• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAL said:
Far be it from me to suggest it's been Photoshopped by someone wanting to hold the analysis up to ridicule. :D
Click to expand...
Where's the Jon Stewart commentary when you need it? Yes, far be it, Lu. Very, very far. You might want to put some glasses on and look at the corner of the Patty portrait where it says 'Detail'. Then have a look at the Beaker Patty image where at the top of the computer screen it says 'the mouth and nose'.

It's nice that you think some skeptic would go to that much effort to make Bigfoot enthusiasts look like idiots. I'm at a loss for opportunities.

 
kitakaze said:
Where's the Jon Stewart commentary when you need it? Yes, far be it, Lu. Very, very far. You might want to put some glasses on and look at the corner of the Patty portrait where it says 'Detail'. Then have a look at the Beaker Patty image where at the top of the computer screen it says 'the mouth and nose'.

It's nice that you think some skeptic would go to that much effort to make Bigfoot enthusiasts look like idiots. I'm at a loss for opportunities.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_89614804be2616311.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Did I say that's what I think? I said I can't find the shot in the MQ Bigfoot episode. I have no more evidence a JREFer altered a real shot than you have that a Don Post mask was used at Bluff Creek. What's the Jon Stewart commentary? You lost me there.

I see all the lettering, but I don't see that particular frame on my DVD or in the upload to YouTube. I went to the trouble of viewing the whole 5 segments on YouTube last night and still couldn't find it. If you (or someone else) can, please post the time and place it appears. There are shots that have the lettering, but I don't see that particular drawing. (I know not everyone has the DVD, but everyone can watch it on YouTube.)

Wasn't there a hue and cry about Bob Gimlin not participating in Biscardi's show, as though he'd gone into hiding because of BH? There he is on MQ.

(Here too, with Q&A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4yRuTdtdtk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXoQbCbYtPU&feature=user

This was recorded by a member of the audience.)

I really wish they'd used horses on MQ that look like Peanuts and Chico.

A friend taped Best Evidence for me since it was on while I was at work. The walk with the actor doesn't look as detailed as the work in the lab on MQ. They specifically refer to that rotating knee action, which BH doesn't do either. There's a lot more to that gait than a Groucho slouch.

Not sure what the deal is with the MIM model. Hansen himself said he had one made and by whom. He told Sanderson and Heuvelmans about it. This is hardly news (or proof the original was a model). We already knew about the one John Chambers made.

Has the John Landis rumor been retired yet?
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
But Philip Morris called Greg Long and said that was his suit. What more do you want?

Was the suit tailored with horsehide and turned into a T-shirt and pants?

Bob went right along with this after saying "the guy from Planet of the Apes" did it. Why should Philip Morris' lies be less acceptable than Bob Heironimus' lies?

Since their confessions don't work it must be some other guys with suits and limited acting ability. Am I getting this straight yet?

Are you sure it wasn't a modified Yoda mask?
Click to expand...
Each sentence here contains something dumber than the one before it. If you would like to make a serious reply on the subject, go ahead.

I believe Bob Heironimus was Patty. I don't believe Philip Morris had anything to do with the suit. I don't expect Bob Heironimus to have ever had intimate knowledge of all the circumstances involved before he got into the suit nor do I expect him to have a perfect recollection of the details he did know near 40 years later. I don't expect a person who is engineering a hoax for profit and gain to stop and explain every part of his plan to each person he involves in that plan.

I know Bob Heironimus had connections to Patterson and Gimlin unlike the notion that footers wanted us to believe that he was just some random crazy guy looking for attention decades later. I know Gimlin and Heironimus were and still are good friends. I know Heironimus lives on the same street as Gimlin. I know it makes zero sense to implicate yourself and your friend and neighbour in a hoax when that friend and neighbour could take you to court or at the least walk over to your house and pop you in the nose and take back the lawn mower he lent you for calling him a liar. I know Gimlin won't take Heironimus to court and I know he won't accept Heironimus' invitation to do public interviews together.

