Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 1 - Fur


Recommended Posts

Guest OklahomaSquatch

I was under the impression Bob H. claimed the Patterson suit he supposedly wore was constructed from a halloween gorilla suit and an old leather football helmet with hair glued to it. I've never personally heard mention of this Janos suit theory. But hey, by all means, keep digging. One thing that I do find rather odd is that while many people are quick to believe the Heironimus story, and that Roger Patterson just took the world for a wild ride while the "town locals" all went along with it, nobody has considerred the possibility that maybe these same small town locals took an out of town Bigfoot author for a ride instead. I come from Oklahoma, I know many people from rural communities, and it just sounds like a reasonable possibility to me. Either way, authentic film or guy in a suit, until either side can be proven it's a moot point, and still has little to no bearing on if Bigfoot actually exists. Of course I'm sure all the people who view the world through thick and cloudy skepticals would disagree since according to them the entire Bigfoot phenomenon is based on the belief that the Patterson film is authentic. While it's considerred perfectly acceptable for the skeptical community and anti-Patterson film supporters to make demands of the "Bigfoot believers" to produce a clear photo and or video, I will once again make the counter demand that "they" produce either the Patterson film costume, or an exact duplicate made with that day's technology and available materials. If the answer is so obvious to you and was so simply done, then why hasn't it been reproduced? I'm sure there are many people who would be willing to fund someone to reconstruct an exact duplicate if it could be done. I repeat, IF it could be done.

Bill-

Thanks for taking the time to use and share your professional expertise to look into this matter. It is long overdue and greatly appreciated. It's easy to make claims, but to dissect it and break it all down for everyone here is going above and beyond the norm. I look forward to the future postings. Thanks again.

Matt K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

u]For the record:[/u] Janos was on record in the same manner that Gimlin is on record. Chambers told Bobbie Short something silly (as well as to some of the younger creature fx guys attending his party) and then laughed about it with his friends immediately afterward. I know this because I was with Chamber's buddy. I've seen the man lie to Bigfooters about this supposed "rumor" for a couple of reasons. One is that he promised Chambers and the other is that he doesn't need the grief that comes with dealing with what he calls "Bigfoot Fans". This is something many people cannot seem to grasp.

A con man once was asked how he picked out people dumb enough to con. He said he didn't. He did just the opposite. He looked for SMART PEOPLE who already wanted to believe in what he had to sell. Then they would come up with reasons to make his scam real that he never thought of. Others would follow the smart guy down the path. This works with all sorts of money schemes, Bigfoot hoaxes, the Surgeon's photo, and the Cottingley Fairies. The concept works and is as old as the hills. It's working here right now.

The psychological test -- What I did here earlier was post an image of Patty flipped, darkened and with the arm straightened out. I composited this onto a neighborhood street and said my friend was testing a suit I was working on and asked how it compared to Patty. Immediately I was told that it wasn't nearly as REAL as Patty. I kept posting closer and clearer images until FINALLY I posted one of the clearest frames of Patty's back close up from LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE. At last ONE PERSON realized that this was actually Patty that people said wasn't as good as... Patty. After that all hell broke loose and denials reigned supreme. But the point was demonstrated pretty clearly. Some are too emotionally attached to this thing to really analyze it.

I chose an image that cannot be seen in the "full frame" version in LMS for that reason. You can see it in my previous post next to the one with me in a similar pose walking away from the camera.

Arm length -- You can post till your fingers turn blue about this. It's so simple, but it seems to bounce right off.

No... "Patty" doesn't use hard shell motocross pads. I'm just trying to demo something about HOW this works. Notice that I've moved the shoulder pad down and the elbow pad up on the RIGHT side image. If you have a glove attached and had stretch material at the wrist that would be all it would take to create a really odd looking arm. Your own arm could slide up and down INSIDE the arm of the creature suit. It's not rocket science. It's seen all the time.

Here the upper arm seems a bit short.

Here the forearms are too long, but we can see in this awkward moment the upper line of the padding jut out from the hips.

This is the kind of jutting of padding that happens to Patty during an awkward moment. No thigh muscle does that, but thigh pads like those used by Janos did - unless they were tucked up under the upper part of the suit. Here a taller man is just walking upright and not squating like an ape performer would.

