Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frames look right to me. Was there some touching up somewhere along the line? Anyone know?
 
61 vs 323. Need a better 323 or thereabouts.

pattyrightfoot.jpg
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
I got stuck on this passage when I first read the article. I think Knox may be quoting Roger talking about Patty. The "we" is P&G.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what got me (well, that, and it being late at night when I made that post). I misread it as Patterson showing him the Patty film to rev him up for a Bigfoot hunt and then took him out to see a Bigfoot by a large log.

You mean Knox, not Merritt?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Thanks for clearing that up.

Here are some sites detailing the issues with the footprints left by Patty.

Also, this site notes the problems with the "Bigfoot as a Gigantopithecus" theory and also details some issues that point away from Patty being a "real Sasquatch." I love how Krantz tried to argue that Patty was a male...
 
darkwing said:
So WP, is thinking outside the box a bad thing? Just asking an honest question.
Click to expand...

To add on WP answer, this is one thing to think outside the box, this is another to let the brain leak out. Thinking outside the box meaning searching for radically new hypothese which might then explain the already collected data, and can be falsified against future data.

What I see a lot of people do when they say "think outside the box" is that they are simply making stuff up on the spot without matching against properly collected data. And by properly collected data, let me be straigth, I don't think there is any for bigfoot. And that is the point were I quite evilly say "the brain start leaking". Like invisible bigfoot, paranormal bigfoot, dimension hoping bigfoot etc...etc...
 
Beckjord's copy of the film shows perfectfoot. Are the second and third toes longer than the big toe?
 
The foot is nowhere near as clear as the cibachrome though, and it still looks a lot different from the other small frame shot.

I wonder how many different looking versions there are out there? It seems like there are always several different versions of each frame we find.
 
Didn't Perez try to account for the different copies with an ancestry flowchart? That won't tell you specifics about the quality of each copy as they exist today.
 
LAL said:
Other measurements involved the stick Dahinden found, Peter Byrne's pole and the foot length.
Click to expand...

They could've used a better reference than that stick. On such example is the tree knot that both Patty and McClarin walked under.

Awhile back, Mangler did a really great photo comparison showing that the difference between McClarin and Patty wasn't great. Hopefully, he'll repost it. Just to clarify, I'm not referring to these two pictures.

I find the idea of a person in a suit, given the bulk,
Click to expand...

David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt showed how that's not an issue.
Also: Padding. I'll get back to this in a bit.

the height,
Click to expand...

As you can see from the above height comparison notes, Patty isn't extraordinarily tall. Not that it matters. A tall person wearing special shoes and wearing an overhead mask with a crest on it (like, say, this) would easily create the illusion of greater height. Or a false head could be used (And is that muscle definition I detect?)

the proportions,
Click to expand...

A costume can hide someone's true proportions. Seriously, watch 'Pumpkinhead" if you want to see a costume do that. The length/position of the arms aren't exactly a big deal, either. Just get the right person and you don't even have to bother with extensions!

the movement,
Click to expand...

Notice how fast the guy in the Godzilla suit is able to run early into this video. I'd imagine he could do even better without the dorsal plates or the tail. Although Godzilla was portrayed as being kinda slow-moving during the early Godzilla movies, this changed during the 70’s. Why? Because Godzilla movies were being released with showings at a children’s film festival/package of films called the “Champion Festival” in mind. This resulted in cutting corners and less of a focus on realism in favor of action (although some of the 60’s movies did have some intentionally silly stuff in them). Granted, I don’t know the weights of the various suits (other than that they were heavy) or the exact size of the actor(s) in them and the sizing doesn’t always match up to Patty, but it shows that people can move quite well in heavy costumes.

They made some design changes when constructing the suit for the most recent Godzilla movie in order to make it lighter. Notice that its thighs are much bigger than Patty's.

This post also demonstrates how movement is a no-issue.

the muscle groups
Click to expand...

This and this detail why a muscle suit wouldn't have to be advanced. Simple muscle shapes look realstic once a "skin" is placed over them. Foam rubber can "jiggle" if it's positioned over fat (If you have a bit of a gut, some foam rubber, and 2 T-shirts, you can see for yourself) and I've heard that cotton batting "carries" muscle movements.

Personally, a lot of the so-called "muscle movements" looks like the way light is striking the suit to me. A water bag and hip waders could also come into play.

If you really want me to, I can dig up that post where someone found how to make a foam muscle chestpeice for around $20 (in modern dollars; remember that inflation comes into play when discussing the budgets of yesteryear, so it'd cost even less in the 60's).

The suit shown here and these suits from 1976's At the Earth's Core should also be of interest (Big thanks to Correa Neto for that picture).

and the state of the art in costumery at the time, ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, stuff from the 40's was a lot better-looking. But to be fair, the suit used for 1962's "King Kong vs. Godzilla" proved that short hair could successfully hide the details under it.

Charles Gemora is proof that the "Patterson would've been years ahead of his time argument" is BS. Here's a closeup from the 1941 movie "The Monster and the Girl." Looks how much it resembles the costume used in 1986's "King Kong Lives." You can see more screencaps from "King Kong Lives" here and here. I wish they had tried filming the female Kong suit from a distance comparable to Patty to see how much it'd match up.

In fact, with a few modifications, I'd say that 1941 suit could've been on par with the realistic costumes seen in 1988's "Gorillas in the Mist" and onward. I should also point out that Mr. Gemora was no stranger to using padding to make his costume seem more realistic (source of the Gemora images).

The shoulder joints were a foot father apart than on a man of comparable size (Green, from the reenactment).
Click to expand...

Again, padding.

The area had a long history of sightings and track events, but not, to my knowledge, guys in suits.
Click to expand...

Those sightings could've been of other people in different costumes and of misidentified bears (assuming that they weren't lies to begin with).

Speaking of tracks at Bluff Creek, check out these sites.

Notice how Patty's butt bares a close resemblence to a 1949 gorilla costume's butt.

Some suits come with breasts attached.

On the subject of creature suits and breasts.

Here are some more costume-related notes.
 
GT/CS said:
Please explain the dark band between the hand (glove) and the arm (sleeve). Sweaty refuses to even try. Maybe you'd like to give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Soarwing on BFF found pictures of gorillas showing every one of Dfoot's supposed suit lines. You might want to check them out. See the cibachromes in Murphy's The Bigfoot Film Controversy. The "line" does not appear in frame 339 or frame 343.

Just how would a glove line (which looks too low to begin with) move around and disappear like that?
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Charles Gemora is proof that the "Patterson would've been years ahead of his time argument" is BS.
Click to expand...

And Janos Prohaska is proof that it isn't. He was considered the best. See the interview in BMB; It's better and longer than the clip in Sasquatch Odyssey.

It's not possible to widen the space between joints with padding. Read Krantz. (I haven't said that for a long time, have I?) The arms would have to be surgically altered in mid-humerus.

Green took the film to Universal and Disney. I'm sure you all know what they said by now.

I'm reading more of Long. His interviews with Merritt and Mason make it clear Roger wasn't responsible for some of those broken deals. Mason promoted Roger's movie, Bigfoot, for two years (he only broke even), then all was sold to ANE, including the copyrights Mason had set up.

I found something that may explain the footage, but I need to find the page again. I was reading it at work and failed to mark the page.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom