Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
It's natural for me to think that way, Sweaty. You take the time to post with excuses when you could just answer the question or address the debate.

I'm guessing you don't see the humour in that.
Click to expand...


I'm taking the time to defend myself against your personal attacks on me....calling me a liar.

I noticed that twice I've asked you a very simple "yes" or "no" question....and both times you've failed to provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Could it be that you're evading the question...and afraid to answer it directly, scaredy-kitty? :)
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
I don't recall seeing Patty's palms, Crow.

Certainly not well enough to say whether they are furry.
Click to expand...

True the PGF is an artifact paradise but this left hand is not an artifact. Its big and its furrless on the palm. Best viewed in motion in the MK Davis gif. The same frames in the color PGF show this as light grey in color.


<a href="http://s130.photobucket.com/albums/p277/lancelawson/?action=view&current=HANDarrowbffUSE.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p277/lancelawson/HANDarrowbffUSE.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

HANDarrowbffUSE.jpg
 
Last edited:
Its big and its furrless on the palm.
Click to expand...

I don't see any way to make any distinct claim about the hand at all. It looks to be blending in with other items in the frame, distorting it mightily. My guess is that about half of it isn't Patty's hand at all.

MK Davis also produced a giant foot, referred to as paddlefoot, which doesn't look that way in other versions of the film.
 
Last edited:
Ray, LTC

Not kidding. Try as I've suggested viewing the MK Davis gif. Also make note of the wrist band effect right above the light palm. In motion you'll see the creases in the palm and at the finger joints. If you've got a good color version of the PGF (not those poor Youtube things) It may be easier.
 
We can see Patty's left hand in several frames, and it never appears very big.

What you are looking at in that frame is distortion, imo.

We have a relatively low shutter speed, and a comparatively fast moving hand.

The hands completely disappear at times because of this.
 
Roger's story doesn't include anything about large hands. It would have if the suit or beastie had really large hands, imo.

Particularly if only one hand looked like a catcher's mitt.

Now with the breasts, Roger couldn't make them look natural and floppy, so he has to sell the idea that they look natural and floppy.
 
Last edited:
WP:

"So your 'work' is to be strictly limited to the external material or skin/hair of Patty? If so, then please quit with the arm length ratio, hands-in-gloves, and feet stuff pronto, ok? Better tell the folks on BFF that everything else (other than external material) you talked about is just your ancillary musings."

Stop making rules for what I can say, to whom, or how. You follow no rules.

LTC8K6

My measurements were a a human figure posed in the same form and superimposed onto Patty frames, with similar posture.

If you suspect a photo of a figure is a person in a suit, you try to put a person into it and see if the person seems to fit. I did. Seemed to.

The Space Oddessy Apes were vastly superior to John Chambers work, and the mechanical integrations in the faces were the forerunner of industry standard technology today.

sgoodman72

Thank you again. Well said.

Kitakaze:
I listed several things I felt were not contesting the suit idea. But the probability study you quoted the conclusion of. that part does not rely on any of the things I have said "don't matter" here. So I am not contridicting myself.

If I say things different, they are in response to diferent questions.

Bill
 
WP:

""So your 'work' is to be strictly limited to the external material or skin/hair of Patty? If so, then please quit with the arm length ratio, hands-in-gloves, and feet stuff pronto, ok?"

my work in on suit materials and technologies. Includes probability of a human fitting inside.

let me explain something to you. back in the 80's which was the time makeup FX people really were "stars' of many movies and producers were competing to show more wild monsters and aliens than anybody else, the production designers came up with some really wild and bizarre creatures. When they's give them to us to bid on, the first question would usually be "can we put a person in this and make it work?"

So I applied that same thought to Patty. Can I put a person in her and make it work? Part of a suit analysis probability. Standard Op for planning. Includes arm length analysis.

Bill
 
Bill Munns said:
I am offering my area of expertise to evaluate if a suit made with 1967 materials can do all that is seen in the film. My concern is with the performance of materials, not the person inside the materials.
Click to expand...

Hmm.....So you are basing your evaluation of the "man in the suit" hypothesis based on what you know of suits from the era and then evaluating the film to see if you can find any signs of these suits you are aware of. If you can find no evidence of a suit that you know of, then you conclude it is not a man in a suit. Since you do not declare yourself an expert on the film itself, I am still confused on how you are conducting your evaluation and tests. Are you taking cues from others who have analyzed the film and found various anamolies/measurements or are you evaluating the film for these anamolies/measurements?

In such a short film, where the subject is not ever visible in full view (most of the time all you see is its back/side), is moving, and is a relatively small, can you really conclude anything? Is it possible flaws are visible but beyond the resolution of the film itself? I have seen people report seeing flaws in the suit and others report all sorts of odd things visible which could be artifacts from overprocessing the image. Most of these anamolies, on both sides, seems to me that they are seeing "faces in the clouds". People see what they want to see.

I was hoping that you might be able to summarize why, at this point in your research, you have already concluded or are leaning towards the conclusion that it is not a man in a suit. Since you apparently feel that your work is incomplete, how can you conclude anything? What you have presented so far is not very compelling.
 
The Space Oddessy Apes were vastly superior to John Chambers work, and the mechanical integrations in the faces were the forerunner of industry standard technology today.
Click to expand...

Do you think one of those 1967/8 2001 hollywood apes, filmed in the manner that Patty was filmed, could be a believable unknown large bipedal ape? Assuming they weren't used in a major picture, of course, because obviously they'd be recognized quickly in that case as being from Hollywood.

If you suspect a photo of a figure is a person in a suit, you try to put a person into it and see if the person seems to fit. I did. Seemed to.
Click to expand...

Of course a person fit. :D
 
LTC

I dunno but that is the one thing impresses me still. I think there's been so much focus on arm lenght finger bending and breasts that the back side of the hand has been overlooked. It does show up in a few other places. One of the Marx hoax photos shows a rather slender creature which was his wife in costume with huge hands out of all proportion. Pattys hands are in proportion with the rest of her bulk and mass.
 
BTW 2001 failed to win an Oscar for best costume design because the judges when viewing the film thought that Kubrick had used real apes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom