• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread
  • You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Correct. The gorilla suit shown in Long's book is not the model that was purchased by Patterson.


If this is the case, then Long did a great disservice to his readers by showing a misleading photograph in his book. Perhaps Long did mention in his book that what we see in his "Dr. Evil" photo is not the suit he sold Patterson, but I don't recall that, and I've read the book twice.

I should like to add that I'm certainly convinced that Heironimus had A suit, as we have multiple witnesses attest to seeing a suit associated with him. It's hard to imagine what else Heironimus would be doing with a suit than staring in Patterson's movie, but it is POSSIBLE.

If you look at all these Bigfoot type documentaries on the History or Discovery channel, you see what we might call "B-roll", or simply filler footage of an obvious guy-in-a-suit. I know the TV show Mysterious Encounters by hosted by Autumn Williams had the occasional hairy figure walk by...

So frankly I'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY that there is more to the story, that Heironimus had a suit and used it in some other capacity than at Bluff Creek.

But yes, there are certainly aspects to the film subject itself that suggest costume, i.e. stiff butt and breasts, and the weird folding wrinkle you see at the right thigh. Personally, I perceive that there is a discontinuity between the chest area and the hips, especially when the film subject twists. It is as if the film subject is wearing a jacket and pants. The pants stay fixed relative to the twisting "jacket".

But the bottom line is that I'm not a costume expert, and so I leave it to people like Stan Winston who are.

Even as a child, I had a problem with a guy being able to deploy a camera after being thrown from a horse fast enough to capture on film the wildest of wild animals. Even as a child, the luck involved in the guy "just out making a documentary" just happening to catch his quarry seemed rather farfetched.

I must say, even though most of MK Davis notions are obviously foolish, I think he may be onto something with his claim of the film starting and stopping. I also think Heironimus' claim that Patterson started filming the shaking first part from horeseback deserves some attention.

Did Patterson start filming from horseback, stop the camera, dismount, then start running?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
He engages in a kind of pareidolia using distorted images from the PGF.
Click to expand...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Were he not in Bigfootery, I'm sure Davis would find his talents appreciated finding puffs of smoke on the "Grassy Knoll", or acne scars on the "Face on Mars".
 
tube said:
If this is the case, then Long did a great disservice to his readers by showing a misleading photograph in his book. Perhaps Long did mention in his book that what we see in his "Dr. Evil" photo is not the suit he sold Patterson, but I don't recall that, and I've read the book twice.
Click to expand...

You could say it's a disservice. It's a Morris gorilla suit, but not the correct one. Phil Morris explains this and how that image could be misleading. My question is: Does Morris hold an actual photo of the model that Patterson bought? He does say that it seems none of these costumes still exist.

I should like to add that I'm certainly convinced that Heironimus had A suit, as we have multiple witnesses attest to seeing a suit associated with him. It's hard to imagine what else Heironimus would be doing with a suit than staring in Patterson's movie, but it is POSSIBLE.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, that would mean that Heironimus really is telling lies about being Patty. But he seems to know things about the event that would come from being there and wearing the Patty suit.

If you look at all these Bigfoot type documentaries on the History or Discovery channel, you see what we might call "B-roll", or simply filler footage of an obvious guy-in-a-suit. I know the TV show Mysterious Encounters by hosted by Autumn Williams had the occasional hairy figure walk by...
Click to expand...

The PGF B-roll stuff has an interesting twist. Still images from what was supposed to be the 2nd roll have a distinct orangeish color cast. As if there was something "wrong" with the processing. That color can be linked to stills of the plaster pouring and also RP on horseback. Did you notice that?

So frankly I'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY that there is more to the story, that Heironimus had a suit and used it in some other capacity than at Bluff Creek.
Click to expand...

Right. But if BH had another suit in addition to wearing the Patty suit at Bluff Creek - he could say that. Otherwise, his entire testimony about being Patty and working with P&G to bring this about - is a complete fabrication. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be a simple lie. At the same time that BH "confesses" to wearing the suit, he instantly implicates Bob Gimlin in the hoax. So BH lies by saying that his neighbor (BG) is a liar? That is heavy-duty sociopathic or psychotic behavior. BH makes himself completely vulnerable to litigation from BG by doing this. Now contemplate Gimlin's behavior towards BH and the Bigfooter community since the time that BH confessed.

But yes, there are certainly aspects to the film subject itself that suggest costume, i.e. stiff butt and breasts, and the weird folding wrinkle you see at the right thigh. Personally, I perceive that there is a discontinuity between the chest area and the hips, especially when the film subject twists. It is as if the film subject is wearing a jacket and pants. The pants stay fixed relative to the twisting "jacket".
Click to expand...

Right. Dfoot was on the right track before he went AWOL. Three sections - waist to feet (pants), torso to hands (jacket), and head/helmet.

I must say, even though most of MK Davis notions are obviously foolish, I think he may be onto something with his claim of the film starting and stopping. I also think Heironimus' claim that Patterson started filming the shaking first part from horeseback deserves some attention.
Click to expand...

Heironimus and Davis/Holbrook/Murphy seem to now be in agreement on that (after the Biscardi program). The pro-Patty crowd all tried to use a misunderstanding of BH's testimony to show that he was a liar. They thought BH had said that RP had remained on the horse throughout the filming. He never said that. Even Lu tried to say that here about a month ago. They are trying to pick apart BH's testimony by examining it word-for-word and looking at it from their own (contrary) context. Roger Knights specializes in this. When BH is given the chance to explain his testimony in Long's book (which he does in the Biscardi program), it results in making perfect sense. I'm sure that BH & GL are nearly astounded at the various ways that pro-PGFers misunderstand what BH says about his experience. I know that they do it on purpose, as if they were lawyers engaged in a criminal trial with BH as the criminal. They try to slash and stab at him, but when he's on the stand he gives comprehensive responses. Real lawyers would cringe at their approach, because you are supposed to "know the answer" to any question you ask the criminal. Bob immediately points out that they are not familiar or have a distorted view of what actually happened. In my opinion that back-and-forth rapid Q&A tore the believers to shreds.

Did Patterson start filming from horseback, stop the camera, dismount, then start running?
Click to expand...

Heironimus only knows that Patterson started filming from horseback (and was shaking the camera) and then dismounts to continue filming. He can't know if and when RP stopped the camera at any point. This is where it becomes interesting on a number of levels.

Patterson said that he never stopped (lifted his finger) filming Patty until he ran out of film. MK Davis now claims that Roger stopped filming three times during the PGF. Davis can't really know if these "stops" represent Roger lifting his finger or were edits to the film. He can't even know if the very last Patty frame shown is when Roger lifted his finger, ran out of film, or made an editing cut. Listen again to Davis as he gives "Patterson logic" to one of the film stops. He says that Patty appears to drop down and out of Roger's sight, and goes on to explain that Roger would naturally have stopped the camera until he "reacquired" her visually... then starts filming her again.

EDIT: spelling.
 
Last edited:
tube said:
Were he not in Bigfootery, I'm sure Davis would find his talents appreciated finding puffs of smoke on the "Grassy Knoll", or acne scars on the "Face on Mars".
Click to expand...

Indeed. What Davis does is examine countless and often distorted frames until he finds his gold. He can even take a single image and apply increasing manipulation until he gets his desired result. Then he presents it outside of the context of the film itself. Notice that he rarely uses the best (resolution, color, contrast, etc.) still frames to show what he is finding. All that funky stuff he finds (braids, scars, clinging feces, sticks & rocks, etc.) all come from images that he is selecting and manipulating in his own way.

Yeah, Davis is like Hoagland. But he is also like Beckjord in that respect; because he has "found" things like Coke bottles attached to the arms, monkey faces on side of the head, a clinging baby on the front and/or back, and a hanging tampon string!

6bd08324.jpg
 
William Parcher said:
Right. Dfoot was on the right track before he went AWOL. Three sections - waist to feet (pants), torso to hands (jacket), and head/helmet.
Click to expand...

Well, part of my skepticism about Morris' claim was based Dfoot's input. Dfoot maintained that what we see on the film is NOT a Morris suit. Perhaps Dfoot reacted like I did, and based his opinion on the suit seen in Long's book.
 
Dfoot could not have seen the suit that Morris sold to Patterson. He only saw pictures of Morris' "other" gorilla suits. Presumably, that exact suit is pictured in Morris' 1967 catalog. I really would like to see an image of that exact suit. Morris seems to imply that that model wasn't used in any known film or TV, except for the PGF. He sold more of them besides one to Roger, but none of them are presently accounted-for as actual artifacts or in the hands of individuals.

Dfoot was on the way to making a good replica of Patty. But I think he was over-engineering it in certain ways. The PGF suit was low-tech just like Morris says it was. Patterson customized it in a number of ways to turn it into a Bigfoot. With modern technology, we can analyze the PGF and see its costume flaws. Even Morris didn't notice that stuff at first; not until he got a better look at the film. Recall what he told Biscardi about seeing the PGF for the first time on TV with his wife. "That's my suit! Look at the size of the guy they put inside of it. His butt is huge!" That is a very precious first-hand account of Morris making a mistake. He thought it was one of his suits that was unmodified and being worn by some giant guy. For me, it speaks towards his honesty for even bringing it up in Biscardi's show. Phil Morris would not have thought to put pillows in his suits, because gorillas don't have huge butts.
 
Parcher wrote: The PGF B-roll stuff has an interesting twist. Still images from what was supposed to be the 2nd roll have a distinct orangeish color cast. As if there was something "wrong" with the processing. That color can be linked to stills of the plaster pouring and also RP on horseback. Did you notice that?
Click to expand...

Scratch that idea. It's an unintentional orange herring. I just found still images from the 2nd reel without the orange coloring.
 
In the Green interview, Gimlin and Green talk about a box full of film ..

We have never seen more than 2 minutes of footage, which includes the Patty segment..

There is nothing that shows when the Patty footage was shot, other than the indication it was early fall ..

It hasn't been shown that the Patty footage is an uncut piece of film, or that it represents the end of a 100 foot reel .. We are just supposed to take the bleevers word for it ..

You just have to wonder if some of that missing footage might show something that would clear things up a bit..

Dollars to donuts, if that missing footage supported the ' real live Bigfoot ' position, it wouldn't still be missing...
 
Aw CARP! WP, I tried to download the show from your link and again directly from Biscardi's site, no dice. Has it been taken down? I'm really going to be kicking myself if I missed it. Bah! :mad:
 
Diogenes said:
You just have to wonder if some of that missing footage might show something that would clear things up a bit.. Dollars to donuts, if that missing footage supported the ' real live Bigfoot ' position, it wouldn't still be missing...
Click to expand...

I've speculated the same thing. It may be possible that at least some of the PGF 'principals' (those who hold or held the complete 'public' version of the 1st and/or 2nd reel) realized that some of the footage is incriminating. That would even be after Roger had the ability to cut out the most obviously incriminating bits. With Roger knowing that he could edit the film before presenting it to the public - it wouldn't matter to him if he even filmed the suit being pulled out of the sack.
 
:confused: Hmmm... That's not working for me either. When I click on it I get an HTTP 403 error. It must be a problem on my end. I'm currently having that problem with my computer where something seems to have messed up my browser settings and the fonts on the page and when I post are all messed up and certain icons are now displayed as numerals or letters. I've been trying to fix it for the past several days but no luck as I'm not much of a wiz. I've had the problem and fixed it before sometime back and I know it has something to do with a font size that the browser can't display but I simply can't remember what the exact solution was. Maybe I'll run it by the tech section but if anyone knows this problem I'd be dearly grateful to hear about it as it's a major headache.:(
 
Post a description of your problem in the JREF Forum 'Computers and the Internet' section. You'll get suggestions pronto.
 
William Parcher said:
I've speculated the same thing. It may be possible that at least some of the PGF 'principals' (those who hold or held the complete 'public' version of the 1st and/or 2nd reel) realized that some of the footage is incriminating. That would even be after Roger had the ability to cut out the most obviously incriminating bits. With Roger knowing that he could edit the film before presenting it to the public - it wouldn't matter to him if he even filmed the suit being pulled out of the sack.
Click to expand...



We know for a fact that Roger was trying to make a documentary, which he obviously hoped to make money with.
He had the camera for many months and shot several rolls of film ..

The movie called for the Bigfoot to be encountered at some point, so obviously Roger had to prepare for this by creating a Bigfoot costume… Even if we allow that P&G stumbled upon a real Bigfoot ( Patty ) and caught her on film, he must have had the makings of a costume somewhere, to include in his movie. It only stands to reason that he probably filmed or photographed this costume-in-progress at some point ..
Nevertheless, Patty being real remains highly unlikely..

