Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest Remember November]

But I'm still studying some new frames of Patty's back, from the end part of the PG Film,

Hey Bill, these new frames, does she look as wide as she looks in the LMS copy?

[Bill]

RM:

I haven't done an image overlay to compare exact body width yet, but I'll have a look and get back to you.

Bill

RN:

Had a look and an editing this note to add:

The frames I'm looking at are not the same ones you posted, so I can't do an exact comparison of width. The back is obviously massive, and I have been assured by my source of the frames that they are not stretched.

The lines in the pelvic area, especially the waist line, are definitely different from the early look back frames commonly cited, and the waist line shadow flows more naturally into the dark spot in the small of the back.

That's as much as I can say at this point.

Bill

Edited February 21, 2008 by Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill,

have you overlayed the calibrated human on these new frames, and if so what does it show.

[Bill]

RN:

Not yet.

I'm sort of in a research data overload moment (to many wonderful contributions of research material from kind people on this forum, not enough time to sort through it all.

But I will.

:coverlaugh:

Bill

[Drew]

Remember Nov.

I haven't read the book, but thank you for bringing that to our attention. It sounds very much like what I see on the film.

Bill

Are you stating that you can see hairs standing up in the PGF footage?

[Bill]

Drew:

The film resolution does not seem high enough to resolve hairs specifically. So the shadow patterns (which can be seen) combined with the apparent general figure's body surface being hair covered, lead to the prospect of analysing hair standing up as opposed to hair laying down smooth.

An actual study of hair materials interacting with sunlight and photographed under similar conditions, and film duplicated the same number of times, would increase our ability to sort out this issue.

Bill

[Bill]

Reviewing the Thread

Repeating portions of my Review introduction from the Part One notes, I feel a review and evaluation of this thread may be of value.

So I decided that I would post an appraisal of each note set, re-reading the original, seeing if I would change anything, based on the comments and discussions, and offering the readers a fresh look at what I feel are the most relevent issues and ideas. Each group of summary notes will be different, but this brief introduction will be repeated first.

Creature Suit Analysis Part 8 Neck Hackles

In review, I think this particular thread is one of the best of the series, even though the topic is very specialized and more focused on a detail element of the PG Figure than a sweeping generalized issue of suits.

Where I think this thread is one of the best is in part because the overall participation of others, the information they brought to the discussion, and the way they discussion maintained a reasonably mature, respectful and constructive form (as opposed to becomming a contest of personalities and petty criticisms, which I have seem happen on many forums , here and others).

One of the things I believe is most worthy of note is the way LongTabber and I resolved some lively disagreement by going offline for a day, arranging a phone conference, and spending an hour and a half striving to build a foundation of what we agree on, so we could pinpoint the particulars of where we disagreed. Then, we prepared notes of our conversation, shared them so the other could offer any concerns, and finally we came back on line, each posting our observations of the matter, sharing with all how we resolved some of the issues. I truly wish that more forum participants (in any forum of discussion, here or other) would take a similar approach to actually strive to find where we agree, instead of simply nitpicking words or sentences where we disagree, as if this was a game and there are points to be won by demeaning another person's ideas.

I think this thread allowed all those people posting to be human, to have a sense of humor, and yet maintain a thoughtful discussion overall. And the contributions by all made for a very fascinating read on the derived topic of fur cloth materials, their manufacture and development, in general as well as specifically related to the original thread topic. So in many respects, this thread has been among the most interesting for me personally to review, and one I would highly recommend anyone to read through its entirety, if they are interested in the suit/real controversy.

That said, the actual topic, apparent shadows on the back of the neck of "Patty" which may be accounted for as raised fur bristled up to catch shadows, and both issues of how that might occur on a real creature as well as a costume fur suit, remains a significant concern to me in this study. Indeed, I now would rate it as one of the more significant issues which could conceivably prove some conclusion to the 40 year debate of real vs suit.

In the months since this posting, as I have become familiar with discusions of my notes in other forums and websites, I've encountered what seems to be the prevailing or popular senario of those advocating the PG Film was a hoax with a fur costume. That is the "Three regular guys" senario, trying to explain a hoax with three guys, none of which was a film industry professional, accomplishing a filmed hoax. The issues of the neck shadows, if accomplished by careful backbrushing the fur of a suit, represents a skill level and challenge that I find daunting even by the best professionals who make and assist/groom suits for movies. The neck issues thus reinforce my personal appraisal that what's on the PG Film would have been a challenge even for fine professional people present during filming, and far beyond the capability of three amateur men.

Oddly, it would be fairly easy for proponents of a hoax and suit to simply add a fourth person to the affair, a "John Doe" (person not yet unidentified ) who is the suitmaker. It would erase all the stretched thin arguments that plague the "three guys" theory about how the theorized suit came to be. I personally would find the theory far more credible.

I realize that proponents of the film as hoax have now invested an immense effort in explaining how three guys could do the film, and with so much invested in their senario, they are hesitant to consider some professional assistance as being necessary, because it complicates their exquisitely simple senario. But in reviewing this thread, and numerious others these last few weeks, I stand firmly confident that my analysis is factually correct, and that analysis maintains that if the PG Film is indeed a hoaxed event, skilled professional people had to both build the suit and be on the filming site to help the "Three regular guys" accomplish what the film shows.

If I can undertake a research program as I've outlined in the Notes, Part 11, this consideration of the neck shadow is one of the first experiments I would want to run, both to document the ways artificial furcloth can be bristled up, and to then document how it photographs under PG Film replicated circumstances, to see if we can more conclusively determine the source of the shadow in the real film. At this point, I'm still exploring the funding issue on those experiments and research program. Hopefully, that will be worked out in the near future.

Bill

[Guest Crowlogic]

The simple hoax theroy requires Roger Patterson to be a superman of sorts. However given the super talents, cunning and guile Roger should have been doing better in terms of success that went beyond his Bigfoot escapades. Yet that dosn't seem to have been the case. And furthermore it is said that he got into a bidding war trying to purchase a supposed Yeti scalp that was eventually proven a hoax. Not exactly the MO of a genius prankster and master huckster.

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Not in 1967.