Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Dfoot wrote:

In truth, that is A FALSE STATEMENT you made there Sweaty.

I can show you many suits that are far more realistic when it comes to showing "muscle masses moving" - and they don't have hair or blur to hide anything.

Cool.....then go ahead and show us.

So... that's just an experiment and I am in motion walking much like Bob H. walks in the Patty suit. It works. Paint on latex and hair and you have a decent Bigfoot suit.

Cool....now let's see it IN MOTION.....you know, like something you see in the MOVIES.

While you're at it, sir....why don't you paint on some latex and hair and create a decent Bigfoot suit, which can match Patty in realism.

 

[GT/CS]

Oh, c'mon already. It's called a hoax. What are you going to do, keep the incriminating evidence? Use it again and tell people lightning struck twice?

Is being such a creduloid really that fun? What am I thinking? Of course it is. You get to go to work with the wonders of Martian civilizations, Joyce, the MDF, and Patty on your mind.

Heironimus is in the film, Patterson made fake tracks, dressed up Gimlin like Running Bear, drew a hairy-canned bigfoot in his book the year before, Gimlin's never taken a lie detector test and refuses to do so...

Really, how much do you need? You go ahead and wonder if the ridiculous diaper butt and rock-hard, too low, hairy cans are real. The rest of us need not burden ourselves with such affronts to common sense.
BTW, lots of very bright people wonder whether or not astrology is real. That doesn't make it any more credible.

Citing Meldrum as a proponent of the PGF doesn't lend to it's credibility. He's got confirmation bias all over.

Swindler? "My god, it's gigantopithecus!" ROTFLMAO

And don't forget the band that attaches the glove to the sleeve!!! Since such a perfect line is an impossiblity in nature it must be man-made, right Sweaty?

Just making sure you haven't forgotten about it. Still waiting for you to explain why it is in the photos you posted, and why it doesn't prove Patty to be a bloke in a suit.

Still waiting.........

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Would it be possible for someone to take Dfoot's padding pictures and make them into an animated .gif?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Moving fingers, short hairs, similar feet, overall shape similar to Patty...

Don't forget THE CREST!

I left out a key word in that statement I made........'comparable'.

You do realize that this absolutely reeks of goalpost-moving, right?

In that same post of mine, I described some of the aspects of a video, or photo, which would be necessary for that video or photo to be "comparable" to the PG film.

Let's break those up, shall we?

re-created the realism of Patty on video...

I'm assuming that you mean something done on 16mm film and then transferred onto video. Otherwise, the resolutions between film and video would be an issue.

in motion...

Which is impossible for a still photograph...

with a comparable view of the subject....i.e...seen from head-to-toe, from the side, back, and partially from the front...

It's a darn shame that Dfoot had publicized his Patty dummy/suit. Considering how he was told that it "looked just like Patty," I'd imagine that a photograph of it posed in the woods would meet this requirement.

If it weren't for the fact that it was lying on its back, I'd say that the Minnesota Iceman would fulfill this requirement. The hazy of the ice could be compared to the visual quality of the unstabilized P/G film and it "stood up" to examination by two scientists. However, the fact that it didn't display signs of freezer burn (among other details) point to it being a hoax.

and with a good degree of resolution.

Something that the P/G footage doesn't actually have. I think that Patty's magical disappearing stump-hands prove that point nicely.

The Memorial Day Video is also ambiguous as to what the subject actually is...but the discussion is about the realism of Patty. The MD Video is obviously irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Ambiguous, you say?

The fact remains, Greg.......no comparable films, videos, or photos anywhere near as convincing, or as ambiguous as what's on the PG film.

All the others are instantly recognizable as a man-in-a-(shaggy) suit.

Sweaty, should I take this as meaning that you don't think the Freeman and Redwoods videos could be real and that you disagree with those who claim that the subjects of those videos bear a resemblence to Patty? If so, I definitely agree with you on both points. I find the resemblence between the Freeman "Bigfoot" and the relatively simple costume used for "Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny" very amusing.

Come to think of it, don't the tracks shown in the video match up with the Freeman tracks that were shown to be fake or am I remembering things incorrectly?

 

[Dfoot]

Okay Sweaty Yeti, here are some suits better than "Patty" ---

This is Hong Kong actor Andy Lau wearing a suit. It's better than Patty.

This is the same suit hanging on a dummy.

Here's a creature fx guy trying it on for size. Same thing happened when they made Patty-btw.

If the Tribes had claimed Sasquatch was a tree demon it might look like this. Though I'm sure you could still paint and cover this with hair and be okay by Patty standards.


If you could build a Gorn in 1966, you could build Patty.


On the LEFT is Patty. On the RIGHT is a 1930's Gorilla suit butt. On par with Patty and using some of the same techniques. If you can mix the 1966 methods with the 1930's style and merge that with Janos' bear suit techniques, you'll have a suit that works like Patty.


The mask I glued together from Wookie lips and a Tor mask with sunglasses for eyes scared me when I whipped my flashlight up to it in the dark. It has EYESHINE!


Yet it wasn't scary at all in the daylight with me wearing it. It needs less focus and more shake.

The tee-shirt & legs test. The make-a-mask test. The make duplicate latex feet and prints test. Each of these took only a couple of hours to throw together. To build an reasonable imitation of Patty would take me a few days and under $500 (I'd have to purchase the dark brown four way stretch fur as well as enough latex and padding to build it)

Take a collection among Bigfooters and I'll give it a go. Even though I'm not a creature fx guy I think I could pull off something half-way decent.

If you want to see the tee-shirt walking or moving around then tell me how to post a video and I'll do it. But remember, that's just a tee-shirt that's been safety pinned to some glued foam. It's no finished suit. The arms are just some forearm pads I threw on. I'm not trying to make my arms longer or imitate Bob H. I was just seeing if I could make "muscle masses move" - and I did just that.

 

[historian]

Okay Sweaty Yeti, here are some suits better than "Patty" ---

Waiter! I.Q. test over here, please! Hurry!

40 years later, you still don't have squat!

 

[Dfoot]

Waiter! I.Q. test over here, please! Hurry!

40 years later, you still don't have squat!

historian - Wow! That's the kind of "Children of the Corn" response that causes people not to want to eat lunch with Dr. Meldrum.

We do, in fact, have suits. You do, in fact, have no Patty.

***below is an animation test - NIGHTSQUATCH in my backyard!

 

[kitakaze]

Waiter! I.Q. test over here, please! Hurry!

40 years later, you still don't have squat!

Ha ha... Nice counter-argument. Show 'em you're a tiger! You forgot the "Nanner, nanner, poo-poo."

Neal, why don't you have a skip on over to the 2008 predictions thread and tell us about the Kainan Jordan art piece you lifted and presented as a real photo of bigfoot which could not be debunked?

 

[Dfoot]

 

[SweatyYeti]

AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:

Sweaty, should I take this as meaning that you don't think the Freeman and Redwoods videos could be real and that you disagree with those who claim that the subjects of those videos bear a resemblence to Patty?

I think the Freeman video could be real. There are things about it that support it being legitimate...and things that indicate it may be a hoax.

But neither the Freeman nor the Redwoods videos are comparable to the PG film, as far as the 'degree of resolution' of the subjects are concerned.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a better version of Dfoot's animated gif. I removed all the blank frames...no charge...

 

[kitakaze]

I think the Freeman video could be real. There are things about it that support it being legitimate...

Such as...?

 

[kitakaze]

Here's a better version of Dfoot's animated gif. I removed all the blank frames...no charge...

That's quite helpful. Thank you, Sweaty. It was a bit of a chore trying to watch it before.

Any thoughts on it?

 

[RayG]

40 years later, you still don't have squatch!

There, I fixed it for you.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

Notice how the shape of Patty's thigh changes from when the leg is lifted up high...to when it's straightened out, with the body weight on it....

Dfoot's leg doesn't seem to change shape, like Patty's does...

 

[SweatyYeti]

That's quite helpful. Thank you, Sweaty. It was a bit of a chore trying to watch it before.

Any thoughts on it?

It was a little irritating.
As for my thoughts....see above.

 

[kitakaze]

Notice how the shape of Patty's thigh changes from when the leg is lifted up high...to when it's straightened out, with the body weight on it....

1) In what way do you believe the shape changes?

2) Are you making an observation based on an informed understanding of how a suit would differ from flesh and bone?

3) Are you referring at all to the line on the thigh that many consider clearly indicative of a hoax?

Nevertheless:

Dfoot's leg doesn't seem to change shape, like Patty's does...

There are changes in the shape of DFOOT's suit's thigh from what I can see. Regardless, have you shown that the shape change that you believe evident is soley physical and not contributed to by perspective?

Though incomplete, I think DFOOT's suit is remarkabley comparable to what's seen in the PGF.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here you can see Patty's leg (muscles?) ripple as she plants her heavy leg on the ground....

Speeded up a little...

Let's see Dfoot's foam padding do that...

 

[kitakaze]

Here you can see Patty's leg (muscles?) ripple as she plants her heavy leg on the ground....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Legripple111.gif[/qimg]


Speeded up a little...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Legripple222.gif[/qimg]


Let's see Dfoot's foam padding do that...

Finally, so now we come down to it. Before we even try addressing what you believe to be muscle movement in Patty's leg tell me, is there some reason why a small animation capture of what you think are muscles is more compelling than anything seen in my Harley Hoffman video?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

1) In what way do you believe the shape changes?

The change in shape is very significant.
With her leg on the ground, the front and back "edges" of the thigh are parallel...

But when it's lifted up....the leg is wider at the top than it is at knee...

Kitakaze wrote:

2) Are you making an observation based on an informed understanding of how a suit would differ from flesh and bone?

The observations I make about Patty's leg are made based on what I see happening with Patty's leg.

3) Are you referring at all to the line on the thigh that many consider clearly indicative of a hoax?

No.