Then why not give it ape-length arms? I don't feel like typing out Krantz' book for you, but he shows human arms would have to be broken in the middle of the humerus to get that kind of width between the joints.
Patterson could give the costume an arm length of his choosing. Morris explains how the illusion of great arm length is accomplished using his gorilla suits. The suits can be modified (as Patterson did) to give a different look to various parts. The off-the-rack Morris suits mostly look like gorillas. But they really looked more like a "Hollywood gorilla" than a real gorilla. Because these suits were being worn by bipedal humans with long legs, they actually had a more "Bigfootish morphology" rather than a gorilla-ish one. Given this, it would make some sense to start with a gorilla costume and customize it to look like a stereotypical Bigfoot. Patterson did this starting with a Philip Morris gorilla costume in 1967. He made changes to it so that it more resembled a Bigfoot than a Hollywood-style gorilla.
Krantz said what he did (arm must be broken) because he did not understand how the suit design creates an illusion while only having a normal human arm within. Again, Morris explains this.
It's the distance between the joints that matters, not the overall width. There's enough movement to indicate where they'd have to be.
No. You don't understand how the costume creates all of these illusions. Costume designers do understand this, and are going to suggest that you cannot accurately determine joint postions and length of bones by looking at the whole costume. The design of the costume is meant to cause these illusions. You see, it's by design.
No one who did an analysis found any evidence of a suit, but changing the joint estimate by a few inches to account for "football pads" isn't going to change the ratio much. Meldrum's initial estimate was between 80 and 90. Steindorf's was more precise at 88 using inverse kinematics. (I'm not finding any measurements on his work at all - it's strictly off the frames without regard to any height/width estimates).
The analysis errors are compounded, because not only are the joint positions incorrect, but so are the bone lengths. These confirmatory (for Bigfoot) analyses were done by proceeding as if it were a real Bigfoot. That's called starting from a conclusion, and is an improper method of analysis. Their ratios may actually be fairly accurate if it is/were a real Bigfoot. But they cannot be used to rule out a suit because of the ways that suits can create illusions. I've already mentioned that these analyists did not include any control samples to reaffirm their findings. They needed to analyze the ratios of known men in various gorilla or even Bigfoot-type suits. They needed to demonstrate that their analysis would always accurately determine if it's a costume or a real animal. They never did this.
William Parcher said:
Morris may have told Patterson he could use sticks, but Roger didn't use them.
Morris mentions it in his radio interview. But using sticks only seems to be useful if the wearer wants to cause articulations of the hand/fingers for the purpose of looking realistic at short visual distance. Patty was placed a considerable distance from Roger's camera, so he had no good reason to show detailed active hand articulations. It would seem to have been a waste of engineering effort given the overall production. Showing limp hands was all that was necessary to make it work as a hoax. From the PGF's debut, it has only been convincing to a small subculture of people. The suit was low-tech and filmed from a distance. It's enough to keep fooling some people. Those people will describe the suit as being some kind of monument to advanced excellence. It was not. If Patterson had filmed close-up or had Patty do anything other than walk upright, it would have looked very much more obviously like a man in a suit.
I get the feeling you either haven't seen a good copy or there's soething wrong with your eyes.
Of course you would say that. You are a strong PGF believer.
And it's been said it's close enough.
This was said by PGF believers.
Such as the people who have taken the time to really study it rather than dismiss it out of hand?
Again, studied by PGF believers who dismiss a costume out of hand.
Criss-cross, hip and knee-rotating motion and ankle twisting too? The figure walks like an Australopith in a time before Lucy's knee was discovered.
I've come to think that you will believe almost anything that supports the PGF or Bigfoot.
It has to do with Korff. There've been "confessions" before. This one's just the only one that got any significant publicity, and that was largely due to Korff. He promoted Romney just as enthusiastically, even though Romney denied it. The reenactment with BH in a suit Morris made for the occasion should have been enough to convince anyone that film does not show BH in a Morris suit. Unfortunately, the animation does not seem to be on Korff's new site. What a loss.
I'm not impressed with Korff's skeptical style. He seems to be a real weirdo. I'm interested in having you name names of anyone who has truly
confessed to being in the suit; and has stood by their confession to this day. Bob Heironimus did, and is doing that still.
Morris points out in his radio interview that he could not buy Dynel to make the recreated suit. This is why the fur texture and color are not the same as Patty. Morris can't even properly recreate one of his own 1967 gorilla costumes, because he can no longer buy Dynel fur material. The reenactment falls short in a variety of ways that could have been avoided. They should have at least started by filming the recreation on overexposed 16mm Kodak stock using a 1967 camera from the same distance away as Patterson.
He said Roger shot from horseback, but it was evident when Green and McClarin did their reenactment the steadiest shots were when Roger was squatting (there were no knee prints). Now, how could that be?
Bob Heironimus' testimony about RP "filming from horseback" has been taken out of context and misconstrued by you and other PGF believers. I tried to explain that to you months ago, but you don't listen or care or both. That same point was asked of BH by a Bigfooter in last month's radio interview. Bob's explanation is straightforward and comprehensive. He says that Patterson did start out filming him on horseback and intentionally shaking the camera. Then he dismounted (was never thrown off) and continued filming on foot and possibly squatting as well. Heironimus could not actually know when and if RP lifted his finger from the shutter at any point during the filming of the "Patty walk". MK Davis claims to identify three different points in the Patty walk when Roger stops the camera. Nobody can say if those stop points represent cut-and-splice editing by Patterson. IOW, film frames might be missing from what we call the PGF, because Roger wanted them to be missing.
BH obviously didn't do his homework.
Lu, it is
you who didn't do the homework. BH answers questions (in a 3-hour radio program) coming from guest Bigfooters and those that call in. I talked about and recommended this Tom Biscardi live radio program last month.
This program has been archived and can be heard here. In this, you will hear the live testimonies and responses to various questioners given by Bob Heironimus, Philip Morris & Greg Long. I know you hate those guys as well as Biscardi, but you owe it to objective PGF inquiry to listen to this. Chris Murphy even called in to make points and ask questions, and seems to have come away with a better understanding of what Heironimus has been saying. It sure as hell doesn't support the PGF as being authentic.
You know what quote mining is, I suppose.
I don't care. NASI came up with an absurd weight for Patty, even if you do think she is a Bigfoot. They try to locate joints and bone lengths for a guy in a costume. They compare enhanced stills (many are wildly distorted) with photos of living gorillas. They argue for a complicated and bizarre gait, when it looks like a guy walking across sand in a Bigfoot costume. Etc. etc. etc. It's like one big joke after another!
If the figures are off, it would be interesting to find out why. Why wouldn't the formula work for this species?
If it isn't really a species in the first place, and is instead a man in a costume... any attempt at analysis will be confounded and almost certainly won't work. NASI seems to have screwed up even worse than that. They estimated that this 7'3" biped weighs 1,957 pounds. Kodiak bears don't approach that mass. Apparently, Patty was made of iron.
The rod method of determining height seemed sound enough. There's also Dahinden's stick (he rather vehemently disagreed with Kranz at a conference). Roger, who was on foot estimated her height at 6, maybe 7 feet (he was short), and Gimlin, who was mounted, thought she was about 6'.
I think P&G gave height estimates between 6-7 feet because they both
knew it was Bob Heironimus inside of a suit; and that the actual height of the suit with Bob inside was truly within their estimated range.
It's important for sceptics to get her within human range so they can cling to the man-in-a-suit idea, but the proportions just don't work, regardless of the height.
Look Lu, the suit made BH taller, bulkier and appearing to have inhuman proportions. Its all by Roger Patterson's design - partly from inherent characteristics of the Morris gorilla suit and additionally from the customizations that Roger made to this suit. It's like any hotrod "Deuce Coupe". Parts of it are 1932 Henry Ford, and other parts are customized specialties applied by whoever built the particular "deuce" that is being looked at. If Patterson had instead built a Deuce Coupe, it would be a Ford/Patterson hotrod. He did end up building a Morris/Patterson Bigfoot suit for the PGF.
Disney Studios pointed Green to the best gorilla costume man in the business, presumably Janos Prohaska, and he said the suit would have have had to be skin tight and no one is built like that.
That's wrong. The suit wasn't skin tight (as if it were Spandex). Last month I wrote about (in the JREF PGF thread) the reaction of Morris when he saw the PGF for the first time on television. He tells the story in the above-linked Biscardi radio program. He first thought it was a very huge guy wearing one of his gorilla costumes (he had already sold one to Patterson in May 1967). He even yelled to his wife something like, "Look at the size of the guy they put inside my suit!" It was only later when he had a chance to examine the footage that he realized why he had his first thoughts. He thought that giant Patty butt we all see was the actual butt of the guy inside. Patterson created that illusion by using two pillows inside the Morris suit that he customized in other ways as well. You must listen to the Biscardi radio program to understand these and other things about the Patty costume.
But BH said he wore his own clothes under the suit.
He did. In his radio testimony he talks about how hot it was inside the suit, and how he yelled for Patterson to help get it off of him after he stopped filming.
How does one get muscle definition wearing street clothes under a Chambers, Patterson, Morris, Dynel, horsehide suit?
Chambers has nothing to do with the Patty suit. What PGF believers are calling "muscle definition" really is not. We all see what they are talking about, but this is instead some padding, hip waders and anything else that Patterson may have decided to incorporate. BH couldn't know every single detail about how Patterson made all of the customizations. He didn't witness Patterson putting the thing together. But he can give certain facts and some speculations first-hand because he actually wore the suit. He wore the suit first at Roger's house (he said RP made some adjustments then), and then at Bluff Creek for the filming which lasted only around one minute ("Get this damn thing off of me!") Roger had told Bob that he had skinned a dead horse. Bob can't know exactly which parts are horsehide, but some speculation comes up in the radio program. He said the suit stunk and thinks this is because Roger didn't thoroughly tan the hide, or possibly because the dead horse was "rotting". Heironimus can only make his testimony from things Roger told him and from his own experience and memory. He does not seem to lie about anything, and is willing to leave some things as unknown because he never really knew them. He gives an impression of complete honesty and a desire to set the record straight (where he can) about the fundamental truth behind the PGF. He is confessing and is very sincere about it. For me at least, there is no question that he was the man inside the Bigfoot suit which is shown in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.
of his meaningless rant....that's all.
......they contribute SO much to the search for the truth. 