I know Heironimus appears in footage for Patterson's film 'Bigfoot - America's Abominable Snowman' in May 1967 in what appears to be Yakima riding on Chico, leading another horse, and being followed by Patterson, while being filmed by an unidentified third person. I know that Gimlin was riding Heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek and didn't say anything until it was discovered and put to him long after he had a chance to say that Heironimus did have some connection to Bluff Creek.

I know that Patterson was a talented performer and had connections in Hollywood. I know that Patterson had representation by Hollywood entertainment lawyer Walter Hurst that was paid for by George Radford. I know on May 26th, 1967 Roger Patterson signed a contract with George and Vilma Radford to receive $700.00 for expenses related to his film.

Here is that contract (click to enlarge):



I know that during this time Patterson had made trips to Los Angeles and had stayed with musician Gene Vincent and old friend actor Ross Hagen who did vocals for Patterson's Bigfoot calls for his film. I know that Patterson would have us believe that during all these activites of his he was actually insanely lucky enough to film a real Bigfoot while looking for one, a feat not achieved since after 40 years of concerted effort and searching with ever greater and more advanced technologies and man power. I know that Patterson would have us believe that he filmed a female Bigfoot with prominent hairy breasts yet amazingly he had drawn a detailed illustration of just such a creature in a his Bigfoot book published just the year before. I know this picture was inspired by the alleged William Roe encounter of just such a creature, the account of which is accompanied by an illustration by Roe's daughter. I know that the PGF plays very much like a visualization of the William Roe encounter.

I know that we are at a point where denying Heironimus' involvement is so unrealistic that even Bigfoot enthusiasts and PGF students who have spent years defending the film are now putting forth theories that have Patterson putting Heironimus in a suit though not being the subject of the PGF.

Here is pseudo-intellectual Roger Knight advancing just such a scenario:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23088&view=findpost&p=481813

I know that there are serious discrepancies regarding the timeline of the film being sent for development. I know that Roger explained that when he first encountered the creature his horse reared and fell, pinning him. I know he produced a bent stirrup as proof of this. I know that later we were told that he slipped off the back of his horse extracating his camera one-handed and unharmed. I know that Patterson had a penchant for illusion and deception as evidenced by his insisting Gimlin wear a hokey native wig and introducing him as an Indian tracker. I know that there is no original film for people to examine is available and that copies that are show evidence of tampering in the form of splicing.

I know that people like yourself, Lu, have created a system where a lack of reliable evidence and faulty details are excused if it allows you to perpetuate your belief system. I know that you are a propononent of the reality of the Minnesota Iceman yet now don't have much to say when that classic gaff was just recently revealed to be a hoax by Verne Langdon who was central in the events that lead to it's creation. What would you like on your crow?

I know that it is just a matter of time now and much sooner than many people think before the facts of the Patterson/Gimlin hoax are revealed. I know that people who continue to defend the film's veracity such as yourself and Sweaty do so with an almost unsettling will and investment to believe. I know that in years to come that the PG hoax will be used to educate people in the perpetuation of belief systems.

I know that 2008 is a very embarrassing year to be a Bigfoot enthusiast.

BTW, I went through the entire MQ Bigfoot episode and took notes again so I'll address that in a separate post.
 
kitakaze said:
Each sentence here contains something dumber than the one before it. If you would like to make a serious reply on the subject, go ahead.

I believe Bob Heironimus was Patty. I don't believe Philip Morris had anything to do with the suit. I don't expect Bob Heironimus to have ever had intimate knowledge of all the circumstances involved before he got into the suit nor do I expect him to have a perfect recollection of the details he did know near 40 years later. I don't expect a person who is engineering a hoax for profit and gain to stop and explain every part of his plan to each person he involves in that plan.