In viewing the ‘ Patty ‘ footage, Patterson decides it’s worth a try to pass it off as a real encounter , rather than go to the trouble to put together his footage and try to market a “ The Hunt for Bigfoot “ documentary .. If no one ‘ bit ‘, or Gimlin or BH didn’t play along, he was no worse off ..

I think Patterson’s ( and Gimlin’s ) failure to push for an actual search for Patty, shouts ‘ HOAX ‘, louder than any of the other evidence in this matter.
Patterson, aspiring entrepreneur that he was, would have known there would be a lot more money and fame in snagging the real creature, than the film would ever bring.
All the rationalizing about P&G being afraid is complete BS.
If they were afraid; particularly of the possibility of a bigger male being in the area, why did they track her at all, or camp out in the area overnight, after the encounter?

If Patterson thought he had found the real thing, he would have been back with dogs and a lot of rope..

To believe anything else is the height of credulousness ..
 
Diogenes said:
In viewing the ‘Patty‘ footage, Patterson decides it’s worth a try to pass it off as a real encounter, rather than go to the trouble to put together his footage and try to market a “The Hunt for Bigfoot“ documentary.. If no one ‘bit‘, or Gimlin or BH didn’t play along, he was no worse off..
Click to expand...

In the Biscardi radio show, Heironimus says that he thought Roger was going to announce soon after its 'public release' that it was all staged.


I found this at Hancock House. It looks like the famous Laverty photo that has been 'flipped'. But it also appears to be from a different angle.

20061108170309536_14_original.jpg


018.jpg
 
LTC8K6 said:
Has anyone given a good reason for the straight line next to that footprint?
Click to expand...

I haven't read an explanation, but that track was presumably one covered with bark by Gimlin. The line might represent the edge of the bark piece.
 
I have been told that this is the cast of the Laverty track ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13850&view=findpost&p=312914

It does look more like the other Bluff Creek pics we have been shown.

LavertyPhotoCast.jpg


The angle of the toes in the photo, is a distortion caused by the angle of the field of view..

It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on ..
 
Guess who's behind this ..

Your Bigfoot research grant at work ..

Here is a new virtualization tool over Idaho State.

It is a 3D scan of the Laverty print/cast ..


http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/SpecimenLibrary/java_applets/foot1.html

It is absurd to claim the dent in that cast is a natural anatomical feature
of Bigfoot ..

If so, where is it in all the other prints? For pete's sake.. It doesn't even show up in the other Patty prints ..
 
National Geographic TV has an excellent series called "Is It Real?" that skeptically analyzes claimed phenomena. The episode on Bigfoot does a good job of debunking the claims, especially the Patterson film. The series is still running, and the NG website provides showtimes.
 
Diogenes said:
I have been told that this is the cast of the Laverty track ..
Click to expand...

It is. You can clearly see the same cracks in the "MTB" of the cast as well as the Laverty photo. It's worth mentioning again that this cast was made by Bob Titmus about nine days after P&G claimed to encounter and film Patty. That those little cracks in the MTB remain after nine days sorta amazes me. I understand that it was supposed to be covered by bark, but I'm still surprised the track remained so "crisp" after all the rains. Titmus said that he cast ten consecutive tracks at the Patty film site. Gimlin said he covered a few tracks with bark. That means that Titmus was casting some tracks (seven?) that were always fully exposed to the rains.

The angle of the toes in the photo, is a distortion caused by the angle of the field of view..
Click to expand...

Understood. I am curious about that photo of the Laverty track I found at Hancock House. It's obviously the same track again, but the orientation is quite different from the "famous" Laverty shot. Do you think that someone just reoriented the viewing aspect of the Laverty shot to arrive at what we see at Hancock House?

It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on ..
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Your Bigfoot research grant at work .. Here is a new virtualization tool over Idaho State. It is a 3D scan of the Laverty print/cast ..
Click to expand...

Why is Meldrum doing that? It's cool, but what is the intended purpose?

Do we know that money was spent on this 3D project by Meldrum or ISU? Maybe not. Anyway, I am curious where and how Meldrum is spending the approx. $70,000 he was given for Bigfoot research. I would think that he ought to be spending it all on trying to confirm that Bigfoot is not a myth by searching for the animal itself. We've heard that he has spent some money on equipment to do that. Grant proposals usually have initial detailed plans for how the money is to be used, and periodic progress reports on how the project is going according to the initial plans.
 
William Parcher said:
Quote:Diogenes
" It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on .."


Why do you say that?
Click to expand...
Just what it looks like to me. The depression is missing in the other prints; there is no reason to believe it is a natural feature of the foot .

William Parcher said:
Why is Meldrum doing that? It's cool, but what is the intended purpose?
Click to expand...

http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/projects.htm

Comparative Morphology of the Hominoid Foot: Dr. Jeff Meldrum

http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/virtual_hominoid_foot.htm

Project Summary

The scanning facilities at the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory provide an exceptional opportunity to create a visual record of the collection of footprint casts attributed to sasquatch, housed in my lab in the Department of Biological Sciences at Idaho State University. The images permit comparative and metric analyses of these footprints to be conducted in three dimensions. The archiving of the casts also creates a means of digitally sharing images of these artifacts with collaborators.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, yes, the "mid-tarsal break"; or more properly, the mid-foot pressure ridge. I seem to remember that this topic has been discussed before, probably in this thread, but then again Bigfootery for me is becoming more and more like Waiting for Godot...

Remember, soil is not always homogeneous. While I'll accept that the soil of Bluff Creek was fairly hard, as attested to by several witnesses, it may not have been hard everywhere. It's possible that this particular track was simply made in a softer patch of soil.

What is also possible, I believe, is that a flexible fake foot could have made this track; sort of like this:

IMG_4987.jpg


Take a close look at the recent 3D animation of the cast made of this track. You will see how "bowl" shaped - you know, hemispherical and stuff - both the heel and the "ball" of the foot are. I suspect, but do not know, that this may be due to the concentrated pressure of a cowboy boot's heel and fore-foot being spread out by a costume-foot "over boot".

If hoaxed, it's already deep enough to be convincing, why mess with it? Take a walk in deep sand sometime, even with a rigid human arch, you will create this kind of mid-foot pressure ridge in some of your tracks. If hoaxed, I'll bet Patterson didn't find the morphology of this track that weird.

Hey, then again maybe it's a real Sasquatch...

I think Desertyeti agrees with me on this one, so neener, neener neener...

IMG_5002.jpg
 
Yes! Crests claimed to be created by mid tarsal breaks and hourglass-shaped prints are not the definitive uncontestable marks of real bigfeet prints.

Well, maybe not and bigfeet walked over Vesuvius's volcanic ash after the eruption that destroyed Pompeii...
_41411664_foot_pnas_203.jpg


And since everything is possible, I must be a bigfoot! A man wearing boots would not be able to make those prints...
myfoot1.jpg
 
Diogenes said:
The biggest problem I have with accepting this film as proof that Bigfoot exists, is that virtually nothing substantial emerged from the area in which the film was made.

I can't believe that such a convincing looking creature, vanished from the face of the earth, without a trace, unless it was a suit that was destroyed or very effectively hidden away.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned, this issue all comes down to muscle-tone. BH looks like a fluffy marshmallow in his laughable getup. The subject in the Patterson film however, is in a league of its own. You can clearly make out its musculature. There are clear biceps and triceps and clear brachioradialis. Then you have the Latissiumus Dorsi and the trapezius. Of course you also have the prominent Gluteus Maximus, the flexing quadriceps and the very noticeable gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. In 67, and even today, there isn't a bigfoot costume that shows this kind of detail. Show me one bigfoot costume from that time period that has all these muscle features and I will recant. I'd bet you have a hard time finding such a bigfoot costume today! Why? Because that's not cloth and padding you're seeing there, it's flesh and fur.

:D
 
There is NOTHING clear about the P/G film apart from the fact that it lacks detail, colour and unimpeachable sources. It is a grainy, jerky 16mm B&W film that could very easily be a person in a suit. Why do you think these debates go on forever? Because it's so far from clear as to be useless.
 
Luminous said:
As far as I'm concerned, this issue all comes down to muscle-tone. BH looks like a fluffy marshmallow in his laughable getup. The subject in the Patterson film however, is in a league of its own. You can clearly make out its musculature. There are clear biceps and triceps and clear brachioradialis. Then you have the Latissiumus Dorsi and the trapezius. Of course you also have the prominent Gluteus Maximus, the flexing quadriceps and the very noticeable gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. In 67, and even today, there isn't a bigfoot costume that shows this kind of detail. Show me one bigfoot costume from that time period that has all these muscle features and I will recant. I'd bet you have a hard time finding such a bigfoot costume today! Why? Because that's not cloth and padding you're seeing there, it's flesh and fur.

:D
Click to expand...

I bet you see Mr. Atlas-like muscle tone when you look in the mirror too, don't you?

If you can see muscles at that level of detail on that film, then you're either lying, deluded, or a retro-clairvoyant.
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
There is NOTHING clear about the P/G film apart from the fact that it lacks detail, colour and unimpeachable sources. It is a grainy, jerky 16mm B&W film that could very easily be a person in a suit. Why do you think these debates go on forever? Because it's so far from clear as to be useless.
Click to expand...

Sorry you had such a bad experience viewing the film. Actually, the best details are in the stills.
 
Huntsman said:
I bet you see Mr. Atlas-like muscle tone when you look in the mirror too, don't you?
Click to expand...

Gasp! How did you know that? You must be super-clairvoyant! :eek:

If you can see muscles at that level of detail on that film, then you're either lying, deluded, or a retro-clairvoyant.
Click to expand...

You are either blind or in total denial.
 
I guess I can't post pictures till I hit fifty posts... So you'll have to settle for the text version for now.

Musculature. If it's there, the suit idea is out the window. Everyone knows that gorilla suits in 67 did not display such features as biceps, triceps, glutes, an ass crack, lats, quads, gastrocnemius and soleus muscles! In fact, gorilla suits with accurate musculature are rare even today, costing into the hundreds of thousands to produce, and are used mainly for movies.

These muscles are clearly visible on closeups of Patty. Only the willingly ignorant will deny it.

The only way a skeptic can argue their way out of this tight corner is by denying what is plainly visible or by changing topics altogether. (All of this is intellectual dishonesty)

Concerning Patty's musculature, skeptics have to say, "it's not there" because if it is there (and it is), their argument of a suit is completely obliterated and they know it. So hold on to whatever ground you think remains of your argument, all you professional skeptics, because you don't have much to stand on. The fact is, not only are these muscles visible, some are even flexing! Gasp! OMG! Can't be!

Put on your Ray Charles glasses now and sing us a little tune about how these plainly visible muscles are just not there! Imagine them away... Then accuse me of imagining that they are there! You do have a little problem though. I have a film and clear images that back me up. What do you have?

The question now is: are you really on a quest for truth, or are you a professional "contrarian," who takes the opposing side no matter what, just for the sheer delight of it? Are you the type that gets more stubborn, even when shown to be completely wrong? Or are you humble enough to admit (shall I say it?) that you might have been mistaken?

Who are you? Who, who. Who are you? Who, who? I really wanna know...

Someone show me some intellectual honesty out there! :D
 
Intellectual honesty starts with acceptance that alternative hypotheses exist. Padding can give the illusion of underlying musculature, and a general increase in bulk. There is a danger of this revealing itself on film or video. The sudden bunching of the upper right thigh when Patty steps down on that foot may very well be the padding revealing itself. It is often explained by Pattycakes as a hernia or hair being disturbed from the hand raking across it. Take your pick. The alternative hypothesis of bunching material is discarded, because their argument starts and continues from the position that this is a real animal. Real animals don't have padding, so that thing must be a hernia or a hair flow anomoly.

Another Pattycake tactic is to try to always argue that it must be an off-the-rack gorilla suit. These things would obviously not work as a convincing Bigfoot costume unless they were modified. They were a one-size-fits-all affair and never intended to to show the form of the person wearing it. They immediately show signs of folding and draping because the "skin" is so generous and loose. But Patterson was quite artistic, creative and had excellent craftsmanship abilities. He constructed a variety of refined things, was a sculptor and built saddles. That would have given him the skills and means to work with leather and presumably synthetic fabrics and other such materials. I can easily imagine him starting with a gorilla suit and customizing it to look like Patty does.

That skeptics can point out strange bulges (and other oddness), might show that RP was not 100% successful in creating a fully convincing fake Bigfoot. You will not impress anyone in this forum by claiming that skeptics are blind. The most you can hope for is that other Pattycakes agree with you.
 
If you want to find out if something is an illusion or not, ask the illusionists themselves, not members of the intended audience.

I'm amused that in Jeff Meldrum's new book he introduces the nearly 40 year old testimony of ONE individual within the professional costume community, Janos Prohaska, as evidence that Patty is not a guy-in-a-suit. Does Prohaska's opinion represent a consensus? By no means.

How about the testimony of Chris Walas?

"The separation between the leg and torso, however, is an obvious clue to me. When I saw it, I was shocked and angry. Shocked because I didn’t expect to see it and angry because I didn’t want to see it. I still want to believe that the subject in the Paterson footage is a real creature; and it is. It’s a human creature in a Sasquatch suit."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446&st=0

How about the testimony of Howard Berger, Bob Burns, and John Vulich?

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

How about the testimony of Rick Baker?

"Famed Hollywood creator of "Harry" (from the movie "Harry and the Hendersons"), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now it can be told" (in 1992) show that "it looked like cheap, fake fur" after seeing the filmstrip."

Daniel Perez Bigfoot Times monograph page 21. Additional material here:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

And how about the testimony of perhaps the greatest costume FX guy out there today, Stan Winston? In what has got to be one of Bigfootery's biggest backfires, Winston is interviewed about the Patterson film as a "bonus" feature of the Sasquatch Odyssey DVD:

"Also appearing is one of Hollywood's greatest special effects legends, Stan Winston, creator of movie monsters such as the Jurassic Park dinosaurs, the apes in Congo, Alien, Predator, etc. Along with the late John Chambers (who created the apes in Planet of the Apes, and whom film director John Landis credits with being the man behind the Patterson-Gimlin footage creature from Bluff Creek on October 20, 1967), Winston is an undisputed master of movie trickery. He viewed the Patterson-Gimlin footage, and states: "It's a guy in a bad hair suit. Sorry." Later, "For under a thousand dollars -- in that day -- they could have had this suit made. If one of my [professional] colleagues created this for a movie, he'd be out of business."

http://www.cryptofoot.net/videos.html

Bigfootery has put itself in the position of ASKING THE WRONG GUYS. Asking Meldrum or Krantz or Bayanov about the film is kind of like asking the editor of Guns and Ammo whether Penn and Teller really catch bullets in their teeth or not. It's not a ballistic issue, it's an illusion issue.
 
William Parcher said:
Intellectual honesty starts with acceptance that alternative hypotheses exist. Padding can give the illusion of underlying musculature, and a general increase in bulk. There is a danger of this revealing itself on film or video. The sudden bunching of the upper right thigh when Patty steps down on that foot may very well be the padding revealing itself. It is often explained by Pattycakes as a hernia or hair being disturbed from the hand raking across it. Take your pick. The alternative hypothesis of bunching material is discarded, because their argument starts and continues from the position that this is a real animal. Real animals don't have padding, so that thing must be a hernia or a hair flow anomoly.

Another Pattycake tactic is to try to always argue that it must be an off-the-rack gorilla suit. These things would obviously not work as a convincing Bigfoot costume unless they were modified. They were a one-size-fits-all affair and never intended to to show the form of the person wearing it. They immediately show signs of folding and draping because the "skin" is so generous and loose. But Patterson was quite artistic, creative and had excellent craftsmanship abilities. He constructed a variety of refined things, was a sculptor and built saddles. That would have given him the skills and means to work with leather and presumably synthetic fabrics and other such materials. I can easily imagine him starting with a gorilla suit and customizing it to look like Patty does.

That skeptics can point out strange bulges (and other oddness), might show that RP was not 100% successful in creating a fully convincing fake Bigfoot. You will not impress anyone in this forum by claiming that skeptics are blind. The most you can hope for is that other Pattycakes agree with you.
Click to expand...

Not blind. Willigly blind. That's worse.
 
tube said:
How about the testimony of Howard Berger, Bob Burns, and John Vulich?

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

How about the testimony of Rick Baker?

"Famed Hollywood creator of "Harry" (from the movie "Harry and the Hendersons"), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now it can be told" (in 1992) show that "it looked like cheap, fake fur" after seeing the filmstrip."

Daniel Perez Bigfoot Times monograph page 21. Additional material here:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
Click to expand...

Was this supposed to be a link to Perez's monograph?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom