Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

Only semi-blew it. If I'm not mistaken both parts of the mask were off the shelf in the 60's. It could have been built just as easily and cheaply then as Dfoot did it.

That is true, and the point well made..

Just not the coup I imagined I had made for a while there..

I certainly wish I had been more restrained , and pointed out the ' mask parts available in the 60's ' part, that you have reminded me of..

 

[LTC8K6]

No need to be embarrassed.

You're only human.

 

[LTC8K6]

The believers want someone to duplicate the suit, anyway.

I still want to know where Marx got his suits.

 

[Huntster]

.....We did not use the dogs to "run down" the quarry. We used them to keep us on the trail - when there were long gaps between spoor or poor ground for prints - and to warn us if we were coming up on something unexpected......

I find this interesting. Not familiar with hunting dogs, I've always thought of such as running down (or treeing) the quarry.

Although I know one bear guide on Kodiak Island who had his dog with him for the purpose of warning him if a bear was sneaking up on them.

...In the case of the cats I always assumed that they were watching us and so I was, well, a mite bit concerned that they might circle around on our back-trail. That was never an issue with bears...

Circling is classic cat behavior. I have little experience with cats.

But I have a lot of experience with bears, and I have had them circle and follow me.

 

[Huntster]

....I asked you how the dogs managed to learn to be reluctant,
but you have not done that yet.....'.

All I know is this:

My dogs, when confronted with fresh bear sign, whine and want to leave.

My dogs, who love table scraps, will not eat bear meat, even after it is cooked. They bark at it.

Why? I don't know.

I'll ask them........

...Perhaps what you meant to write was 'I heard some stories',
rather than 'The reports indicate

Take it as you wish.

 

[Huntster]

O.K. Guys .. I blew it big with this...

I believe now this is a mask that Dfoot is putting together, not a ready made mask from the 60's...

What? You didn't know that?

...Man, I saw what I wanted to see and couldn't wait to pass out crow.....

What is more disturbing is not seeing what you want to see, but in unseeing what is so painfully clear;

you are prejudiced.

 

[Huntster]

...If I'm not mistaken both parts of the mask were off the shelf in the 60's....

If a dog had a square ***..............

What do you base your opinion regarding suitbuilding on?

Are you prepared to say that, since a stuntman employed in the motion picture industry today can possibly build a suit that might come close to replicating the PG film, that the rodeo rider did it 40 years before?

And you, too, are scientific and not prejudiced?

Dfoot has promised to put his suit in motion and film it. I've refrained from judgement until he has a chance to do so. I suggest you do likewise.

Otherwise, you are pre-judging.

Prejudice.

 

[Huntster]

The believers want someone to duplicate the suit, anyway.

I still want to know where Marx got his suits.

Do you compare this to the subject in the Patterson film?

 

[Dfoot]

That is true, and the point well made..

Just not the coup I imagined I had made for a while there..

I certainly wish I had been more restrained , and pointed out the ' mask parts available in the 60's ' part, that you have reminded me of..

Those two masks glued together came from DON POST STUDIOS and available in 1967.

Patty is a modified gorilla suit and could easily be made then or now. (*Not that it matters but I'll make one when I have time just for the hell of it)

Below are the gorilla gloves sold for $19.95 by Post in '67. They sure look familiar to me.

The Bigfoot with a camera is just some guy admiring himself. It's not a real Bigfoot - lest anyone think otherwise.

- Dfoot

 

[Mick Houlahan]

What are everyone's thoughts on the bottom of the foot?

It looks ridiculous to me.[/QUOTE]


Yep. They look just like my old "footie" pajamas. Lily-white, flame-retardant, and sweat-inducing. I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If a dog had a square ***..............



Prejudice.

Yes I am..

But not about Patty.. I made no judgement until I examined the evidence and found it wanting... In fact, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, until I took a closer look..

I made a mistake and admitted it.. Something you have yet to do..

So I guess you must be perfect....

 

[Huntster]

....I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

Then why all the attention to detail, like the need for a mask that has a movable mouth?

 

[Huntster]

...I made a mistake and admitted it.....

Not necessarily a mistake.....


You were premature in assuming that the mask was the work of the current times.

Pre

Just like Pre-judice; judging before the proper time.

Yes I am...

 

[tube]

In some of the better stills from the film the heels of the film subject can be clearly seen. In some of the shots the heel is rounded and looks quite "natural" while in other shots the heel is strangely squared off. Why is this? Even for those who assert that Sasquatch has an articulated foot, there has never been an assertion that the calcaneus (heel bone) is flexible. If you believe you are looking at a real Sasquatch the answer of course is that this is an illusion due to a combination of perspective, light and shadow, and the fact we are not looking at the original film. For skeptics like Kal Korff the frame with the square heel indicates an obvious non-animal heel.

Frankly I'm more inclined to buy the shadow and perspective explanation, as I doubt even an ape-suit foot could be that floppy. Floppy things usually don't form neat right angles. But not being a suit designer, I'm lacking in expertise about exactly how floppy they really are.

But if we are looking at a feature as gross as a large heel that morphs that much, how can we trust claims about much smaller features like teeth, boils, scars, and eye infections?

I'm sorry to see MK Davis fail to return to this forum. I still have unanswered questions.

 

[William Parcher]

Matt, I suggest that you always consider the possibility that any still image from the PGF may have had artistic manipulation for the purpose of added realism and believability.

 

[William Parcher]

....I guess Patterson didn't predict that someday someone would stabilize his footage, and didn't bother to rub a little Shinola on the bottoms of Bigfoot's big feet.

Then why all the attention to detail, like the need for a mask that has a movable mouth?

The Patty headpiece/mask may not have a moveable mouth.

 

[M.K.Davis]

In some of the better stills from the film the heels of the film subject can be clearly seen. In some of the shots the heel is rounded and looks quite "natural" while in other shots the heel is strangely squared off. Why is this? Even for those who assert that Sasquatch has an articulated foot, there has never been an assertion that the calcaneus (heel bone) is flexible. If you believe you are looking at a real Sasquatch the answer of course is that this is an illusion due to a combination of perspective, light and shadow, and the fact we are not looking at the original film. For skeptics like Kal Korff the frame with the square heel indicates an obvious non-animal heel.

Frankly I'm more inclined to buy the shadow and perspective explanation, as I doubt even an ape-suit foot could be that floppy. Floppy things usually don't form neat right angles. But not being a suit designer, I'm lacking in expertise about exactly how floppy they really are.

But if we are looking at a feature as gross as a large heel that morphs that much, how can we trust claims about much smaller features like teeth, boils, scars, and eye infections?

I'm sorry to see MK Davis fail to return to this forum. I still have unanswered questions.

I'm still trying to keep up Matt. I'm working long hours right now. The square heel, in my opinion is the result of slow shutter speed and movement of the foot during the exposure. Patterson's camera was running at the lower limit of being able to freeze action. Some movements were quick enough that they smeared. This is a known phenomenon and does not bode for or against authenticity, in my opinion. Here is a photo taken with too slow a shutter speed. Notice that the dog's head has smeared, however the eye remains properly shaped. This is called " burn in". All kinds of odd things happen with film during lengthy exposures. M.K.

 

[M.K.Davis]

Here's the photo after enhancement, targeting the eye. M.K.

 

[M.K.Davis]

Here's the photo after enhancement, targeting the eye. M.K.

MMM, the image didn't load. I'll try again. M.K.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The slow shutter speed would account for some of the bluriness, but you would expect almost every frame to be blurred since the subject is in motion throughout the film.
Along with the fact that the camera rarely comes close to anything you could call stable, what we have is a pretty crappy piece of film.

If patterson had done the logical thing, like steady himself against a tree, I think we would be looking at even less of the film than we are now.

Indeed, perhaps he did steady himself against a tree at some point, and for obvious reasons, is not part of what we see...