Jump to content

Patty's Bust


Recommended Posts

Guest Fister Crunchman

Romano,

Please do highlight and comment on the strap you see and any other possible 'artificial feature'.

For my part, I am getting more and more incredulous that some folks can continue to see Patty as a man in a suit planned and created by Roger Patterson.

In MK's enhanced film-still for instance, I think we can discern very easily the likely 3 -dimensional shapes of both breasts, and theyare are just what we might expect on a near-human relative built like Patty. Almost all her morphology looks variant from human, not other primate forms, and so do her breasts.

I think the gifs show breast movement which looks natural and appropriate for such features.

I cannot credit an argument that Roger Patterson would be capable or motivated enough to design and produce such apendages, for a film in which the subject would be walking away from camera with back turned for 90% of the film,during which only two partial turns to camera would be executed.

Hieronimous believers, can you say why non of those purporting to have seen the suit in hieronimous' possession mention the extraordinary breasts on the costume?

Fister

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
I cannot credit an argument that Roger Patterson would be capable or motivated enough to design and produce such apendages, for a film in which the subject would be walking away from camera with back turned for 90% of the film,during which only two partial turns to camera would be executed.

Making Patty female and putting breasts on her accomplishes a number of things advantageous to a hoax...

1) It causes exactly the kind of incredulity in those possessed of a desire to believe as we see here.

2) It eliminates a telltale sign of a modified gorilla suit (the chest piece).

3) In having a female Bigfoot, it allows for a height within human averages. Roger depicted male Bigfoots as being true giants and originally referred to them as such...

Lund-Patterson+with+Drawing.JPG

Hieronimous believers, can you say why non of those purporting to have seen the suit in hieronimous' possession mention the extraordinary breasts on the costume?

The first set of people that saw the suit in the back of his mother's Buick saw a folded suit in a trunk around 9 pm at night. The suit was not removed from the car. The second set that saw the suit only handled the mask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to hear you explain what the strap does, why it was built into a fabricated costume, and why it should show through a fur or latex surface covering?

Bill

I'd love to hear you explain what the strap does,...
The strap supports, and stabilizes, the right "breast".
...why it was built into a fabricated costume,...
To support, and stabilize, the fabricated right breast.
...why it should show through a fur or latex surface covering?
It is not showing through a fur or latex surface covering.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Making Patty female and putting breasts on her accomplishes a number of things advantageous to a hoax...

3) In having a female Bigfoot, it allows for a height within human averages. Roger depicted male Bigfoots as being true giants and originally referred to them as such...

But according to you, Patterson was behind the Yakima/Richland 'hoaxes' and by consensus from a variety of different witnesses in different viewing conditions the 'guy in the suit' was 7ft to 8ft tall. At the very least a whole foot taller than Bob Heironimus.

So why didn't Roger Patterson keep the 7ft plus guy (experienced in running about in a 'suit' even in a lightning storm) and make his 'Bluff Creek hoax' a male? Thus having no need to make his 'hoax' a female and add complicated breasts??

Why didn't he do that?

The first set of people that saw the suit in the back of his mother's Buick saw a folded suit in a trunk around 9 pm at night. The suit was not removed from the car. The second set that saw the suit only handled the mask.

Folded suit in the trunk of a brand new car with Washington plates driving around California and Oregon? He didn't even put it in a box or wrap it up with cloth/plastic bag etc and tie it? Patterson just allowed his masterpiece suit to be taken off by some guy who can't keep his lips tight and who doesn't even bother to wrap it up? I'm surprised 'dumbo' Roger didn't paint an arrow on the trunk with "look in here" written underneath. :o

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Romano,

Please do highlight and comment on the strap you see and any other possible 'artificial feature'.

For my part, I am getting more and more incredulous that some folks can continue to see Patty as a man in a suit planned and created by Roger Patterson.

In MK's enhanced film-still for instance, I think we can discern very easily the likely 3 -dimensional shapes of both breasts, and theyare are just what we might expect on a near-human relative built like Patty. Almost all her morphology looks variant from human, not other primate forms, and so do her breasts.

I think the gifs show breast movement which looks natural and appropriate for such features.

I cannot credit an argument that Roger Patterson would be capable or motivated enough to design and produce such apendages, for a film in which the subject would be walking away from camera with back turned for 90% of the film,during which only two partial turns to camera would be executed.

Hieronimous believers, can you say why non of those purporting to have seen the suit in hieronimous' possession mention the extraordinary breasts on the costume?

Fister

Please do highlight and comment on the strap you see and any other possible 'artificial feature'.

Fister, I've done this before in a different thread, with a different gif. I can present a half dozen more that show the same thing, but clearer.

breast-stripped1-1.jpg

breast-stripped.jpg

For my part, I am getting more and more incredulous that some folks can continue to see Patty as a man in a suit planned and created by Roger Patterson.
You ask for skeptics to responds to your query. I explained, in and earlier post, that I honestly did not see anything in MK's report that would tip the scales one way or the other. It is not my intention to frustrate or annoy you, it's just that I see nothing of any value, that adds to, or takes away from, what I already know about the PGF.
In MK's enhanced film-still for instance, I think we can discern very easily the likely 3 -dimensional shapes of both breasts, and theyare are just what we might expect on a near-human relative built like Patty.
The 3 dimensional shapes of both "breasts" can be discerned in virtually all pictures, gifs, and film clips. MK's enhanced film stills and gifs add nothing of any significance to the PGF breast controversy.

The right "breast" is static. It exhibits no movement, i.e., bouncing, swaying, jiggling, etc. It is rock solid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Some of the explanations given above really posit Patterson as an utter genius and stretch our credulity much too far.

Hoax belief posits that Patterson planned a brief film of a bigfoot walking away from camera, and the bigfoot film image would be relatively tiny, in an era where enlargement and enhancement of image were not available.

The Bigfoot figure would look back very briefly twice as he walked away.

On the off chance that the chest area might be briefly visible, Patterson constucts two breasts for the front of the costume.

Also, on the off-chance that someone might see something amiss in the eye-area, during the brief look-backs, Patterson fixes one glass eye near or at the right eye hole.

This is planning and preparation way beyond the call of duty and implies a quite fantastical attention to details which Patterson could only feel necessary if he knew what kind of film analysis technology was on its way in the late twentieth century.

It is doubtful anyway whether the addition of glass eye and breasts could ever be likely to add to the plausiblity of the hoax, whatever backstory elements we refer to. Breasts faked on film for example is a much riskier business than mentioning breasts in anecdotes or including them in a drawing.

It's hokum--- the hoax believer account of these details is hokum.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Why would Patterson add breasts to his bigfoot costume?

The hoax- believers say, because Hieronimous (or whoever the mime) was not tall enough to be a male bigfoot, so they had to present the figure as female.

This is a post-hoc argument with little plausibility.

Patterson knew at the time that viewers would be able to tell how tall or short the figure in the film was? Ha! I dont think so--- we are still arguing over its height forty-plus years later.

Or again, Patterson put breasts on it just incase some viewer in possesion of future technology could figure out how tall the film figure was.

genius, pure genius.

Hokum, pure hokum.

Fister

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Fister,

I totally agree. The hoax proposition supposes over the top attention to detail and total preparedness from any subsequent scrutiny when it comes to the 'suit' then goes totally against that and proposes complete dumb stupidity when it comes to what Patterson supposedly did afterwards.

It just does not make any sense at all.

It makes far more sense that Patty is a real sasquatch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Some of the explanations given above really posit Patterson as an utter genius and stretch our credulity much too far.

Hoax belief posits that Patterson planned a brief film of a bigfoot walking away from camera, and the bigfoot film image would be relatively tiny, in an era where enlargement and enhancement of image were not available.

The Bigfoot figure would look back very briefly twice as he walked away.

On the off chance that the chest area might be briefly visible, Patterson constucts two breasts for the front of the costume.

That is a bizarre dismissal. Patty having breasts was made front and center literally before the PGF even came out...

PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." Eureka Times-Standard - October 21, 1967

That would be from the article entitled "Mrs. Bigfoot is Filmed!"

Enlargements of the PGF were shown at UBC where the hirsute breasts were scrutinized and one of the primary reasons for skepticism of the subject. The following is a transcription of a radio interview Patterson did in Vancouver when he was there for the UBC showing where he discusses the breasts in detail and acknowledges the anthropologists and zoologists having issue with them...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

The fact is that the PGF subject shows details that are not consistent with the anatomy of apes including humans. Hoaxers make mistakes. The prominent hairy breasts are just one of the many reasons that the PGF is rejected as reliable evidence of Bigfoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Why would Patterson add breasts to his bigfoot costume?

The hoax- believers say, because Hieronimous (or whoever the mime) was not tall enough to be a male bigfoot, so they had to present the figure as female.

This is a post-hoc argument with little plausibility.

Patterson knew at the time that viewers would be able to tell how tall or short the figure in the film was? Ha! I dont think so--- we are still arguing over its height forty-plus years later.

Or again, Patterson put breasts on it just incase some viewer in possesion of future technology could figure out how tall the film figure was.

genius, pure genius.

Hokum, pure hokum.

Fister

Think like a hoaxer. Patterson would very well have anticipated that some notion of the height of the subject could be determined. He specifically said in the interview done on the alleged filming day that the creature seemed to be between six and a half and seven feet tall. He did present casts of prints, film of prints, and a film which showed the subject's feet. In that radio interview in Vancouver just after the UBC showing, he said the zoologists consulted gave a height of 6'9". These are not the true giants he depicted the males to be. These are human heights.

An encounter in a clearing with a more human-sized, hairy-breasted Bigfoot by a downfall tree was already prominent in Patterson's mind...

Bigmortpat.jpg

He'd already been filming open logging areas and creeks in Northern California in either late spring or summer 1967...

Bigexpedition5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Think like a hoaxer. Patterson would very well have anticipated that some notion of the height of the subject could be determined. He specifically said in the interview done on the alleged filming day that the creature seemed to be between six and a half and seven feet tall. He did present casts of prints, film of prints, and a film which showed the subject's feet. In that radio interview in Vancouver just after the UBC showing, he said the zoologists consulted gave a height of 6'9". These are not the true giants he depicted the males to be. These are human heights.

Think like a hoaxer Kitakaze.

Roger could have re-hired the 7ft to 8ft guy who was running around Yakima and Richland in '66. Couldn't he? Instead of getting novice much smaller Bob H??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BuzzardEater

Some of the things that bother me about Patty are indeed apparent only after the fact. I never really questioned the footage until I saw it mimiced by hollywood. In the feature film "The Blair Witch Project" the footage of the creature is brief and the camera isn't steady, so only glimpses are seen. This adds to the tension, for me. It also simplifies the suit for them, the film makers. Since it won't be seen they can use a less convincing suit. Since it won't be seen to move, it needn't look good in motion. Does this principal apply to the film Patterson shot? I don't know. The film doesn't show the subject leaping to her feet. Patterson is being thrown off his horse at that moment.

Why was Patty that far from cover?

Why don't her hands move? Her wrists are rigid. Is this a brilliant stroke of film making genius? Did Patterson choose an old arthritic BF to make his hoax manageable or did Patty just get real sloppy in her dotage?

Everybody thinks I am being silly, but is Patty a BF in a suit? She looks like she has leggings and a diaper on, just fur covered. A hoodie, too, maybe. Has anyone wrassled a BF down to see if he is in a suit? Wouldn't a couple of layers of rawhide make them harder to kill?

The female I saw was over nine feet. She didn't resemble Patty at all. Her companion, a teen, looked like any other teenage boy with gangly legs like a colt. Niether was as wide as Patty. Why? Are there two distinct species? Was I hoaxed by Patty or the nine footer I saw at about ten feet away?

Another thing, why did Gimlin have a rifle if he wasn't going to shoot. If Gimlin was the intended victim, did Hierlominus (sp?)know he would have a rifle? That's a pretty big gamble. It would mean that Patterson knew for sure he wouldn't shoot. Were there bullets in the gun? Otherwise that's pretty cold.

I think I'll always be conflicted about Patty, but unltimatly it doesn't matter. She was a catalyst, genuine or not the effect was real! The study began. Even today, on a dedicated site, she can raise up a discussion. Maybe that was her intent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Why was Patty that far from cover?

She was by cover. There was a large downfall treejam by the creek. Patty was in the cover of this treejam when Roger and Bob rounded it and more or less bumped into her. She was likely drinking from the creek at the time or just before, near the cover of the treejam. The downfall treejam was the only place along that creek in that particular stretch with any cover.

It's perfectly feasible to deduce a situation where Patty was moving from point a to b and wanted a drink/maybe a short rest. The best place to stop for a drink would be at the spot where the treejam provided cover right by the creek.

Why don't her hands move? Her wrists are rigid. Is this a brilliant stroke of film making genius? Did Patterson choose an old arthritic BF to make his hoax manageable or did Patty just get real sloppy in her dotage?

I don't move my hands and wrists when I'm swinging my arms and walking. My hands are pretty rigid and stiff.

Another thing, why did Gimlin have a rifle if he wasn't going to shoot.

He said he would have in self defence. If it would have rushed him he said he would have shot. The rifle was there in case of protection, not for unprovoked deliberate killing.

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

It is not showing through a fur or latex surface covering.

So the masterpiece suit/costume that is Patty has breast straps on the outside of the suit. That Patterson, he sure was an enigma! He fabricates a suit (from the cheesy Morris gorilla costume) that would make the largest, most well funded Hollywood studios jealous yet fastens Patty's water-filled bazonkas with straps on the outside the fabric of said masterpiece.

Roger, you mischievous scamp!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think like a hoaxer Kitakaze.

Roger could have re-hired the 7ft to 8ft guy who was running around Yakima and Richland in '66. Couldn't he? Instead of getting novice much smaller Bob H??

Maybe the 7-8' guy wanted too much money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...