Ah yes, this is the kind of stance Janos or Crash Corrigan would have used. Here in the 1964 STAR TREK network presentation the script called for an alien spider creature. No time. What to do? Wah created a mask and Janos stuck it on his head. He left the hair off the legs except for certain spots. A very quickie job, but no one but network guys were supposed to see it originally.

From this you can see that Janos has his butt pads under the pants. This is what I did for my test too. Same kind of thing.

Check out the kneecap here. Janos had a Crash Corrigan style white ape that he changed around for VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA and then stuck this together for Star Trek. The Mugatu was also supposed to be some other thing originally, but Janos quickly stepped in. It's easy to see the line of the upper part of the suit, but it's the KNEECAP he's using here that we should focus on. Very important with regards to the Patty suit.

Bill.... Here's that "bubble" type thing I was talking about. I sprayed 3m77 on the foam and stuck a tee-shirt to it. Janos and the boys liked to use a glue gun. You can sometimes spot this in clearer frames.

I'm hoping that in this larger animation you can see the bubble move on the back. This is what we see happening with Patty's thigh. Add hair and bounce away.

This outlines where the hands attach on both Patty and on Janos' bear suits. Look for the elbow pad in the clearer frames too. I've had the opportunity to work with a dark brown Janos bear suit and not only was I surprised that it was still in working order, I also noted the line down the center of the lower arm that matches Patty's lower arm. You can barely see it here because of the black hair (though I've brightened the image as much as I could). I'll be seeing that suit again soon I hope.

The foot I made in a few minutes to wear in that video.

And the kneecap I put together in imitation of what Janos was doing.

Yeah... my foot looks stupid compared to what you guys do today, but it works very much like the feet Janos used (and EXACTLY like the foot of Patty).

Some of the old guys who worked at Corriganville and with Wah/Chambers/Janos have shown me some things regarding the footprints from the 50's and 60's too that I found highly disturbing and yet amusing at the same time. I'll share those with you at a later date. But the moral of this story should at least be this: DO NOT measure creature suits as if those limbs have anything to do with reality. You'll look like an idiot if you do.

And one last thing --- Bob H. perfectly described the way the suit went on him as best he could. Patterson may or may not have purchased a Morris gorilla suit (which was really just Don Post parts that Vern Langdon had molded from the suit Gemora gave them). Patterson created several hoaxes before Patty and after. Patty was a creation of the people I've mentioned. Not their best work and nothing they were proud of, but it was amusing to them.

Heironimus has passed several lie detector tests. You have not seen Patricia Patterson or Gimlin doing that. Listen to Al DeAtley when he tries to tell you that he participated in a hoax film and made a lot of money from it. That's the closest you'll ever get to the truth from these folks.

Of course, you could always investigate it honestly. That works too.

Remember, just because Patty is a suit worn by one of Roger's buddies and most of the tracks are made by hoaxers doesn't mean that there isn't something real to the legends of a hairy tribe of big people who lived in caves and were cannibals. It's just that hoaxers love to get involved in legends and mess with the heads of people wishing for it all to be real. Some of it isn't. Patty is one of the latter.

All Heironimus knows is what Roger and others have told him. He didn't go to Hollywood. That whole Halloween story came from Morris (who was never a creature suit guy nor was he the only person selling such suits as claimed). But what he says about what he wore that day is correct.

I can take a lie detector test regarding this as well. :blowkiss: Good luck on your endeavors. I'll do whatever I can to help. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

BTW what is that stupid looking mask Dfoot posted around here that has been said to be the Patty face? It looks nothing like the PGF creature.

Interesting the arm issue but the kicker with PGF is there is nothing odd looking about the arms. They are in proportion to themselves realitive to the creature. Also all of the extensions in the world are not going to do anything for the articulation of the shoulder socket which moves the way a naturally unpadded shoulder socket moves. IMO it is one of the better elements of the PGF creature that points to it not being a bulked up human in a hopped up Hollywood monkey suit.

Now Dfoot since you've gone to all the trouble of posting pictures and making padded longjohns why not take the critical next step and add some fur to your creation. If Bill is correct that will seperate the wheat from the chaff in pretty short order. I mean you just could be the one to put the PGF to etneral rest.

Edited by Crowlogic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks again Bill. I'm especially impressed that you are so familiar with what was available and in use at the time of the PGF as a whole and not just bits and pieces.

I don't know if you have seen, even before any enhancements, that there is obvious finger, hand, and toe movement but I'll wait for your further posts. You've already answered some questions about muscle movement which are not just protrusions.

Keep up the good work! :blowkiss:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Dfoot, I come late to this debacle, but must ask: Why don't you go the rest of the way and duplicate the P-G film and "Patty?"

Nothing could more ram home your points.

I've not seen the P-G film and "Patty" yet replicated, and that tends to keep me leaving open the possibility it was an actual filming, and not a hoax. Dfoot, prove that wrong, and I'll sing your praises. Until then, eh.................

Link to post
Share on other sites

To All contributing to this thread:

Thank you one and all for keeping this both generally civil and on topic (as compared to the CBS News website I read, where the comment section that follows some of their news articles rapidly degenerages into flame wars and goes way off topic at warp speed).

I'll try to respond to each post in turn. I'll begin with Dfoot's posts, because he has invested considerable effort in preparing his notes and researching his arguments.

So, Dfoot:

1. I applaud your effort to experiment with suit understructures and the number of photos you've contributed. The issue of my article, however, wasn't the understructure so much as the fur on top of it, and as Crow Logic contributed in post #33, my main contention is that when you put short, dense, rigid-backed furcloth on a human-like anatomical form, the tailoring becomes extremely challenging and the movement of that fur as a mime walks may not resemble what the PG film figure shows. That is why I followed up your post by asking if you had any reference photos of finished suits from the era where we can see the fur itself, to see if anybody then successfully used the hardest type of fur process successfully.

2. Having been in Hollywood professionally from 1968, I have seen numerous examples of people taking credit for things they did not do (John Chambers was haunted by the number of people who took undeserved credit for Planet of the Apes, John's career crowning glory), or take credit inflated beyond reality to boost their stature in a situation. I have seen "urban legends" arrise and I've had people say to my face with utter sincerity things I knew with absolute assurance to be false, often "harmless lies" to simply spice up a conversation or serve some personal insecurity or other personal agenda.

So I have learned over the years to rate evidence as follows:

Most reliable - Empirical evidence, testable and repeatable, not dependent on a person's testimony or endoresment to be believed.

generally reliable - physical and photographic evidence that can be studied. Suffice to say, individual pieces of evidence may be altered, but we can at least evaluate the probability and the cost or effort expense in doing so, to factor that into our appraisal of reliability.

Less reliable - personal recollections, where some personal or profit agenda may influence a person's testimony. Usually needs to be appraised with caution and independent verification.

least reliable - personal stories of "I knew a guy who told me. . . ." and similar "hand me down" recollections.

I have heard enough personal stories, recollections and the like about the rumored connection of the PG film figure and Hollywood, all contridicting each other, that I simply don't factor that into my analysis. Even in my notes starting the thread, I only said I believed John Chambers' comment was real because I could verify the truth of it by independent effort through my career, appraising the degree of difficulty for a particular fur suit look.

3. The mask you offered as a head for the PG film figure looks to me to be a slip latex slush cast mask, the common type of the era, and the staple of Don Post's business. Those type masks blend horribly into the back of the neck down into the back torso. If you put a typical cloth costume with high and loose collar over the mask neck base, you don't notice the horrible blend into the torso. But creating a seamless transition from head through neck to back with a slip latex mask will be instantly revealed to be false the moment the mime wearing it turns his head. I do not see such occuring in the PG film.

Lyndon:

I sort of expected these notes would answer your earlier question about Harry.

longtabber PE

Thanks for the welcome and the compliment.

Rod

More stuff coming. Target date for the next installment is tomorrow (sunday) night, my Los Angeles time.

Bucksquatch: Thanks for the popcorn. Yummy.

Melissa:

Ask away. Your questions always welcomed.

As far as a discussion of synthetic fur vs reaf fur in sunlight, I can't claim to be a specialist in the optics, but in a nutshell, human and animal fut is extruded in shingled layers by the body, so under a microscope, it looks like the trunk of a palm tree, Synthetic fiber, however, is extruded resin and has a perfectly smooth tubular surface, thus having much higher specularity or reflective potential. More flat shiney surface and less irregularity to difuse the reflection. But oily real hair does bump up the reflective quality more toward synthetic. generally you don't notice the difference unless you put them side by side.

Second consideration is opacity. The resin of synthetics is semiclear in its base form and heavily loaded with pigments to color and opaquify it. Darker fibers have the most pigment. real hair or fur has a different opacity and pigment content, so in a strong backlight, the real hair will likely "fire up" differently than synthetic. Notice how a person's brown/black hair seems red when hit by a strong backlight? Synthetic and real hair would be expected to backlight differently, but you'd need them side by side under the same light to appreciate the difference.

As ar as the notes go, you are correct in that I didn't just wake up on Saturday and start typing. 20 years ago, when I was working with a theme park robotics company and we were looking at the feasibility of designing our own exhibit to rent to museums, like the dinosaur shows dinamation and kokoro rent out, one exhibit I designed and wanted to do was "The Science of Cryptozoology", focusing on famous cryptids and the scientific efforts to prove or disprove their existance, the potential scientific methods which may be developed to find them, the connections between legends and physical reality, etc. It never got funding however, so it remains just a dream. But much of my notes here started then.

CGI became popular because it quite frankly can do things real effects or makeup can't. There is no such thing as "impossible" in CGI, just "how much will it cost?" So it did solve issues the physical creature business struggled with, like making a walking dinosaur (the T-Rex in jurasic Park, as example). But great hair didn't really get great until the new king Kong. It's lousey on the CGI version of Mighty Joe Young, and CGI fur was horrible before that.

As far as putting the Patty as a suit theory to a real test, my fourth part of my notes will address that well, so please be patient and it will be addressed in depth then.

:blowkiss:

OklahomaSquatch

Thank you for your kind word for my notes.

urbanshaman

Well, it helps that I was there, certainly, back in the 60's, and in the same industry to learn the materials and processes. I laugh at some of the young newbees of the business who are clueless of how drastically the busines and material techniques changed in the 80's. But when I was teaching makeup in the 70's, I actually went to used bookstores and bought makeup art textbooks dating back to 1913 describing stage makeup techniques, and was fascinated by the evolution of process and material, so maybe that gives me a bit of an edge on which materials and processes were used when.

Again, thanks one and all for your posts.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Well, it helps that I was there, certainly, back in the 60's, and in the same industry to learn the materials and processes. I laugh at some of the young newbees of the business who are clueless of how drastically the busines and material techniques changed in the 80's. But when I was teaching makeup in the 70's, I actually went to used bookstores and bought makeup art textbooks dating back to 1913 describing stage makeup techniques, and was fascinated by the evolution of process and material, so maybe that gives me a bit of an edge on which materials and processes were used when.

Fascinating and revealing of your nature, Bill. To prove to your students the extent (or lack thereof) of change within your chosen field is exemplary. I'm amazed and impressed with your credentials and degree from you self-professed "school of hard knocks." Having such a degree myself, I can only chuckle and agree.

For what it's worth, I've read your postings here with rapt attention and wonderment. Please continue upon your predicted program of postings, my cyber-friend, for I look forward to their posting. I've devoured the information you've put forth, so far, with great appreciation for the abject knowledge with which you've spoken. You don't boast, you don't self-promote. You speak with ultimate knowledge of a skill few possess, and I've truly appreciated the knowledgeable postings you've made, sir. I thank you for the time you've spent upon your postings here, and look forward to learning much from you, Bill. Thank you so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Texas Bigfoot
Dfoot do you mean this Janos Prohaska?

Oops. Note to self. Before making someone my spokesman, search YouTube to make sure they haven't already contradicted my main thesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lyndon
Lyndon:

I sort of expected these notes would answer your earlier question about Harry.

Yes, they certainly did Bill, and I had never before read such a detailed explanation so thanks for that.

It poses the question just why would Patterson have discarded the 'safe' and consistently used option of long hair and gone with the 'difficult' and rarely (if ever) used option of giving his subject such short hair? Why handicap yourself by making things difficult right from the get go?? Patterson wasn't a suit maker and nobody of high repute has ever come forward to claim they built the suit for him. We can disregard Morris. Obviously his suits were not of high quality so he's a non runner to begin with. Patterson would have shot himself in the foot by making his subject non shaggy haired.

To those claiming the footage is hoaxed it baffles me why Patterson would have gone with the short hair option. Even the ape-man suits used just a few years later in 2001 used noticably long and shaggy fur:

ape.jpg

The question of the short hair seen on the P/G subject has always stood out to me as totally inconsistent with the known bigfoot/ape-man costumes of the time and later.

Dfoot do you mean this Janos Prohaska?

Good catch. Doesn't seem to me that Janos Prohaska thinks it was a suit. Still, never let the truth get in the way of a debate. :blowkiss:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - an in-depth analysis from Bill and the return of Dfoot! Thanks to you both.

Bill, as you can see Dfoot is a lightning rod for some on the BFF, so I hope we can keep this thread as civil as we've led you to believe we can be. I'm very much looking forward to your subsequent posts, as well as any further items Dfoot wants to share.

I have no particular expertise relevant to analysis of the PGF (e.g. suit making, photography), so my objections to Patty's authenticity are based on my personal opinion only - a combination of some odd artifacts of the film (e.g., weird gluts, as Dfoot illustrates) and the Roger Patterson lore that he was actively contacting Hollywood special effects people prior to the alleged film date for the expressed purpose of making a bigfoot suit to use in a film. But that's neither here nor there. My professional opinion is that the film is inconclusive, and to my knowledge, no specific analysis of "this is a suit" vs. "this is a real animal" has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal of science.

The depth to which you are analyzing this question, however, may be sufficient to do just that. In fact, if it doesn't, all your hard work on this may result in swaying some people who visit bigfoot discussion groups or buy bigfoot books toward increased acceptance of the PGF as genuine - there will still be a whole world full of people out there who will be either completely unaware of your analysis and/or nonplussed by it because of where it exists, i.e., on a bigfoot discussion board instead of a peer-reviewed journal article.

So . . .my point is that you should not assume that only academics publish scientific papers (Emily Rosa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa] is probably the best example of that), and you should consider very carefully preparing your notes as a manuscript for scientific publication. You write clearly and concisely, appear to be level-headed and cautious, and you obviously own a career's worth of credentials relevant to the question at hand. Who better to publish on this question?

It seems that you are building an argument for Patty authenticity based on your expertise. This will amount to "an argument from personal incredulity" in skeptical parlance, i.e., just because we can't explain how something was done doesn't mean that we must invoke a paranormal (or in this case "authentic bigfoot") explanation for it. But I still think what you're presentinig would have a good shot at publication, and after 40 years, isn't it time this debate hit the mainstream?

~Saskeptic

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tiger66

Bill,

I also want to thank you for posting the great material! I look forward to your future information and discussions.

Saskeptic - That sounds like a great idea! Not sure if Bill wants to pursue it, but it certainly makes sense to me.

Thanks to all for contributing - really a very interesting new thread! :blowkiss:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The depth to which you are analyzing this question, however, may be sufficient to do just that. In fact, if it doesn't, all your hard work on this may result in swaying some people who visit bigfoot discussion groups or buy bigfoot books toward increased acceptance of the PGF as genuine - there will still be a whole world full of people out there who will be either completely unaware of your analysis and/or nonplussed by it because of where it exists, i.e., on a bigfoot discussion board instead of a peer-reviewed journal article.

I think it would be a shame also if Bill's writing here did not reach a broader audience. I plan to link to this thread, on my blog. For a while people in this research have wanted to hear from someone with Bill's experience and knowledge - including myself. I find this a whole lot more interesting and intellectual than the flame wars that happen often.

Bill, once again thank you for answering my questions so completely. I understand much of what you do, is technical and I am sure at some point you will type out something that completely goes over my head, I appreciate the fact that you are not only willing but anxious to answer questions.

I would like to say this. When I first seen the photo of you standing next to the full sized Giganto you created - that was the first time in my life I ever thought - Bigfoot could be out there. Books, tv and movies did not give me the sense that there really could be an animal known as bigfoot - but your creation did. I wondered often since that time growing up (until my recent involvement) why I was not hearing comparisons between Giganto and Bigfoot.

I will wait patiently for your next round of notes. :blowkiss:

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