• 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 - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Welcome Vort,

I also applaud your intellectual honesty (I think I will also go with kits name for you if you don’t mind).

The posters here can be both highly critical as well as seemingly unreasonable at times but overall they maintain a fair balance of bitch slapping (IMO). In the four or five threads here dealing with the PGF odds are that you can find every bit of information ever publicly discussed regarding this film in one form or another, unfortunately none of it is in chronological order and/or follows any specific path. These JREF threads, like the many others on different board also contain some pretty wild views of this film (PGF), there are also times when we get so far off topic that I’m not sure I’m in the right thread.

In short if you don’t mind traveling the long road to get to the short answer while viewing an occasional train-wreck these threads provide an awesome amount of information in the most unlikely places.

Personally, I’m just here to ride the tricycle.



m :bike:
 
All: I don't mind being called "Vort"; I'm known by that moniker in at least three discussion forums around the web. At the same time I would like to state my name, Noah David Henson, so there can be no allegations of willful secrecy or anonymity. My qualifications as a figure artist and anthropology minor, for whatever they're worth in this field of inquiry, can be verified by anyone who cares to investigate them.

I do appreciate the general air of welcomeness, the links and the directions to related threads. I've watched the Eugenie Scott presentation and read the thread on Bob Heironimous, and as I noted in my first post, above, I've read every page of this thread and followed most offered links.

Scott's presentation, while entertaining, doesn't offer any new information beyond what I see available here. (I will note in my own defense that she uses the word "pendulous" with regard to the P-G figure's breasts.) In general I agree with her assessment, though her arguments fail to plumb her otherwise excellent questions with much depth. Her repeated, dismissive references to "West Texas" seem designed to obfuscate the more likely and more numerous East Texas sightings, which are based in wooded wetlands that could plausibly support a primate population. As to her judgement that no muscular action or differentiation can be seen in the P-G figure, which judgement Diogenes and kitakaze repeat, I for one would question the effectiveness of these individuals' eyesight and the extent of their anatomical training. I do not mean to give offense, but I've been closely observing human musculature for 25 years and my eyesight is 20/20. What, may I ask, are the qualifications of Diogenes and kitakaze in this area?

To address Diogenes' specific questions in this regard, group number 1 in the offered diagram (from his post at 11:33 AM) is the base of the teres group. If the P-G figure is slightly above the horizon line of the camera-man, who attests to having been crouched down on one knee, then we may expect the oblique slant of the teres group to level out somewhat as it moves above the horizon line. Also, variation in anthropometrical measurements is known and demonstrable; IOW, the angle of the teres muscle, or of any muscle, will vary from one individual to the next. In group #2 Diogenes has inserted exaggerated ellipses which do not match the visible morphology beneath. To my trained eye, the head of the triceps flows into the elbow (the condyle of the humerus) and anconeus muscle in a natural way, then flows into the ulnar extensor which attaches to the ulna bone, visible at the top of the hand as a tiny ball of light. As to group #3, again I see a natural angle of the deltoid muscle attaching to the scapular ridge; with the overlay of skin not evident in the offered medical illustration, this "wing" of the deltoid will often appear to be more vertical than the underlying muscle. I invite you to examine weightlifting or gymnastic photography to verify my observations in this regard. Also, in the offered pic of the P-G figure, we can see a shadowed wedge to the left of the vertical bulge, just underneath the red line, which to my trained eye is the oblique wing of the deltoid, and which a more cursory examination of the picture might well miss. The blue triangle in Diogenes' final pic is in fact the exact angle we expect in the area where the head of the triceps folds under the deltoid. I have drawn this area of the arm, from memory and from life, so many times that there is no question in my mind that it is accurate with regard to both location and shape.

The question that remains, then, is: What is the causation of this movement and bulging, so lifelike to the trained eye, so accurate with regard to human muscular anatomy? Intensive research into the field of primate costumery and prosthetics previously led me to conclude that a muscular ape suit was never undertaken in any Hollywood production until Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi's innovative work on the 1976 King Kong. Neither Stuart Freeborn's 2001 man-apes, nor John Chamber's Planet of the Apes creations, had visible musculature shifting beneath the fur. However, the existence of the "Gorn" muscle suit in 1966 (from the Star Trek episode "Arena" which aired in January 1967) irrefutably demonstrates that a rubber suit with muscular detail was not only possible at the time the P-G film was made, there was indeed one such recently-made suit to be found in the same US state, a few hundred miles south from where the P-G film was shot. Couple this fact with a contention by film-maker John Landis, and others in Hollywood, that John Chambers had worked with Patterson on making the suit, and the possibility that the P-G figure could be a person in costume is firmly established.

I hope the above further clarifies my position. In brief, there might be bigfoot (plural) somewhere in North America, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that we have a film of one of them.
 
Last edited:
I invite you to examine weightlifting or gymnastic photography to verify my observations in this regard.
Click to expand...
We get that a lot..

Are you suggesting the subject is a gymnast or a weightlifter ?

I'll get back to you with some diagrams I have made of the triceps and deltoid area...
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
All: I don't mind being called "Vort"; I'm known by that moniker in at least three discussion forums around the web. At the same time I would like to state my name, Noah David Henson, so there can be no allegations of willful secrecy or anonymity. My qualifications as a figure artist and anthropology minor, for whatever they're worth in this field of inquiry, can be verified by anyone who cares to investigate them.

I do appreciate the general air of welcomeness, the links and the directions to related threads. I've watched the Eugenie Scott presentation and read the thread on Bob Heironimous, and as I noted in my first post, above, I've read every page of this thread and followed most offered links.

Scott's presentation, while entertaining, doesn't offer any new information beyond what I see available here. (I will note in my own defense that she uses the word "pendulous" with regard to the P-G figure's breasts.) In general I agree with her assessment, though her arguments fail to plumb her otherwise excellent questions with much depth. Her repeated, dismissive references to "West Texas" seem designed to obfuscate the more likely and more numerous East Texas sightings, which are based in wooded wetlands that could plausibly support a primate population. As to her judgement that no muscular action or differentiation can be seen in the P-G figure, which judgement Diogenes and kitakaze repeat, I for one would question the effectiveness of these individuals' eyesight and the extent of their anatomical training. I do not mean to give offense, but I've been closely observing human musculature for 25 years and my eyesight is 20/20. What, may I ask, are the qualifications of Diogenes and kitakaze in this area?

To address Diogenes' specific questions in this regard, group number 1 in the offered diagram (from his post at 11:33 AM) is the base of the teres group. If the P-G figure is slightly above the horizon line of the camera-man, who attests to having been crouched down on one knee, then we may expect the oblique slant of the teres group to level out somewhat as it moves above the horizon line. Also, variation in anthropometrical measurements is known and demonstrable; IOW, the angle of the teres muscle, or of any muscle, will vary from one individual to the next. In group #2 Diogenes has inserted exaggerated ellipses which do not match the visible morphology beneath. To my trained eye, the head of the triceps flows into the elbow (the condyle of the humerus) and anconeus muscle in a natural way, then flows into the ulnar extensor which attaches to the ulna bone, visible at the top of the hand as a tiny ball of light. As to group #3, again I see a natural angle of the deltoid muscle attaching to the scapular ridge; with the overlay of skin not evident in the offered medical illustration, this "wing" of the deltoid will often appear to be more vertical than the underlying muscle. I invite you to examine weightlifting or gymnastic photography to verify my observations in this regard. Also, in the offered pic of the P-G figure, we can see a shadowed wedge to the left of the vertical bulge, just underneath the red line, which to my trained eye is the oblique wing of the deltoid, and which a more cursory examination of the picture might well miss. The blue triangle in Diogenes' final pic is in fact the exact angle we expect in the area where the head of the triceps folds under the deltoid. I have drawn this area of the arm, from memory and from life, so many times that there is no question in my mind that it is accurate with regard to both location and shape.

The question that remains, then, is: What is the causation of this movement and bulging, so lifelike to the trained eye, so accurate with regard to human muscular anatomy? Intensive research into the field of primate costumery and prosthetics previously led me to conclude that a muscular ape suit was never undertaken in any Hollywood production until Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi's innovative work on the 1976 King Kong. Neither Stuart Freeborn's 2001 man-apes, nor John Chamber's Planet of the Apes creations, had visible musculature shifting beneath the fur. However, the existence of the "Gorn" muscle suit in 1966 (from the Star Trek episode "Arena" which aired in January 1967) irrefutably demonstrates that a rubber suit with muscular detail was not only possible at the time the P-G film was made, there was indeed one such recently-made suit to be found in the same US state, a few hundred miles south from where the P-G film was shot. Couple this fact with a contention by film-maker John Landis, and others in Hollywood, that John Chambers had worked with Patterson on making the suit, and the possibility that the P-G figure could be a person in costume is firmly established.

I hope the above further clarifies my position. In brief, there might be bigfoot (plural) somewhere in North America, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that we have a film of one of them.
Click to expand...


Fabric and padding wrinkles.
 
So far I've read the 26 pages of this thread and I've read the four pages of the Heironimous thread. If there are any criticisms of note in Part One of this thread, beyond the five objections I've already listed as debunking the P-G film, I'd certainly be glad to read or review them.

I'm not suggesting the P-G figure is a weightlifter or gymnast. I'm inviting you to examine photography of human musculature with an overlay of skin, as opposed to a medical illustration devoid of skin, which can give a false impression as to how muscles appear in reality. This is a lesson I learned years ago, when I would attempt to draw my human figures directly from anatomy books, without accounting for skin and other tissues that effect surface appearance. One of these is the angle of the deltoid "wing", which appears more oblique in skinless medical illustration and less oblique in living subjects with intact skin.
 
Vortigern99 said:
As to her judgement that no muscular action or differentiation can be seen in the P-G figure, which judgement Diogenes and kitakaze repeat, I for one would question the effectiveness of these individuals' eyesight and the extent of their anatomical training. I do not mean to give offense, but I've been closely observing human musculature for 25 years and my eyesight is 20/20. What, may I ask, are the qualifications of Diogenes and kitakaze in this area?
Click to expand...

Vort, I will address your other comments about Eugenie Scott's lecture in the thread we have about it. I also mean no offence but would suggest that Scott's anthropological experience far outweighs yours. Also, as a figure artist I suggest the following problem. I think that there might be the danger of being an artist who sees details in a subject that she or he is intimately familiar with that may not necessarily be there. The problem I think you can appreciate is that the details we are discussing are subjective. At the very least they are subjective and contended enough to render that alleged element of the film worthless as reliable evidence. Nobody that matters is going to turn around and start taking a very suspicious film serious now because someone thinks they can see muscles.

My own qualifications are none. I am not an anatomist. I am an artist and I do have 20/20 vision but it doesn't matter. And I think Scott's glasses should hopefully work well enough. Her educated opinion is in the majority.

To address Diogenes' specific questions in this regard, group number 1 in the offered diagram (from his post at 11:33 AM) is the base of the teres group.

(snip)
Click to expand...

I encourage you to keep posting past the 20(?) I believe you need before you can begin posting images. When you can, I encourage you to demonstrate with the film the observations you detailed. I will consult anatomy texts and tell you straight up if I can see what you describe.

The question that remains, then, is: What is the causation of this movement and bulging, so lifelike to the trained eye, so accurate with regard to human muscular anatomy?
Click to expand...

Again, no offence but you mean to your eye. I would need to see a proper sized sample base of appropriately qualified anatomical experts who agree in the majority with your opinion. Until then it's just another opinion to me. Not to be rude but that's just the truth.

However, the existence of the "Gorn" muscle suit in 1966 (from the Star Trek episode "Arena" which aired in January 1967) irrefutably demonstrates that a rubber suit with muscular detail was not only possible at the time the P-G film was made, there was indeed one such recently-made suit to be found in the same US state, a few hundred miles south from where the P-G film was shot. Couple this fact with a contention by film-maker John Landis, and others in Hollywood, that John Chambers had worked with Patterson on making the suit, and the possibility that the P-G figure could be a person in costume is firmly established.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I personally am one of the skeptics who does not believe that Philip Morris was responsible for making the suit as he claims. I think he is either not telling the truth or was mistaken. It is definitely possible that Chambers was involved with making the suit and would not at all divulge truth and even deny it. He's done it before. I believe there was another man involved and have good reason to think so. It's not something I discuss in thread as it's sensitive in nature but if you stick around long enough we may be able to discuss it via pm.
 
Vortigern99 said:
So far I've read the 26 pages of this thread and I've read the four pages of the Heironimous thread. If there are any criticisms of note in Part One of this thread, beyond the five objections I've already listed as debunking the P-G film, I'd certainly be glad to read or review them.
Click to expand...

Those ones are good to start but I'll let you know more to come.

I'd like to know your opinion on the following:

1) Crazy wrong nuchal crest (previously linked).

2) Crazy diaper butt with no crack.

4) Crazy subducting line on thigh unlike any real muscle (even Munns thinks so.

5) Crazy softball bulges on Patty's back left leg.

6) Crazy tummy rocks that make no sense for a real primate.

7) Do you think Patty is an omnivore or herbivore?

BTW, here's the BFF thread on your piece. I expect someone will soon post your revised opinion.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25510
 
Kitakaze, that's precisely my perception of the Phillip Morris claim as well. The costume on the P-G figure -- if costume it is -- is too accurate in the area of muscular anatomy, in my opinion, to be anything but a well-crafted, probably very expensive costume, not a baggy, shapeless gorilla suit of the kind sold in retail shops such as Morrris', and/or seen in Hollywood films such as the "nude" bath scene in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970).

I understand that Diogenes and yourself continue to reject the claim of evident muscle groups on "Patty", but my trained eye sees otherwise, and I am unable to convince myself that I am NOT seeing what my eyes and mind tell me that I AM seeing. Ultimately the point is moot, perhaps, since I readily acknowledge the figure could be wearing a suit.

For what it's worth, I don't take offense at all to your skepticism regarding either my opinions or my self-declared expertise in the area of human muscular anatomy. The burden of proof is on me to provide evidence of that expertise; I don't expect you or anyone to accept my claims without scrutiny.

My own hypothesis, probably unprovable, is that Patterson contacted a Hollywood effects man, perhaps John Chambers, and for a nominal fee obtained an old or unused muscle suit, similar to Wah Chang's "Gorn" suit, to which Patterson then adhered the taxodermic (sp.?) skin of the "dead red horse" that Heironomous describes. Given that Heironimous was involved in a previous Patterson bigfoot film, albeit as a man on horseback, the case for Heironmous' involvement in the P-G film appears quite strong.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Kitakaze, that's precisely my perception of the Phillip Morris claim as well. The costume on the P-G figure -- if costume it is -- is too accurate in the area of muscular anatomy, in my opinion, to be anything but a well-crafted, probably very expensive costume, not a baggy, shapeless gorilla suit of the kind sold in retail shops such as Morrris', and/or seen in Hollywood films such as the "nude" bath scene in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970).

(snip)

My own hypothesis, probably unprovable, is that Patterson contacted a Hollywood effects man, perhaps John Chambers, and for a nominal fee obtained an old or unused muscle suit, similar to Wah Chang's "Gorn" suit, to which Patterson then adhered the taxodermic (sp.?) skin of the "dead red horse" that Heironomous describes. Given that Heironimous was involved in a previous Patterson bigfoot film, albeit as a man on horseback, the case for Heironmous' involvement in the P-G film appears quite strong.
Click to expand...

Part of the thing frustrating any attempt to actually prove a hoax is that we just can't expect to get in-your-face proof like the actual suit. We're left with the surrounding events and what's on the film. I'm satisfied as you are now that the film is quite likely a hoax. I think you're headed in the right direction but I'm quite sure Patterson did not but the skin of a dead red horse on Patty. I say this because the dead red horse bit is a red herring and the other person who I believe was involved was supposed to have been the one who attached the hair on the suit. It very well could be a suit such as Wah Chang's muscle suit. There is far better detail on Gorn but Gorn is not seen blurry, shaky, and frrom far away under poor filming conditions.

What's interesting is that we know Patterson was making visits to Hollwood where he had connections. He was represented by famed Hollywood laywer Walter Hurst who was paid by George Radford. Patterson borrowed a fairly substantial amount of money from them that was supposed to be for the film he was making. Here's the contract (click to enlarge):



We also know that Wah Chang designed a mask that looks very similar to Patty:



BTW, if you are confident in your ideas about the muscles you believe to see then there is a test you might conduct. Show the PGF to colleagues with anatomical training and expertise. Don't lead them at all and say nothing of the muscles you think you can see. This would be a good way to build a sample base and could be done by email.

Ultimately the point is moot, perhaps, since I readily acknowledge the figure could be wearing a suit.

For what it's worth, I don't take offense at all to your skepticism regarding either my opinions or my self-declared expertise in the area of human muscular anatomy. The burden of proof is on me to provide evidence of that expertise; I don't expect you or anyone to accept my claims without scrutiny.
Click to expand...

This is what gives you an advantage over pretty much every Bigfoot enthusiast here.

Oh yeah, and two questions:

1) Will you be writing an update to Anomaly Magazine explaining that youhave discovered damning information about the PGF supporting a hoax?

2) Do you post on any Bigfoot boards? Not my business so ignore the question if you'd rather not answer.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Those ones are good to start but I'll let you know more to come.

I'd like to know your opinion on the following:

1) Crazy wrong nuchal crest (previously linked).
Click to expand...

Despite some statements I've read to the contrary, human beings do indeed have a nuchal crest; four, actually. As I understand it, the crest acts as an anchor to the neck muscles (sternomastoid processes); in quadrupedal primates the crest is pronounced in order to support the weight of the forward-jutting skull; in certain human ancestors the crest is smaller but still more pronounced than a modern human's, indicating some degree of forward slouching. It would follow, then, that if bigfoot consistently ambulates in the fashion seen in the P-G film (which I am not asserting except as a "what-if" argument), it would follow that it would have a nuchal crest larger than a modern human's but smaller than a great ape's.


2) Crazy diaper butt with no crack.

The pictures shown in the NASI report, comparing a gorilla's backside with the P-G figure's, are fairly convincing in terms of sharing lifelike surface detail. Gorillas, and any other ape or monkey you might mention, do not have "butt cracks" because they do not have buttocks as such, between which a crack or crevice might form. (Isn't this fun?) There is a haunch there, but no massive pair of globular gluteal muscles. IF "Patty" is a real animal, intermediate between a formerly (in an evolutionary sense) quadrupedal animal and a recently bipedal one in terms of its locomotion and morphology, then it follows that there might be an intermediate buttock, not as developed as the human gluteus but not as flat or small as the simian haunch. This would appear to be consistent with what we're seeing in the P-G film. Further, a lifetime spent sitting on this butt-haunch on rough ground, munching away on roots and bugs, might have added a callous to the region, further obscuring our efforts to distinguish hominid-like buttocks.

Or, it might be limitations in the accuracy of a hand-crafted suit, aka "diaper butt".

4) Crazy subducting line on thigh unlike any real muscle (even Munns thinks so.

I've studied this line, and the adjacent "softball bulges" in close detail for some weeks. At first I believed the lower softball was the great trochanter, the protuberant process of the femur bone which juts out below the hip, at the top of the thigh where the gluteus macimus, medius and upper leg muscles meet as if gathering around a large button. But this bulge is in fact too low to be the trochanter. The higher bulge I once took for the head of the tensor fascia latae, and the line between them to be the main portion of that muscle. But again the placement is all wrong; the tensor attaches to the iliac crest of the pelvis; it doesn't reach across the front of the thigh. In some high quality, low-contrast still pics of the P-G film, I've noted that this area looks like a segment of fur that is overlapping the segment beneath it. This would be consistent with a real animal, some of which, for example the gorilla, are known and demonstrated to have segments of fur overlapping one another.

That said, it would also be consistent with a hand-sewn costume or suit.

5) Crazy softball bulges on Patty's back left leg.

See above.

6) Crazy tummy rocks that make no sense for a real primate.

I don't agree with the assessment of "tummy rocks". The sacs, whatever they are, clearly ("to my eye"; do I really need to say that every time I state an opinion?) attach to the pectoral region and hang down, pendulously, in a manner similar to mature, post-childbirth human breasts. Contrary to some opinions, nursing gorillas do form enlarged mammary glands comparable to, if smaller than, human breasts.

They could also be horsehide or latex sacs sewn into a costume to approximate the look of the animal described in the 1955 Roe encounter.

7) Do you think Patty is an omnivore or herbivore?

Nutrition is not my area of expertise by far, but as an unschooled guess I would lean toward an omnivorous diet, including and perhaps especially insects. According to most reports and certainly adjudging from the P-G figure, bigfoot lacks the massive gorilla-like belly, required for digestion of huge amounts of low-calorie leaves. Insects would provide greater caloric intake per unit, with a more saliva-soluble constitution, than leaves. In addition to insects, roots and berries, some leaves and perhaps even small animals might make up the bigfoot's main caloric intake, if such an animal exists.
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Vort, have you seen this [101-page Part 1 of the PG Film] thread?
Click to expand...


Once more for the record:

I've read all pages of the current thread and all four pages of the Heironimous thread. This endeavor took me some ten-twelve hours, ie the better part of a day. Another 101 pages of similar, probably repetitive postings does not appeal to me at this time.

If someone would care to direct me to a specific point, question, or post within the body of that or any other thread, I'll be glad to comment.
 
Kitakaze, Patterson's demonstrable Hollywood connections make it more likely that he could have been in contact with an industry effects artist, whether Wah Chang or John Chambers is unknown and probably unprovable now that all three men are deceased.

To answer your questions:

1.) One course to pursue might be a follow-up article listing my recently-discovered objections. Now that I appear to have some enthusiasts' (and skeptics') attention -- though such was not my original purpose -- it might be helpful to offer up a rebuttal to my own earlier research.

2.) I don't post on or belong to any other bigfoot boards. My interest in bigfoot and other cryptozoological endeavors has been a largely private affair.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Once more for the record:

I've read all pages of the current thread and all four pages of the Heironimous thread. This endeavor took me some ten-twelve hours, ie the better part of a day. Another 101 pages of similar, probably repetitive postings does not appeal to me at this time.

If someone would care to direct me to a specific point, question, or post within the body of that or any other thread, I'll be glad to comment.
Click to expand...

I was going to say before you responded that you had already alluded to the first. I don't think anybody would expect you to seriously try and tackle that thread. Nobody has the time and if they do, then something isn't right. I would think most people's instinct would be to shriek and run away if they saw that big fat-ass coming at them.

It's great that you went through all as much as you have. PGF 2 has good stuff in it and random hits to the 411 PGF couldn't hurt. The Bob Heironimus is the one I'd finish first if I were you. I will post many of the major issues concerning the PGF from the 411 and PGF 2 as well to get you up to speed.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Once more for the record:

I've read all pages of the current thread and all four pages of the Heironimous thread. This endeavor took me some ten-twelve hours, ie the better part of a day. Another 101 pages of similar, probably repetitive postings does not appeal to me at this time.

If someone would care to direct me to a specific point, question, or post within the body of that or any other thread, I'll be glad to comment.
Click to expand...

No reason to get pissy about it. I didn't ask if you've read the thread just if you've seen it. See the difference?

Just thought it might be good for you to know it exists. There is a lot of good information in that thread that you may want to review before posting stuff that has already been discussed.
 
Last edited:
As the others have said, welcome to the forum!

I believe that the reason so many here take issue with use of the term "pendulous" is due to the fact that Patty's breasts do not swing as much as one would expect actual droopy breasts to. In fact, I suspect that the so-called "movement" of the left breast is actually an illusion caused by the arm swinging behind it. A similar illusion can be seen in this video of a stick/log floating in Lake Champlain. The waves in the background make it seem like one of the limbs is a moving head/neck.

3. The detailed account of the Roe sighting of a female bigfoot given by Patterson in his 1966 book, with attendant illustrations of a bigfoot with breasts.
Click to expand...

I love how the drawing not only matches Patty in a frame from the film and is ripped-off from a drawing by someone who didn't seem to be involved in Bigfoot research, but it also features the Bigfoot walking behind a a downed tree (just like what's seen in the PGF).

Personally, I've always found it rather suspicious that the footprints survived torrential rain powerful enough to "cave [a] road." This matter has been discussed several times, most recently in pages 5-7 of the thread, "Bigfoot PG Film The Munns report."

It's important to remember that one's expertise in a subject can sometimes mislead them. You might be familiar with fingerprint expert Jimmy Chillcut's endorsement of "Bigfoot dermal ridges." However, those turned out to be casting artifacts.

And on a mostly unrelated note: According to this Wikipedia article, the person who played Jason in the Friday the 13th reimagining wore "...a chest plate with fake skin that would move to his muscle movement." (original source) I don't know if the same exact technique existed back in the 60's, but I do know that the creature suit used in the 1966 movie "The She Creature had "lunch hooks" operated by the wearer's stomach muscles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom