Creature Suit Analysis - Part 3 - The Mime Inside

[Guest Schilleville]

Bill your last post is exactly what has me the most willing to accept it as truth. I have heard skeptics often accuse people of seeing an upright bear and because it's on 2 legs and hairy they "misidentify" their sighting. Undoubtedly that happens. People will in general identify something unfamiliar with something familiar. Example...It tastes like Chicken. FOr the mind of a person who doesn't believe in bigfoot when they see the footage they see something that walks like a man but it's hairy, so since it walks like a man it must be a man in a suit. Given the original footage and the way in which it was filmed, half the detail that would be required to hoax it as is would have been more than adequate. I doubt that Patterson 40 years ago would have thought of details that are still being discovered using the latest technology in film analysis. Sure after 40 years it's easy to sit back and hammer out every possible conspiracy as to how it was done, that's all well and fine, but the reality is even though there is some minute possibility that it could have been done the question is, how likely is it that it was done to the extent that the conspiracies build.

The thing I really question is who benefits?WHo benefitted from the hoax? The answer as near as I can tell is simple... No one. So if no one benefitted from it, why is it that after 40 years nobody has stepped forward? I'm talking about guys like BH who are trying to Gravy train (minus the gravy). What about the so called costume experts who must have done the work. Patterson died in 1972, 35 years ago. Why the continual coverup? To what purpose? Those are the questions I have.

[Bill]

Schilleville;

As I understand the deductive process, to arrive at a conclusion, expecially one based on clearly conjectural "what if"s, an analysis of the imagined participants and a "who benefits?" type speculation is necessary. Sort of like solving a crime. Who Benefits? Who has a motive to "confess" and who has a motive to keep quiet? Who has a motive to clear up the matter, and who has a motive to obfuscate or obstruct?

I know the more rigidly scientific mind doesn't like the "motive" conjecture, but the law enforcement system often must rely on it to at least point them in the right direction to look for harder evidence.

So I do share your questions and think there is a valid framework for asking them. I think working through such questions can help us focus of where to look for the more physical and empirical evidence.

Bill

[Guest rolando]

Hello Bill,

You mentioned that, with larger feet, the mime would have to develop a special walk. That's exactly what we see in the film. Patty's walk is different and executed perfectly and smoothly. Not sure whether this supports the authenticity of the film or points to a hoax but thought I would mention it anyway.

I can see also that your analysis will, no doubt, be compiled in continuous form on this site at some point in the future.

[Bill]

Rolando:

I've heard a lot about the special "walk" of Patty, but I haven't seen the film analysis yet to understand it yet myself.

So I can only say that if the walk is odd as compared to a regular human walk, a person walking in strange footware may be an explanation. I'm not in any position yet to discount such, but I look forward to doing further study of the film in the future, and would look for what I'd expect a person in "big feet" to walk like, as one point of analysis.

Bill

[Guest]

Bill,

Bigfoot: Legend Meets Science has a brief analysis of the Patty walk, done by a locomotion expert. The walk seemed to be pretty strange. The knees would move outward, then back inward before the foot planted, creating a circular motion along with the forward movement.

I would suggest watching it, even if it's just for those 5-10 minutes of it.

[Bill]

plaidlemur:

I don't suppose you could steer me to a source to get that material?

Are lemurs really plaid?

Bill

[Guest]

Bill,

The DVD, along with Meldrum's book, can be purchased through the bfro site. I don't know of another source to purchase it. It is 29.95 USD. it also comes with the high resolution Patterson film, so you can freeze it, frame by frame. Here's the link

...and, considering how many stinkin' varieties of lemurs there are, I'm just waiting until they find a plaid one. Nah, I use the name because I've seen something about as likely as a plaid lemur...

[Guest Lyndon]

Bill,

Great thread again. Are you aware that Bob Heironimus (the guy who claims he was in the suit) said he kept his normal everyday clothes on under the suit???

How would that affect the restriction of movement or the business of sweating/exhaustion etc etc? Would that greatly add to his difficulties???

Also, regarding the feet, from what I can see the ground does not look super flat and glasslike. How would walking in fake feet along a sandbar/dried river with loose topsoil compare to a film studio floor?

[Guest Lyndon]

Another thing, are you aware that these 952 frames consist of 3 and possibly four separate scenes?

As I recall the subject never walks more than 100', give or take, in any one scene, that's if there are three scenes, four would be less.

From the moment Patterson stops and stabilises the camera the subject walks and walks and walks after the lookback. We can see it walking almost the whole way through apart from when it is obscured by the trees but Patterson's camera is still pointing towards it. There is no splice evident whatsoever. Patterson shuffles around to get a better view but the subject keeps on walking and walking and by the time the camera runs out it is a lot further away than what it was at the point of the look back.

Spliced? Patterson must have been a genius editor as well as a top class suit maker. This is getting ridiculous.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Lyndon

[Guest rockinkt]

Bill, I very much appreciate all the effort you have put into your analysis. I do not doubt your expertise - not do I think you are trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

The fact that I question some of your assertions is in order to clear things up in my mind.

I am not trying to trick you ( I'm pretty certain I couldn't anyway).

Neither am I searching for a "gotcha"! - because you have put so many valid explanations forward that to think one or two disagreements will blow your whole work out of the water is silly.

So - please take my comments and questions as if we were discussing this over coffeee and - as you explained things - I just asked some questions or made comments to clear things up or to make counterpoints for further discussion.

Having worn a mascot suit exactly like the one pictured below (possibly the same one) - I can attest to the fact that it gets VERY hot in them. The hottest day I wore it was over 90F. The shifts lasted 4 hours and was in a town park where I had to interact with people. I did not pass out or die. It took about 5 minutes to get used to the feet - one just needed to adjust their gait.

There is someone who wears the suit every summer at the Regina Saskatchewan RCMP training Depot for community relations purposes as well. Temperatures there can get over 100F.

Extremely hot and a bitch to breath - especially with kids keeping you very busy. But, other than that - nobody died.

Auxiliary firemen and small town volunteer firemen wear the exact same protective suits that the full time big city fire deptartments wear in BC, Canada. Although they get the same training - not all of them have the time or inclination to keep in great physical condition like full time firemen.

They are obviously taking a larger risk and their stamina is less - but they get the job done and don't die under normal circumstances.

I can actually see someone getting into the Paty suit and toughing it out for the five or less minutes it would take to film the footage. People do things all the time that experienced people would never do without taking the proper precautions. Just watch the extreme videos that are made every day by stupid people who do not understand or care about the risks involved.

It may not have been fun - but to assume that it couldn't be done is stretching it - IMHO.

Edited January 10, 2008 by rockinkt

[Guest MANGLER]

Lyndon,

For your first exercise drop a copy of an un-cropped version into Sony Vegas or Adobe Premiere. Go to frame 179, look closely, go to frame 178, look closely, go to frame 180, look closely. Get back to me if you would like an explanation as to what those images represent.

m

[Guest]

I used to work in refineries as a hazardous materials handler. I did spill cleanups etc. Many is the time I went into a confined area near steam line with temps over 150 degrees in a pair of rubber boots, underclothing, a rubber suit complete with respirator completely sealed from air infiltration etc etc I did this for hours with only a ten minute break every 45 minutes to drink fluid. If that statement were true all firemen would die shortly after suiting up much less fight a fire etc.

Don't wanna distract the thread, but I, along with several others apparently, have a number of problems with this statement.

If you're describing a Level A, or at least a fully encapsulating, chemical suit, you could not have worn a "respirator." At least, not a negative-pressure respirator, as Rounder stated previously (most reusable respirators are made of silicone). Negative pressure respirators filter outside air of particulate or chemical contaminants and fully encapsulating suits (by design and by deifinition) allow no exposure to outside air, so you would be breathing only air trapped inside the suit with you.

Level A suits are typically designed for use with SCBAs (Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - like firemen are often pictured with) or with SARs (Supplied Air Respirator - using an airline from a compressor fitted with a CO/contaminant monitoring board for supplying Grade D air).

If you were wearing an SCBA, your statement regarding the 10 minute break every 45 minutes is bunk, as a SCBA only contains enough air for about 10-12 minutes worth of work, depending on your physical condition and the exertion of the tasks you're performing. Then the pesky little bell on the apparatus would go off and the tank would require replacement.

If you were on an airline, working in 150 degrees, I would want to speak with the Safety Officer of the crew you were working with, as working for even 45 minutes under those conditions is completely unsafe and is probably an OSHA violation. Most refineries have a pretty stringent safety program and I highly doubt that any Industrial Hygienist would allow work shifts that long, for hours, in 150 degree heat in an encapsulated suit.

I'm not even going to address the "confined area" considerations of your statement, as adding the complications of a confined space entry to those kind of working conditions makes your statement completely ludicrous.

Don't try to BS those of us that have actually done that kind of work.

Sorry, just felt it had to be said.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Titus

[Guest]

Im not sure, but I think some missed the part where Bill discusses the differences between the typical costume which are loose fitting and costumes (such as ones he has created) which are much more form fitting. If "Patty" is a man in a monkey suit, I dont think there is an arguement which type of costume that would be.

While I think he is saying both types are hot - the costumes which are form fitting, are much hotter and much more difficult for a person to wear for any length of time.

If thats wrong I welcome the correction.

I do have a question bill. In these costumes - is bunching behind the knee something that would typically happen, or other joints?

[Guest yetifan]

Schilleville wrote:

The thing I really question is who benefits? WHo benefitted from the hoax? The answer as near as I can tell is simple... No one.

Patty Patterson, Roger's widow, told me herself that, for

a broadcast TV show, she licenses out the footage for $20,000.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Yetifan

[Guest]

I wonder how much she puts back out in legal fees every year?

Not being snotty, just wondering if 20 grand per use is really a financial windfall.