Creature Suit Analysis - Part 1 - Fur

[Guest Pywacket]

:blowkiss: OOOPS I mean

[Guest nightscream]

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.

It's funny that you seem to have not realized that this sharp observation that you have made with your uber-keen eye can go the other way.

Until the actual suit is produced, your beliefs are just as much conjecture as are the beliefs that the film is real.

Edited January 6, 2008 by nightscream

[GuyInIndiana]

And if you've worn a bunch of these feet (as I have) then you'll know that the ball of the foot creates what Meldrum has termed the special "mid-tarsal joint" of the Sas. Unfortunately, no one has ever seen such feet. We have seen them made of rubber with human feet inside though. Many, many times. They make these kinds of prints.

Okay? Are you saying that wearing a 'loose fitting rubber foot' is what is responsible for creating a 'mid-tarsal break' in a foot track, or that wearing multiple LAYERS of rubber feet cause this effect?

In either case, HOW would they have known 40 years ago to do this, to create such a thing (mid-tarsal break) or it was simply an unintended artifact that may or may not coincide with other possible, newer track finds?

There's not a single thing you're posted there that makes be believe any differently. Bob H's 3 different stories on the suit's construction SHOULD have been the give-away he was/is lying. :blowkiss:

[Guest Lyndon]

Shame this thread has gone from Bill Munn's observations about the fur on the P/G footage to D-foot holding court. Guess I'm guilty of that. Should have ignored him. Oh well.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Lyndon

[Guest]

Shame this thread has gone from Bill Munn's observations about the fur on the P/G footage to D-foot holding court. Guess I'm guilty of that. Should have ignored him. Oh well.

:blowkiss:

Edited January 6, 2008 by John Cartwright

[Bill]

bac5665

Thank you for your appreciation of the notes.

Husker1911

Your apparaisal of my efforts is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Lyndon

When Woodward and Bernstein were trying to unravel the Watergate mess, the operative phrase was "follow the money". Here, I think it may be appropriate to say "follow the short dense fur" because it does give you a totally different perspective once you realize that just saying "fur" is far to vague and specifying the type of fur makes a world of difference.

Saskeptic

I understand what you're saying about aiming for a scientific journal, and i haven't excluded the option. But I'd like to at least get through this set of notes on this forum before looking to other horizons (first we crawl, then we walk, then we run :blowkiss: )

Where I do feel the emphasis now should be is on this one curious thing about human culture. In criminal law, a prosecutor must try to prove a truth beyond a reasonable doubt to win. A defense lawyer can just create confusion and obstruct the prosecutor's attempt to get the jury beyond "a reasonable doubt" to win. So one can sadly win just by creating confusion.

In the study of cryptozoology, the proponent that a cryptid exists faces the similar burden of the prosecutor, to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But the scientific community resisting the proof, or anybody just generally wanting to be a nussiance, can "win" by just creating confusion.

That's one of the reason's I jumped into this, because I saw too much confusion and too little effort or expertise applied to eliminating the confusion. I'd like to see the proponents given a fair opportunity to simply present their best proof and arguments in a forum where confusion is easly shown for the smokescreen it is, and set aside. I don't like a world where creating confusion is a winning strategy.

So I'm just really doing my part to eliminate some of the confusion when "hoax" or "suit" is mentioned.

tiger66

Thanks. I believe the above answers your question too.

Data

You're welcome.

Melissa

Thank you for the links. Giganto is a charming guy, and made far more of an impact than I had ever expected. He has a global following. Maybe we can take up the Giganto/Bigfoot comparison in some future notes.

To all: The second set of notes are going up shortly in a new thread.

Bill

[Guest CrimsonGoblin]

Thank's Bill for the informative analysis on the Patterson subjects "fur". I would also like to thank Dfoot for his return. Many people may not agree with Dfoot's opinions and views, but I myself value the efforts of Dfoot and other skeptics. I feel the skeptical view is very important with this subject. Many believers have their faith built upon bias and prejudice coming from second hand stories and unverifiable audio and film footage. We need to look at all evidence from all possibilities as to the authenticity.

My hats off to those who have expended their time and efforts and come to this forum to share with others, their valued opinions.

[Guest Jack]

Finally! A person with real knowledge of costumes, animal furs,faux furs and related. And the ability to put it into words that most anyone can understand. Bravo!

When I saw the Philip Morris' claim that he made the "suit" seen in the PGF and that he made it of Dynel in his basement with his wife at the sewing machine, then saw what Morris Costumes make today......it didn't compute. In the PGF I see calf muscles and tendons behind the knee, an Illiac crest, natural looking breasts, dimples above the buttocks, shoulder blades....all details that one wouldn't expect to see in a costume. The fur looks natural and even sparse in spots, but long in the nape. IT LOOKS REAL and no costume, even those I've seen made today can compare.

I anxiously await more.

[Guest Sac-squatch]

Mr. Munns,

Thank you very much for your time to post some really interesting perspectives in your area of expertise... much appreciated :blowkiss:

[Guest]

Melissa

Thank you for the links. Giganto is a charming guy, and made far more of an impact than I had ever expected. He has a global following. Maybe we can take up the Giganto/Bigfoot comparison in some future notes.

I would like that very much.

Charming? He kinda freaked me out - :blowkiss:

[Drew]

There's not a single thing you're posted there that makes be believe any differently. Bob H's 3 different stories on the suit's construction SHOULD have been the give-away he was/is lying. :blowkiss:

If that is the criteria, then what should we say about the three different stories regarding the horse 'raring up'?

Also,

What effect does the gross enlargment of the Patty figure have on the determining of Texture of the fur? I mean, how many times does Patty have to be maginified to get the clips that we see on here?

Bill Munn- Does the bulging out at the thigh area, portray a typical problem with padded suits of the day?

[Guest Lyndon]

If that is the criteria, then what should we say about the three different stories regarding the horse 'raring up'?

A bang bang bang all fast happening excitable moment from 2 different person's perspectives is NOT the same as one person contradicting himself regarding a sober description of what he supposedly wore.

Oh and he doesn't seem to know how to get to the film site either. :blowkiss:

[Guest Jack]

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.

Bill, In this clip, I've added crosshairs to a bright spot in the background that ends up behind the "hernia" in the right thigh of Patty. Is this what you are referring to in the above quoted paragraph? It seems to fit with what you are saying. I believe this "bright spot" is the reason for the "popout" that leads some to believe there is a hernia in Pattys right thigh.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Jack

[Guest mike2k1]

Okay? Are you saying that wearing a 'loose fitting rubber foot' is what is responsible for creating a 'mid-tarsal break' in a foot track, or that wearing multiple LAYERS of rubber feet cause this effect?

In either case, HOW would they have known 40 years ago to do this, to create such a thing (mid-tarsal break) or it was simply an unintended artifact that may or may not coincide with other possible, newer track finds?

There's not a single thing you're posted there that makes be believe any differently. Bob H's 3 different stories on the suit's construction SHOULD have been the give-away he was/is lying. :blowkiss:

I agree, but with hesitation because it might make Captain Contradiction try and prove a point and I cringe at seeing photo montage after photo montage posted by Mr. Dfoot again. They didn't mean anything back when he did post here regularly nor do I believe they will hold any water now. Plus this thread isn't about him and I don't want to see this thread hijacked by him. I suggest if he has anything new, for him to dig up his old thread and post there or start a new one.

mkianni:

Maybe I'm out of the loop, Dfoot hasn't posted on this forum since I registered a membership.Someone care to enlighten me as to why this members personal opinion is considered that of a "huckster" or "conman"?

Search feature is at top right of the page, but make sure you read every opinion by him going back to the beginning.

Shame this thread has gone from Bill Munn's observations about the fur on the P/G footage to D-foot holding court. Guess I'm guilty of that. Should have ignored him. Oh well.

And with that I completely agree. Please carry on with the origional intent of the thread.

Edited January 8, 2008 by mike2k1

[Drew]

Dfoot holding court?

He's made two or three posts involving costume construction, directed at Bill Munn, and I've seen a dozen attacking Dfoot. Why don't you let Mr. Munn refute his claims if he wishes?

Those attacking Dfoot are hijacking the thread that's how it looks right now.