Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty

[Guest Apeman]

Time out...

The above Figure 6. must be from the lost second roll of film they took of the trackway. It's certainly not from the stretch with the figure.

So both parties are right it seems to me. Meldrum wasn't really careful but it is from a P-G film clip. And since it's not a continuous take (the first roll ran out right?) it doesn't definitively prove the figure actually made the track, though that would certainly be the logical conclusion (in any other circumstance).

-A

Edited May 24, 2008 by Apeman

[Guest MANGLER]

RN,

Paranoia? That’s funny.

Apeman,

(in any other circumstance) Also amusing.

m

[Roger Knights]

Deleted because I used Quick edit and it messed up my text. See next post.

Edited May 24, 2008 by RogerKni

[Roger Knights]

There's a frame that MK Davis found when he examined the full-frame version of the film near the start of the film where the camera swings down as Patterson is running and captures a picture of both Patterson's bootprint and a footprint of Patty, who'd been meandering along the stream bank prior to the encounter, apparently. (I don't know the details of how an online copy of it could be found, but someone here must know.) This establishes that at least one print was made at the time. But it's rather blurred because of the camera motion. Here's a quote from the Tom Biscardi Searching For Bigfoot interview of March 14, 2007:

Go down to the third to the last one, where it says Track Animation.

You’ll see that this is the actual, original wide-frame version of the film. And when I say that, all the copies of the film are cropped. They were done so to make the creature appear larger. But this is the original wide field. So it shows things around the edges that the crops don’t show.

So you can see Roger Patterson’s bootprint when it stops, the second time. What he does, he’s following the subject, you see that big limb go by, he passes that big limb, and he realizes he can’t get an angle on it, so he turns around, reverses himself, and when he back-tracks himself he allows the camera to pan the ground. It picks up a track, a barefooted track, in the right corner, OK, and then it picks his own bootprint up, along the right side.

In addition, frame 72, shown on p. 247 of Murphy's Bigfoot Film Controversy, shows the foot embedded in an inch of sand.

And frame 323, shown on p. 67 of Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch, shows four smudges in the creature's wake that might be footprints.

And there was also another sequence that was publicized in Bigfoot Times[/] within the past two years that seems to show a print appearing in the vicinity of Patty's path. (Unfortunately it's not exactly where it should be, IMO.)

Edited May 24, 2008 by RogerKni

[Guest Apeman]

And frame 323, shown on p. 67 of Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch, shows four smudges in the creature's wake that might be footprints.

I (for one) have previously argued that both Murphy (and unfortunately Meldrum by association in his recently published paper) are wrong on this count as the figure's path and the smudges Murphy highlighted are totally inconsistent.see here

My recollection of MK's fringe footprint was that is was very subjective, but I could be wrong.

-Apeman

PS- We really should take this discussion to a different thread and not sidetrack Bill's very worthy effort in this one...I've just bumped the thread on Meldrum's paper which I think has the most recent discussion on this topic.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Apeman

[Roger Knights]

I've sent MKD an e-mail asking him if he's noticed any possible footprints in his transparencies. Let's hope. As Chris Murphy noted on that page I cited (67), it's disappointing that footprints so deep aren't more distinct.

I agree this tangent should be split off. If there's any bell you can push to get the attention of a Mod, please do so.

[Huntster]

Which leads us back to the question, how many pounds/sq. inch of foot area, is it assumed Patty had that caused her to be able to sink deeply in to this non-compliant 'sand'?

Hypothetically, if Patty weighed 500 lbs. and her one-foot surface area was 87 square inches (14.5"x6") that would be 5.75lbs/sq. inch.

and BobG weighed 200 lbs, and his foot was approx. 50" sq. inches (11" x 4.5") that would be 4lbs/sq. inch.......

If Bob was in a suit, he was walking on the sand/mud bar with 14.5" long suit feet, even if his true foot was 11" long (and the film shows foot flexibility; there is lots of discussion of elbows/knees, but never the foot joints with an 11" foot inside a 14.5" suit foot; Patterson is becoming the greatest ape suit creator ever known in human history, but denialists would much rather claim that than admit that the film subject is not a man in a suit).

An 11" foot inside a 14.5" suit foot would have a "snowshoe" effect, so the depth of his print would be less than you calculated (not to mention the difference it width.................)

Edited May 24, 2008 by Huntster

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Time out...

The above Figure 6. must be from the lost second roll of film they took of the trackway.

The number of rolls, when they were made ( in what order ) and what they contained has never been established ..

So both parties are right it seems to me. Meldrum wasn't really careful but it is from a P-G film clip. And since it's not a continuous take (the first roll ran out right?) it doesn't definitively prove the figure actually made the track, though that would certainly be the logical conclusion (in any other circumstance).

-A

Again, no one has produced a continuous 100' reel of film that has the Patty footage at the end ...

In any other circumstance we would expect the film to actually show what is being claimed .

Apeman,

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, so correct me if I am calling you on points you did not intend to make..

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

An 11" foot inside a 14.5" suit foot would have a "snowshoe" effect, so the depth of his print would be less than you calculated (not to mention the difference it width.................)

Any human foot inside of a suit would not allow a mid-tarsal break to occur within the tracks in my view. Furthermore, the real foot inside of the larger outer foot with the suit would not cause the toe compressions and movement seen between track impressions.

While I will view any and all evidence with some skepticism in the beginning until it leads me in one direction or another ... it often reflects poorly on the skeptic in my opinion to have only mentioned their doubts without also showing that they took the time to also offer a sensible and thorough accounting as to how they reached their conclusion.

Bigfoothunter

[Guest BIGMICKOZ]

Bill,

In all my analysis I conclude Patty appears to have a broad nose and large full lips with an ear possibly an inch or two lower than your depiction. There is a vast difference in the interpretation of the facial features between your version and say the Steindorf version - which I personally believe represents/captures the filmed character 'essence'. Have you made comparisons and evaluated where the differences have allowed you to come to differing visual conclusions.

[Bill]

BigMickOz:

" Have you made comparisons and evaluated where the differences have allowed you to come to differing visual conclusions. "

On the previous page of this thread, top of page 3, I showed exactly how the face was generated. The nose and lips are pure speculation, in my opinion because I don't think the film has enough detail to finalize one version. Mine was simply an example of one option it could be, but wasn't to suggest it should be considered more accurite than another person's speculation about the nose and lips.

Bill

[Guest rolando]

Bill,

It is great to see another interpretation of how Patty's face and head look. It serves to keep the mind open and prevent a fixed idea of what this costume/creature looks like. One comment I have about the facial appearance is that you have managed somehow to give Patty some sort of feminine quality that is not at all present in the more widely known interpretation. I am not an artist and I am always amazed at how subtleties of shape can be manipulated to form masculine or feminine faces.

Great work again!

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Not in 1967.

[Guest]

Sorry, but that is simply without merit ...

If, If , If ..

We have been shown ~ one minute of film that does not include any prints, being made or otherwise..

Dr. Meldrum has not presented any evidence to the contrary ..

Bring us the evidence, and then we can discuss it ..

So the figure walking in the film was floating on air above the ground so as to not leave any tracks then?

We have the figure crossing the terrain.

We have tracks IN the terrain crossed witnessed BY the filmmaker.

Try again...

[Guest Skeptical Greg]

Try what, again ?