing to elaborate on by request.)

The image is attached below. Please note that I do not believe these muscle-shapes to be actual, living tissue. However, their placement is convenient for indicating the general areas of anatomy on the person who is inhabiting the suit. Note that the deltoid/shoulder muscles, in blue, are located along a line that is not parallel with the ground, but is tilted at a considerable angle (as Astrophotographer has correctly noted upthread). As a result, the right arm is significantly lower than the left, including the hand and fingertips.

Also note that the trapezius muscle of the upper back, in purple, is not outside the range of normal human muscles in terms of its shape or its location on the body.

This is in all probability a person in a large, padded suit, the gloves of which, along with the hunched, low-held shoulders, make the arms appear to be slightly longer than the arm of a normal human being.

 

[Vortigern99]

Also, once again, measuring arm length from the eyesocket is an absurd and delusional method of measurement. Differing placements of the head and shoulders between subjects will affect and distort the measurement.

To measure the arm, one measures from the shoulder joint. Following this method will produce arms of nearly identical length in both Tube and Patty.

 

[Vortigern99]

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

 

[Astrophotographer]

And Comparisons are the killer of the myth of Tube's, Bob H's....and others...arm length "equality" with Patty

Comparisons are as lame as the person who is presenting them. I have no doubt that you could compare and Elephant to a Giraffe and then say they were the same creature. Numbers Sweaty, Numbers is the key. How about giving us some real values because your comparisons get more absurd by the day. They prove nothing. Keep trying to convince yourself.

 

[makaya325]

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

The film's resolution is too crappy to make out any kind of Muscle/fabric detail.

 

[Vortigern99]

The film's resolution is too crappy to make out any kind of Muscle/fabric detail.

Fair enough. Please provide an alternate hypothesis as to what the shapes I've indicated might be, because they are 1. highlighted, indicating raised areas catching the light, and 2. angled in the direction we would expect folds and drapery to angle.

 

[Óðinn]

Further, no BF proponent/believer has even attempted to refute my contention, which I formulated months ago, that we can see material/fabric folds in the baggy leg and back areas of the PG figure, indicating a suit. The epidermal tissue of every known primate is drawn tightly around the underlying musculature; it does not bag and form into drapery folds as visible in the following images.

Not sure what you're pointing at in 6. Left arm? Bottom of the scapula?

12 looks like the highlighted bicep femoris (somewhat distorted).

19 & 21 are the same foreground foliage. They are not even part of the leg.

Mostly, I see a pretty snug fit, suit or skin. Except maybe the butt could use some work.

 

[Vortigern99]

Not sure what you're pointing at in 6. Left arm? Bottom of the scapula?

12 looks like the highlighted bicep femoris (somewhat distorted).

19 & 21 are the same foreground foliage. They are not even part of the leg.

Mostly, I see a pretty snug fit, suit or skin. Except maybe the butt could use some work.

First, let me apologize for the limitations in the images and software I'm using. I'm a professional freelance illustrator and art instructor; however, I do not use computer graphics in my work -- it's a personal, professional choice -- and as a consequence my "graphics software" is extremely limited.

That said, everything I'm indicating can clearly be seen on the frames under review with a minimum of attention and scrutiny of the images.

In 6, my arrow indicates a horizontal line that bisects the left half of the back, cutting across the dark, central line of the spine on a line perpendicular to the spine. This line is in the approximate location of the teres major muscle, or slightly below it; however the actual teres does not cross over the spine and is not a straight muscle as seen in the image. This highlighted, perpendicular, non-teres, spine-bisecting line can be seen in several successive frames of the film, remaining in the same location on the figure as it moves, so we know it is not a film artifact or a piece of foliage.

In 13 (not 12), I'm not indicating the biceps femoris, as that muscle runs along the anterior (front) of the thigh, and cannot be seen from this posterior angle. What I'm indicating here is the high-lit, diagonal slash that runs from the inner upper right thigh, down to the exterior lower right knee area. The arrow head indicates the endpoint of this high-lit slash. This same slash can be seen in 6, though in that pic the slash tapers off mid-way across the thigh, exactly as we would expect a material fold to do in this position.

19 & 20 cannot be foreground foliage because, again, these high-lit slashes can be seen on successive frames of the film, and they move with the figure, remaining in the same place on the figure as it locomotes. Foreground foliage would remain fixed as the figure moves behind it.

