• 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.
BTW, as an aside, I was just watching a mini-doc about the making of Hellboy II. (Bear with me for a moment, this is actually relevant!) I was watching all the costumed monsters run around with their latex muscles, and thinking that Patty's musculature is extremely crude in comparison, when I saw something that really caught my eye.

It was Hellboy/Ron Perlman's pants leg. In a segment in the making-of section called "H is for Hotel", there is a profile shot of Perlman perched up the giant "H", hanging on wires as he goes about his actorly business. His black, shiny vinyl pants, which are fairly loose fitting, fell into a series of white-on-black folds that closely or even identically resemble the pattern in the pic I've numbered 21, above.

One fold angles down from the knee to taper off mid-ankle; the other mirrors the first, angling back out from the mid-ankle to the spot where the ankle meets the foot.

Anyone who owns this disc can cue up the doc in question and examine it for themselves. It seems awfully coincidental that a piece of "foreground foliage" (which magically moves with a locomoting figure!) would be placed precisely where material folds are demonstrably, verifiably, inarguably located.

Flipping through some of my art books, I see the same effect can be seen on p. 56 of B. Hogarth's Dynamic Folds and Drapery, 1995.
 
Last edited:
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.

Great, I knew you would turtle on that (complete with the "scoftics" whine). I find it awesomely fitting(;)) that you would go to utterly ridiculous, mind-numbingly ludicrous lengths to remain in denial of the skeletal overlays showing that a real, average human skelton fits BH and Patty just fine, and yet when it comes to doing the simplest thing in proving that your gobbledy-gook Vision Realm pseudo-science art fluff is valid, you back out and flee.

And it's a very good fit, he says!

:dl:

That funky chicken walking thing with the insane legs is a very good fit. Oh, Sweaty, you wear your bias like a sombrero. Here's your funky chicken (2:30)...



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

1) Re: BH - you ignored posts 2184 and 2185. *plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

2) Re: Tube - you ignored post 2197. *plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

3) Re: The general question of Patty's "inhuman" proportions - you ignored all the posts in which I showed the numbers of my own proportions and compared them to Patty's, and came out more squatchy by your own preferred method (distance from arms to ground) while standing fully erect...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5128738&postcount=2200

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5128934&postcount=2209

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5129161&postcount=2215

*plonk* Debate - Sweaty style.

Sweaty can not handle those posts. :chicken:
 
Why can't Sweaty and I be more like this?

Because Óðinn is intelligent, actually open-minded, intellectually honest, unafraid of concepts that challenge his opinions, and will deal directly with arguments as they are presented to him and fully engage them without dodging or obfuscating. As are you, as is Vort, as is Astro, and as am I.

Sweaty is none of those things and thus debates with him are more a matter of playing cat and mouse with a conniving person always trying to get away from what's right in front of them.

We all wish it could be more like this. It unfortunately is the way it is because dealing with fanatics is never about logic, never about true debate. That's why Óðinn is a welcome breeze of intelligence.
 
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.

Baby got back. Except that back is like half-full beanbag chair.:D

I also see the suit looking very ill-fitting on the upper and lower arms. Don't get me started on the tummy rocks.
 
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.

What about the left leg in #19. Isn't there a substantial fold a few inches below the knee and another near the ankle?
 
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.



That may be true......BUT.....following that method does not account for the significant difference in the distance from the 'fingertips to the feet'...between Patty and most everyone she's compared with.



Vort wrote:

.....measuring 'arm length' from the eyesocket is an absurd and delusional method of measurement.


This is a mis-characterization, based solely on semantics.......specifically...what the body length/proportions I've been refering to in my comparisons are called.

What I've been comparing is not just simple 'arm length'.....it's a length that's related to the subject's 'arm length', but also includes other body limb lengths, and proportions.



The fact of the matter is....'Arm length' is not the ONLY potential difference in body limb proportions between 2 different species of animals. So, naturally, any potential differences between Patty, and humans, would need to be looked at, and compared.
 
"Fingertips to feet" is not a valid unit or method measurement. What precisely is being measured here? The arm is measured shoulder joint to fingertips; the leg from trochanter (the femur bone joint) to sole. There is no limb or segment of the body that can be accurately measured "from fingertips to feet". It makes as much sense as measuring the arm from the eyesocket!

The length "from fingertips to feet" varies depending on whether the subject is stooping over and hunching the shoulders, and the degree to which the legs are bent. Patty is stooping, hunching, and "its" legs are bent at the knee. All of these actions/postures affect the apparent length "from fingertips to feet".

Try it! Stand up, then stoop your head and hunch your shoulders down. The reach of your arms will extend toward the floor. Now bend your knees! Your fingertips will reach even farther toward the floor.

Why this should be any kind of revelation is yet another query for the ages.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Sweaty is none of those things and thus debates with him are more a matter of playing cat and mouse with a conniving person always trying to get away from what's right in front of them.


JT1.jpg



Enjoy...:)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKcECZxigPY


Take you to the cinema, and leave you....in a Wimpy Bar...
You tell me that we've gone too far...
come running up to me...



BTW....as far as this 'dare' to me....to debate with you...

Another dare - I dare you to actually step into a real debate with me. One where you can't be chicken on the run. One question or point from you and I must address before any other post. Then it's my turn. You could not handle that. You would go white as a sheet. You could not function in an honest debate where you are not allowed to be conniving and dishonest.



No thanks, kitzo. :) There is no reason to debate anything with you....because 99% of what you have posted on this board is meaningless babble....including...(but not limited to ;) )...twisting of the truth....misrepresentations....and false accusations. In a word, sewage.


Coming soon.....a collection of kitakaze's 'subtle twistings' of the truth.
 
Vortigern wrote:
The length "from fingertips to feet" varies... depending on whether the subject is stooping over and hunching the shoulders, and the degree to which the legs are bent


That length can also vary... depending on the body proportions of DIFFERENT SPECIES. Is that NOT true???
 
Show me a bipedal primate and we'll talk "truth".

The existence of Bigfoot, and arguements for and against it, are irrelevant to the analysis of the Patterson film. The lack of remains, and the lack of a suit, dampen both hopes of finding the truth
 
Wow....It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known!
But we don't.

We have an casting of an "alleged" footprint, but no proof that this was actually made by "Patty".

If we accept that the casts ARE true casts of the footprint made by the figure in the PGF, we still can't do that much with it.

Scenario 1. "Patty" is a man in a suit. Therefore the "footprint" is most likely to be a boot print. We have no way to determine how much larger than the person wearing the suit the bootprint might be. So using human proportions to determine height from an unknowable boot size is inaccurate.

Scenario 2. "Patty" is an unknown primate. Since it is unknown, we have no species on which to compare body proportions and therefore no knowable equations to use to calculate height.
 
There is also that footprints tend to be larger than the feet that made them, especially in soft mud as the moist soil spreads outward from the pressure of the impacting foot.

There is also that the film is fuzzy, the subject very tiny inside the film frame, obliging an investigator to blow up the size thus distorting the image, and the fact that motion blur distorts the apparent size of the subject's various body parts, including the feet.

This, added to EHocking's points about boot size within the suit, and the probability that the prints might not even have been made by the subject of the film, and you have a thick brick wall against using the footprint casts as a measuring tool for the subject's height.

[Last post for awhile. Busy day today.]
 
Scenario 1. "Patty" is a man in a suit. Therefore the "footprint" is most likely to be a boot print. We have no way to determine how much larger than the person wearing the suit the bootprint might be. So using human proportions to determine height from an unknowable boot size is inaccurate.

Scenario 2. "Patty" is an unknown primate. Since it is unknown, we have no species on which to compare body proportions and therefore no knowable equations to use to calculate height

So what you are saying is that, until better evidence for bigfoot surfaces, the suit explanation is the most likely?
 
Vortigern wrote:



That length can also vary... depending on the body proportions of DIFFERENT SPECIES. Is that NOT true???

Your arms to ground gobbledy-gook is absurd, meaningless, and just plain stupid. In both comparisons to me Patty can not beat my 35.81% of total body height from arms to ground, arms straight at my sides not hunched at all. My arms are normal human arms, my proportions, normal human proportions. There is nothing exceptional about them. Once again, by your very own preferred method, I am more squatchy than Patty McLumpy is. Anyone is free to repeat my measurements. Your arms-to-ground nonsense as a manuever to try and hold onto the concept that Patty has inhumanly long arms is destroyed.

*bzzt* FAIL. Next.
 
No thanks, kitzo. :) There is no reason to debate anything with you....because 99% of what you have posted on this board is meaningless babble....including...(but not limited to ;) )...twisting of the truth....misrepresentations....and false accusations. In a word, sewage.


Coming soon.....a collection of kitakaze's 'subtle twistings' of the truth.

99% meaningless babble? I understand your fear, Sweaty. Post # 2243 contains links to some of the posts that directly destroys your ridiculous, desperate fanatic arguments. Those are posts that you could not hope to try and directly deal with. Living in a UFO, Martian civilization, Bigfoot filled world, I don't think you have a firm enough grasp on reality to deal with the basic logic in those posts.

You go right ahead and post my "subtle twistings of the truth." Have a little sweaty fit. You will do anything other than deal with the straight, logical arguments I present that destroy your fanatical flailings.
 
So what you are saying is that, until better evidence for bigfoot surfaces, the suit explanation is the most likely?
Non sequitur. Nothing in your or my posts implied that conclusion.

Try reading for comprehension.

The context of the post would have been sufficient.
That post was in response to this statement by you,
"It is not feasible to know Patty's exact height, even with her Footprint size being known! "

Hell, I even left that quote in my response so you HAD context.
Since it was a response to one of your posts, how difficult for you is it to maintain a line of thought beyond two posts?

No wonder you get called for trolling.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom