|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
13th April 2010, 10:03 PM | #921 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
|
14th April 2010, 02:11 AM | #922 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
You must, you thought it was worth your time and the readers time at BFF to post what you did. If that isn't pandering to the masses at the BFF, I'm not sure what is.
Is this what your quest for truth is all about?
Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus on BFF
|
14th April 2010, 04:52 AM | #923 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Quote:
What was your point, other than to engender yourself to the peanut gallery ? P.S. Here is Vort's first post .. http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?p=4495844 Please point out where, in your opinion, the kicking and spitting began ? |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
14th April 2010, 05:03 AM | #924 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
Quote:
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
14th April 2010, 07:44 AM | #925 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Originally Posted by Gigantofootecus on BFF
The members of the JREF seemed not to believe that I could "switch sides" so easily. (I think you guys must have thought I was a 'Footer mole? ) The skeptical community here did indeed excoriate me for pointing out what I perceived to be accurate human musculature on the PG figure, even though I tried to make it clear that these were probably just features molded onto a suit. Any argument I presented showing musculature was virulently beaten down by LT and Skeptical Greg, among others. And rightly so! Other anatomists and human figure artists, as familiar with human musculature as I am, do not see the muscles that I see on the PG figure. So it's reasonable to conclude that my perception is purely subjective, the result of apophenia (akin to pareidolia). No one "broke my will" or "drove me away from the light" (whatever that means!). I simply came to new conclusions as a result of acquiring information I had previously lacked. I hope this dispels this discussion, which is a sidebar to the thread topic, and we can all move on now. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
14th April 2010, 08:21 AM | #926 |
Watching . . . always watching.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southeastern USA
Posts: 2,378
|
Sir, you are a class act. I don't think that there is a real (or fourth-dimensional) bigfoot creature, but if the evidence comes along, may my change of opinion be as graceful and forthright as yours has been.
|
14th April 2010, 09:05 AM | #927 |
Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 147
|
|
__________________
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man. BOC 1977. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) |
|
14th April 2010, 01:32 PM | #928 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
This is something of a red herring, and fish always tastes better with a grain of salt, but IMO the above images don't appear to match up for two reasons: 1. The angles and the poses are different. In the PG figure the deltoid wedge overlaps the teres masses, whereas the anatomy close-up is seen straight-on, with no overlap. 2. Fat and epidermal tissues also contribute to the surface features of real anatomy, which you cannot see on anatomical drawings. Anyone who has read my posts knows I don't hold the opinion that the figure is a real non-human animal. That said, with my professional experience in human muscular anatomy, I assert that I observe what are IMO accurately-placed human muscles in the back and arms of the figure. However, at the end of the day, none of the above matters, because the existence of the 1966 Gorn suit (among others) proves that muscle-formed costumes were available at the time. That knowledge falsifies any claim that Patterson could not have obtained such a suit. On the thread topic, Bob Heironimous' accounts never mention a muscled undersuit. Does this give me cause to reject Bob's claims? Possibly, but I also must acknowledge (as I have elsewhere) that the optical illusion of apophenia (similar to pareidolia) may be occurring here, and that I might be taking shapes, formed by the natural draping of the fabric over the actor's body, as individual muscle groups which do not in fact exist. Hence the red herring thing I mentioned above. ETA: Thanks for the love, Spektator and LuvGodzilla. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
14th April 2010, 02:24 PM | #929 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
I challenge you to show any back and shoulder, at any angle, where we see the vertical bifurcations seen on the PGF subject, as indicated by my blue lines.
Also the circular bulges on the arms .. I know we have disagreed about this in the past, so I really don't expect it to change; we just don't seem to see the same thing here .. .. Maybe we can peruse the Watchmen DVD, and see if Doctor Manhattan can accommodate us with a suitable angle to make a more valid comparison . P.S. If you don't want to rehash old arguments, I will understand and not consider it a win .. We can agree to disagree.. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
14th April 2010, 05:48 PM | #930 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
14th April 2010, 06:00 PM | #931 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Ballzheimers.
You're all mixed up again. What I said was that you were making a steaming pile of ridiculous special pleading because you were surmising that Bob was with Roger a "loooong" time, and that he must have asked Roger about how the suit was constructed. I told you he was with Roger and Bob for a couple hours at night and then the early part of the next day doing the filming. It's also funny that you think that if Bob asked a lot of questions, Roger would give a lot of answers. Bob was the hired schmuck to not pay. I also told you that Bob personally told me there was no inner core padded muscle suit. Butt, shoulders, head is what he said. *yawn* |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
14th April 2010, 06:06 PM | #932 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
|
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
14th April 2010, 06:35 PM | #933 | ||
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
Good Lord, lighten up. Sorry you didn't see the humour in that post. Feeling guilty perhaps? My follow up post (which got deleted) was a more serious attempt to tell Vort's tale re the JREF. I respect Vort's opinions and I never intended to dis him.
|
||
14th April 2010, 08:32 PM | #934 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 408
|
Oh for the... I'm a dick?
There is a good argument that I am and I'm sure many would agree, but in this case I wasn't. All I did was post what is public knowledge. If you wanted to play both sides you should have been more discrete. It's your fault, not mine. Now quit backpedaling and blaming others for the problems that you caused yourself. For cripes sakes I feel like I'm talking to my kids. Now...Pish, posh. BTW, I thought this was hilarious;
Quote:
|
14th April 2010, 08:34 PM | #935 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Greg, all manner of image searches at google and yahoo yield no pics of the necessary area in the necessary pose. If I may suggest it, please go to a mirror, turn your back to it, and hold your arm close to the body and slightly back, and you'll see the inward-facing line of the deltoid bulge. It's not a back muscle, rather it's part of the arm, the shoulder, the interior curve of the deltoid wedge.
This area is more or less pronounced in different individuals. In "Patty", it's admittedly something of a whopper, but I've seen similar definition in bodybuilders. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
14th April 2010, 09:31 PM | #936 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 182
|
Not seeing it.
|
14th April 2010, 09:34 PM | #937 | |||
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
You know, you keep talking about dicks and you guys are just going to bring Samwell around.
Oh god...
Too late. Now let's get back on topic or I swear to god I'm going to start just typing "Odin" and hacking the Old Norse chickenscratch and Blackdog will get an E collar. Or I'll just post more Samwell... |
|||
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
||||
14th April 2010, 09:47 PM | #938 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
In post #887 I posted images of the type of football pads Patterson probably used and images of where he would have gotten them. I hate getting into this goop, but I when I look at Patty's shoulders, I see a match.
I would spend more time looking closely at Patty, but then I would want to forget it after thinking how many thousands of hours I've already wasted doing that. And then after that I would remember Duane and Harvey Anderson and Roger admitting hoaxing, as well as Roger doing his Babe Ruth to various people about filming Patty, and I'd just want to smack myself. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
14th April 2010, 09:51 PM | #939 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
These bulges on the back shoulder on Patty (to me anyways) look more like fur and fur lines. I don't believe this represents a muscle at all. That being said ! I am not saying that muscle, fat and skin folds cannot be seen under fur.
I just don't necessarily believe that this bulge in the back of the shoulder represents a muscle. Light and shadows on fur can play tricks on the eyes. This is an Gorilla. |
14th April 2010, 09:58 PM | #940 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 182
|
What I find odd about that is Bob H says it felt like shoulder pads in the suit, he talks about putting on the suit with a bottom and top, no padding, just the suit, and yet if he was wearing the football shoulder pads he would have had to put them on separately. He would have known for certain he was wearing shoulder pads.
|
14th April 2010, 10:12 PM | #941 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
We don't really know what modifications Patterson had done to the suit? He could have taken parts of shoulder pads and sown, glued whatever into the suit. So that might explain why it might have felt like pads in the suit?
|
15th April 2010, 03:08 AM | #942 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
|
15th April 2010, 04:08 AM | #943 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
15th April 2010, 05:00 AM | #944 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Then Bob wasn't Patty.........since, if it was a suit, it must have had a custom-formed inner-core....of significant thickness... Notice how Patty's wide back narrows smoothly all the way up to the back of the head.....(and, notice the overall bulk....of which there is a lot)... "No 'massive custom-formed inner-core' to the suit".....no Bob Heironimus. (Of course, the 'elbow-reach', and the 'Arm Gap' numbers have already shown that that was impossible, anyway. Can't do anything about those numbers.....can you? ) |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
15th April 2010, 06:00 AM | #945 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
15th April 2010, 06:15 AM | #946 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
Where and what has happened to Cryptomundo? It hasn't worked (for me anyways) for the past few weeks.