I know Bob Heironimus had connections to Patterson and Gimlin unlike the notion that footers wanted us to believe that he was just some random crazy guy looking for attention decades later. I know Gimlin and Heironimus were and still are good friends. I know Heironimus lives on the same street as Gimlin. I know it makes zero sense to implicate yourself and your friend and neighbour in a hoax when that friend and neighbour could take you to court or at the least walk over to your house and pop you in the nose and take back the lawn mower he lent you for calling him a liar. I know Gimlin won't take Heironimus to court and I know he won't accept Heironimus' invitation to do public interviews together.

I know Heironimus appears in footage for Patterson's film 'Bigfoot - America's Abominable Snowman' in May 1967 in what appears to be Yakima riding on Chico, leading another horse, and being followed by Patterson, while being filmed by an unidentified third person. I know that Gimlin was riding Heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek and didn't say anything until it was discovered and put to him long after he had a chance to say that Heironimus did have some connection to Bluff Creek.

I know that Patterson was a talented performer and had connections in Hollywood. I know that Patterson had representation by Hollywood entertainment lawyer Walter Hurst that was paid for by George Radford. I know on May 26th, 1967 Roger Patterson signed a contract with George and Vilma Radford to receive $700.00 for expenses related to his film.

Here is that contract (click to enlarge):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_896148b94575567b8.jpg[/qimg]

I know that during this time Patterson had made trips to Los Angeles and had stayed with musician Gene Vincent and old friend actor Ross Hagen who did vocals for Patterson's Bigfoot calls for his film. I know that Patterson would have us believe that during all these activites of his he was actually insanely lucky enough to film a real Bigfoot while looking for one, a feat not achieved since after 40 years of concerted effort and searching with ever greater and more advanced technologies and man power. I know that Patterson would have us believe that he filmed a female Bigfoot with prominent hairy breasts yet amazingly he had drawn a detailed illustration of just such a creature in a his Bigfoot book published just the year before. I know this picture was inspired by the alleged William Roe encounter of just such a creature, the account of which is accompanied by an illustration by Roe's daughter. I know that the PGF plays very much like a visualization of the William Roe encounter.

I know that we are at a point where denying Heironimus' involvement is so unrealistic that even Bigfoot enthusiasts and PGF students who have spent years defending the film are now putting forth theories that have Patterson putting Heironimus in a suit though not being the subject of the PGF.

Here is pseudo-intellectual Roger Knight advancing just such a scenario:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23088&view=findpost&p=481813

I know that there are serious discrepancies regarding the timeline of the film being sent for development. I know that Roger explained that when he first encountered the creature his horse reared and fell, pinning him. I know he produced a bent stirrup as proof of this. I know that later we were told that he slipped off the back of his horse extracating his camera one-handed and unharmed. I know that Patterson had a penchant for illusion and deception as evidenced by his insisting Gimlin wear a hokey native wig and introducing him as an Indian tracker. I know that there is no original film for people to examine is available and that copies that are show evidence of tampering in the form of splicing.

I know that people like yourself, Lu, have created a system where a lack of reliable evidence and faulty details are excused if it allows you to perpetuate your belief system. I know that you are a propononent of the reality of the Minnesota Iceman yet now don't have much to say when that classic gaff was just recently revealed to be a hoax by Verne Langdon who was central in the events that lead to it's creation. What would you like on your crow?

I know that it is just a matter of time now and much sooner than many people think before the facts of the Patterson/Gimlin hoax are revealed. I know that people who continue to defend the film's veracity such as yourself and Sweaty do so with an almost unsettling will and investment to believe. I know that in years to come that the PG hoax will be used to educate people in the perpetuation of belief systems.

I know that 2008 is a very embarrassing year to be a Bigfoot enthusiast.

BTW, I went through the entire MQ Bigfoot episode and took notes again so I'll address that in a separate post.
Click to expand...

Game, set, and match.
 
Vern Langdon's recent appearance at BFF has been an interesting one. Even though there is a MIM thread here since he's mentioned I'll add what I saw when I saw the MIM exibit in 1972.

While the overall effect of the exibit was impressive and under the circumstances impossible to judge as real or fake I noted to myself at the time that its hands were rather large for the scale of the body as were the feet. The general size of the MIM was not much bigger (if at all) than a decent sized western human being. Its hair I considered somewhat sparse, too sparse to offer protection against the harsh winters of Minnesota where it was reportedly shot. Its mouth was quite open and teeth were very visible. There were also if I remember correctly stills from the PGF posted around the exibit but I could be wrong it was a long time ago.

However there was one element about the exibit that I found myself unable to put into rational context and it was a huge element to be sure. The creature I veiwed in ice in 1972 was NOT the same creature that appeared in the Argosy magazine article of 1968. It has been stated that the real (original) MIM body was changed to a fake one because of laws preventing the display of cadavers. For what ever reason I saw a completely different creature than did Ivan Sanderson. I posted this on the MIM thread at BFF but Vern Langdon did not reply or comment. I'm certain that the story of there being a second display creature created is true. I'm going to post a new thread at BFF to see if anyone else encountered the MIM exibit looking different than the Argosy article depicted.
 
kitakaze said:
Each sentence here contains something dumber than the one before it. If you would like to make a serious reply on the subject, go ahead.

I believe Bob Heironimus was Patty. I don't believe Philip Morris had anything to do with the suit. I don't expect Bob Heironimus to have ever had intimate knowledge of all the circumstances involved before he got into the suit nor do I expect him to have a perfect recollection of the details he did know near 40 years later. I don't expect a person who is engineering a hoax for profit and gain to stop and explain every part of his plan to each person he involves in that plan.

I know Bob Heironimus had connections to Patterson and Gimlin unlike the notion that footers wanted us to believe that he was just some random crazy guy looking for attention decades later. I know Gimlin and Heironimus were and still are good friends. I know Heironimus lives on the same street as Gimlin. I know it makes zero sense to implicate yourself and your friend and neighbour in a hoax when that friend and neighbour could take you to court or at the least walk over to your house and pop you in the nose and take back the lawn mower he lent you for calling him a liar. I know Gimlin won't take Heironimus to court and I know he won't accept Heironimus' invitation to do public interviews together.

I know Heironimus appears in footage for Patterson's film 'Bigfoot - America's Abominable Snowman' in May 1967 in what appears to be Yakima riding on Chico, leading another horse, and being followed by Patterson, while being filmed by an unidentified third person. I know that Gimlin was riding Heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek and didn't say anything until it was discovered and put to him long after he had a chance to say that Heironimus did have some connection to Bluff Creek.

I know that Patterson was a talented performer and had connections in Hollywood. I know that Patterson had representation by Hollywood entertainment lawyer Walter Hurst that was paid for by George Radford. I know on May 26th, 1967 Roger Patterson signed a contract with George and Vilma Radford to receive $700.00 for expenses related to his film.

Here is that contract (click to enlarge):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_896148b94575567b8.jpg[/qimg]

I know that during this time Patterson had made trips to Los Angeles and had stayed with musician Gene Vincent and old friend actor Ross Hagen who did vocals for Patterson's Bigfoot calls for his film. I know that Patterson would have us believe that during all these activites of his he was actually insanely lucky enough to film a real Bigfoot while looking for one, a feat not achieved since after 40 years of concerted effort and searching with ever greater and more advanced technologies and man power. I know that Patterson would have us believe that he filmed a female Bigfoot with prominent hairy breasts yet amazingly he had drawn a detailed illustration of just such a creature in a his Bigfoot book published just the year before. I know this picture was inspired by the alleged William Roe encounter of just such a creature, the account of which is accompanied by an illustration by Roe's daughter. I know that the PGF plays very much like a visualization of the William Roe encounter.

I know that we are at a point where denying Heironimus' involvement is so unrealistic that even Bigfoot enthusiasts and PGF students who have spent years defending the film are now putting forth theories that have Patterson putting Heironimus in a suit though not being the subject of the PGF.

Here is pseudo-intellectual Roger Knight advancing just such a scenario:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23088&view=findpost&p=481813

I know that there are serious discrepancies regarding the timeline of the film being sent for development. I know that Roger explained that when he first encountered the creature his horse reared and fell, pinning him. I know he produced a bent stirrup as proof of this. I know that later we were told that he slipped off the back of his horse extracating his camera one-handed and unharmed. I know that Patterson had a penchant for illusion and deception as evidenced by his insisting Gimlin wear a hokey native wig and introducing him as an Indian tracker. I know that there is no original film for people to examine is available and that copies that are show evidence of tampering in the form of splicing.

I know that people like yourself, Lu, have created a system where a lack of reliable evidence and faulty details are excused if it allows you to perpetuate your belief system. I know that you are a propononent of the reality of the Minnesota Iceman yet now don't have much to say when that classic gaff was just recently revealed to be a hoax by Verne Langdon who was central in the events that lead to it's creation. What would you like on your crow?

I know that it is just a matter of time now and much sooner than many people think before the facts of the Patterson/Gimlin hoax are revealed. I know that people who continue to defend the film's veracity such as yourself and Sweaty do so with an almost unsettling will and investment to believe. I know that in years to come that the PG hoax will be used to educate people in the perpetuation of belief systems.

I know that 2008 is a very embarrassing year to be a Bigfoot enthusiast.

BTW, I went through the entire MQ Bigfoot episode and took notes again so I'll address that in a separate post.
Click to expand...

Do you know that you wrote I KNOW 28 times. Did you know that?, or did you do it not knowing
 
Hmmm, 28 instances of I know. Actually there is nothing that one can say "I know" to concerning the PGF. Only a very few people actually "know" the truth of the PGF. So when it comes to saying "I know" perhaps "I believe, based on the circumstantial evidence" is the more accurate statement. I believe there are holes yet to be filled that will fully explain what it is we're seeing and how it came about.
 
GT/CS said:
Game, set, and match.
Click to expand...
That anyone who has studied the PGF could know these things, to know what Patterson was up to with all his Biscardi-style maneuvers, and still cling to the belief that this guy miraculously, triumphantly, against all odds when he needed it the most was able to come across a Bigfoot, a female Bigfoot, and film her sauntering away into the woods a la William Roe... it's... it's...



Inconceivable!!!
 
kitakaze said:
...I know he (Gimlin) won't accept Heironimus' invitation to do public interviews together.
Click to expand...

I don't think that BH has personally invited BG to do public interviews. Biscardi tried to get BG on his radio show at the same time as BH. Gimlin refused. Gimlin is very selective about anything involving himself. He won't do interviews with just anyone. His public appearances are very much pro-PGF. He basically will not put himself in a position where he is critically examined with suspicion of hoaxing.

The testimony of BH is that he contacted BG at the time of going public with his confession. There was the opportunity for BG to engage in a "joint confession", but he chose not to do this. Heironimus proceeded with his public confession with Gimlin maintaining his position of non-hoaxery. Heironimus has spoken numerous times with BG after the confession, and the result is always the same.... Gimlin won't admit to the hoax.

I know Heironimus appears in footage for Patterson's film 'Bigfoot - America's Abominable Snowman' in May 1967 in what appears to be Yakima riding on Chico, leading another horse, and being followed by Patterson, while being filmed by an unidentified third person.
Click to expand...

No. Bob Heironimus is being followed by Jerry Merritt. It is possible (likely) that Patterson filmed this scene. We know Patterson wasn't holding the camera for scenes showing him. The actors still frame image (Cowboys and Indian Bob) was photographed by an unknown. This photo includes Patterson, Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. The actors shot was probably taken on the same day as the above mentioned scene (BH riding ahead of Merritt). We know this because BH and JM are wearing the same clothes. We don't know if the actors shot is a photograph from a still camera, or a single frame from 16mm film.

I should also remind you that we have this image from the cover of Argosy Magazine. It shows Patterson on Chico.

6c736aa7.jpg


So we actually have visual evidence of three different people mounted on Chico:

Bob Heironimus
Roger Patterson
Bob Gimlin
 
Crowlogic said:
Hmmm, 28 instances of I know. Actually there is nothing that one can say "I know" to concerning the PGF. Only a very few people actually "know" the truth of the PGF. So when it comes to saying "I know" perhaps "I believe, based on the circumstantial evidence" is the more accurate statement.
Click to expand...

That's very dumb, log. It's like saying there is nothing that one can say "I know" to concerning evolution. Actually, "I know" works just fine. I'm done accomodating weirdo cultish Bigfoot enthusiasts. I know the PGF was a hoax. The things I stated I know, I do know. I used the word 'believe' where appropriate. In all my writings from this point I will make a habit of referring to the PGF as the Patterson/Gimlin hoax. I have absolutely enough information to pronounce with all confidence that the film was a hoax.

I can say "I believe based on the circumstantial evidence that you should never put salt in your eye," but I think "I know" will suffice. No, I haven't seen the suit and heard Bob's confession but there is a point where you stop pandering to the stupid people and the people who need to believe stupid things to make it through each day.

I believe there are holes yet to be filled that will fully explain what it is we're seeing and how it came about.
Click to expand...
Yes. For instance, who in Hollywood assembled Patterson's suit and how did they come into contact with Patterson? I have good reason to believe that this person is known but will not reveal their involvement so long as Patricia Patterson is alive and receiving benefits or potential benefits from the film. It is not simply a matter of money, I believe, but rather a commitment to the agreement they went into with Patterson. We know he was ill as he did. I believe this played a roll in securing his agreement.
 
William Parcher said:
I don't think that BH has personally invited BG to do public interviews.
Click to expand...
Gimlin only allows himself to be put in circumstances of interaction with people who regard him as an 'American Legend'. BTW WP, do you know of BG's and BH's last respective speaking engagements?

No. Bob Heironimus is being followed by Jerry Merritt.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the important correction. I should have remembered that. I very clearly remember the page in this thread where we discussed and established that we were not looking at Patterson or his son but rather Merritt.

So we actually have visual evidence of three different people mounted on Chico:

Bob Heironimus
Roger Patterson
Bob Gimlin
Click to expand...
That is a major detail. It is consistent with the pattern we have of Patterson consistently enlisting the assistance of others around him to create the illusions that he was trying to acheive.
 
Crowlogic said:
Hmmm, 28 instances of I know. Actually there is nothing that one can say "I know" to concerning the PGF. Only a very few people actually "know" the truth of the PGF. So when it comes to saying "I know" perhaps "I believe, based on the circumstantial evidence" is the more accurate statement. I believe there are holes yet to be filled that will fully explain what it is we're seeing and how it came about.
Click to expand...


Nominated.
 
kitakaze said:
That's very dumb, log. It's like saying there is nothing that one can say "I know" to concerning evolution. Actually, "I know" works just fine. I'm done accomodating weirdo cultish Bigfoot enthusiasts. I know the PGF was a hoax. The things I stated I know, I do know. I used the word 'believe' where appropriate. In all my writings from this point I will make a habit of referring to the PGF as the Patterson/Gimlin hoax. I have absolutely enough information to pronounce with all confidence that the film was a hoax.

I can say "I believe based on the circumstantial evidence that you should never put salt in your eye," but I think "I know" will suffice. No, I haven't seen the suit and heard Bob's confession but there is a point where you stop pandering to the stupid people and the people who need to believe stupid things to make it through each day.

Yes. For instance, who in Hollywood assembled Patterson's suit and how did they come into contact with Patterson? I have good reason to believe that this person is known but will not reveal their involvement so long as Patricia Patterson is alive and receiving benefits or potential benefits from the film. It is not simply a matter of money, I believe, but rather a commitment to the agreement they went into with Patterson. We know he was ill as he did. I believe this played a roll in securing his agreement.
Click to expand...

Not so dumb, as with evolution we can view, handle and wittness first hand the process and the disgarded artifacts of the process. PGF is a quagmire way too sticky to tag know with. For instance Wah Chang's mask is a really good candidate and some such as Dfoot operate in the "know" modality when attaching it to the PGF. However I've posted an interesting morph somebody did either here or at BFF that shows Andre The Giant as a superb Patty. I'm more comfortable with educated guess for the time being.




 
It’s only 12 frames so it is what it is, something to think about.

I’ve got maybe 8 hours into this software so no funny remarks from the gallery. These twelve frames are by no means finished; realistically I’d say they are maybe 10-15% complete. I’m learning this software on the fly so it’s going to take some time. The X,Y and Z are off, the plane is off and I need to get an exact C. index. IMO what’s important here is who I’m trying to model the image after. Dfoot and his Buck Maffei have always intrigued me, at 7 feet 400lbs +/- Mr. Maffei was mammoth, there were also the suits that already fit him and I believe he would have had no problem signing a Non-Discloser Act. He was familiar with this kind of stuff (being a creature/acting) but not so sought after as to turn down a job.

Anyway like I said, this is what it is, I’ll try to put some serious time in on the software after I finish up a project I’m committed to, may be a while. I will give it a shot though.

BTW, Dfoot if you have any other images of Maffei other than Corriganville I would greatly appreciate them.

Later


m

http://s485.photobucket.com/albums/rr215/manglerstuff/?action=tageditmany
Click the gif to enlarge.
 
Bill Munns said:
The link is blocked by my anti-spyware software, so I can't go there.
Click to expand...

That's probably because I "tinyurlized" the links (which I'll keep in mind for future posts). I'll post the images for everyone:

index.php


LetusNoticethosearms.jpg


It now occurs to me that just refering to "positions" in my previous posts wasn't explicit enough in saying that it doesn't rely solely on arm movement. Oh well, that's sleep depravation for ya.

You have two choices: A. Make the entire arm proportionally smaller, or B. shorten the lower arm alone. A. shifts the elbow (which I don't see) and B causes an unnatural proportion between upper and lower arm (which no human claiming to be inside Patty has). So I tend to think the arm as posed is dimensionally and proportionally correct.
Click to expand...

I understand, but I was also factoring in padding on the shoulder adding enough to the upper arm to make it all work (which I should've been more clear about).

I would need to see stills with the leg bent 90 degrees or so at the knee, in a reasonable profile, to judge. My computer doesn't currently have the software to pull stills from video sequences on the net. So I can't answer your question with the same exactitude as the study figure.
Click to expand...

Ah, so that rules out using clips from "Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter" as a data source. Crud.

Now that I think about it, Dfoot might be able to post some stills of him doing his various leg padding tests, though. Here are a bunch of stills that you might find interesting to look at and possibly analyze.

Plus it looks like NFT spandex-backed fur, and that has an entirely different motion dynamic than the fur materials of 1967, so that would potentially weaken any comparison further.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused here, could you please explain how would 4-way stretch furcloth could make the appearance of of an unusually short lower leg less likely?

As for the materials used to construct the suit, I might be able to ask the creator of the suit about that.

Also, do you have any measurements for your Poser model of the person in the Patty suit?
 
kitakaze said:
I know that during this time Patterson had made trips to Los Angeles and had stayed with musician Gene Vincent and old friend actor Ross Hagen who did vocals for Patterson's Bigfoot calls for his film.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Would those vocalizations be the ones created by yelling into a bucket (as heard here)?

I know that Patterson would have us believe that he filmed a female Bigfoot with prominent hairy breasts yet amazingly he had drawn a detailed illustration of just such a creature in a his Bigfoot book published just the year before.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the picture resembling Patty that Patterson copied from a non-Bigfoot researcher for his book.

I know that there are serious discrepancies regarding the timeline of the film being sent for development.
Click to expand...

And how Patty's footprints mysteriously survived torrential rain that "caved" a road.

Also, I have answered crowlogic's query about the Minnesota Iceman over here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom