Crowlogic - Chambers himself had nothing to do with the plans of CIA or anyone else. He was originally a soldier who innovated some excellent replacement limbs for soldiers wounded in battle. Later, whenever his country called on his services he would comply. Some of the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE adventures in make-up are based on the exploits of E. HOWARD HUNT using Chambers' techniques. Chambers' job during the Bay of Pigs was simply to make some Americans appear to be Cuban.
Here's Chambers during his years as a designer of facial feature and limb replacements for the soldiers.
As far as the reason for keeping quiet goes: I understand things were "structured up" as DeAtley would say. There was a contract that involved not speaking about the work. This isn't uncommon. But more importantly, it's the same reason the man Patterson originally rented his first camera from (in '62) to film his first rented ape suit kept quiet. They say he had a disease and might soon die and he wanted to do something to make money for his wife and kids. As long as the film is "real" the widow gets the profits everytime you see what is called the "best evidence of Bigfoot".
Atomic MM -- Here's the closest position the Patterson creature gets to the Taurean head that I can find.
That's WAH'S MASK on the right taken from the image of the Taurean creature smashing the shuttle with a rock seen below. The lighting, coloring, position and hair will never be the same, but the features are. It's Patty alright.
btw- I don't believe any "goggles" were used at all. That's most likely just another fan factoid that's not based in reality. Someone seems to have mistaken black eye make up for dark goggles.
Sometimes when I show fans of BUFFY pictures of suits that were re-used on that show they find it hard to believe they are the same ones. They look totally different but are, in fact, the same suits with a few changes.
The hair suit worn on the BBC show actually has hair that's more like a real life creature than the Patty suit - which looks like shiny faux fur. Yet people will go on and on about how "realistic" Patty is and how "unrealistic" the hair is on the BBC hair suit. That says more about the ability of the viewer to think critically than anything about anyone's make up abilities I would have to say. I mean... Patty wears shorts, y' know?
Bill Munns -- I haven't read the calculation thread you wrote yet. But if it can reveal anything about the hair/skin combination used I think that would be great.
Here's one you might be interested in with all the talk of "shirts" and "pants" being used.
This is the inside of one of Janos' ape suits. He would start with an ordinary shirt. The foam padding shapes would be glued onto this base. That's glue showing through the fabric. His wife would sew and glue on hair and latex pieces to this.
Also of interest: The stitch pattern you can see along the arm of Patty is EXACTLY the same stitch pattern that I found on his ape suits. It's used along with the glue to attach whatever skin goes onto the arm.
I've outlined that stitch they used in green in the photo of Patty. What a coincidence that nature would provide us with a creature that imitates what these guys were doing with their suits in 1967.
William Parcher -- Here's a good document for you. Dahinden is actually the one who found it among the Radford's papers during his lawsuit with Gimlin to obtain a percentage of the PG film profits from Patricia Patterson and DeAtley.
Originally Patricia Patterson's lawyer tried to claim that the Radford's had forged Roger's signature, but that didn't hold up in court. They had many meetings with Roger (including meetings with Patricia present) and kept loads of documents detailing Vilma Radford's attempt to recover their loan.
The question I have is: If Dahinden and Green knew that Roger had gotten his hands on more than enough money to make a suit and film, then why did they keep telling the public that Roger had no access to money to have a suit made or rented? $700 would be about $4000 today. That's plenty. Yet, as with the Wilber and Ray Wallace tale, they only give out the version that supports the Bigfoot stories they want to be believed.
Lithrael -- Hey thanks... are you sure you don't want to scream at me about how that head can't compare to the ultra-unfakable Patty?
I'm sort of used to that response. You are throwing me off with your agreement.
SWEATY -- In Stevens County Washington there was a teenager who used to wear a black Halloween gorilla suit (just like the one in the MDF) and he would run past families at public parks and picnic tables - at a safe distance, of course. Once the Sheriff caught him he promised he would stop.
The shocking ending to the MDF scientific measurements showed the "creature" to be the size of a teenage boy and to run slower than the average teenage boy. He's seen pulling off the head while still in the shot. Yet witnesses claimed he was too fast and huge to be human. If you will only buy a simple black gorilla suit (wear your black hiking boots or running shoes) and video tape yourself from the same distance doing the same thing you'll see that it is EXACTLY what happened.
Why did the producer of LMS remove the portion of the Freeman audio that has him doing some terrible acting about his pounding heart? Because it sounded fake - that's why. And that doesn't work when you are selling Bigfoot.
There will always be skewing of evidence among Bigfooters to make goofy prints that can be easily recreated seem real. I can make Patty's foot or a Wallace print - despite whatever John Green or Meldrum would have you believe. Yet there is no creature anywhere that anyone can show that has such feet.
Why cling to the twisted imaginations of those selling you a product when you can investigate these things with an open mind and see for yourself what is real and what is a contrived hoax? Think critically about things and know that there are both intentional and unintentional hoaxers in this game.
I belong to the church of the open mind. If there is a Bigfoot I'd love to see it. It's not totally impossible to have existed. If there are hoaxes afoot, then I'll have to face that too. So far I've found massive real life evidence you can touch and see for one of these and only stories from people about the other. There is nothing to back up the cottage industry of hoaxed prints, films, books, documentaries that have been made other than eye witness accounts of having seen something.
That's IVAN MARX with his boss, TOM SLICK. JOHN GREEN filmed this as they were trying to get dogs to hunt Bigfoot. Marx was being paid to hunt Bigfoot by Slick. He was right there among the original group that gathered together to try to follow the Wallace prints. Do you think that he just might have a reason to hoax these guys?
Isn't that MARX standing right there with Dahinden, Titmus and the original author of the Bluff Creek Bigfoot stories on expedition with Green? Or is that Slick? Either way they were all there following fake footprints. Dahinden said he expected they would have found the beast they were tracking within weeks due to the number of prints they kept finding all around them.
The amazing thing is that the elders of the Yurok tribe told Betty Allen that these Sasquatch people had always lived high in the mountains and only came down to the valley on rare occasions... until the mid 1800's when they left and went north due to the white people invading the area. No one listened to the Indians from whom came the original story of hairy giants in the first place. They liked the Ray Wallace stories better and made up their own version of Sasquatch.
Later, Dahinden and Green would be furious that Marx had fooled them with the "Bossburg Cripplefoot" prints AND film. Green was going to pay $800 (*$4300 today) for the film until Peter Byrne figured out the scam.
Still... to this day Meldrum/Krantz types continue to point to those stupid prints in the snow as proof of a real creature no one has ever studied. THAT is the kind of thinking that keeps the hoaxers in business and laughing their heads off.
Just think about it.
...and we know that Giganto did exist, and it fits the basic description of Bigfoot, with the possible exception (and the only one, btw.) of the 'upright posture'.
...and we know that Giganto did exist, and it fits the basic description of Bigfoot, with the possible exception (and the only one, btw.) of the 'upright posture'.
