Creature Suit Analysis - Part 2 - Under the Fur

[bipedalist]

:blowkiss: I still think they look suspiciously close to the beltline/waist in my

dreams. In the grand scheme only hubby Pat could give a flip probably

Edited January 8, 2008 by bipedalist

[Bill]

bipedalist

I haven't gotten to the feet yet, in the PG film, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.

OklahomaSquatch

Thanks for the reference links.

Melissa

I think the whole breast thing really needs to be framed simply this way - the form of them simply tends to be far more humanistic in general, than apelike, in general, and they do tend to exhibit on the film some aspect of fluidity that is common on real breasts and highly unlikely in a fabricate suit (given the industry standard of the time would have been a polyfoamed appliance, which would not have been responsive to gravity or the walking motions of the suit wearer).

Bill

[Guest]

Again, Bill your skills in this area are amazing, true knowledge that can help with this dilemma. The big butt

and breast issue is amazing because prior to the PG film had there been any sightings of female bigfoot that mentioned

fully formed human appearing breasts?

Also the Albert Ostman experience. I'd have to re-read the account to see if breasts are mentioned specifically, but he definately identified them as a family with a Father, Mother, Son, and Daughter. Keep in mind that anatomically correct words were taboo at that time.

[Guest Hominid,WA]

I'm all for the further study of human female breasts

Is there a vocational school for that? :blowkiss:

[Guest soarwing]

****.

[Bill]

To All:

The past few posts of this thread have illuminated what I think is a problem worth discussing, but here I'm Bill, the philosopher, not Bill the creature guy or engineer.

We all are likely the product of television as a cultural influence, and (depending on your age) you may have been influenced by Perry Mason, Colombo, Quincy, or the newer CSI and Law & Order shows, programs where some "slueth" solves the mystery by finding a small detail which proves the case, end of story, fade to black.

I see a lot of ideas on these boards where somebody has focused on a single element of a photo or footprint or sighting report, and examines that one thing in ever increasing detail and debate, hoping this one little detail is the case-breaker. But in reality, for every one little detail that actually sheds light on the issue, there are probably a hundred similar little details that mean nothing, in the real issue at hand.

What we need to do (me the philosopher just making a friendly suggestion here) is try to keep the focus mainly on the proverbial "big picture" and then look at details with a skeptical foundation of "does this detail really matter?" Does it really prove anything?

Immedaitely above, we had some discussions about the breasts on Patty. I think there's another thread on the breast question, but as I see it (and stated above, I see the issue as the following and not much more:

"I think the whole breast thing really needs to be framed simply this way - the form of them simply tends to be far more humanistic in general, than apelike, in general, and they do tend to exhibit on the film some aspect of fluidity that is common on real breasts and highly unlikely in a fabricate suit (given the industry standard of the time would have been a polyfoamed appliance, which would not have been responsive to gravity or the walking motions of the suit wearer)." (copied from my earlier note.)

The rest, however fascinating to discuss, really doesn't advance the main contention, suit vs real.

I just wonder, looking through the other threads, if maybe a little more framing the questions and issues with that idea of a foundation of what's important and what's not, what would prove something and what won't, would help keep discussions on topic and focused toward conclusions we can all use and build on.

Just a thought.

Bill

[Guest Hominid,WA]

I rarely see soarwing post much anymore. Just wanted to very quickly aside...

****.

soarwing, as you probably have seen, Dfoot has resurfaced. I've always thought some of the most interesting reads here in forums history, were the electrically charged battles regarding Dfoot's posts. Just wanted you to know that when reading those threads, your posts would literally have me cheering and laughing loudly from my chair. Nothing posted thus far, has brought me fixated to the screen like those threads did. (although Bill's doing one hell of a job with this one)

Classic.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Hominid,WA

[Guest]

We all are likely the product of television as a cultural influence, and (depending on your age) you may have been influenced by Perry Mason, Colombo, Quincy, or the newer CSI and Law & Order shows, programs where some "slueth" solves the mystery by finding a small detail which proves the case, end of story, fade to black.

I just really liked that quote.

Ok, are Patty's breasts the end all to this mystery? No, I really don't think so. But, as even you said bill, IF this is a man in a monkey suit - why would anyone take the time to create a costume with breasts. That has also been a question which has perplexed me for a long time - and I am fairly certain when I say most researchers have wondered that.

If this is a man in a monkey suit - I think the reason is pretty clear. Putting breasts on a costume - takes the first look from the majority of the costume - and puts their eyes in one place. People look at the footage of Patty - and the first thing I always hear is "are those breasts?". I rarely hear anything about the movement of the leg muscles and things of that nature. I hear about her breasts.

Once I get people to focus on other portions of Patty - then they start to mention to muscle movement. If this is a suit, kudos to the maker for creating a great diversion, if that was the intent - it worked wonderfully, as we witness here too.

So, if we are looking for the "why" - well, that would be my best guess. But, just so you know I happen to be on the side that thinks Patty is real :blowkiss:

[Guest soarwing]

I rarely see soarwing post much anymore. Just wanted to very quickly aside...

soarwing, as you probably have seen, Dfoot has resurfaced. I've always thought some of the most interesting reads here in forums history, were the electrically charged battles regarding Dfoot's posts. Just wanted you to know that when reading those threads, your posts would literally have me cheering and laughing loudly from my chair. Nothing posted thus far, has brought me fixated to the screen like those threads did. (although Bill's doing one hell of a job with this one)

Classic.

- - -

I'm glad that you found some value in what we were writing back then - and thank you.

In all humility, I don't mind telling you that I was having a blast engaging Dfoot. I think he presented his case for a PGF "hoax" very well considering he had little supporting any of it. In the end it came down to his claims of flaws in the "suit" and me showing that all of these so called flaws - and more - could be shown to exist on real animals. I think that at minimum, the evidence Bill is providing shows that if this was a suit, it definitely is not what Dfoot thinks it was. Nothing drives that point home more for me than the fact that we don't see dozens of PGF-like films out there with similar apparent realism.

I know a lot of creature FX folks poo-poo the film as being a sophomoric attempt, but what I find telling is that all subsequent attempts to duplicate it are miserable failures... in the context of using what was available in 1967 of course. I've become somewhat more skeptical of the film largely on the fact that I'm satisfied that Patty wasn't that large. Nowhere near the Glickman findings and probably smaller than most of the other estimates that get hurled around.

With that said, I still favor authenticity because of the types of things that Bill is bringing up here. It's nice to have an expert that's able to present evidence that dovetails with what PGF "believers" can only instinctively describe - perhaps on too emotional a level. At the same time, I think that emotion and instinct is what made Dfoot's posts and the responses so entertaining. Thanks again.

[Drew]

I think the reference might have been to 'Perfect Foot' and 'Block Foot'

Click on this to see them both.

[Guest soarwing]

I think the reference might have been to 'Perfect Foot' and 'Block Foot'

Click on this to see them both.

- - -

Over-exposed frames tend to wash out the smaller details like toes.

The block on my foot is 14.5" long, superimposed on the washed out "block" foot of Patty.

[Guest Lyndon]

I think the reference might have been to 'Perfect Foot' and 'Block Foot'

Click on this to see them both.

Substrate goes from white to blue in those two seperate clips as well.

And............???????

[Guest]

We all are likely the product of television as a cultural influence, and (depending on your age) you may have been influenced by Perry Mason, Colombo, Quincy, or the newer CSI and Law & Order shows, programs where some "slueth" solves the mystery by finding a small detail which proves the case, end of story, fade to black.

I couldn't agree more. Even though forensics has made great advances much of what is shown on T.V. and in the movies is still fiction. I'm quite honestly tired of watching case after case completely solved by a grain of sand that can only be found within a specific mix of sand used in only one concrete building in the whole world, or something like that.

I see a lot of ideas on these boards where somebody has focused on a single element of a photo or footprint or sighting report, and examines that one thing in ever increasing detail and debate, hoping this one little detail is the case-breaker. But in reality, for every one little detail that actually sheds light on the issue, there are probably a hundred similar little details that mean nothing, in the real issue at hand.

I believe that it is John Green who said that while he felt that the PGF was genuine he also felt that things are being "pulled out" of that film that simply aren't there. To hear his exact statement you can look up his interview on the Let's Talk Bigfoot archives.

What we need to do (me the philosopher just making a friendly suggestion here) is try to keep the focus mainly on the proverbial "big picture" and then look at details with a skeptical foundation of "does this detail really matter?" Does it really prove anything?

One of the bigger details that has been mulling around in my mind is the previous comments about the waist / hip area in the film.

This never stood out to me before so I decided to do a little human anatomy research and found that in body builders there is a definate line that starts in the front. This line is along the Inguinal ligament which is the major attaching ligament along the Obliquus Extermus Abdominis muscle. The Inguinal Ligament curves up from the front meeting the Creat of Ilium. Continuing this curved line towards the back of the body is the Gluteus Maximus.

Looking at various body builder pictures there is a definate curvature of the skin along this line. It makes sense to me that a body with large and what we call well defined muscles, covered in a dense short fur would also show these distinct lines.

a good web site that shows this line is

http://www.emusclor.com/en/articles/fitnes...muscular-system

[bipedalist]

Update to the broken link above on the side profile head views of Roe's daughters sketch placed in a 1980

not 1930 (couldn't read 8 from 3 in the poster?)Calgary Bigfoot wanted poster:

http://www.sylvanic.com/assets/posters/Big...01980_Final.PDF

Sorry

Bill I continue to be impressed with the discussions here and agree with posters suggesting it might

be a good creative project with technically expert co=authors, e.g. Meldrum, Bindernagel,

MK Davis, et al.

Edited January 9, 2008 by bipedalist

[bipedalist]

I agree with Melissa's supposition that tends to believe Patty is real, more so

after I'm hearing Bill is now proposing that the fluidity of the breasts may not have

been capable by suit designers, rather suit materials of the period. Bill you will really need to study those

foot pads though? I agree that "the whole is more than the sum of the parts" though

Its not like parts are parts, if she is real, they are integral to a living organism.

The analysis of the stride in SASQ: Legend Meets Science shows the gait is unique so there

is more to this than "parts". But, I find that discussion is helpful to the long term memory

of this board, since some of us are "new" and some old discussions might never be found

on a search.

Edited January 9, 2008 by bipedalist