• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

The Shrike said:
A crockpot, but a fun one I guess. Blevins' home made bigfoot costume was silly looking by movie monster standards, but it effectively debunked some trenchant footer fantasies about the PGF. No zippers were visible, the "mime" (Blevins) was able to walk smoothly in a costume that created the illusion of great mass, etc.
Click to expand...

Sad news. I spent a lot of time talking to Leroy, he was always happy to send me updates about his Patty suit project.
 
The Shrike said:
A crockpot, but a fun one I guess. Blevins' home made bigfoot costume was silly looking by movie monster standards, but it effectively debunked some trenchant footer fantasies about the PGF. No zippers were visible, the "mime" (Blevins) was able to walk smoothly in a costume that created the illusion of great mass, etc.
Click to expand...

Very true. Many of Blevins's claims were... interesting, but I thought he did a surprisingly good job on his suit, especially for a person with no prior experience (IIRC). Certainly better than many, including probably all of the footers gave him. What so many of them seemed to be missing (and always seem to be missing, for that matter) is how poor quality the PGF actually is, and how little you can see in versions that haven't been zoomed in, cropped, "enhanced," and slowed down. Shot poorly and in bad conditions on 16mm from a good distance, I always thought his suit would have looked pretty comparable to Patty. And either way, as you said, he was able to debunk a lot of claims about making and wearing a Patty-ish suit.
 
ArchSas said:
Shot poorly and in bad conditions on 16mm from a good distance, I always thought his suit would have looked pretty comparable to Patty.
Click to expand...
IMO, Blevins did not provide at least three necessary things for a "Patty recreation".

1) Greatly increased distance between the subject and the camera. He could have done this but didn't.

2) Very glossy fur on the costume. He may have had trouble finding this even if he knew that it should be - but I don't think he understood the need for this.

3) Bright sunlight with the sun being high in the sky. He didn't do this.

I think that film might be necessary instead of video because I think that it might be important that the original media has grain instead of pixels. Additionally, the great distance is important because it is necessary to force any analyst to greatly enlarge the image/subject in order to see anything at all. Blevins filmed his costume from such a short distance that it is unnecessary for anyone to enlarge the image to look at the costume.
 
William Parcher said:
IMO, Blevins did not provide at least three necessary things for a "Patty recreation".
Click to expand...
Fair points all.

To me what Blevins did accomplish was demonstrate ease of movement in a costume that created the illusion of great bulk. The "mime" was fully capable of donning the suit and walking around without dying, which some suit geniuses at the time were trying to convince us was nigh-on impossible.
 
William Parcher said:
2) Very glossy fur on the costume. He may have had trouble finding this even if he knew that it should be - but I don't think he understood the need for this.
Click to expand...
I've spoken of the need to use very glossy synthetic fur in order to get the look of Patty. Here we see a vintage black Dynel synthetic fur coat. This fur would have been readily available back in 1967 but may be near impossible to find now. Bigfooters ask Patty replicators to make sure they only use what was available to Patterson without any modern-era advancements. It looks to me like Patterson used Dynel and that is difficult to get now.

Notice that the gloss creates bright areas when illuminated (think bright sunlight). This black coat appears to have grey areas (some of which are nearly white) but it really doesn't. That gloss could create optical illusions of various kinds including causing false visual impressions about underlying contours like muscles or other physiology. One might make mistakes in trying to determine if an area on the costume is raised or depressed. One might declare that there is an underlying physiology that isn't actually there. IOW, the gloss could trick you as an observer trying to describe what you see.

That could very much benefit a Bigfoot hoaxer with a costume such as Roger Patterson. Illusions can cause you to think that certain things are present which actually aren't and vice-versa.

One might even take this synthetic fur and place it on a perfectly flat surface but then the variable reflection of light off of the fur fibers causes one to think that it isn't flat.
 

Attachments

  • 60.jpg
    60.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 7
Here is a Dynel fur purse with the potential for optical illusion and pareidolia. Can you find the palm tree?
 

Attachments

  • DynelPurse.jpg
    DynelPurse.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 8
The Shrike said:
And if we take Kitakaze at his word, was DeAtley not in possession of "the suit"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would consider such a claim even remotely valid without some sort of hard evidence. Kitakaze supplied no evidence that I am aware of.
I respected his research until his eagerness to make a big splash as documentary producer/writer seemed to cloud his judgement. IMHO, of course.
 
I thought DeAtley had funded Patterson's film and after it took off so to speak, he kept the suit and it was in a display case at his home. It was supposedly described by a contractor who was working at the home.
Since he would have known the truth, and had the most to lose by its exposure as a fraud, or maybe he had it as trophy of the greatest hoax ever....or both.
 
Cervelo said:
I thought DeAtley had funded Patterson's film and after it took off so to speak, he kept the suit and it was in a display case at his home. It was supposedly described by a contractor who was working at the home.
Since he would have known the truth, and had the most to lose by its exposure as a fraud, or maybe he had it as trophy of the greatest hoax ever....or both.
Click to expand...

With respect - there is no direct evidence supporting any of your post. As sceptics - we should at least try and have a higher standard of evidence than the Footers.
After all - my contractor source told me DeAtley was a strategically shaved Bigfoot who had Patterson's body embalmed and kept it in a display case in his home. ;)

Kit supplied absolutely no evidence to back up his later claims. Like the Footers - he promised a giant awe-inspiring reveal and kept doubling down and chiding those who disagreed with his claims.
He was acting like a Footer so much I thought he was actually doing some sort of parody.
However, in the end, when he had no more fantasies to spin and no-one was actually buying into his wild claims - he bailed. Just like a Footer.
 
Last edited:
rockinkt said:
With respect - there is no direct evidence supporting any of your post. As sceptics - we should at least try and have a higher standard of evidence than the Footers.
After all - my contractor source told me DeAtley was a strategically shaved Bigfoot who had Patterson's body embalmed and kept it in a display case in his home. ;)

Kit supplied absolutely no evidence to back up his later claims. Like the Footers - he promised a giant awe-inspiring reveal and kept doubling down and chiding those who disagreed with his claims.
He was acting like a Footer so much I thought he was actually doing some sort of parody.
However, in the end, when he had no more fantasies to spin and no-one was actually buying into his wild claims - he bailed. Just like a Footer.
Click to expand...

Agreeded I was just trying to clarify what the story was. No doubt that the faithful at BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) didn't buy into it.
Wild claims....meh if you say so, the way you compare the two is pretty dramatic/disingenuous.

Giant monkey man roaming the U.S.!
Well regarded rich dude, who was the brother in law who funded a film that was peddled by Roger Patterson as a real Bigfoot, hiding evidence that it was fake!
These two things are the same in your mind....okey-dokey.


Your saying there's no evidence that DeAtley didn't fund PGF and it's subsequent national tour?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom