Creature Suit Analysis - Part 3 - The Mime Inside

[Bill]

Hominid:

Actually I was thinking of the induced humidity inside the suit caused by the combination of body heat not dissipated and body sweat adding the moisture to the mix, regardles of the outside temperature or humidity. Plus the suit is a wonderful insulator, keeping what's in still in, and keeping the outside weather out.

So even in Northern CA in October, I imagine the feeling inside a padded suit could be very hot and very humid.

Bill

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

Friction adds heat as well. A tight fitting suit that hugs the body, especially one made of foam padding, would create a large amount of friction as the body moved.

People often preach scientific scrutiny and skepticism as a motivation behind their questioning. But to me, I see a lot of people getting caught up in trying to do nothing more than "disprove" something. As if they want to deliver the killing blow that ends all of the debate to achieve some sense of power or accomplishment. This easily goes both ways. It can be someone trying to disprove Bigfoot's existence, disproving that the Patterson film is authentic, disproving Patterson or Gimlin's integrity, disproving any statement or opinion made in favor of the film, or anything else for that matter, being authentic. Right down to someone stating that Bill isn't the REAL Bill. On the other side you have people who try and disprove anything the other side says against their point of view as well. The correct answer or solution will prove itself. It will be able to prove itself time and time again. That's what science is. Science isn't caught up in trying to disprove anything. Science is set up to check work to see if it produces the same results time and time again. Work is transparent and can be tested and done the same way over and over again. Here's my hypothesis, here's my procedures and process, here's my conclusion. If you repeat the steps the same way I have, you should reach the same conclusion.

Bill has been completely transparent. His steps and procedures can be followed and duplicated. We're all perfectly aware that mascots, kids in Halloween costumes, circus clowns, and the like manage to survive while wearing a costume without the aid of assistants on stand by with water spritzers and cordless fans. We aren't talking about THOSE type of costumes. We're talking about professional make-up and FX. The type of item it would take to pull off something of this caliber. It is clear to anyone who has somewhat decent vision that the images seen in the Patterson film are CLEARLY not that of a rented gorilla costume, school mascot uniform, or something pieced together off random shelf parts. If you can't see that, in my opinion, you are just being argumentative. If you are being logical about this, and approaching this with an open mind, everything Bill has said makes sense. Regardless of what your position may or may not be in regards to the film's authenticity. If you don't think it makes obvious sense, and isn't a logical point of view, then your mind was already made up, and it doesn't matter what the truth may or may not be.

People who call themselves skeptics, often talk about professionals from outside the community reviewing the work of researchers, and giving their opinions on various topics involved with Bigfoot research. In fact, they manage to find a few close-minded "experts" to discredit everything in each major documentary that gets produced on the subject. Well here's what you asked for. Here's an expert from a specific field giving his viewpoints based on his own expertise, but since he isn't saying what you wanted him to, you're attacking his points and trying to disprove them. Real scientific of you.

Matt K.

[Guest StoneyRocks]

What he said....

Edited January 11, 2008 by StoneyRocks

[Guest Lyndon]

Schilleville wrote:

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

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

And when did this start???? How long has this been going on for? Who was benefitting in the early 1970s??? Surely by 1971/72 the footage's 'importance' was waining. Roger Patterson would have had no idea his footage would only grow in stature and go on to become a staple on documentaries over the next decades after he died.

I wonder why he didn't cash in and come clean when he was dying. I also wonder why Bob Gimlin didn't sell his story either, especially after the spat with Roger. Gimlin got (and gets) almost nothing out of the film.

Bill,

Again thanks for answering my questions. I'm impressed with the way you take the time to answer everyone, especially considering these questions are coming at you thick and fast.

[Guest]

Replying to posts from Number 37 and on.

Your experience as a mascot persormer is welcomed in this discussion. I have made a few "stroller" costumes (the theme park equivalent of a mascot costume, one a character wears for hours at a time) and generally the mascot or stroller costume is a sheet foam outer form the finished costume outer appearance is attached to. In general, these types of costumes tend to be loose inside, and don't have much padding. They also ten to have fairly large screen meshes the wearer looks out of for their vision, and that mesh allows some air circulation into the suit.

Air movement is a key factor in the human body's disipation of heat, so any costume allowing air circulation inside is clearly easier to wear for a long period of time. The degree of "openness" of the costume, meaning how well the costume lets the warmer air inside exchange with the cooler air outside the costume is also a factor in how cool the person is inside, affecting the mime's endurance. Movement by the mime can cause air inside to move about too, and push some outside the costume and pump some fresh air back in, also helping cool the mime.

So mascot and stroller costumes are designed to allow more air circulation and with that, more mime endurance.

I was quite surprised when I found out that a work mate of mine had a son who was employed by the local professional baseball team as a "body guard" for the team's mascot.

It simply never occured to me that these mascots would need body guards, but he went on to tell me that it involved much more than just watching out for the idiots who think that it is funny to "blindside" someone wearing a mascot suit who would come up behind them and try to push them over.

Part of the job was also to assist the mime in many ways - navigating stairways and isles around the stadium - making sure that they are staying hydrated - helping them put on or take off the suit if necessary - and even assisting in making the switch to another mime as necessary in case of accidents or fatigue.

[Guest Texas Bigfoot]

I'd also like to add that all of this would had to have been accomplished in one take.

Exactly. One take. No screwups, no re-takes. A live shot, basically. No crew, no assistants, two cowboys and a buddy, miles from any civilization. In a suit that couldn't be made then, by people who couldn't have made it, or performed it.

Piece of cake.

[Guest Hominid,WA]

Hominid:

Actually I was thinking of the induced humidity inside the suit caused by the combination of body heat not dissipated and body sweat adding the moisture to the mix, regardles of the outside temperature or humidity. Plus the suit is a wonderful insulator, keeping what's in still in, and keeping the outside weather out.

So even in Northern CA in October, I imagine the feeling inside a padded suit could be very hot and very humid.

Bill

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks Bill.

[Guest]

I'd also like to add that all of this would had to have been accomplished in one take.

Just wondering................why?

Exactly. One take. No screwups, no re-takes. A live shot, basically.

What leads people to believe this?

No crew, no assistants, two cowboys and a buddy.

How do we know that?

In a suit that couldn't be made then, by people who couldn't have made it, or performed it.

I disagree.

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

Just wondering................why?

What leads people to believe this?

How do we know that?

I disagree.

Because once film has been exposed, you can't go back and re-expose it. The footage was shot at the end of a roll of film. Even if it had been spliced on there as many people claim a possibility, it would have been noticed during examination. Not to mention the post production and editing work would had to have been done by someone. This once again adds yet another person to the hoax equation. The more people involved, the harder to keep it a secret.

Could there have secretly been an entire film production crew just behind the camera? Sure. Does it make sense they would have gone to such lengths to produce a grainy distant shot that lasts just seconds? Not to me. If you go to all the trouble of hiring a production crew, building this elaborate costume, setting up the entire world for the most elaborate hoax in history, then why not go ahead and make it more compelling? Why not add some props to make it appear as though the creature did something beyond the possible realms of human abilities? Throw a fake log or boulder, something like that. If you pulled off one successful hoax, why not another? Why are Patterson and Gimlin the only people in the world to do something like this and never brag about it or pursue fortune and fame with it? If it was so simple for them to fool the world, why hasn't anyone else been able to? With the vast amounts of people hoaxing today, and all the technology available, why has no one else been able to pull off something of this magnitude?

[Guest Jack]

Because once film has been exposed, you can't go back and re-expose it. The footage was shot at the end of a roll of film. Even if it had been spliced on there as many people claim a possibility, it would have been noticed during examination. Not to mention the post production and editing work would had to have been done by someone. This once again adds yet another person to the hoax equation. The more people involved, the harder to keep it a secret.

Could there have secretly been an entire film production crew just behind the camera? Sure. Does it make sense they would have gone to such lengths to produce a grainy distant shot that lasts just seconds? Not to me. If you go to all the trouble of hiring a production crew, building this elaborate costume, setting up the entire world for the most elaborate hoax in history, then why not go ahead and make it more compelling? Why not add some props to make it appear as though the creature did something beyond the possible realms of human abilities? Throw a fake log or boulder, something like that. If you pulled off one successful hoax, why not another? Why are Patterson and Gimlin the only people in the world to do something like this and never brag about it or pursue fortune and fame with it? If it was so simple for them to fool the world, why hasn't anyone else been able to? With the vast amounts of people hoaxing today, and all the technology available, why has no one else been able to pull off something of this magnitude?

And......if this was an elaborate hoax, why hasn't the supporting cast come forward to claim their share of the "credit" as did Bob H. and Philip Morris? If the "cat was out of the bag", there would be no secret to keep.

Actually, I think it is perfectly logical to believe that Philip Morris sold a suit to Patterson. He was shooting a documentary on BF, was he not? I have yet to see a documentary on BF that did not use a man in a suit. I just believe that Philip Morris was wrong when he claimed it was his suit in the PGF film. Is he lying or does he really believe it is his suit? I can't say. I do believe BH is lying....his story has changed too many times and usually to fit the details of the time.

[Guest]

The footage was shot at the end of a roll of film. Even if it had been spliced on there as many people claim a possibility, it would have been noticed during examination.

Who examined the original for this possibility?

Not to mention the post production and editing work would had to have been done by someone. This once again adds yet another person to the hoax equation. The more people involved, the harder to keep it a secret.

If you're assuming this thing was put together like a major movie production.

Could there have secretly been an entire film production crew just behind the camera? Sure.

I don't think it would have taken a full crew as one would expect to see in a real Hollywood production of a film with actors in costume.

Does it make sense they would have gone to such lengths to produce a grainy distant shot that lasts just seconds? Not to me.

I think the opposite. This would be exactly what I would expect to see in a hoax film. Lots of grainy footage with a money shot, regardless of how many people were there to help with production.

If you go to all the trouble of hiring a production crew, building this elaborate costume, setting up the entire world for the most elaborate hoax in history, then why not go ahead and make it more compelling? Why not add some props to make it appear as though the creature did something beyond the possible realms of human abilities?

Maybe he didn't think it was going to be considered the most elaborate hoax in history and did just what he thought enough to make it work. One could argue that he/they succeeded with just that.

If it was so simple for them to fool the world, why hasn't anyone else been able to?

I wonder why hasn't anyone else been able to film a live Bigfoot in broad daylight while out looking for one.

With the vast amounts of people hoaxing today, and all the technology available, why has no one else been able to pull off something of this magnitude?

It doesn't necessarily mean they can't, it just means they haven't. Why, I don't know.

[Guest JohnWS]

It doesn't necessarily mean they can't, it just means they haven't. Why, I don't know.

I like this take on it - sorry if you've read it, though perhaps others may not have.

Please understand, I'm only human and can be as easily mistaken as you yourself can. As I just posted, I would love to be proved wrong. I'd like the Patterson footage to be real and am quite willing ( and happy!) to accept being wrong...with real proof. And there's the rub. I just don't think we're ever going to get conclusive proof one way or the other, given the low quality of the footage.

The argument that the suit hasn't been replicated yet is as hollow as the argument that a real Bigfoot hasn't been killed or captured yet. It just doesn't mean anything. And even if the suit were perfectly rebuilt, all it would prove would be that that suit could be built, not that one was built and filmed in the '60's. And while it's not an especially difficult thing to build a basic suit like we're talking about, it is a different and much more involved matter to copy the exact details of an image that has no details. There were no photographic images of Bigfoot before Patterson shot his footage (that I'm aware of), therefore he had no concerns about it being compared to anything else on the subject. He, in essence, had free reign in interpreting an image of Bigfoot, as long as it fell in line with the general descriptions. That's a considerably easier job than interpreting and matching a vague image on film. If Patterson had used a different kind of fur, it never would have mattered, but if a copy doesn't use the same fur Patterson (or whoever) used, the color and texture will be a mismatch. The "copy the suit" argument is invalid to the point of the footage itself.

Having worked in low budget documentaries and TV (including David L. Wolper shows), I can assure you that the time and money constraints were considerable. An aquaintance of mine worked on one of the Bigfoot reproductions and there wasn't even money for a suit! All they could afford were a couple of masks. The hair had to be glued on the actors.

Hollywood hasn't attempted a serious reconstruction of the Patterson suit because there's simply no money in it.

Chris

My bold.

I hesitated to post this as I felt it may perhaps be considered 'inflammatory' in the light of Bill Munns' recent threads. It's not meant to be - I love this suit stuff. I realised Bill has doubtless read this thread and taken it into consideration before going wherever he is going.

Edit - spelling (mine, I'll be damned if I'm correcting Chris' as well ).

Edited January 12, 2008 by JohnWS

[Bill]

JohnWS

Thanks for referencing the quote from Chris Walas. The analysis Chris provided is both well reasoned and correct.

Bill

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

When speaking about an issue that has no real proven answer, is the Patterson film authentic or is it a fake, all anyone can do is state opinions. You can argue opinions all day. Over and over, chasing tails to the end of time. Who examined the original? I don't know, I wasn't there that's for sure. Someone did. Splices would be seen on copies made of the original as well. We've all seen those. I believe Rick Noll photographed the individual frames. Don't you think he might have mentioned anything that he came across like that? It was shown to a number of people in private, was scrutinized by various professionals, and toured the country gaining national media attention. I think at some point, someone would have noticed it. Of course was I there for all of this? Did anyone document all these occurrences on film and have them notarized? Nope. Just have to take the word of all the various people who swear to it. Of course you have the right to not take anyone's word for anything. That's fine as well. I however feel this is going off topic, and taking away from the actual points being made by Bill that actually can be verified one way or another. I'd be more than happy to pick apart every sentence you say, as you seem to enjoy doing, if you would like to move this conversation somewhere else. Of course as usual, nothing is really being said on your end, except that you disagree with everything I say. Solid argument.

[Guest]

I'd be more than happy to pick apart every sentence you say, as you seem to enjoy doing

Ok..........I'll only pick a few apart this time............feel better?

I asked a question, you quoted my post with what you believe to be the answers, am I not to respond?

if you would like to move this conversation somewhere else.

What are you saying, you want to step outside? :whistling:

(I know you're not, I'm joking.)

Of course as usual,

nothing is really being said on your end

except that you disagree with everything I say. Solid argument.

Danm.........sorry, there goes that sentence picking thing again. Bad habit of mine......my bad. :rolleyes22:

Disagree with every thing you say? I guess I could say the same thing. Touché.