PS on Patty's thigh-bulge, breast position, and body-lines
Postscript on my post regarding the Bourtsev statuette of Patty:
I obtained, from Chris Murphy, a large photo of the image of the statuette shown on p. 96 of his
Meet the Sasquatch. I was unable to post it, because it was too big. But I’ve subsequently realized that I can crop around the thigh-bulge and post only that portion, which I’ve done below. The bulge is not as prominent here as it is in two of the four frames in which it is visible in the film. But it is prominent enough that a person closely examining the figurine would ask himself and others what it was. Therefore, the sculptor did not conceal it.
Should he have made it more prominent? Perhaps. But it’s understandable why he didn’t, especially in an early stage of the investigation: it would have diverted attention to a side-issue. Perhaps it was an authenticating feature—a thigh hernia. Perhaps it was a damning feature—a costume fold. Perhaps it was some unknown anomaly. That would have been seen as an issue for specialists to debate. The main intent of the statuette was to communicate to the general public Patty’s ordinary appearance: her dimensions and posture (e.g., her forward lean and knee-bend):
Bayanov said:
The drawings and sculptures were meant as visual aids for those who haven’t been able to examine the film as thoroughly as we have.
Here are a couple of minor points I should have made:
1. Costume fold or thigh hernia?: The ripple of the thigh bulge lasts only four frames, or .25 seconds. A muscle twitch can occur that rapidly. Can a costume crease do so with equal rapidity? Can it do so in all sorts of material, or only in certain sorts? If the material is stretched as tightly as it appears to be over a “well-defined” body, how could there be enough slack in it for such a large ripple to manifest itself?
2. The Low position of Patty’s breasts: If they would be more convincing if placed higher on the chest, more like a human’s, why didn't Patterson do so himself? Also, here’s a supporting bit of testimony to the authenticity of their low position in the film:
The creature was a female, with breasts like a woman’s, but in a lower position on the chest.
3. Were the body-lines caused by a sappy paste?
Mark A. Hall said:
Edson’s observations on the outward appearance and smells associated with the Neo-Giants are especially revealing. He reports that he found traces of moss and sap where the creatures had brushed against trees. Specifically, he thought they used moss and sap as a body covering that gave them camouflage in the forest. … His ideas on the use of a paste to cause moss to adhere to them, given on pages 56-57 of the book, make a lot of sense. Such behavior would help explain features that have appeared in both the P-G film and the famous Redwoods video footage of August 1995. That is, things appear to be suspended from the bodies of the creatures in the films.
The “things” he has in mind include Cliff Crook’s supposed zipper tag (which I’ve dubbed “Patty’s reticule”) at her left waist (briefly visible), the egg-shaped blob that swings at Patty’s hip joint in some sequences, and the possible "tumor" on the right breast. Conceivably, these might also be the cause of Diogenes’ “Donuts” on the arms. (It might have caused the hair to clump together in ridges ringing the arms.) If a paste had been smeared on the body, that might also account for the mysterious crazy-quilt purplish lines seen in the Cibachrome prints on page 54 of Murphy’s
Meet the Sasquatch. All this is highly speculative, natch. But, if the original film can be examined, its additional clarity should enable the iffy-ness of this possibility to be reduced in one direction or the other.
Hmm ... If poop were used as paste, that would account for the foul odor that's been reported.
