Over the years, I have had some training in the arts. Also, my mother was an oil painter and taught oil painting for over 20 years and some of her knowledge has rubbed off on me. One of the first things I learned is that untrained artists will invariably make two mistakes drawing or painting the human body. One is the eyes will be too high on the head. The other is the female breast (standing) will be too high on the chest. As I look at Patty, I see that her breasts are in a perfectly natural location (for a human female). In the human female, the breast (visually) starts at the arm pit....not the collar bone as many untrained artists will place them. Attached is an example of a sketch showing the breasts too high. I could post examples of the "real" thing for comparison, but I'm sure it would be bleeped put.

I'm not sure where this goes....it's just an observation......if this "suit" was made by an amateur, this is an area I would expect to see a mistake. Another small reason that reinforces my belief that PGF is genuine.

On the other hand, I think it's completely plausible that Patterson had kept abreast of the known female primate parameters.

Yeah, or he could have consulted any number of magazines to verify the proper location.

Well, there's high, low and too low.. Not to mention Two, too low ..

Patty's seem too low to me..

Not just droopy ( cause they're not droopy ), just attached too low..



We discussed it at length here ..


Patterson creature's breast dynamics

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4643



Of course there can be a lot of variation, and Patty could very well lie outside the norm ...
All we have to do is determine what the norm is for Bigfoot, then see where patty actually fits ..



( Four to go, and counting .. )

Folks, he'll be here all week.

Congratulations Greg, I think that is by far the worst and most biased photo comparison you've ever offered. Nice job.

3 tips.

a. horizontal planes of view (not looking down or up)
b. vertical spines with landmarks at shoulders and hips or top of pelvis (not elbows)
c. gals with real boobs, older than 20

I was going to state that it isn't a valid comparison because they are wearing tops.

you're assuming Patty's boobs are real . . .

two of my own tips...use comparisons with women who have:

d. breast feed for more than 6 weeks
e. are not an a or b cup to start with and not wearing a bra

OMG how vulgar. I laughed so hard I threw up. Just a little.

Vol removed it. Too bad. Others are now deprived of the vulgarity.

Greg, Regarding the two pictures on the right, do you have any more angles, or other views of those two photos, I think this would help me to get a grip on this scenario.

All great tips ... I think this subject needs just a bit more tweaking before we can truly get a feel for it.


This could go on forever ... or until Jaylee shuts us down.

This topic is sagging far below the normal BFF guidelines, I ask that everyone try to lift the conversation, to a more suitable level...

I fully support that.

Boobies.


Will someone, for heaven's sake, please post a picture of Benny Hill.

Please search under "Ornithology Thread" to find a thread suitable for that comment please...

This thread is devoted to breasts, and we are just beginning to dive into the topic.

Most sorry.




Yours Truly,
Jugs McFlappaby

Nope.

If Greg is going to try to refute that they can't be real, he needs to stick to the rules. His contention is that they are in the wrong place, therefore comparing them to (arguably) fake implants isn't really valid.

Minus 2 for logic on our usually sharp Saskeptic.

I've got to get out of this thread before I get a black eye, especially since I think the original question is a bust either way.

-A

Soon this thread will be only a mammary.

One more thing, since the majority believe bigfoot is an animal, most likely a type of ape, why not compare the placement to known apes rather than a human?

anybody hear what sounds like a "motorboat" ?

dav

Jack-

Where did you get that drawing of the woman you inserted in the first post?

I knew it was immediately familiar and similar to this image that I thought I posted somewhere before but maybe not? Here's the image and associated chapter from this great old gorilla book, Willoughby, All About Gorillas, 1978.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Don't remember for sure, but probably right here on this forum.

I think that Yakety Sax would be more appropriate, don't you think?!

Benny Hill Theme: Yakety Sax

Alan

Always happy to please ..

I was going to try to counter that; went searching among your offerings trying to find the worst and most biased, but couldn't make up my mind..

Shouldn't be a problem for you to compare the subject's breast parameters with those of
actual primates, and show how they are morphologically sound ...

I always liked this animation ..
Among other things, It shows the upper arm moving independently of the shoulder, the upper thigh sub ducting the fur covering the butt and what would be the pec muscle, moving independently of the right breast ..



Perhaps you could explain why the left breast is seen to bob up and down while the right one remains relatively
motionless...






( Only three to go..)

I love how even poor Patty is reduced to the shape of her breasts. LOL

Humans are a type of ape. I think that any extant member of the Hominidae family would be relevant.

Is it just me or is using these images for a comparison totally inappropriate?

Not only are the shape of the breasts in these images altered by bras and silicon, they do not seem in any way suitable for a thread meant for a serious discussion. I assume you are using the images to somehow make a joke?



Patterson was, at least to an extent, an artist. I have seen some busts he carved of sasquatch, as well as sketches of sasquatch. One even showing breasts, though I am not sure if his placement of these on the chest were accurate or not?

Not to burst anyones bubble, but I hope this whole Patty thing pans out to be the real deal, otherwise a lot of time has been spent dissecting a 40 year old piece of grainy footage portraying the breast portion of a cleverly devised ape suit....

A cynic might see this thread as a crude opportunity to post pics of girls boobs and the accompanying discussion that naturally follows. We'll have to ask Harry when he weighs in if that is true. I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you to even consider the thought.

SG, this view is a little easier to see how the shoulder is/is not connected. It looks connected in my opinion and seems natural but different than a normal person. She swings her arm like a pendulum and the shoulders don't really move enough to be sure.
Click to view attachment

Agreed Bob.

I've NEVER been able to see this disconnected shoulder that Skeptical Greg keeps going on about. I think he's seeing what he wants to see.

That's why I prefer Playboy to National Geographic. I delt with Native Tribes in Central America. Women in thier late 20's had breasts to thier knees (ok not that bad but you get the picture). Most girls start wearing bras here (US) before they even get thier "buds". I know buying my daughters first bra was something like me saying, "why, you don't even have nubs". Then came a cold look. Then came me helping her go through racks of bras.

No, minus 2 for Saskeptic for humor that apparently wasn't humorous enough for the usually jovial Apeman.



(I was going for Patty being real, but having had a boob job . . .)


BTW, for the David Wilcox fans out there:

"She got a what?
She got a boob job.
No!
Yeah!
Put a pad of silicone up against your breastbone.
Boob job!
Get down.
Boob job!
Pick 'em up again.
Boob job!
Treat her like a man-made thing. No."

While I would like to stick my nose into this subject, the constraints in place do not allow it at this time.

Glad to see this thread has perked up gotten people's attention again.

I understand that evaluating the PG film as a suit, certainly invites discussion of the elements comprising the suit. That is fair game. Determining if they are anatomically correct goes down a slippery slope.

I would call the breasts 'inconclusive'. If a suit, they are an intriguing edition - that arguably, do not provide the 'smoking gun' that you are looking at a suit.

If attached to a real animal, they do not appear to move in a fashion that one might expect with the footfalls of a 500 lb. + female.

But as can be expected with all discussions revolving around females from the male perspective it always comes down to the boobs and the buns.

It seems that not one person that responded to this thread actually read the initial post.

Of course, Greg, none of your photo's and lines have anything, at all, to do with what I was referring to. If I were referring to the bottom of the breast, then my statement that it begins at the arm pit would put it (the breast) above the arm pit.....and to think someone might draw a breast above the collar bone......well......that would make funny looking shoulder pads.....would it not?

I was referring to where the curve of the breast starts, visually (level with the arm pit). Where it ends depends on a lot af factors with gravity being a major one. The little drawing I attached has the breast starting at the collarbone and this is the common error I was referring to. Halters and bras don't fit into the natural scheme of things and Patty isn't wearing one.

If you look closely at the photos you posted, Greg, notice that all of those breasts begin at (with only slight variations) the arm pit, even where halters might alter that some...none begin at the collarbone (or clavicle, if you prefer). That was my observation......not how low they might go.

Greg- Thanks for catching my double negative, sorry about that and hope everyone got what I meant. I've surely shown some biases depending on what I was trying to demonstrate but I think I've been pretty fair about admitting them and acknowledging weak comparisons, usually ahead of time, unlike you've done here. So please don't try to drag me down with your own sloppiness.

And I don't care to rehash this same old debate with you again. Read the other threads and remind yourself how I and others have answered all these questions before.

Saskeptic- Please throw me an emoticon next time so I know you're joking. The problem with people like you and I is that our incredibly sharp senses of humor and acute wit are often hard to decipher because of our otherwise usually profound, earth shattering soliloquies [sarc]

-A

As the self-appointed Defender of Truth? you are bound to be misunderstood and demonized by the skeptical masses. In other words, your veiled hilarity and hijinks pass through an altitude far superior to the craniums of the passing reader.

Stay On-Topic, please.

Could it be that, due to Patty twisting to the right, the right breast is stretched slightly, causing it to bounce less while the left breast remains loose and freely moving?

Or possibly because the right breast is completely camoflauged by the dark body, the movement may be somewhat concealed. I can see a slight "jump" at the top of the right breast as the right foot makes impact with the ground. The left breast appears to have a more visible bounce being away from the body.

A better comparison might be something like this: http://www.drsherwyn.com/gallery-breast2.htm

(Warning: pictures of breasts, from a plastic surgeon's website)



Judging by the 'before' pictures, Patterson got Patty's 'suit' just about right.

OK, here's my scholarly (for lack of a better term) take on Patty's breasts:

pro authenticity:
*their existence at all - would've been easier to make a "male" suit
*their location - I agree Jack: the breasts hang about where I might expect them to on a wild woman of Patty's persuasion

con authenticity:
*position and shape - the breasts hang about where I think they should, but they're not sagging or pendulous. They look to me like two coconuts stuck on to the torso, rather than really hanging as low as they appear to. They seem too perky to be hanging so low.
*texture - we can call her gate "fluid" as much as we want, but I would expect natural breasts to move more obviously than Patty's do.
*hair covering - they strike me as a bit over-furred, even though I'm betting she appears no furrier than the typical range for mountain gorillas . . .

BUT, anything I might perceive as "odd" in her appearance could simply be interpreted as "that's what sasquatches look like," so my observations are not falsifiable, i.e., they ain't science.

So we can talk breasts and make light and muse about Patterson, etc., but as with everything about this iconic film, it remains in my mind inconclusive.


PS: Apeman, my rapier wit is so sharp that it prevents me from mastering the use of emoticons (or for that matter, balancing my checkbook), and I think the phrase "just kidding" represents an abhorrent stifling of spontaneous humor in our culture. I'll find some way to make my jibes more obvious next time!

I have always been a leg and shoulders guy myself (too many old movies I guess). But have you seen the calves on Patty? Kinda reminds me of a song. Wanna tell you a story, bout a woman I know. When it comes to lovin, you know she steals the show. She aint exactly pretty, ain’t exactly small. 7 foot tall,500 pounds, you could say she got it all…..

There is just something about this video that screams real to me. Nothing scientific, cause I am just a layman, but it just seems too difficult to hoax these details that we argue about today. Why would they go to such lengths to hoax this? And if they could do it then, why can’t we do it better 40 years later?

Those pictures of Mickey James and Trish Stratus are not good comparisons. Very few of the WWE divas have natural ones. There is more silicon in the WWE than in a certain well known California valley.

One of the reasons why Patty's breasts are fuller than the average ape's and do not move as we might expect is that she might be a fairly new mother. I am sure, but do not know for sure, that a breast full of milk would move differently than ones that are not. If this is the case Platboy would be a poor source for comparison as well.

Not sure I can agree with this expectation, Saskeptic. Patty's breasts are only visable for about 5 seconds (or less) and the camera isn't very steady either. Very hard to see whether there is movement or not in that short time frame.

When I walk naturally, I weave and bob slightly, but when I walk with bent knees it's very easy to walk with my head and torso absolutely still (no bobbing or weaving). I'm not able to mimick Patty's gait, but I can walk with knees slightly bent. It seems to me that the natural, stiff legged gait of humans is what causes the side to side and up and down movement. Our knees almost lock as we walk. Patty, on the other hand, walks bent kneed without locking her knees. One might argue that she's walking over rough terrain and that might cause movement, but I would say that she looks fluid without stumbling or any signs of stepping over objects and, if real, she's been walking in that terrain all of her life. Wildlife can move very effortlessly in their own habitat where we are very clumsy by comparison. If there's no torso movement (of the bobbing and weaving type), then there would be no breast movement either (of the bobbing and swaying type).

Saskeptic wrote (in relation to a pro argument regarding "Patty's" boobs):






There's also the possiblity that Patterson, who had been involved with the phenomenon for years, was aware that alleged sightings of females, on average,
involved an estimation of body size smaller than your average male Bigfoot sighting. If it was a guy in a suit, perhaps he figured that a relatively average-sized human male (e.g. Bob H.)
would be perceived as being closer in size to a female Bigfoot that the supposed average size of a male bigfoot. Therefore, let's add some boobage.