• 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.
AMM

Here you go.

Might come in handy in the future

Thanks, this is great! Now I have hard confirmation that Bob H.'s arms seemingly changing in length size during that. This is precisely why I was concerned about the use of select frames when analyzing the PGF. For example, only using "frames" 1, 3, and 5 from that .gif would make the arm length seem "long."

Come to think of it, I bet one could point out some "muscle details" using those grainy frames and some red lines...

LAL said:
Did you miss my post where I said I do not want to get involved in another thread on JREF?

No, I just thought that your constant discussion of the Iceman and willingness to post a source signaled that you'd be willing to discuss the matter in its correct setting.

(did you happen to count how many times he said "crummy"? and explained he didn't mean crummy?)

You mean like how you say "master" and don't actually mean the original master copy?
 
SquatchBob BlockFeet


062b8a5a.jpg
f61c7e71.gif
 
Ray, I think the alleged consistency of anatomical details is not actually that good in both cases (bigfeet and UFOnauts).

Oh, I'm aware of the wide variety of descriptions, but there are people from all over North America who have described their abductors as looking like this:

ufogrey.jpg


Bigfoot is also suspected to look like this:

bigfoot0010.jpg


Patty on the Jenny Craig system?

RayG
 
From Post #95 in this BFF thread:

Bill Munns said:
As much as I've been able to follow of the suit/hoax senarios, the general theory tends to favor some kind of "used" suit that was sold to Patterson, as opposed to a custom made order just for him. So if it was "used", it may be reasonable to ask to show evidence of what it was used for, prior to being sold to Patterson.

In post 176 of this thread, Chris Walas said that the costume used in "Phantom of the Rue Morgue" might have been altered into the Patty costume. However, the suit needs to be seen in motion in order to have the best comparison.

John Landis thought that the Patty costume was reused in a David L. Wolper documentary. I looked into the documentaries that might've used such a suit (and provided some Youtube links) here.

John Vulich said that he thought the suit was once used on the TV series Lost in Space (but with a different head). This was discussed (with some pictures) here and here. Dfoot showed some Lost in Space costume pictures (including a short-haired/furred one) here. In that very same post (and thread), Dfoot noted some costume and makeup "earmarks" of the people he believes are behind the creation of Patty and how they link up to what's seen on Patty.

Speaking of Dfoot, I think the following is what he believes was used to create Patty. I hope Dfoot will step in to correct me at some point in the future (I'll get to that in a moment):

-The Tauren mask (with alterations-mostly adding fur and repainting it) from the Star Trek episode "The Galileo Seven."

-A Modified Gorn (from the Star Trek episode "Arena") or Gorn-style costume. Here's a lengthy clip of the Gorn suit in action

-Gorilla gloves. You can see a nifty comparison of such gloves to Patty's hands here.

-Feet made from a Janos Prohaska bear foot mold with modified toes. Here's an example of a Prohaska bear foot.

He made a guess as to the type of fur used (and how it was attached) here, along with a picture of a costume that seems to have the same type of fur. However, we'd need to see that suit in motion to be sure.

The similarity of Patty's butt to both butts on this and this gorilla suit is also interesting. The first suit, seen here, is from 1949's "Africa Screams" and the other is from 1935's "Angkor" (aka "Forbidden Adventure"). Granted, Patty and the suits aren't in the same positions, but it's still worth a thought.

Dfoot also discussed suit "earmarks" here and in post #48 here.

Dfoot (although, due to the resolution issues associated with the film, I can't vouch for all the details that Dfoot points out). Here's my favorite image comparing part of Patty's anatomy to those of costumes:

776647deedd9ec604.jpg


Here's the source for that image, which is also worth a read.

Here's a video where Dfoot also notes the "earmarks" of Prohaska and co. However, Deefoot says he's recovering from knee surgery in the comments section of that video, and who know how long it'll take for him to get back to us.

Offhand, I can't think of any reason somebody built a suit that wasn't used, so some evidence of prior film use should have survived. That would certainly help advance the idea, if such proof were found.

I was tempted to note your unused conceptual design sculptures for "What Waits Below" and "The Boogens," but those aren't costumes and wouldn't count.

In this post, I noted some costumes made for failed projects (and things made "For the heck of it" by Rick Baker that eventually showed up in other projects. However, if those other projects didn't happen, then the costumes would be rotting away somewhere.

Does this mean that I don't know of any costumes that were created for a project and never used? Hell no! Back when Jean-Claude Van Damme (I kid you not) was cast in the title role in the movie "Predator," a much different suit was created/used for some test footage that was never seen by the general public until the special edition DVD release of the film used it in a featurette (which also explains why the costume and Van Damme weren't used in the final version).

Similarly, Jerry Warren had a monster costume made for "The Incredible Petrified World," which wasn't used since the costume shrunk and didn't lookj good on the only person who could fit into it. You can read more about it at this Google books entry for the book Tom Weaver's Return of the B Science Fiction and Horror Heroes (p372-373).

In this interview, director Noriaki Yuasa notes that a costume was designed for the never-made movie "Gamera vs. Garasharp":

NY: Right after GAMERA VS. ZIGRA was completed, I went to talk with the members of Daiei's Planning Department about the next Gamera movie. I remember that the next monster was going to be a twin-headed one. The monster costume had been made, but Mr. Takahashi had not yet written the script, when Daiei declared bankruptcy.
 
AMM:

As always, I commend you on your meticulous research.

I do have trouble with the idea of patty being cobbled together from assorted spare parts, sort of a "Mr. PotatoHead" school of suitmaking. I just don't see that in the film, and anyone who could pull it off would have the skills to do it right, from the start, with the same effort, for a new suit designed to specs.

Bill
 
A copy was getting all scratched up? Damn.

The original was getting scratched from repeated showings of that one section.

In the original developed roll? It was likely subject to more than burnt holes. Just burnt, period.

Do you have anything to back that up or is this just more unfounded skeptical conjecture?
 
No, I just thought that your constant discussion of the Iceman and willingness to post a source signaled that you'd be willing to discuss the matter in its correct setting.

What constant discussion? Have I mentioned lice, dirt and the investigation of reported sightings of a 12' penguin-LIKE bird?

You mean like how you say "master" and don't actually mean the original master copy?

I think I misunderstood something Owen Caddy said on the podcast about Patricia being willing to supply her "master" copy. I was thinking of a master from which copies are made.

I'll have to look this up, but I seem to remember Dahinden got the original after he bought the rights from Gimlin. The original was then tied up in litigation for years.

I didn't learn much from Verne's show, but the whale tale was amusing.
 
Yes - after recently searching & filtering Dfoot's BFF posts I have just made a comment as such over there (word of Mr Langdon's posts rekindled my interest in posting on that site).
JWS, 'Show Me the Suit' has to be one of the singular most annoying threads I've seen there. Nightscream with his Lyndon style meltdown and fantastic failure of reasoning had a good run at most irritating Bigfoot enthusiast but at least he was big enough to come back with an apology.
 
I quite agree with you Kitakaze. It was one of those classic kind of irritating threads that both repelled me yet drew me in at the same time:D. But as you say the topic starter did admit the error of his ways.

I see now it's been suggested it focuses on 'Who built the suit?'
 
Now, this is a collage of bigfoot renderings (hopefully no copyrighted image seeped in). If it seems relatively homogeneous, note that four of them are linked somehow to the PGF and despite of this, there are significant differences between them.
[qimg]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/bigfoottypes.jpg[/qimg]
The discrepancies would be even greater if the images at the following site (http://www.kentuckybigfoot.com/pictures.htm) were not copyrighted.
I'm sorry, Correa, but your collage has been rendered null and void by the inclusion of Marvel Comics character Sasquatch AKA Walter Langkowski, famed Polish-Canadian physicist. Everybody knows, of course, that Langkowski got that way from exposing himself to gamma radiation in an attempt to gain the same powers as the Hulk.:D
 
Click for McClarin

Is this your answer for where you stated that Patty/aunt bunny having human proportions was total BS? Personally, I see problems with the technique. Was the film shot from the exact same location as Patterson? We don't really know do we? Was McClarin in the same exact location as "aunt bunny"? We don't know do we?

So far, you keep saying that Aunt bunny can't be a guy in a suit because of the IM index and other nonsense. However, you haven't been very convincing. Having measured the subject several times using different frames, I don't see anything to suggest that it can't be a guy in a suit. If you use the foot size as being 14.5", the rest of the body comes out exactly as one would expect for a guy in a suit. Is it your contention that the footprints found at the scene were not made by the subject?
 
He wasn't he only one. Read Green.

I've read Green. Lot's of Green. I read my first Green when I was 8. Bob Heironimus is still the only person to have claimed to be in the suit and with some pretty heavy circumstantial evidence behind the claim.

Total BS.
Bold statement? Not really. Astro is helping you with the math but I can pull out some rugby player pictures if you like.

The reenactment was in a Morris suit. Did you want me to call it a Gemora suit instead?
No. I would rather that you spare me the Morris strawman. You know I think Morris was not involved and that the suit was at least partially fabricated by a Hollywood FX man who wishes to keep his involvement a secret.
 
All we know for certain at this point in regards to Mrs. Patterson’s master copy is that it was made Nov. 68’ on a film base that never existed, speculation runs rampant. We have at least one person who was present at the B.C. showing that states the film he viewed was not a master, therefore it was a copy and was not made Nov. 68’.

Assumption, speculation, who do we believe?

As far as comparing and/or overlaying film frames/images it's very important to work with full frames. You usually can find specific areas that line-up but the entire frame doesn’t. This is how one deciphers the difference’s in camera altitude, pitch etc. Find the full frames and have at it.


m
 
Do you have anything to back that up or is this just more unfounded skeptical conjecture?

Ok, I got it now. Unfounded skeptical conjecture is wrong, but unfounded supportive conjecture is A-O-K.

The holes in P-G story are fine and explainable by conjecture, but the explanations in the 'holes' of Bob 'the man in the suit' make his claims completely invalid.

I see a pattern here...
 
...snip...One of them appears to have an itty-bitty copyright notice, but I can't tell which picture it belongs to due to the placement of the pictures. The big orange fella seems to be a Marvel comics character called "Sasquatch," who is presumably trademarked.
Yes, I know. I included the Marvel character as a sort of joke (and because some sighting reports are similar to it). Just like placing creekfreak's bigfoot pic at rickmat's side - they look similar!
 
kitakaze wrote:
I read my first Green when I was 8.

Bob Heironimus is still the only person to have claimed to be in the suit and with some pretty heavy circumstantial evidence behind the claim.



Well, here's some evidence which casts a ton of doubt on Bob's lame claim.

This stabilized animated-gif shows Patty's toes bending, rather nicely....


PattyToesGif5Slow.gif



Or, maybe it's actually the front half of Patty's foot bending....courtesy of a mid-tarsel break. :confused:


Here's another version with the last 2 frames repeated....repeatedly.....for your skeptical viewing pleasure...:)...


PattyToesGif6Repeat.gif




For a little extra fun.....watch Patty's calf muscle bulge in the last frame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom