Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern99: For a rebuttal, google "Relict Hominoid Inquiry" "Barry Keith"

Why not give me a summary?

I used to believe, naively, that there were no convincing ape suits with musculature prior to Rick Baker's work on the '76 Kong. And I even grew up watching the MGM Tarzan movies! Somehow I had forgotten, or overlooked, the muscled ape suits from 1932's Tarzan and His Mate, among other achievements in simian costumery that far pre-date Baker's effects work.

 

[William Parcher]

Why not give me a summary?

Summary: Patty is real.

I tried to read it yesterday but couldn't get past the introduction chapter. It's extremely unprofessional and poorly written. It's nothing like science writing. The author doesn't even want you to know who they are so a fake name is used. But it's really quite appropriate for the website which is something of a trashcan for fantasy ideas.

 

[ArchSas]

Well, I can see that you were swayed, but what I find odd is that you were admittedly swayed by some of the least qualified FX people who've commented on it. Since then, many more guys have made their opinions known, but you don't listen to their opinions.

It's the same deal with the whole Munns thing, that guy may be a decent artist, but in terms of FX, he's pretty shoddy, and yet he's held in a very high regard by believers.

So yeah, I can see that you've been swayed, my question is why? And why choose to only listen to people who support it, despite being less qualified in their field of FX than others who have commented on it and declared it a fake?

You're touching on one of the key issues when it comes to "expert commentary" about the PGF: most of the positive criticism comes from a place of incredulity. Munns and the (very likely unqualified, per the evidence in this thread) Disney executives base their commentary on their inability to replicate the suit. They think that just because they couldn't make the suit, then Roger couldn't have, which is obviously a pretty poor argument. This is especially true when considering, as many have pointed out, that Patty isn't a good suit, and was cobbled together by someone with no formal training. Roger wouldn't have put together something the same way professional costumers would have, and that only makes it harder to identify what's going on.

Of course, the majority opinion in the effects community still seems to be that the suit is an obvious and poorly done fake, but the dissenting opinions do make some amount of sense in that context.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There you go again with the implication that your opponent is being dishonest. Such behavior justifies you’re being on Ignore, which I’ll do when I can find the button.

As for “how on earth the PGF could ever be deemed "’better evidence,’" I explained it to you, and you dishonestly pretended not to know:

Talk about “disingenuous!

I literally told you how to locate the ignore feature, and yet you're still having trouble, lol. That's rather apt, I think.

Not to worry, if you can't beat 'em, ignore 'em.

Nope, I quite obviously did read to your poorly thought-out comment regarding the PGF being "better evidence" than the Zapruder, hence why I then replied by stating that it was one of the silliest things I've ever read (which is no small feat!) and that it was about as logical as sticking ones scrotum inside a blender.

I'm still uncertain how the obviously faked footage of a bloke in a Monkey suit shot by a known conman is "better evidence" than the Zapruder footage of a guy getting shot in public, in front of the entire world, and leaving his body behind for all to see...But I guess that's why I'm not in my 70s and still rallying the PGF as something genuine.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

So replication has been accomplished! Show me where.

You still not found the "ignore" feature then, mate? It seems as elusive as Patty.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Here’s a hypothetical: If the PGF depicted Patty doing something humanly impossible, like climbing a too-steep slope, or snapping a too-thick (for humans) limb, or running at a too-fast-for--mime-in-a-costume speed, or taking-too-long-for-humans steps, that would be evidence of Patty’s reality (at that moment, anyway).

Well, I think some of the features and motions of Patty come close to being out of the human range. Because of that, Patterson’s character doesn’t count directly against them, except in raising the likelihood of some sort of fakery being involved. But if disbelievers can’t match his fakery—not remotely, after decades—that reduces the likelihood of fakery.

This just seems overtly naive to me. The fact that anyone could honestly view this footage and think that they're seeing something inherently inhuman, something uncommon and unnatural for a person to achieve.

This is a suit we're talking about, shot on some grainy Kodak from the late 60s, from a distance, shaken-up, for a very short amount of time.

That's the whole deal with a costume, it's designed to fool, and the way the PGF turned out is quite obviously purposeful. It was shot like that to conceal the magic.

For every muscle seen by a believer, all I see is the unmissable diaper.

To say that if it can't be replicated, it lends credence to it being genuine is just daft, because you're not going to be able to replicate anything without knowing how it was done, and by whom. Jeff Pruitt once photoshopped Patty onto a different background, and the believers cried "fake." That's just painfully funny to me.

Patty isn't that remarkable, imho, it's a fairly obvious suit that's been obscured for a reason. If we were to see other costumes in the manner that we see Patty, they'd look ridiculously life-like.

The thing is, some people just can't see past the puppet, and some people will never see past the strings.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I like the idea of “baby steps” when it comes to replication. I suggested it a few times on BFF and, I think, in a draft article I wrote. It’s asking too much of disbelievers to do the whole job in one jump. But replicating a Gemora suit and movies using such a suit is a diversion from replicating Patty. Just replicate a leg with hamstrings, a bulging, shapely calf just before touchdown, toes that rise just before touchdown (to avoid getting stubbed, maybe), a mobile kneecap (per Glickman), etc. Or do the same with an arm and hand; or a torso; or a head.

Or just replicate the walk in a cheap rental gorilla suit. That ought to be easy, right? Greg Long says he can do it and anybody can do it (TMoB, p. 377). Show us (and not in a still photo—that’s easy). It doesn’t have to be shot with the same camera and film and lighting—that’s just an excuse. A replicated walk would have certain gross features similar, such as degree of shank lift, a vertical foot before leg lift, 20% of the time with both feet grounded (vs. 2% for humans), smoothness, traversal of outdoor ground (not an artificially smooth surface, IOW), a lookback without breaking stride, etc. No one would demand replication of Patty’s knock-kneed weird leg positions. No one would demand that the re-enactor cut a few inches off his legs to match leg-to-torso Patty’s proportions.

So, you basically fully believe that Patty is a Bigfoot, then?

I'm not sure where you're seeing bulging muscles and hamstrings, nor do I understand why your mind is blown by the bloke looking back whilst walking...

And here we see more talk about Patty's supposedly inhuman dimensions, despite this quite clearly being the product of a costume.

Frankly, I've never seen such tripe.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You're touching on one of the key issues when it comes to "expert commentary" about the PGF: most of the positive criticism comes from a place of incredulity. Munns and the (very likely unqualified, per the evidence in this thread) Disney executives base their commentary on their inability to replicate the suit. They think that just because they couldn't make the suit, then Roger couldn't have, which is obviously a pretty poor argument. This is especially true when considering, as many have pointed out, that Patty isn't a good suit, and was cobbled together by someone with no formal training. Roger wouldn't have put together something the same way professional costumers would have, and that only makes it harder to identify what's going on.

Of course, the majority opinion in the effects community still seems to be that the suit is an obvious and poorly done fake, but the dissenting opinions do make some amount of sense in that context.

It's astounding to see some of the arguments, it really is. I know it's an oft-used example, but I find the Barney the Dinosaur comparison to be more than apt with its impossible inhuman dimensions.

To see a costume from a distance on grainy old footage that's been blown up and zoomed in on, and to then talk about muscles and impossible dimensions is about as daft as it gets, imo, and that's ignoring literally every other smoking gun, too.

1) No Bigfoot anywhere before or since.
2) Known hoaxer films Bigfoot whilst making a Bigfoot movie about finding Bigfoot.
3) Said Bigfoot looks almost identical to a picture in said hoaxers Bigfoot book.
4) Said picture is lifted from/inspired by the Roe account which oddly played out exactly like the PGF.
5) Hoaxer never returns to Bluff creek and instead buggers off to Thailand.

There's just too many to mention...

Dat bulging calf-muscle, doe!

 

[The Shrike]

To me, all the FXpert opinions and speculation about who made the suit went out the window when I learned that Roger was experienced in saddlery. This is a guy who knew how to cut, shape, and stitch leather, and he had (or had "borrowed") the tools to do this kind of work. He had been to Hollywood and possibly seen some movie ape suits there, and he had rented a Morris suit. He could very easily have looked inside and understood the stitching patterns used by other suits, and then modify the approach as he liked. The ol' simple rodeo cowboy trope is irrelevant when said cowboy has specific experience in sewing together heavy things to make specifically desired - and padded- shapes.

 

[ArchSas]

To me, all the FXpert opinions and speculation about who made the suit went out the window when I learned that Roger was experienced in saddlery. This is a guy who knew how to cut, shape, and stitch leather, and he had (or had "borrowed") the tools to do this kind of work. He had been to Hollywood and possibly seen some movie ape suits there, and he had rented a Morris suit. He could very easily have looked inside and understood the stitching patterns used by other suits, and then modify the approach as he liked. The ol' simple rodeo cowboy trope is irrelevant when said cowboy has specific experience in sewing together heavy things to make specifically desired - and padded- shapes.

This is very true. Footers like to perpetuate a myth of Roger as a rodeo cowboy who was too much of a rube to be able to craft a suit. But he wasn't. He was a skilled craftsman who had made a living, in part, for a number of years by working various media and making things like statues and saddles. He knew how to work with the materials needed to make or modify a suit, and he apparently had some aptitude when it came to craftwork. He easily could have made a suit.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

To me, all the FXpert opinions and speculation about who made the suit went out the window when I learned that Roger was experienced in saddlery. This is a guy who knew how to cut, shape, and stitch leather, and he had (or had "borrowed") the tools to do this kind of work. He had been to Hollywood and possibly seen some movie ape suits there, and he had rented a Morris suit. He could very easily have looked inside and understood the stitching patterns used by other suits, and then modify the approach as he liked. The ol' simple rodeo cowboy trope is irrelevant when said cowboy has specific experience in sewing together heavy things to make specifically desired - and padded- shapes.

This is why I don't really buy the suit being a Morris costume. It may well have used a Morris costume, or pieces of one, but I tend to think that Roger was the one who modified it. Morris may have sent Roger a suit, but it doesn't mean that that's what we see on the film. Roger likely would've had many suits, from different places, for different uses.

Just looking at some of the stuff Roger did, like his sculpts, drawings etc, it's easy to see that he had the talent needed to modify a suit to how he wanted it, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he'd had help along the way.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Overlooking (but not derailing) this thread's focus of blaming that rube Bob Heironimus, the PGF is ultimately about one thing, the deliberately misguided BLAARGer "belief" that not only was there no suit, Roger Patterson was wholly incapable of producing/providing/using such a suit had there been. That's it. If they concede even the simplest possibility that he "was capable" or that he "could have", their entire BLAARG is over.

As such they won't ever "concede" BH was in a suit that never existed. Or that the suit that never existed was made of horsehide or deerhide or shaved beavers. Or that the muscle definition in the beast is anything but real because it's certainly not from a suit. And anyone calling Gimlin a liar is just "haters hatin" because there was no suit. There was no suit?

There was no suit in part because it's impossible for their loser hero Roger Patterson to have made such a thing. He was a nobody who didn't pay his bills, how could he possibly make anything? Nope, he was just lucky. Except in bill paying. Or getting cancer. Or dying young. He was so lucky in fact that 48 years later nobody's been luckier.

In other derailing news, here's the fascinating story of a guy who would make any BLAARGer nervous and Roger Patterson proud. A literal nobody who in 1980 caused $18 million dollars in damage to a Tahoe casino (nobody died or got hurt) with an explosive device the FBI still uses in clear plexiglass mock-up form to teach new agents its magic. Considered the most sophisticated IED ever made. So diabolical in nature that it was deemed better to allow it to blow it up where it stood on the second floor no matter the cost (ransom was only $3 million) than to try and move it outside. And this particular piece being one of the best written real life crime stories of I've come across in a long time. I guess the Internet isn't a total wasteland after-all.

 

[Roger Knights]

So if Bigfoot really does exist then Erik Beckjord was right. Would you agree?

Not exactly. I think he might be right. (He PM'd me on BFF when I expressed such a sentiment, but I didn't respond, having been warned off by others there.) But, if BF is somehow proven but then disappears in a blink, we could say EB was right

I'm not really an enthusiast for the supernatural interpretation. I'd rather not be. I was driven to it because I find both the skeptical and the persuaded sides of the debate about BF's existence convincing, and this was my only "out." (I mentioned that I summarized both sides in a pair of business cards.)

 

[Roger Knights]

Munns and the (very likely unqualified, per the evidence in this thread) Disney executives base their commentary on their inability to replicate the suit.

The Disney people weren't asked about the suit, and didn't opine about it. They were asked if they could reproduce Patty with an animatronic gadget. That was their specialty, at their theme parks. As I said.

 

[Roger Knights]

To me, all the FXpert opinions and speculation about who made the suit went out the window when I learned that Roger was experienced in saddlery. This is a guy who knew how to cut, shape, and stitch leather, and he had (or had "borrowed") the tools to do this kind of work.

Below are all the excerpts from Long’s book on Patterson’s leather-working skills (or not), plus my own musings at the end. I say “all” because a few months ago I made an index of the items in Long’s book about Patterson’s character and characteristics. (Long’s index is poor and not organized at a detail level.) One of my index headings was “Handy, good with tools.” I’d have cited any page that mentioned his leather-working ability. (I’m going to post that Index for all to use—the BF head-banging community needs it.)

Page 114: Greg Long: “What would he build?”
Jerry Merritt: “Things out of mowers and rigs. And just saddles, made his own saddles.
Page 126: Jerry Merritt: “One time he took McClellan Army saddles, rebuilt them, and made little western saddles out of ’em. He actually used ’em on those horses.”
Page 249: Greg Long: “He was good at leather crafts.”
Page 459: Greg Long: “He worked in leather.”

]
My interpretation is that Patterson picked up a few McClellan saddles cheap, maybe at an army/navy surplus store, and added pommels to them, converting them into Western saddles. The pommel is needed for roping. That wouldn’t have required any leatherworking ability. Maybe he did a few other changes, but not likely anything complex.

There’s nothing in the book about him selling saddles to others, or engaging in other leatherwork. To me, it looks like one of the many ways Patterson “made do” for himself; saddles are expensive. Greg Long has made a mountain out of Jerry Merritt’s molehill, as he occasionally has done elsewhere, to bolster his case.

The non-mention of his leather-working by others is a sort of negative evidence; if he had a business making saddles, it likely would have been mentioned by at least one other person.

(Maybe it’s in the 20% Long had to cut. I’m hoping an eBook version with the cuts restored will be published.)

 

[Roger Knights]

Index to Patterson’s characteristics as described in Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot

Here is an index to facts and opinions about Patterson's characteristics, from positive to negative, taken from persons quoted in Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot, or from Long himself. It should help persons engaging in Heironimus-related disputes to find the citations they’re looking for, or to counter citations from others.

Ideally, this index will be enlarged by disputants on their forums into a version in which each page cited is followed, on its own line, by a quotation or paraphrase of the text there.

(Greg Long is welcome to use it in any eBook second edition of The Making of Bigfoot.)
-------

Of good character (truthful, disliked dishonesty): 72, 92, 129, 143–43, 205), 113, 116, 122, 128–29, 205–06, 228, 270

Sincere about Bigfoot: 71–72, 89, 92, 122, 235, 269–70, 424–25

Obsessed with Bigfoot: 46, 49, 86, 88–89, 90–94, 96, 109–10, 116–18, 129, 132–32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269–70, 272, 397

A sharp dresser: 95, 202, 204–05

A ladies man: 90, 251, 266, 270

Likable, exciting, fun: 40–41 (liked by kids: 66, 200), 68–69, 129, 229, 236

Convincing, magnetic, dominating: 76, 83, 93–94, 113, 128, 197, 206, 271–72, 343

Fearless, pugilistic: 78–79, 90, 128–29, 228

Athletic, strong: 64–65, 69–70, 74 (photos: 37, 81–82), 90, 100, 146, 197

Talented: 50, 52, 63, 66–67, 69, 76–77, 87–88, 109, 113–14, 128–29, 131, 179, 205, 337, 429, 457

Handy, good with tools: 87, 95, 113–14, 126, 131, 247, 429, 459

Artistic: 52, 66–67, 76–77, 243, 272

Inventive, creative, perfectionistic: 55, 66, 77–79, 107, 129, 131, 179, 205, 429, 457

Short of money: 70, 74, 142, 250, 425, 429; but see 70–71

Disliked working for others: 65, 74, 87–88, 235, 243

Worked irregularly, mostly self-employed (see 4 entries below):

Carts, wagons, stagecoach: 52, 66–67, 85–88, 228, 244;

Fertilizer business: 67, 70, 245;

Rodeo-ing: 70, 100, 228, 245;

General: 53–54, 87–88, 93, 97, 110, 128, 235, 243–44, 272, 394, 424, 429, 459

Irresponsible, unbusinesslike: 50, 191, 201, 203, 244, 247, 272

Of poor character: 36–37, 95, 192, 205, 212–14, 224, 275, 292, 330, 390–94, 407, 425, 430

Crooked: 89, 214, 223–24, 244, 246, 293, 306–08, 311, 430

A possible Bigfoot hoaxer in Yakima: 97, 219–20, 231–34, 390–93, 424; see also 185 (angry when questioned about PGF)

-------------------

Ill with cancer: 49, 52–53, 68, 80, 88, 179, 201, 206, 212, 266, 394
============

I'm sure I've missed a few passages I should have indexed. When people here discover them, please post the line item from my index with the new page number inserted in boldface.

 

[Roger Knights]

Why not give me a summary?

It has 10 pages of text and 10 pages of photos. Here's the Abstract:

ABSTRACT. The Patterson-Gimlin film is one of the most intriguing and contested evidences for the existence of sasquatch. It is either one of the most significant pieces of natural history film or one of the most persistent and elaborate hoaxes of our time. In spite of all of the claims by skeptics and detractors, Hollywood has yet to duplicate the so-called “obvious man in a fur suit.” Such a feat in costume fabrication would require overcoming several major obstacles: the hair, limb proportions, and torso width. Three case studies from the Hollywood production lines examine how the best efforts of the industry measure up by comparison to the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. They obviously do not. From the perspective of a make-up and costume artist, the Patterson-Gimlin film lacks all the telltale signs of fakery, leading to the conclusion that the film, or more specifically the subject depicted therein, is genuine.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I'm not really an enthusiast for the supernatural interpretation. I'd rather not be. I was driven to it because I find both the skeptical and the persuaded sides of the debate about BF's existence convincing, and this was my only "out." (I mentioned that I summarized both sides in a pair of business cards.)

This is odd. You find both arguments compelling and so opt for Bigfoot being an inter-dimensional ghost? That just seems fickle.

I don't know how you can find the argument against Bigfoot to be compelling, and yet still totally disregard what that argument suggests, and why it suggests it.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It has 10 pages of text and 10 pages of photos. Here's the Abstract:

Hollywood isn't trying to make the fabled Man in the Suit, lol. Quite obviously, Hollywood has better things to do with its time than pander to us poor Bigfoot enthusiasts, be we sceptics or believers.

There's this notion that Hollywood is timid about it, when "they" clearly just cannot be arsed.

And why should they be...?

As evidence by D-Foot's little experiment, you believers won't even recognize the real-deal when it's been photoshopped onto a different background.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Below are all the excerpts from Long’s book on Patterson’s leather-working skills (or not), plus my own musings at the end. I say “all” because a few months ago I made an index of the items in Long’s book about Patterson’s character and characteristics. (Long’s index is poor and not organized at a detail level.) One of my index headings was “Handy, good with tools.” I’d have cited any page that mentioned his leather-working ability. (I’m going to post that Index for all to use—the BF head-banging community needs it.)
]
My interpretation is that Patterson picked up a few McClellan saddles cheap, maybe at an army/navy surplus store, and added pommels to them, converting them into Western saddles. The pommel is needed for roping. That wouldn’t have required any leatherworking ability. Maybe he did a few other changes, but not likely anything complex.

There’s nothing in the book about him selling saddles to others, or engaging in other leatherwork. To me, it looks like one of the many ways Patterson “made do” for himself; saddles are expensive. Greg Long has made a mountain out of Jerry Merritt’s molehill, as he occasionally has done elsewhere, to bolster his case.

The non-mention of his leather-working by others is a sort of negative evidence; if he had a business making saddles, it likely would have been mentioned by at least one other person.

(Maybe it’s in the 20% Long had to cut. I’m hoping an eBook version with the cuts restored will be published.)

I don't know why everything in that book must be taken as gospel. It's like the bible round these parts.

There was obviously plenty to be learned from it, but at the same time it is not the be all and end all of the whole mess, and there's quite a bit we obviously do not know.

What we do know is that Patterson was creative, he was interested in making hoaxes, interested in making money, and had the means to combine the both of them, and apparently did.

I swear, would you ask Greg Long whether Roger liked his fish smoked? Greg Long isn't the all-seeing-eye, ffs.