Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

To show that it's not the entire foot bending....I've drawn two lines...one line extending the bent section of the foot, along the bottom...and the other one on the back of the leg.
Where they intersect should be where Patty's heel would be, if what we are seeing is simply Patty's foot bending at the ankle....

But that intersecting point is definitely not where Patty's heel is....so Patty's foot is definitely bending at some point other than her ankle.


If it's a fake foot.....how did Roger make it so that the toes can bend like that???

 

[mangler]

Come close, IT'S NOT THE TOES! My first guess would be maybe a touch of shadow from the subject’s head on a high area of substrate. I think there are two frames worth. I’ll guess some more later if that doesn’t work for you


m

 

[captain koolaid]

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

According to assorted Film Flam artists, plus gullible and/or devoted Church of Bigfoot cultists. There is no reliable evidence that the original roll/s were screened. Just enthusiastic acceptance of Billy Meier's, sorry, Roger Patterson's "I swear to God it's the real deal" routine.

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

No, I don't have anything to back up that conjecture, apart from the fact that the original rolls, or the master edit are.......................

long GONE.

 

[LAL]

Is this your answer for where you stated that Patty/aunt bunny having human proportions was total BS?

No. I asked if anyone had the entire McClarin reenactment and got no response, so I supplied it from my LMS DVD.

Is it your contention that the footprints found at the scene were not made by the subject?

No. There are more heights given for Patty than there are contenders for "Who made the suit?" Krantz gave estimates for walking height and standing height.

Right now I'm back on the meaning of "master copy". I listened to the Let's Talk Bigfoot interview with John Green and he clearly says he took the original to the Vancouver lab and they made a master copy. So what's the definition of master copy?

I also listened to the interview with Bill Munns and I'm astounded that any of you can still be arguing for a suit. Talk about wishful thinking!

 

[captain koolaid]

Right now I'm back on the meaning of "master copy"... So what's the definition of master copy?

It is somewhat a shifting term, due to loose interpretation and vernacular use. Especially what with having no negative. A Master Copy is not the original- which is the equivalent, in a way, of the negative. A master copy, is just that. A copy of the original developed roll/s. Often it would refer to just one "master", from which all subsequent generations are duped. But if say, 2 or 3 copies were made from the developed roll/s, or a master edit of the roll/s, and all of these were utilized to produce further copies, then they could all, technically, be "master copies".

But in this situation, the default usage would refer to the original roll/s or master edit, being the actual "master". The shifting usage seems to stem from the changes in film with negatives and their copies, to the K-100 type developing. Similar in photography with Polaroids etc. It's been a long time, and my recall may be faulty. One of the more recent Film workers/cameramen can correct me if way, way off.

I listened to the Let's Talk Bigfoot interview with John Green and he clearly says he took the original to the Vancouver lab and they made a master copy.

Oh noes. John Green said so. Game over, man. Game over.

 

[LAL]

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.

Then how did you miss Green saying it was one of many unsubstantiated claims that crop up from time to time?

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

Bob Heironimus played rugby? I didn't know that.

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.

It is fact the Philip Morris made (or had made) a suit for the reenactment we see in the .gif. Korff promised a DVD, but I'm not sure what happened there. The site disappeared and the .gif with it. I've never been able to find it on his new site. Morris evidently made (or had made) a second suit, perhaps including the '20's style leather football helmet or the Don Post mask he may have left out the last time.<G>

It doesn't matter what you think. Long included Morris' story in his book and Heironimus changed his. Heironimus also said the "guy from Planet of the Apes" made it. If Long had said Janos Prohaska or Verne Langdon (he worked for Don Post *gasp*) admitted making the suit he'd have probably gone along with that too.

Do you guys see what you're doing? If Bob doesn't fit it must be someone else. If the suit doesn't work it must be some other suit. If Roger or Philip didn't make it then someone else must have - anything but consider it might not have been a guy in a suit.

Gemora died in 1961. We can safely rule him out (I think).

 

[tyr_13]

If it's a fake foot.....how did Roger make it so that the toes can bend like that???

Fake feet bend where the foot ends and the extension begins. Fake feet bend. Ummm, duh? I mean, obviously right? Is it really that simple to address that claim? It seems to easy.

 

[LAL]

It is somewhat a shifting term, due to loose interpretation and vernacular use.

That seems to be the case.

Officially: master copy - n : an original creation (i.e., an audio recording) from which
copies can be made

That got me confused because Owen wasn't saying Patricia Patterson has the original.

How would a master copy (vernacular use) differ from a first generation copy? Every time I Google it I get William Shatner.

Oh noes. John Green said so. Game over, man. Game over.

That was uncalled for. John used the term in the same way Owen Caddy did (if I heard him correctly). That's all I meant.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

AMM:

As always, I commend you on your meticulous research.

Thanks!

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,

What sorts of details would you expect to see from such a suit? Also, would the details be visible given the distance of Patty from the camera and the film resolution issues? You might be interesting in this segment from the "X-Creatures" episode "Shooting the Bigfoot," in which they recreate the filming conditions (down to the distance from the camera) and film a guy in a costume in order to see how it'll look. Here's a .gif animation of the result.

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.

A few thoughts spring to mind. The first is "Ah, but what if the suitmaker had the skills you mentioned, but the prospective customer didn't have enough for a built-from-scratch suit?"

Come to think of it, it's also possible that the mold for the Tauren mask (and other suit parts) were reused to create "blank" versions of the mask, gloves, etc. This would eliminate any problems in matching hair types from different costumes. Here's a picture of the sculpt used for the creation of the Tauren mask.

Wait, I just had an idea. You've made recreations of the Creature from the Black Lagoon and other creature suits. Could you try remaking the head/mask of the Tauren if given enough pictures of it (along with that mold picture)?

Also, I should note that it's theoretically possible that the Patty costume was originally made as a test suit/something for a failed film project/live venue that was never widely seen prior to the PGF.

Oh, and I noticed the following at post # 111 at the BFF:

Referring to the image you posted, and you attribute to Dfoot as the source, (shown two or three posts above) the reason I find his presentations lacking is that he has a penchant for showing things irrelevant to the discussion.

Wait, what?

In the lower left of the photo, you see a shoulder costume section made of green 1/2" sheet foam, a flexible foam widely sold for bedding and cushions, and available in sheet thicknesses of 1/2", 1", 2" etc. and comes in colors like green and blue as well as whitish/yellow. It is widely used to make padding under costumes, and can be tailored to conform to a human body, as he shows.

That's from Dfoot's muscle suit demos. He pulled a t-shirt over that padding and walked around in it.

So what he's showing you has no relevance to the discussion, because he's showing you a material that is never used for a surface finished look material of a suit, and whatever you put over it will be the material you must study for folds and surface characteristics. He is showing you something which has no relevance to the discussion, and it merely distracts from the discussion rather than adding to understanding the issue. He should be showing you foam with hair or fur on it, because such a surface is relevance to the discussion of the surface characteristics of Patty's body, which does have some kind of fur on it.

Okay, now I see what you mean by the "irrelevant" bit. Also, I tried to contact the author of this page, which has some rather interesting things to say about the use of foam and fake fur (and types of glue), but his e-mail doesn't seem to work anymore.

In answer to your question, Patty's armpit transition shape (from bicep area to chest area) is not consistent with any fur suit I am aware of, but wholly consistent with living anatomy.

This site wouldn't let me get the image URLs, so I'm just going to have to link to the two pages containing pictures of the Gargantuas, Sanda and Gaira (aka Gaila) and you can scroll down to them.

Here's another picture of Sanda and another of Gaira. As a special bonus, here's a picture of a modified Gaira suit used for the 1973 Japanese TV series "Ike! Greenman." As you can see, the costume was in much poorer shape than its original appearance in 1966's "War of the Gargantuas."

Pictures of a Gaira suit recreation can be seen here.

Now, granted, the Gargantuas seem to have a scale/fur combo, so let's try the costume from the movie Half Human (which was a pure fursuit)...

The arms aren't in the right position to tell for sure, but this picture does look promising...

Ah, here we go!

This version of the suit was only used in publicity pictures, but I figured it was worth noting.

I tried looking for pictures of Toho's two King Kong suits, but I'm having a hard time finding a decent view of Kong's arms in the correct position. The behind-the-scenes picture shown here was the best one I've found so far, but I think the Kong suit is too dark to make a solid judgement. Perhaps a fellow kaiju enthusiast can give me a hand?

Seeing as how those two pictures in the Dfoot collage are supposedly from "Lost in Space," I tried to look into that (especially since they apparently used two-piece costumes for their monsters). Sadly, finding good pictures of the monster costumes (especially behind-the-scenes stuff) is much harder than I anticipated.

This picture is cut off, but the costume it depicts shows promise. I think that it could be from the "Space Croppers" episode, featuring the alien werewolf "Keel." You can see a .gif animation of Keel here. Does anyone here have the "Lost in Space" DVDs and the ability to make/post screencaps?

I did bumble across an interivew with Buck Maffei (who played the Cyclops in the unaired pilot episode). Said interview has lots of pictures of Maffei (including one of him in the Tauren costume), which I'm sure will delight mangler. I especially like the ad/resume promoting his services.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

What constant discussion?

Do I have to count each and every post you've made mentioning the Iceman?

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

Don't forget the hog-headed creature reported in the same area!

But seriously, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts on the matter of the Iceman (or Ivan Sanderson) unless it's in the proper thread.

Yes, I know. I included the Marvel character as a sort of joke (and because some sighting reports are similar to it).

D'oh!

 

[captain koolaid]

That seems to be the case.

Officially: master copy - n : an original creation (i.e., an audio recording) from which
copies can be made

Best not to crossover into Audio/music terms, as that can differ significantly. In the recording industry, the "master" can be the master tape, and a master copy- for duping. And master pressing, and so forth. The use of "copy" is applied somewhat more loosely in the recording industry IIRC.

That got me confused because Owen wasn't saying Patricia Patterson has the original.

OK. Understood that you may not have been stating that she has the original. Where things get stirred up is the apparent way that "master copy" gets thrown about in Bigfoot circles, as if it equals the original, or is actually the original. Mrs.Patterson's "master copy" might be interesting in that it is clearer, than a subsequent gen copy, but in itself, it is worthless.

How would a master copy (vernacular use) differ from a first generation copy? Every time I Google it I get William Shatner.

Some would be talking about the original- the master "master", some would be referring to a 1st gen copy of the original. It is just the loose employment of the word "copy". It gets messy, because "1st gen copy" is often applied to the 1st dupe off the "master copy" (which is a copy of the original developed rolls, or negative), but which is really a 2nd gen.

The original developed rolls is the master film. Direct dupes from that are 1st gen copies, and become "master copies" for the purpose of further duping.

That was uncalled for. John used the term in the same way Owen Caddy did (if I heard him correctly). That's all I meant.

The problem lies in deception, either intentional or not. I suspect rather strongly that Patterson's most significant coup, was not fooling people with blurry images of someone in a suit, but rather the shell game involved in the film itself. This has been aided ever since with the loose interpretation of the terms "original film", "master" and "master copy". The High Priests of Bigfootianity talk of the "original", it gets repeated in the media, via lazy journalism, it gathers weight over time. The "believer" and "knower" castes accept it, and it all gets lost in the shuffle. What happened to that film after it was removed from the camera, is the most important aspect in the whole affair. Without confirmation of the original film, and examination for continuity and splicing/editing, it is just a movie.

 

[LAL]

According to assorted Film Flam artists, ....

Such as Al DeAtley? He's the one who got the film processed and saw it first. He paid for the publication of Roger's book.

Have the conspiracy theorists decided he was the mastermind behind it all?

 

[LAL]

Do I have to count each and every post you've made mentioning the Iceman?

Do you think I'm the one who brought it up? You might want to count each and every post I was responding to, especially the one about my litmus test. Just who was insisting I listen to Verne Langdon?

But seriously, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts on the matter of the Iceman (or Ivan Sanderson) unless it's in the proper thread.

Good. I don't recall asking you to respond to any of my posts. I posted quite a few sources on BFF if you want any more, or check out Bobbie Short's site. I've been trying to stay on topic.

DeAtley thought the MIM put an end to the PGF tour but that's about the only connection with the PGF other than the year, Mr. and Mrs. Hansen's visit to Roger Patterson in California, and the implication they used the same tailor (who either used yak or bear hair, unless it was both).

Ivan Sanderson wrote articles on the PGF, of course, so I trust I'm permitted to discuss him in that context.

 

[LAL]

The problem lies in deception, either intentional or not. I suspect rather strongly that Patterson's most significant coup, was not fooling people with blurry images of someone in a suit, but rather the shell game involved in the film itself. This has been aided ever since with the loose interpretation of the terms "original film", "master" and "master copy". The High Priests of Bigfootianity talk of the "original", it gets repeated in the media, via lazy journalism, it gathers weight over time. The "believer" and "knower" castes accept it, and it all gets lost in the shuffle. What happened to that film after it was removed from the camera, is the most important aspect in the whole affair. Without confirmation of the original film, and examination for continuity and splicing/editing, it is just a movie.

You suspect. The film was tied up in litigation for years; Roger oversold the rights. The portion of the second roll showing the depths of the men's footprint's next to the depth of the trackway was lost by the BBC. Paul Vella even named the show. I'll agree with you about sloppy journalism. Owen Caddy had some very choice words about the Whitewolf scriptwriters for calling the copy he worked with the original. I have even choicer words for most of the documentaries I've seen.

Your attempts to portray people who take an interest in this as some kind of weird cult indicate you really don't know much about them. You're much more interesting when you drop the silly phraseology and just write straight.

 

[mangler]

Lu,

The whole film thing is pretty basic. Master, master copy (also called first generation copy), second generation copies come from the master copy (or first generation), third generation from the second generation and so on. This is all positive to positive no internegs, I wont go into emulsion to emulsion printing.

All copies printed directly from the Original/Master/In Camera Film are master copies; it does not matter when they were printed as long as they were printed from the Original/Master.

This master is rumored to be Kodachrome II Film if the printers knew what they where doing the master copies would have been printed onto Kodachrome Reversal Print 7387 or Eastman Reversal II Safety film (those two actually may be the same, I can’t remember), you should keep your master copy as true to form as possible, hence keeping the master copy on a Kodachrome Film. If they did not know, did not care or did not have access to K-12 (Kodachrome ECP-2) process they could have print it on any kind of film (however image quality would suffer significant loss). The second most logical choice would be to print on Ektachrome Reversal Print 7386 or companion film; far more labs were capable of processing this type of film so subsequent copies were probably printed on this type of film. Note that the Reversal Print Films mentioned are designed for printing master copies.

Generally speaking you can tell what type of film you are working with (if it’s the Master/Original) strictly by its color characteristics. In Kodaks case Kodachrome is at the warm end of the color spectrum Ektachrome is at the cool end. There are also other characteristics of film that can help identify it and of course there is the edge code but apparently none of those guy’s could read one.

Every subsequent generation of this film has serious loss of quality. Both Kodachrome and Ektachrome, especially of that time, were notorious for thick almost etched emulsions after exposure; thick emulsions can be brutal to work with, tough to get an overall tight focus on the grain, aperture and expose time problems etc.

Whatever copy Mrs. Patterson has I would have to guess that it is the best one available. I would not bet bank that it a master copy though.

That’s the short version, any questions feel free.


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

tyr 13 wrote:

It seems too easy.

Really?

Are you saying it would be 'too easy' to replicate that toe movement, with a fake foot?

It certainly would be an easy thing to make fake feet with toes that pivot, and can move freely up and down. But that wasn't the point of my question.
The point of it was.... What exactly is pushing Patty's toes upward?

Patty's foot is moving only in a horizontal direction, parallel to the ground.
You can see that in the first few frames of the gif.

If the supposed fake foot has loosely-pivoting toes on it, then the only way they can move upwards would be by an upward swing of the foot, forcing the toes upward........but we don't see that happening.


Perhaps this will be yet another case where one aspect of the "suit" is so obviously a suit.....and yet so impossible to replicate.

Anyone want to take a swing at it?!



Edited to add:

There is another aspect to the toes, visible in other frames, that further indicates the 'freely-pivoting fake toes' explanation cannot be the true explanation.
I'll post something on that, in a few days.

 

[RayG]

I also listened to the interview with Bill Munns and I'm astounded that any of you can still be arguing for a suit. Talk about wishful thinking!

Surely you realize that without a body or a suit Mr. Munns can speculate whatever he wishes.

Arguing about the PGF ain't beating a dead horse, it's beating a horse that doesn't exist.

RayG

 

[captain koolaid]

You suspect. The film was tied up in litigation for years; Roger oversold the rights.

What does this have to do with the original rolls? There is no chain of evidence between the shooting, and RP showing up with a movie to show. Just some old school bigfoot hunters and "researcher/s" looking at what he pulled from his sleeve and declaring it, somehow, to be the original developed film. If there is no way to verify what one is selling the "rights" to, for either broadcast or ownership, what does it matter whether it is original or not? Just give the suckers a copy, and Bob's your uncle. De Atley(?) indicated that it was "lost" very early in the timeline.

The portion of the second roll showing the depths of the men's footprint's next to the depth of the trackway was lost by the BBC. Paul Vella even named the show.

The original developed film was sent to the BBC? They lost it? Or did they lose a copy? It cannot be determined what came out of the development ( and presumably, editing) stage, let alone where it was developed. RP was no dum-dum. He knew what he was doing.

 

[kitakaze]

Then how did you miss Green saying it was one of many unsubstantiated claims that crop up from time to time?

Let's review your performance, shall we? I tell you that Bob Heironimus is the only person to have ever made claim to being Patty and that he has considerable circumstantial evidence to support his claim to which you respond with "read Green." I tell you I have and you respond with what is essentially "well, Green said so, so there." This is unfortunately typical. You know what would be much more forthright? If you just would allow yourself to admit that you know of no other individual who has made claim to be Patty and are depending on the word of your BF authority figures.

Unfortunately people like yourself, Green, John Kirk on MQ Bigfoot, and others are trying to assuage their fears regarding Heironimus by passing the myth between yourselves and others that there has been a stream of claimants when this is simply not true. Please either concede the point or provide the name of at least one of these people. Please do not try to skirt the issue by providing the name of someone who was implied by another person to be Patty.

Bob Heironimus played rugby? I didn't know that.

My assertion is that even considering a suit Patty is still within the range of human proportions. I said nothing of the suit exactly matching Heironimus considering that it would add to his measurements.

Do you guys see what you're doing? If Bob doesn't fit it must be someone else. If the suit doesn't work it must be some other suit. If Roger or Philip didn't make it then someone else must have - anything but consider it might not have been a guy in a suit.

You fail to understand what is happening. First, Long didn't put Morris in the mix until Morris made his claim late in the game. We know Morris lies and takes credit for things he didn't do for publicity gains. The circumstantial evidence puts Heironimus in the suit and it's creation with an FX contact that Patterson had during one of his trips to LA.

Considering the weight of the circumstantial evidence against Patterson, Patty being a real Bigfoot is only an extreme outside possibility to me. If someone comes forward with a hairy rocket-breasted, diaper butt, paddle foot, thigh creased Bigfoot I would definitely reconsider.

 

[kitakaze]

Anyone want to take a swing at it?!

I could do that, no problem.