Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[historian]

Dfoot, Care to prove when latex was first used to make suits and costumes like this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tantek/62633722/?

I don't recall costume artists having the capability shown above, in 1967. Consequently, YOUR LITTLE CHARADE HERE, IS EXPOSED, SHALL WE SAY. I don't recall ever witnessing an internet poster, who consistently spewed out so much ***** as you DFOOT! Please stop insulting our intelligence. You do not fool anybody, except those skeptics that want to be fooled.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor. Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Spektator]

Richard Corson, Stage Makeup. Third Edition. NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1960. Chapter 14, pages 173-191, covers using liquid latex and foamed latex as costuming/make-up materials, including a detailed explanation of how to attach hair to the latex to give a convincing illusion of beards, monster faces, and so on.

And Creature from the Black Lagoon used a latex monster suit in 1954. Gorilla suits in the movies probably used latex masks before that.

Edited to add: the first commercial full-head Don Post monster mask made from rubber went on sale in 1949.

 

[tube]

Yeah, I watched MonsterQuest last night. The show can be roughly divided into the following sections:

1. The claim that a man cannot duplicate the gait of the Patterson film subject.

2. The discussion of the Skookum Elk Cast.

3. The claim that advanced photoanalysis shows a prognathic Patty.

4. Various people out in the woods looking for Bigfoot.

As far as #1 goes, I was downright shocked at this old canard. The attempt was made to show that a STATIC person could not duplicate the postures of a MOVING film subject! I'll bet that no one can statically imitate the posture of a pitcher when his arm is cranked all the way back before delivering a fastball, either! The "science" behind this Whitewolf endeavor is patently laughable.

I've posted this image before, but it bears repeating:

Note the head pitched forward, the strangely straight arm, and the "Lower Level Leg Lift". These are all characteristics that are natural features of a compliant gait. Yeah, I'd probably have a hard time posing statically in this posture too...

2. The Skookum Elk Cast. Well what can you say? Obviously Noll had to go into damage control mode on this one, but failed totally to demonstrate how his elk cast was not made by an elk. Sectioning the cast copies was interesting, but if I remember correctly, the known elk joints that Noll and Caddy used came from a butchered elk, and not from a know elk wallow. I certainly can't speak for Dr. Wroblewski, but common sense indicates an impression made by a static joint will differ from that made by a live animal. I see that Caddy's fanciful illustration overlay was included, I believe it was the same one posted on BFF some time ago.

What's most mind blowing if it weren't so sad, is that Caddy's illustration puts big hairy ape-man hands over the features I've circled here, which to any human being with functioning critical thinking skills are HOOVES:

3. The prognathic Patty interpretation is yet another example of fabricating "evidence" simply by drawing lines over features that suit your own interpretation. Caddy's interpretations are no better than those of MK Davis or Beckjord, and they all fail due to the film simply being too blurry to permit meaningful analysis of that level of detail. Just look at the foot! In some shots it looks like the heel is square, and some shots it does not. If it's obviously that blurry, how can you meaningfully infer that the subject is prognathic?
Was it Darius Swindler who claimed to see Patty's EYELIDS???? Jebus, I don't think even Beckjord has given us that one...

Not shown on the show, but delivered at a couple of these conferences, was the claim that greater detail could be obtained by color filtration of the images, the claim being that one layer of the emulsion would be more in focus. Well, how do you know the film in Patterson's camera was in focus in the first place? How do you know the COPY which Caddy and Noll examined was in focus? How do you know that the emulsion layer that "should" be most in focus was IN FACT the most in focus layer? It's an obvious case of over-eager analysis, but couched in enough high-tech jargon to sucker in those who lack critical thinking skills.

4. People out looking for Bigfoot; Monica Rawlins told Loren Coleman:

"All of the shots were staged, no actual research, as the cameraman - who by the way appointed himself as director also - read off a shot list we had to get done."

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mq-women/

Yeah, for some people going out in the woods "looking for Bigfoot" is more fun than just going out in the woods, just like "looking for ghosts" is more fun while in an old house than just walking around an old house.

So, are we to believe that although "all the shots were staged" the rock throwing was "real"?

All in all, kind of boring actually, with whoppers of misidentification, faulty methodology and logic that would be laughed at were it submitted to any reputable scientific journal.

 

[Geno]

I do wonder some about Morris's claim that he knew it was his suit when he saw the film years later on tv. He said on a radio show that he knew it was his suit even though Patterson modified it to some extent. He said he did not know where else Patterson would have gotten a suit made, even though Hollywood was making suits for years (Patterson went to Hollywood before the filming according to Long).

 

[Geno]

How did Morris know he was really talking to RP vs someone claiming to be RP ?

I thought it was because the caller tried to scam him, 'send me the suit and if I like it I will send you the money' which seemed to be a Patterson trademark.

 

[William Parcher]

Geno, did you listen to the interview with Morris on the Biscardi radio show? He said that he saw the Patty footage (PGF) on TV with his wife only months after RP claimed the encounter. So it was probably less than a year after he says he sold the suit to RP. When he heard Roger's name on TV he knew immediately it was the same guy he had sold it to. The version he saw may have been one of the earliest appearances on TV. Possibly not the same as versions shown in theaters.

 

[Geno]

I have heard Morris on Biscardi and also the X Zone. There is at least one clip of Patterson talking about the film so someone could play that for Morris to verify it was in fact him.

 

[historian]

Geno, did you listen to the interview with Morris on the Biscardi radio show? He said that he saw the Patty footage (PGF) on TV with his wife only months after RP claimed the encounter. So it was probably less than a year after he says he sold the suit to RP. When he heard Roger's name on TV he knew immediately it was the same guy he had sold it to. The version he saw may have been one of the earliest appearances on TV. Possibly not the same as versions shown in theaters.

coughgagcough puppypoo coughgagcough

 

[historian]

I do wonder some about Morris's claim that he knew it was his suit when he saw the film years later on tv. He said on a radio show that he knew it was his suit even though Patterson modified it to some extent. He said he did not know where else Patterson would have gotten a suit made, even though Hollywood was making suits for years (Patterson went to Hollywood before the filming according to Long).

coughgagcough puppypoo coughgagcough

 

[historian]

2. The discussion of the Skookum Elk Cast.

2. The Skookum Elk Cast. Well what can you say? Obviously Noll had to go into damage control mode on this one, but failed totally to demonstrate how his elk cast was not made by an elk. Sectioning the cast copies was interesting, but if I remember correctly, the known elk joints that Noll and Caddy used came from a butchered elk, and not from a know elk wallow. I certainly can't speak for Dr. Wroblewski, but common sense indicates an impression made by a static joint will differ from that made by a live animal. I see that Caddy's fanciful illustration overlay was included, I believe it was the same one posted on BFF some time ago.

Edited by tim: 

I do not believe that comment forwards your argument.

If you were paying attention, tube, they stated that on the seriously sloping bottom of the foot portion of the cast, WERE DERMAL RIDGES. Ever made casting artifacts on a SERIOUSLY SLOPING GRANULAR SURFACE there tube? I DIDN'T THINK SO!

 

[RayG]

Sectioning the cast copies was interesting, but if I remember correctly, the known elk joints that Noll and Caddy used came from a butchered elk, and not from a know elk wallow.

Yes, from a Rocky Mountain Elk, which is significantly smaller than a Roosevelt Elk. I've been told it's highly improbable that RE inhabit the area where the Skookum Cast was found, though online sources I've found seem to refute that conclusion.

RayG

 

[tube]

I've looked up close and in person at the original Skookum elk cast, the two copies, and "heel" copies with Chilcutt himself. Noll has posted clear photographs of those textures previously on BFF.