|
15th April 2010, 06:16 AM | #947 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
I don't have a problem with editing a page that has gone off topic, the problem I see, was that Óðinn/Gigantofooticus' original nastygram about the JREF, wasn't touched until it was responded to negatively by myself and others.
It's OK to bash JREF at BFF, but its not OK to bash the basher.. |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
15th April 2010, 09:10 AM | #948 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Same here. I can access the site about 5% of the time. When I do it seems that it is festooned with more gimmicky advertising stuff than ever before.
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
15th April 2010, 12:48 PM | #949 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Okay, let me try to be more clear. The bodybuilder pics you've posted are, like the anatomical drawing, viewed straight-on -- at a 90-degree angle, perpendicular to the left-right axis of the body.
In the pic of Patty under review, the shoulder is seen from the right at a ~120-degree angle (where the left-right axis of the body is 180-degrees). Thus the shoulder overlaps the back muscles owing to the principles of perspective. Also, the two bodybuilders are holding their arms differently from the PG figure. Held loosely or naurally, the arm tends to hang slightly forward. Patty/MITS has "its" arm close to the body, and angled slightly back. This changes where the deltoid is in relation to the back. Below I've attached 1) wolftrax's images of the bodybuilders, and 2) my crude indications, in red, of where the segment of the deltoid I'm talking about is. Try to imagine that, as the arm comes back in toward the body, that red teardrop-shaped segment becomes more vertical. As you step to the right, that segment overlaps the back muscles behind it. It also helps, again, if you turn your back to a mirror and observe the interior bulge of the deltoid, which is more or less pronounced on different individuals. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
15th April 2010, 01:13 PM | #950 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Patty's muscles/pads
I must say, the muscle detail is one of the chief claims of those who think this is not a person in a suit. So while you may not think that muscle detail is necessarily evident under the skin, muscle detail or lack thereof AS SEEN is fair game.
The "deltoid wedge?" The Teres group? Well, from what you can see, and what you say, you do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed. So which 'muscles"/pads of the back and arm do you think can be are accurately-placed (and shaped?) And which if any of these muscles/pads exhibit true contraction? |
15th April 2010, 02:49 PM | #951 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 182
|
This is probably the closest that I could find, still not seeing it.
|
15th April 2010, 02:53 PM | #952 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
I'm having trouble understanding your point here. Can you clarify what you mean by "fair game" and "AS SEEN"?
To clarify my own position, in case you missed this, I'm reasonably certain the PG figure is a person in a suit. The bigfoot threads on this forum catalog my reasons for this certainty. I've also explained, here and elsewhere, that the shapes I'm seeing might be an optical illusion akin to parediolia, and/or the natural draping of the fabric over the actor's body. Wait wait wait. What do you mean by insisting that I "do not contend that these muscles/pads can be shown to be properly placed"? In point of fact, I do contend that. To my trained eye the deltoid, teres group and infranspinatus are all correctly positioned on Patty/MITS. YMMV. Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled. The triceps, biceps, and the flexors of the lower arm are accurately placed to my eye. There is a bulging, "donut"-like quality to these areas that some viewers find unrealistic, but to my mind the fur is distorting the precise shape so it's hard to tell. The bulging could be the result of a sagging suit, of course, or the fabric is conforming to the body masses of the actor beneath the probable suit. As to contraction, it's difficult to discern between the fur and the blur. I do see some degree of adduction of the teres major and posterior deltoid wedge in the Patty/MITS pose under review. But again it could be apophenia or just the actor's own mass under the material. I hope that clarifies. Tit for tat, what do you see on the figure? Malformed lumps and donuts? I'm sure a case could be made from that perspective, but to my eye Patty's/MITS' muscles are accurately placed. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
15th April 2010, 03:16 PM | #953 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Hey, that's a good angle! Thanks for finding that.
Contrasted against that ultra-clear color pic, Patty/MITS is such a jumbled mess of black-and-white pixels that it's hard to tell what's what. Also, the lighting is reversed, which confuses the comparison. That said, the area under review certainly looks to be more "bulging" on the PG figure, but I can see the corresponding area on the athlete. It's in shadow with reflected red light on it, but I do see it. I don't mean to be obtuse. If the group consensus is against me in this, so be it. But I'm seeing the same shapes on both figures -- lit differently and posed differently, so that they appear different to the untrained eye. (I know I'm going to get a rapping for that -- Argument to authority! -- but what the heck, I'm sticking to my guns in this.) |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
15th April 2010, 05:10 PM | #954 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
?expert?
My point is that since 'footers cite "normal looking muscles", the "oh THAT abnormal looking muscle is obscured by skin/subQ tissues" or "oh, that's just hair," blah blah are not valid arguments, if viewed as anything other than a concession that the "muscle" in fact DOES NOT look normal.
my mistake; I interpreted your comments incorrectly. Are you saying that the posterior deltoid looks normal, and you're not commenting on the rest of it? I must say, I strongly disagree that the deltoid is anything like normal. The origins and insertions are both wrong. And that little "kidney-shaped" blob is supposed to be "teres group" and infraspinatus? I must admit to astonishment. Well that is as sweeping and unsupported assertion as I could imagine. This is what I was referring to earlier; you think the muscles look good except for the bad parts which you argue are not muscles. This is "special pleading." Hmm, again, you use the special pleading; it doesn't look right, so it must not be muscle. Again, I must suggest you are not really trained in anatomy, as you claim, because no anatomist would use the expression "adduction of the teres major." Muscles do not adduct. They may CAUSE adduction. And this "posterior deltoid wedge" is not an anatomical entity, at least not in the orientation seen on Patty. I asked about "CONTRACTION." I suspect you don't really know what that means. And by the way, citing "epidermal tissues" makes me think you are either trying to fool us or you weren't trained very well. The epidermis is the extremely thin top layer of skin, and "epidermal tissues" is a non sequitur. And I think you have given away by three errors in one post, the fact that you aren't really an expert in anatomy. An expert in anatomy wouldn't have made any of those mistakes. People can claim anything in a forum I guess...So you may certainly express your opinion, but frankly you don't carry a lot of weight on these issues. As for what I think, rather than making sweeping generalizations, I will post my thoughts on the individual muscles and their function. You can judge my expertise by what I write. |
15th April 2010, 06:57 PM | #955 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
Thanks for the clarification. As I said I'm reasonably certain we're looking at a person in a suit, and I'm reasonably certain bigfoot doesn't exist, so all I'm arguing is that to my eye, the muscles of the torso and arm are accurately placed on the PG figure. (The legs, however, are a mess, with visible fabric folds if one knows where to look.) If you reject that opinion, great! My opinion remains.
Yes, I'm saying the posterior deltoid (the "wedge" segment hat attaches to the scapula) looks normal in terms of its location, if somewhat "bulgier" than that of a "normal" human (that is, a human without a Patty suit). In short, the post. deltoid appears to be in the right place, but it looks distorted in size. I don't understand where the harshness is coming from. You asked me my opinion: So which 'muscles"/pads of the back and arm do you think can be are accurately-placed (and shaped?) I answered with my opinion: Overall I think the figure's torso and arms are lifelike and realistically muscled. The triceps, biceps, and the flexors of the lower arm are accurately placed to my eye. Then you criticised my response as "sweeping and unsupported". Okay, well, yes -- it's an opinion with absolutely no measurements or comparisons to support it. You'll forgive me, I hope, if as a non-BF believer and non-PGF believer I have little interest in spending hours trying to prove that I can see muscles on Patty/MITS. I've said repeatedly this is a red herring. It doesn't change the reasoned conclusion that it's a person in a suit. I think you've got me and my position all wrong. My subjective perception of correct muscle-forms on the torso and arm of the PG figure does not matter one iota. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Patty is a real animal or that we're looking at living tissue. My opinion is that there might be a muscle suit under the fabric suit, but I might be wrong and I might be experiencing apophenia. That's it. Disagree all you like. You've got me wrong again. I didn't write "it must not be muscle"; I wrote "it could be apophenia or just the actor's own mass under the material". I don't understand what part of that you have a problem with, but your mischaracterization of my assertions is becoming annoying. First, I'm not an "anatomist", I'm an artist trained in human anatomy, with a minor in anthropology (including some primatology) from Texas State. I've never claimed to be an "anatomist", so maybe that's where we're conflicting, since as you've recently arrived you don't know my background. Any differences in terminology between our schools probably derive from the difference between medical/zoological anatomy and artist's anatomy, which is mainly surface anatomy with some understanding of bones and movement. Second, regarding adduction, professor David K. Rubens describes and depicts the process in relation to the teres group, the deltoid and the pectoral muscles in his 1953 book The Human Figure: An Anatomy for Artists [Penguin Books, 1976]. His opinion conflicts with yours, so I don't know what to tell you. Also, this wiki page describes the process of adduction in detail, listing all the muscles (including those of the back and shoulder) which perform the action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adduction
Originally Posted by wilipedia
In the future, please don't employ an invective tone with me, in matters in which you are demonstrably mistaken. I understood it to be an umbrella term that includes extension, flexion, adduction and abduction, possibly including supination and pronation as well. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this. I think you're being pedantic here. The epidermis is comprised of several layers -- the basal, the cornified, etc. -- for which I employed the layman's term "tissues". If they cannot be said to be true "tissues" in a medical or zoological sense, please replace the word "tissues" with the word "layers" and accept my apologies. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone, so please stop accusing me of some hidden agenda. We've seen that my three "errors" are in fact 1) differences in terminology between the medical and artistic, or 2) your own error rather than mine. I am not claiming anything in this matter beyond the reportage of what I subjectively perceive. At the very beginning of this, upthread, I said it was a red herring and to take it with a grain of salt. |
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
15th April 2010, 07:35 PM | #956 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 182
|
The problem I am seeing is what is identified as the Posterior aspect of the deltoid muscle should converge with the lateral and anterior aspects and insert into the deltoid tuberosity of the humerus, overlapping the top of the triceps.
In Patty, the posterior deltoid aspect appears to separate from the lateral aspect and instead insert by the medial head of the triceps. |
15th April 2010, 07:53 PM | #957 |
2wu4u
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,668
|
Wow guys, that's alot of scientific medical terminology.
How would we scientifically describe a big fat diaper butt? |
15th April 2010, 07:59 PM | #958 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,783
|
.
Well, here at my house, the baby calls them bahpants. In fact, his brother sings to the tune of Beethoven's Fifth: "bah bah bah pants. Bah bah bah pants. BAH BAH BAH PANTS!!!!!!" and then zerbits while Miguel giggles his fool head off.... That, or "Pew! 'Tinky baby!" . |
15th April 2010, 10:02 PM | #959 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
No, it doesn't.
Not so. Muscles do not adduct. They may cause adduction. Get it? Muscles contract and bring the insertion closer to the origin. One doesn't speak of "adduction of the teres minor." etc. One speaks of adduction of bones, sometimes of joints, but not adduction of muscles. Names of muscles don't matter in this issue. This is a matter of common usage, and I understand that you don't understand the distinction, but it is a real one. In view of your claims, I felt it was important to understand that you are not an anatomist, and your terminology showed it. Sorry if you are offended by my tone. I am sure you are a fine artist. But you are blowing some smoke with your terminology and your claims. And the more you ramble, the more evident it is. I'm actually not mistaken. Ask an anatomist. Please don't pretend your expertise is greater than it is. You're digging yourself deeper, on the "tissues" thing. Pedantic? You made an enormous blanket assertion about Patty's musculature. Things like that get challenged. When you try unsuccessfully to use technical terminology, it does seem like you're trying to fool someone. I'm glad you're not. If debating your blanket contentions bothers you, this place is gonna be uncomfortable. |
15th April 2010, 11:11 PM | #960 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
Just how tight do you want your suit Lou? Lou: Just as long as it shows off my bulges. It's a miracle. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|