In my opinion as a professional illustrator, these are fabric folds. They behave according to the principles of drapery (which rules can easily be seen/verified by parading oneself in front of a mirror in loose-fitting clothes).

There are many smaller lines that also appear to conform to these principles of drapery, but I have only indicated the most prominent. For one example, in 6, at the base of the right foot, one can make out a series of three high-lit lines, arranged in a kind of pyramid form, radiating from the base of the calf muscle, exactly as we would expect fabric to radiate from a single attachment point, according to the aforementioned principles of drapery.

Primate skin (at least, the skin of every known and studied primate) is tight-fitting and does not behave in this way.

 

[Óðinn]

As Vort mentioned, measuring the arm must be an exercise in relative scaling. If you don't know how far Patty or McClarin are from their respective cameras, they can't be accurately scaled and compared. Also, their bodies were in different orientations and they likely weren't the same height either, walking or standing. But we don't know how the torsos were proportioned w.r.t. body so you need the entire body lengths (heights) to compare their relative arm lengths. Which is missing from these images.

There is only 1 way to compare the arm lengths when you don't know the scale of the subjects; work backwards. Scale the arms to the same size, then compare their bodies. Whoever's arm is the longest, their body gets underscaled (shrunk) the most. We would expect McClarin to be a bit underscaled because his arm would be longer than 6' tall Patty's. Probably by about 1.5" or approx 6% of his arm length. This is not very intuitive mind you, since it's a negative covariant relationship. The longer the arm length, the smaller the body scales to the other subject and vice versa.

First you have to assume that their arms aren't appreciably foreshortened or that they are similarly foreshortened. Which is a big if. Averaging over several frames would tell. Then estimate the endpoints of the 2 arm vectors (radius & humerus). For McClarin his wrist and elbow appears well defined, so we have his radius down. The top of his humerus looks tricky though. When I measured my own humerus/radius ratio, it came to 1.13 (no error est). So applying that ratio to McClarin's radius helped place the top of his humerus. This doesn't have to be exact as long as we do the same for Patty. I used frame 350 instead of 352 because Bill Munns scan was too dark to locate the elbow and wrist. But frame 350 is from an unknown source and I'm taking a chance that the aspect is correct. Seems to be.

You can use the frames adjacent to 350 to pin down the approx position of the elbow. Then the wrist band is assumed to be the bottom of the radius (unless a prosthetic hand was used). Note Patty flips her hand backwards at the wrists (which she does in several frames, which is an odd thing to do unless the hands are flopping around). Then apply the radius/humerus ratio again to get the top of Patty's humerus. Now we have arm vectors which can be scaled to the same lengths and we can see if McClarin could have been wearing the suit. If it was his arm in there, his body would fit too.

This is all about placement of the joints, which must be done over several frames as the joints articulate. Human membral ratios can fill in the gaps. It's ok to assume Patty is a guy in a suit as long as we can locate his elbows.

This is a very informal comparison of McClarin's and Patty's arms. The most important point, however, is that the aspect of their images is correct. IMO, it's very close.



The length of the arm vectors were scaled the same for McClarin and Patty. We should expect to see McClarin approx the same size as Patty since his arms are longer. He's 6' 5", she's 6' 1", so his image would be underscaled (shrunk) by 6% to fit his longer arm over Patty's shorter arm. But instead what we see is Patty's body is underscaled. This shouldn't happen unless Patty's arm to height ratio is greater than McClarin's. But it wouldn't be by much. Patty's body is underscaled the same percentage as her arm is longer than McClarin's. Maybe by 10% or so. Not a ton, but significant.

So the arms appear to be a few inches longer than say, Bob H's arms (without hand extensions), but probably not outside the human range. If tube was in the suit (same height) then the arm does seem a bit long without extensions.



Every person I've measured the arms against show Patty's arms are approx 10% longer. Is this enough to suggest that hand extentions were used? The elbow says no. Now what about the ASH ratio?

 

[Vortigern99]

Here are some crude overdrawings, indicating in white the location of each major fold.

ETA: Compare with the "original" (Davis-enhanced) pics, in an above post on this page.

 

[Óðinn]

First, let me apologize for the limitations in the images and software I'm using. I'm a professional freelance illustrator and art instructor; however, I do not use computer graphics in my work -- it's a personal, professional choice -- and as a consequence my "graphics software" is extremely limited.

That said, everything I'm indicating can clearly be seen on the frames under review with a minimum of attention and scrutiny of the images.

In 6, my arrow indicates a horizontal line that bisects the left half of the back, cutting across the dark, central line of the spine on a line perpendicular to the spine. This line is in the approximate location of the teres major muscle, or slightly below it; however the actual teres does not cross over the spine and is not a straight muscle as seen in the image. This highlighted, perpendicular, non-teres, spine-bisecting line can be seen in several successive frames of the film, remaining in the same location on the figure as it moves, so we know it is not a film artifact or a piece of foliage.

Shoulder pads or odd shaped scapula? BF anatomy can be anything it wants tho.

In 13 (not 12), I'm not indicating the biceps femoris, as that muscle runs along the anterior (front) of the thigh, and cannot be seen from this posterior angle. What I'm indicating here is the high-lit, diagonal slash that runs from the inner upper right thigh, down to the exterior lower right knee area. The arrow head indicates the endpoint of this high-lit slash. This same slash can be seen in 6, though in that pic the slash tapers off mid-way across the thigh, exactly as we would expect a material fold to do in this position.

Must be my triscadecaphobia. I meant 13. Whatever it is, it is a fixture of the leg. The outside muscle or tendon (or padding) that can be seen in subsequent frames. But not a fold in the fabric.

19 & 20 cannot be foreground foliage because, again, these high-lit slashes can be seen on successive frames of the film, and they move with the figure, remaining in the same place on the figure as it locomotes. Foreground foliage would remain fixed as the figure moves behind it.

Nope, foliage. I can post a GIF for you demonstrating this, if you like. You can track it as Patty steps thru.

In my opinion as a professional illustrator, these are fabric folds. They behave according to the principles of drapery (which rules can easily be seen/verified by parading oneself in front of a mirror in loose-fitting clothes).

There are many smaller lines that also appear to conform to these principles of drapery, but I have only indicated the most prominent. For one example, in 6, at the base of the right foot, one can make out a series of three high-lit lines, arranged in a kind of pyramid form, radiating from the base of the calf muscle, exactly as we would expect fabric to radiate from a single attachment point, according to the aforementioned principles of drapery.

Primate skin (at least, the skin of every known and studied primate) is tight-fitting and does not behave in this way.

I don't see anything that is definite fabric. Because if it was, it would have to be snug one second and loose the next. Is that a principle of drapery?

Also, keep in mind these are pretty fuzzy images.

 

[Vortigern99]

Shoulder pads or odd shaped scapula? BF anatomy can be anything it wants tho.

Well, no, BF anatomy cannot be anything it wants. Form follows function. Did you know that chimpanzee muscular anatomy is almost wholly identical to human anatomy, even though chimps are quadrupeds? A bipedal primate of some unknown species would have similarly identical musculature, especially one that is so close to human morphology as Patty visibly is. There is no functional purpose for a muscle (or bone) that stretches across the spine in the way we can see in these images.

Whatever it is, it is a fixture of the leg. The outside muscle or tendon (or padding) that can be seen in subsequent frames. But not a fold in the fabric.

How can you make that claim with such confidence? Initially you identified that muscle as the biceps femoris, which indicates to me you're not as well-versed in muscular anatomy as you would have us believe. The musculature of the leg does not run at a 45-degree angle as seen in the images; the posterior thigh muscles, the semimembranosus and semtendinosis, along with the lateral/profile muscles vastus externus and the ilio-tibial band, run parallel to the line of the leg; they do not cut across it at a diagonal, as seen in the pic.

Nope, foliage. I can post a GIF for you demonstrating this, if you like. You can track it as Patty steps thru.

I reiterate that the shapes move with the figure and do not remain fixed, as foreground foliage would. I'm looking at a multiplicity of images that corroborate this observation as I type. Please post a GIF providing evidence of your claim.

I don't see anything that is definite fabric. Because if it was, it would have to be snug one second and loose the next. Is that a principle of drapery?

Also, keep in mind these are pretty fuzzy images.

Yes, as the underlying form moves it provides an anchor point from which the drapery radiates. The fabric is snug in one area and successively looser as the material radiates away from the anchor point. As the underlying form moves, the anchor point vanishes (observe your elbow straightening and bending in succession while wearing a loose-fitting shirt), which means that tight fabric will turn into loose fabric, then tight, then loose again during the repetitive movements of the underlying form.

That the images are fuzzy does not explain how high-lit streaks and slashes are moving precisely as drapery would be expected to do.

 

[makaya325]

He's 6' 5", she's 6' 1",

Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!

 

[Óðinn]

Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!

We are assuming that Patty is Bob H. Hence the thread title.

 

[makaya325]

We are assuming that Patty is Bob H. Hence the thread title.

Ok then, I apologize for jumping the gun.

 

[Óðinn]

Well, no, BF anatomy cannot be anything it wants. Form follows function. Did you know that chimpanzee muscular anatomy is almost wholly identical to human anatomy, even though chimps are quadrupeds? A bipedal primate of some unknown species would have similarly identical musculature, especially one that is so close to human morphology as Patty visibly is. There is no functional purpose for a muscle (or bone) that stretches across the spine in the way we can see in these images.

I'm talking about pointing out a feature and saying "that can't be a sasquatch, look at the scapula, it's all wrong."

How can you make that claim with such confidence? Initially you identified that muscle as the biceps femoris, which indicates to me you're not as well-versed in muscular anatomy as you would have us believe. The musculature of the leg does not run at a 45-degree angle as seen in the images; the posterior thigh muscles, the semimembranosus and semtendinosis, along with the lateral/profile muscles vastus externus and the ilio-tibial band, run parallel to the line of the leg; they do not cut across it at a diagonal, as seen in the pic.

I'm certainly no anatomy expert. So you're right, probably semimembranosus and semtendinosis. You know..whatever that persistent band on the outside of the leg connected to the knee is supposed to be. But not a fabric fold.

I reiterate that the shapes move with the figure and do not remain fixed, as foreground foliage would. I'm looking at a multiplicity of images that corroborate this observation as I type. Please post a GIF providing evidence of your claim.

I'm not at my home PC, but I'll cobble something together when I can. What say others on JREF? This was originally what was used to suggest the calf muscle was flexing. I think the consensus was foliage.

Yes, as the underlying form moves it provides an anchor point from which the drapery radiates. The fabric is snug in one area and successively looser as the material radiates away from the anchor point. As the underlying form moves, the anchor point vanishes (observe your elbow straightening and bending in succession while wearing a loose-fitting shirt), which means that tight fabric will turn into loose fabric, then tight, then loose again during the repetitive movements of the underlying form.

Maybe, but I don't believe it's happening on this film. We can't easily interpret what we see, for example when you thought some foreground object was a part of the suit.

That the images are fuzzy does not explain how high-lit streaks and slashes are moving precisely as drapery would be expected to do.

Wishful thinking? It happens on both sides of the fence.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm talking about pointing out a feature and saying "that can't be a sasquatch, look at the scapula, it's all wrong."

I'm talking about pointing to a feature and saying "that can't be a primate, look at the scapula/teres group, it's all wrong." Form follows function. Chimps (and other apes) have nearly identical musculature to human beings, and in this case a bipedal primate would have identical or nearly identical musculature as a human being. There is no muscle on any primate that cuts across the spine.

I'm certainly no anatomy expert. So you're right, probably semimembranosus and semtendinosis. You know..whatever that persistent band on the outside of the leg connected to the knee is supposed to be. But not a fabric fold.

The ilio-tibial band is what you're referring to. It's not a muscle proper, but a band of tissue connecting the joints of the leg, and it runs along the side/profile of the leg, not the posterior/rear of the leg. Also, you're neglecting my point that the semimem. and semitend. muscles run parallel to the leg; they don't cut across it at an oblique angle. Material folds do that; muscle groups do not.

I'm not at my home PC, but I'll cobble something together when I can. What say others on JREF? This was originally what was used to suggest the calf muscle was flexing. I think the consensus was foliage.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you've got.

Maybe, but I don't believe it's happening on this film. We can't easily interpret what we see, for example when you thought some foreground object was a part of the suit.

You haven't shown that "foreground object" is any such thing, so please don't get ahead of yourself. The same shapes run continuously on the same area of a moving figure; they don't remain in place while the figure moves behind them.

Wishful thinking? It happens on both sides of the fence.

I have no agenda apart from the truth. As to "wishful thinking", I can assert that I want there to be a bigfoot out there somewhere. I wish there were a BF; I really, really do. I would love it if Patty were proven to be a real non-human North American primate. So by your logic, if "wishful thinking" were at play, I should be attempting to discredit the idea that these streaks are fabric folds, not supporting it.

It's important to note here that you're ignoring key points, forcing me to repeat myself, which indicates a degree of intellectual dishonesty on your part. Are we having a legitimate debate in which we address each other's observations, or are you intentionally dodging points for which you have no response?