No, they are not desiccation ridges to be sure, but they aren't "dermals" either. Again, they are a fanciful interpretation of the hair texture of the elk that made the impression.

It looks to me like the term "dermals" still holds a fascination with Whitewolf entertainment.

You know, over in the UFO field, there are those who steadfastly maintain that Billy Meier's UFO "evidence" is all good...

Really, as a former sideshow performer, I can genuinely appreciate this stuff as ENTERTAINMENT, much like how I still think the Minnesota Iceman was wonderfully cool. But as real science, it's basically FRAUD, falling somewhere between N-rays and Piltdown man.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

(flowchart)

I find it very interesting that it doesn't seem to mention the print that Beckjord is offering for ONE MILLION DOLLARS on his website.

Either Morris' story is false, or it seems that he really did sell his gorilla suit to Patterson months before October 20.

I have to lean towards his story being false. He has no evidence for his claim and he wrote this:

A lot of publicity stunts wil be covered by the press and electronic media. One of the authors of this book pulled a classic stunt to promote the opening of his new costume shop. It went like this: A friend of his from his old circus days called and told him he would be through his area in a few hours to talk and visit. The fellow happened to be an elephant trainer, and always traveled with a few bulls (elephants). So the wheels of publicity began to turn and an idea emerged in the author's head. He clalled the local newspaper and radio station and explained that he was the owner of the local costume company and they had just recieved a contract to manufacture some elephant costumes and blankets and the big international circus star and all of his elephants would be arriving shortly. What followed is a classic funny story. In comes a motor home and tactor trailer and the two old friend meet with TV camera cranking out film and newspapers grabbing pictures. The elephant trainer had no idea what was happening! He soon caught on and went along with the stunt. He unloaded an elephant in the parking lot and they began to take measurements and put on a big show. When they went to move the truck, the trainer was having problems starting the engine, so the elephants were borught around to "give a push!" This story and the pictures dominated the 6 o' clock news and feature page for the next day, It didn't cost the author a penny! This is a fine exmaple of using your imagination and exploiting all the possibilities.

(from p. 37, Chapter 5 of How to Operate a Financially Successful Haunted House by Philip Morris and Dennis Phillips. 1997 Morris Costumes. ISBN: 0-911137-11-4. Library of Congress # 87-80906).

There you have it: Morris himself admits to lying about making types of costumes to get free publicity.

Are you sure the mouth can be seen opening in the PGF? Could it be an illusion, film artifact or background interference?

I agree; that .gif MDK posted to show Patty's "teeth" was a blurry mess. I think the "teeth" were just the texture on the mask's lips.

Additionally, I would ask: which Bigfooter will be the first to mockingly say that nobody had access to a Wookie head crest in 1967?

I dunno, but they'll obviously miss/forget that Dfoot had said he used a Wookiee mask's lips as a substitute for the similar-looking lips on a Don Post caveman mask (which he wasn't able to find). In any case, it'll be the new "Bob H said he wore a football helmet under the mask."

...and they were all jealous of Ivan Marx. Dude had a wife that any classic Bigfooter would be dreaming of.

This adds a whole new level of comedy how Rene Dahinden "...conceded reluctantly that such might be the case, more from a desire to believe Marx's wife, whom he respected and liked" in regards to the Marx cripplefoot film being real.

Note the head pitched forward, the strangely straight arm, and the "Lower Level Leg Lift". These are all characteristics that are natural features of a compliant gait. Yeah, I'd probably have a hard time posing statically in this posture too...

This reminds me of how a proponent noted that Patty's finger reached slightly lower than tube's, apparently failing to realize that the difference could be be due to a person wearing a large gorilla glove.

2. The Skookum Elk Cast.

Wait, they didn't show any footage of Noll's "elk roll" imitation? I call rip-off!

 

[Dfoot]

William Parcher - Actually everything that Heironimus says about the suit is accurate for a typical creature suit of the day. He says it had some type of mouthpiece in something that felt to him like one of those ol' timey soft football helmets. That's exactly what it's like.

He said the big head had his eyes an inch back from the eyeholes and you could see the space when he turned his head. That's true too. The Wah mask was made to fit Big Buck Maffei - a true giant. By putting the fake eye in the right eye socket of the mask you can cover up that extra little space.

He said the suit pulled over his head after he put leg with feet in them on. (hands and feet already attached). That's how Janos built his bear suits.

I could go on, but everything he recalls from those years ago does match reality. As far as Morris goes; he is trying to recall one particular customer who spoke to him on the phone decades earlier. His recollection would be off certainly. I'm sure when he saw it on television he immediately thought it was his. It was just a dark shape. Patterson may have been planning to use it in his movie when he suddenly became flush with cash and went to the pros in Los Angeles instead. (I've got a whole background story on Patterson in Hollywood)

As far as that suit you're talking about: That's not an imitation of Patty. That was just me dressing up my stunt dummy as a Bigfoot one Halloween. From that the discussion began about "muscle masses moving" and all that. I then said I'd try to track some of this down. So... "Patty Jr." was just a display. The foam suit and other things are experiments I did to show BFF people. I would like to someday build a Patty of my own though using the same methods as was used in '67.

historian - Maybe you should change that handle of yours. I've heard the "latex didn't exist" thing before. Latex was used for masks, bodies and creature suits as early as the original silent films. I've got great images from those days too. Awesome make up artists back then.

I sort of favor the 1930 ape in the earliest Weismuller Tarzan serial (Chapeter Seven) in which you can see the ape has pretty good abs and sparse hair. The apes were supposed to be of a more human type in the original book.

Here comes a big load of pics for you --- Notice the flat bicep below...


The Gorn even had a "hernia" that pushed out when bending forward. The muscles seem to move. Muscle masses moving I suppose. The Gorn was built in '66 out of foam and latex.


This shows the top and bottom of the suit. Same place on a bear, gorilla or some of the monster suits of the day.

Because hair was glued to latex it gets brushed off by the swinging are. That creates the "pair of shorts" look. More hair stays on the edges and actually oulines the padding in some parts.

GT/CS - I don't know about the wrist banding. Seems that it's attached in sort of a curved manner to help hide the seam. It's wide enough to slide your hand in and reminds me of Janos' bear suit structure.
Here's the one from 1930 that I like.

 

[erikbeckjord]

The whole thing boils down to utter ignorance coupled with wishfull thinking and quite possibly intellectual dishonesty.

Lets place apart the (truly deserved) ewwwwwwww experimental angle. Lets also suppose the film resolution is good enough to register such detail level and assume Patty is a real bigfoot instead of a bloke in a gorilla bigfoot costume.

Since we see Patty's side and back, one could only see her "parts" would be:
(i) Patty's anatomy would be similar to that of bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs. In other words, a quadrupedal (or knuckle-walking, if you preffer) ape. But since bigfeet are supposed to be bipedal, and Patty has that big diaper butt, we're left with...
(ii) Patty would have to bend over and/or spread her big butt. However, Patty makes no such thing. So, we're left with...





Its just another completely crappy footer claim. Inconsistent from the base to the top. Even if you consider the basic (already flawed) premisses are true. I won't even go in to the mind-boggling aspects related to the flawed circular logic of the whole argument...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The truth--- in some frames, Patty does BEND OVER to climb a rise or a log,
and there the anus is seen. In other frames, we do get a rear view, like a
human female, and with the legs open in full stride, the vulva and anus are visible.

See me in person, and I'll show you. But it means I get to meet you like a human being and not a silly anonymous texter.

It is not my fault you never paid for a film copy.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Dfoot, nice to see you again. Skeptics and believers alike can learn from your posts. Have you seen the Bob Heironimus/Phil Morris recreation of the film? What did you think?

It was lousy. I also met Bob H and he was very very unimpressive.

His legs are not long enough to make the stride Patty makes. Something YOU ALL IGNORE.

M

 

[erikbeckjord]

William Parcher - Actually everything that Heironimus says about the suit is accurate for a typical creature suit of the day. He says it had some type of mouthpiece in something that felt to him like one of those ol' timey soft football helmets. That's exactly what it's like.

He said the big head had his eyes an inch back from the eyeholes and you could see the space when he turned his head. That's true too. The Wah mask was made to fit Big Buck Maffei - a true giant. By putting the fake eye in the right eye socket of the mask you can cover up that extra little space.

He said the suit pulled over his head after he put leg with feet in them on. (hands and feet already attached). That's how Janos built his bear suits.

I could go on, but everything he recalls from those years ago does match reality. As far as Morris goes; he is trying to recall one particular customer who spoke to him on the phone decades earlier. His recollection would be off certainly. I'm sure when he saw it on television he immediately thought it was his. It was just a dark shape. Patterson may have been planning to use it in his movie when he suddenly became flush with cash and went to the pros in Los Angeles instead. (I've got a whole background story on Patterson in Hollywood)

As far as that suit you're talking about: That's not an imitation of Patty. That was just me dressing up my stunt dummy as a Bigfoot one Halloween. From that the discussion began about "muscle masses moving" and all that. I then said I'd try to track some of this down. So... "Patty Jr." was just a display. The foam suit and other things are experiments I did to show BFF people. I would like to someday build a Patty of my own though using the same methods as was used in '67.

historian - Maybe you should change that handle of yours. I've heard the "latex didn't exist" thing before. Latex was used for masks, bodies and creature suits as early as the original silent films. I've got great images from those days too. Awesome make up artists back then.

I sort of favor the 1930 ape in the earliest Weismuller Tarzan serial (Chapeter Seven) in which you can see the ape has pretty good abs and sparse hair. The apes were supposed to be of a more human type in the original book.

Here comes a big load of pics for you --- Notice the flat bicep below...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766474fb437e20ad.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766474fb46585c63.gif[/qimg]The Gorn even had a "hernia" that pushed out when bending forward. The muscles seem to move. Muscle masses moving I suppose. The Gorn was built in '66 out of foam and latex.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766474fb62a83833.gif[/qimg]
This shows the top and bottom of the suit. Same place on a bear, gorilla or some of the monster suits of the day.

Because hair was glued to latex it gets brushed off by the swinging are. That creates the "pair of shorts" look. More hair stays on the edges and actually oulines the padding in some parts.

GT/CS - I don't know about the wrist banding. Seems that it's attached in sort of a curved manner to help hide the seam. It's wide enough to slide your hand in and reminds me of Janos' bear suit structure.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766474fb8516948f.gif[/qimg]
Here's the one from 1930 that I like.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

noTE: you will all note that the two frames of the film show heads that are
100% different.... don't gloss this over --- it is a shapeshifter.

I refer to the two frames from the PG Film in the post I am quoting.

M

 

[erikbeckjord]

Re Patty's teeth....


Teeth are VERY VERY VISIBLE in frame 370, 371 and 372, and others.

aLSO THE OPEN Mouth shows a slender jaw, too thin to be Giganto.

You people are very very ignorant of what is in this film., Go at least buy the DVD
"Sasquatch: legend meets science".

You do not know of what you speak.

M

 

[LTC8K6]

The truth--- in some frames, Patty does DUCK BEHIND a tree, and there we see her pick her nose and delicately scratch her rear exit. In other frames, we do get a good view, like a human female, and with the legs open in full stride, the toilet paper stuck to her privates is visible.

 

[Drewbot]

Did anyone notice Gimlin on the Monsterquest show, saying he was 'behind Patty', and then later saying he could see the face and everything? That seemed like a blatant boo boo.