Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Devnull:

Other films and shows of mine are:

Blackenstein
Savage Harvest
The Boogins
Dead and Buried
Swamp Thing
Beastmaster
Where The Boys Are 1984
Blind Date
Teddy Ruxpin TV special
Munsters Today TV Pilot
The Chimp Channel
Paradise
Brainstorm
AST Computer Commercial
Kraft Chees commercial
Budweiser frogs for 1997/8 commercials
Hostess Twinkie and Cupcake commercials
Burger King "Quest for Burger" commercial

Plus museums

National Museum of nat. history Paris
Workd T-Rex Exhibition, Tokyo
San Diego Museum of Man
Archaen Archaeological Park in Holland


Robotics
Excalliber Hotel Dragon, Las vegas
San Rio Dinosaur show 1992 and 1993



Drapier:

I was hired by a lady who breeds horses. She had a swayback horse and wanted me to make a prosthetic for it, to restore it's normal back posture. I was paid and i did deliver it as contracted. She said it was for a horse show, but I have no knowledge if it was ever used or if it was her true intention. So I can only say with factual certainty that she hired me to make the prosthetic and I did. Her true intent is conjectural and I have no knowledge of any eventual use.

Creekfreak:

Congratulations.

AMM
Thank you.



LTC8K6

I have no fear of your questions. As long as you understand my intent. I am not a "Bigfoot investigator" and I am not offering any evidence to specifically prove they exist. But if the film figure were proved to be impossible with materials of the time, by process of elimination, a real cerature might be the alternative. Would you agree?
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
My simple question is this: you appear to have worked on (to some degree) 2 movies that I can find (1 in 1984 and 1 in 1985). What other movies have you worked on in the last 30 years as a makeup effects man?

Just trying to find a sampling of your work.
Click to expand...

You can find some more of his work noted here. But, as Dfoot noted in the past, the IMDB is fraught with problems, doesn't list commercials, etc. Hopefully Mr. Munns can tell us how accurate the IMKDB page devoted to him is.
 
AMM: Yes, IMDB seems sorely lacking..... some of Bill's work is also listed as 'prosthetics constructor' which sounds interesting.

Bill: Anyway, am I to understand it is your contention that the PGF is real because 1960s effects technology could not have produced the level of realism on the film?

If this is correct, my question is: how would you rate the level of realism of Patty? To my untrained eye, she looks like the world's worst halloween costume :)

thanks
 
LTC8K6

Missed your two lower questions.
You say: "Mr. Munns claims Patty is a real creature. He will have to defend that position here, imo. "

Prove I ever said that. I didn't. Other people foolishly think I said that.

Am I claiming patty is real? No, I'm not claiming that. I haven't offered any conclusion yet, my research is still ongoing. Some people on this forum have misconstrued my notes and simply offered their intrepretation of what I have stated. Perhaps you were mislead by somebody here confused about what I've said.

"What's in the film that a man can't do?"

My concern is that what's in the film, furcloth of the time cannot do. My notes explain this, and people in this forum have quoted from those notes repeatedly over the last two months, so apparently those notes are easy enought for anyone here to find and read. no need to repeat them here.



AMM:

I don't think IMDB's listing of me is even remotely complete. The above list I submitted it better.


devnull:

My contention is that i have grave doubts that suit technology, especially of 1967, could do what I see. The furcloth of a suit then is my primary concern. If it cannot be a suit, it must be something else, shouldn't it? Maybe a real animal? Just a thought.

Each person has their own opinion about what they see. I try to focus on the material capabilities that can be studied and tested.
 
Mr. Munns, were you misquoted here?

In 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, two Bigfoot enthusiasts, filmed what Meldrum and others believe is a female Sasquatch, complete with hairy breasts, striding away across a loamy streambed on Bluff Creek in Northern California. While some have since claimed that the film is a hoax, longtime Hollywood special-effects creator Bill Munns said it would have been impossible in 1967 to fake a creature suit like the one depicted in the film. "With today's technology, yes, you could fake a fur suit like that," said Munns, who did just that when he built a life-size model of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus blacki - a possible evolutionary link to Sasquatch - for University of Iowa anthropologist Russell Ciochon. "But in the 1960s, short, dense stretch fur was nonexistent." Meldrum thinks that, at a minimum, fossils of Gigantopithecus show that evolution could have produced a Sasquatch-size ape that lived in temperate forests. "It's tempting to draw the line between the two, but so little is known about either," Meldrum said.
Click to expand...
 
LTC8K6

"Mr. Munns, could Patty be a man in a suit?

That is the premise I had to start with, yes, and then attempt to review exactly how such a suit might be made in 1967, and then evaluate if such a suit could do what the film shows. I've stated repeatedly I still have unresolved issues with the lines around the waist/pelvic area, that keep me undecided. And i have been trying to think through what kind of experiemnts might bring new data to help resolve the issue.

No, I am not misquoted, in the newspaper article you listed. The appraisal was predicated on the lack of short, dense, stretch fur at the time (1967), a truthful condition. That interview was around 2000, 8 years ago.

Once i began studying this in January of this year, I chose to erase all expectation or presumption and start from scratch, and retest all my understanding of the materials and processes, and try to do so in a manner that rises above opinion into studied testable fact. I'm still in that process.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Mr. Munns, could Patty be a man in a suit?
Click to expand...
I would ak the same question if worded slightly differently:

Given the established facts, the PGF is far, far more likely to be a man in a suit. Is this not true? If not, why?

Mr. Munns, welcome to the JREF. I'm sure as you may well expect, you will find this to be a very different place than the BFF. If you perform a search on your name, you will find that we have criticised some of your arguments as being from a flawed personal incredulity. Your comments regarding the completely unnatural breasts are an example of this.
 
Ray G.

Giganto was presumed to be a knucklewalker quadreped, but I suggested posing him standing and reaching for some kind of fruit in a tree, to show off his height. That's why one arm is up.

Kitakaze

My notes do explain why i find the suit unlikely. I know you've read them, becase you've quoted from them. They stand as my best argument to date. on your question.

I am aware you have criticized me on the issue of the breasts. I'm curious, did you read my lengthy explanation of exactly how they could be fabricated, either still or fluid, with 1960's technology? If you think it's a suit, why not enbrace my arguments of how they can be made for a suit, which I offered?
 
I will take the liberty of reposting Correa's last post addressing your arguments, Bill:

Correa Neto said:
I said I would write some lines on Bill Munn's posts at BFF.Well, here they are. As other posters pointed out before, his reasonings have the core flaw of being based on personal perceptions (what Patty looks like in his opinion) and an argument on incredibility – not unlike the “I can’t be fooled” line we see quite often. He shows that he knows how to build a gorilla costume, but as soon as he tries to apply his knowledge to PGF, personal bias (and what seems to be a previously reached conclusion) ruins his work. I think his lines on Patty's breasts were an outstanding example of this (we'll be back to this later). I haven’t seen his latest contributions, so I may be missing something.

At a previous post I commented on his cost analysis. Now, I will focus in what I consider to be three big flaws in Munn's reasonings (there are others, but these are, I believe, enough to expose my points and start a discussion):

1. It would be exhausting to perform as Patty and several helpers would be needed. Sorry, but not necessarily. Here in Brazil, when it’s Carnival, people wear fantasies that are heavier, hotter and more cumbersome during samba school "parades"- and they last for 90 minutes! This is official parade time; you must also take in to account the time needed for the preparation (gathering and organizing the thousands of people that compose each school, as well as mny other things) and the end (dispersion, move people and cars away from the avenue, for another school is coming). It’s not impossible to find people using very hot and cumbersome costumes for two hours. And they will not be just walking along the Sambadrome. They will be dancing. Note also that most of these people make no special preparations for this- actually, usually the preparation is of the alcoholic type. Some if them pass out? Of course, but the vast majority of them manage to do it somehow. Now, remember that Paterson, Gimlim and Hieronimus were cowboys; these folks probably were used to pretty hard work. Wearing a hot gorilla suit would be a piece of cake for them compared to much of the works they previously made. Bob (if he was the bloke in the suit) needs assistance o wear the costume? Patterson and Gimlim could help him put and remove the costume. Then he starts walking, Paterson or Gimlim quickly grabs the camera and starts shooting. Bob Acts as he was told before as soon as someone says “action” or something similar. Was it hot? Here, have some cold water from Bluff creek now; I’ll pay you a couple of beers later at the bar.

2. The seams and fake hair issue. It’s clear for many of us that given the resolution and exposure, seams and an artificial aspect of the hair would quite likely not be seen. But lets advance a bit more on the seams issue. A basic rule of miniature making is that if you can make it look good at small scale, you will be able to make it look even better at a larger scale. What this has to do with a gorilla costume? Simple. Ever seen the work of Ray Harryhaussen? No, I am not saying Ray Harryhaussen built Patty or was somehow involved with it. I just want you to check his stop-motion monsters and animals. Can you see any flaw or seam line at his saber-toothed tiger, Pegasus, baboon or Cyclops? So, if you can’t see the seams at a small miniature, filmed in focus, and filling the whole screen, why would you be supposed to see them at a life-size gorilla costume filmed at distance with a shaky camera? I fail to see how a person with experience in FX would not realize this. There’s no need for expensive hair or fur. And regarding the skill level required to build Patty, one must never underestimate the skills and the will of amateurs; remember also that time was in their side. Patterson may have had plenty of time to test and improve the costume. Probably more than a movie’s time schedule.

3. Patty's breasts… Munn saying they look natural for him raised a huge red flag regarding his objectivity. It’s the very same bias exhibited by many a proponent who claims they look natural or like the breasts of a female hominid or great ape are supposed to look like. A great amount of anatomic knowledge (even if "instinctive" or empirical) is needed to build realistic costumes, sculptures, etc. Heck, its pretty basic requirement- you need to know anatomy if you want to place a person inside a costume or a fantasy. How come someone consider Patty's breasts natural looking? Heavy bias or complete lack of understanding of female (human and great apes) anatomy. Lack of anatomic understanding/knowledge is not expected in an individual whose work is costume making and building animal replicas. So, we are left with…
Click to expand...
As for myself, I am just stepping out the door to work but I will get back to your response to me this evening and I will thoroughly reread your comments on the breasts before doing so.
 
Perhaps we can put an end right now to at least one myth concerning the PGF. And that myth is the one Sasquatch Bob Heronimous claimd about "Roger skinned out a dead red horse." A dead red horse hide lashed together by a cowboy wouldn't have even qualified as a bad Halloween costume. I for one am crossing off horse hide as proper Patty material. Farewell ol paint happy trails!
 
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
 
Patterson himself admitted it was staged

I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
 
Kitakaze:

I have read Correa Neto's critique, so I've replied with just highlights to reference my replies:




Correa Neto Post #11276

On Bill Munn's Patty analysis...

"1. It would be exhausting to perform as Patty and several helpers would be needed. "

I explain exactly why suits, in general need helpers. I've worn them for movies. And I explained how people can condition themselves to more endurance in a suit. And I explained how amateurs can wear them as well. I explained about padded suits and suits that allow for air circulation inside (like stroller costumes for theme park employees. I covered all the considerations. You just failed to read them.

"2.(edited for brevity) The seams and fake hair issue. . . .A basic rule of miniature making . . I fail to see how a person with experience in FX would not realize this. "

The principle difference in technologies, between stop motion animation and real time filming is that the fur can be groomed before every single frame of film is taken (for a stop motion model). In live performance filming, one can groom a suit only until the camera roll, then the suit and the motion of the actor inside may ruffle the fur and expose seams, and the assistant grooming the fur has no potential to step in during filming to correct it. Live filming represents an entirely different set of rules about how fur can or cannot be groomed. Comparing it to stop motion work is truly apples and oranges, in terms of seam hiding processes and potential.

"3. Patty's breasts… Munn saying they look natural for him raised a huge red flag regarding his objectivity. "

Curious that you feel one person's expressing his opinion is a "red flag regarding his objectivity". Don't every one of you here in this forum express your opinions in nearly every thread. I said the breasts tend to be more humanistic than apelike, and that I didn't see anything about them which I felt was particularly unnatural in that context. And I discussed at leangth exactly how a person could fake them, with 60's technology. Did I base any conclusion on a perception of "looking natural"? No.

Frankly I don't think they're an issue that determines true or false. They could be real, they could be fabricated. Arguments can be advanced either way. Neither would be conclusive in my opinion.

"Lack of anatomic understanding/knowledge is not expected in an individual whose work is costume making and building animal replicas. "

Interesting criticism, considering I won two "Best In World Recreation" awards at the World Taxidermy Competition, 1988 and 1992, for my anatomically perfect sculptural figures of real animals, including primates. I was invited back in 1995 and 1997 to judge and lecture at that event. And Breakthrough Magazine published over a dozen articles on my realistic wildlife sculptures and techniques. Correa Neto, may I ask your resume of anatomical study or expertise as well, so you can verify that you have anatomical understanding and knowledge. Or must I presume yours while defending mine?

Kannon:

I don't base anything of my analysis on what Patterson may have said. too much hearsay. I base my study simply on suit technology.

Bill
 
Crowlogic said:
Perhaps we can put an end right now to at least one myth concerning the PGF. And that myth is the one Sasquatch Bob Heronimous claimd about "Roger skinned out a dead red horse." A dead red horse hide lashed together by a cowboy wouldn't have even qualified as a bad Halloween costume. I for one am crossing off horse hide as proper Patty material. Farewell ol paint happy trails!
Click to expand...

Check your facts Crow, or do you prefer ' Mr. Logic ' ?

BH never made such a claim ..
 
kannon said:
I can't believe people are still discussing this. Patterson admitted on his death bed that it was staged. Have you not heard? There is nothing to debate here... let it GO people, please.
Click to expand...

If you can quote the source then please furnish it. I do hope that the usual posse of critical thinkers will endevour to seek confirmation as well.
 
Diogenes said:
Check your facts Crow, or do you prefer ' Mr. Logic ' ?

BH never made such a claim ..
Click to expand...

Well then take it up with these folks. Its just one of the places where the quote can be found. Please don't waste my time!

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like big rubber boots and that went to his waist.

He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.”
 
I don't have to take it up with them ..

Since you are making an unsubstantiated claim, that would be up to you ...

The BFRO ?!!

The same group that claims this is a Bigfoot ?

index.php


:dl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom