Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

In reference to the film not having enough resolution to determine that the subject is indeed hair covered, and not simply color changing patterns on fabric in the sunlight...

Are you serious? I know we don't know one another, but could you go out on a limb and just trust me on this one when I say the subject of the film was in fact covered in some sort of hair type material? Whether it be real hair, synthetic hair, horse hide, corn silk, or shag carpeting. To say we don't have enough resolution to make a practical judgment call on this is a bit... I can't even think of a kind word to use. Sorry.

If that were the case we could also say that we don't really know if there was sand, rocks, leaves, brush, trees, and everything else clearly visible in the film. It's not velvet, nor fine Corinthian leather. I assure you.

Now a question for Bill. When examining the still frames, does the raised hair pattern appear in all of the frames where that particular area is visible? If by the rare chance that it could be determined that the hair lays flat or at a lesser degree of angle, and then increases in the amount it is raised in other frames, then this would show a naturally occurring item on the film, and would rule out the possibility of it being done by any method of grooming. Not only that, but I think it would form a pretty substantial argument for this being a living creature.

Matt K.

[Bill]

OklahomaSquatch:

For your question about the neck spot shadow, (the raised hair pattern), if it were human styled (and especially hair-sprayed ) it would stay pretty constant, except where the fur base bends or buckles, and then the light /dark pattern should respond along the bending or buckling lines, reinforcing the artificiality.

whereas if there are slight variances in the light dark patterns, in subtle wave-like shifts, a natural fur with bristled hair would be more likely, and it will flow with body motions without ever bending or buckling along any lines. That's what I see.

Bill

[Guest Killain]

Okie

Were you suggesting/hoping that the "hackles" were raised in some frames and not in others, thereby indicating a physiological reaction to an aggression response? I wondered the same thing...but didn't have the courage to bring it up. Thanks

K

[Guest longtabber PE]

Soarwing:

I just sent longtabber my draft of my notes on the phone conference for his review, so we can check that I didn't misintrepret anything he said (a professional courtesy). The notes will be posted after I hear back from him.

But actually, we spent most of the time gossiping about what a "Hottie" Melissa is.

I think Patty was mentioned too, somewhere along the way.

:evillaugh:

Bill

>>>But actually, we spent most of the time gossiping about what a "Hottie" Melissa is.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH- she wasnt supposed to know that

[Guest longtabber PE]

I have answered Bill's PM so he will post that info when he gets here today.

I'm in the process if attempting to get the follow up information I promised as part of my take away. ( thats going to take a few days and emails- I'll inform him when i find out)

We did settle the issue of "stretch fur" and we are definitely talking about 2 distinctly different products. I am aware of what he is referring to but I have never been involved in that process or product personally. ( thats one of those things I'm finding out)

One thing to point out- Bill is commenting with his expertise on the suit proper ( which is extensive)- my only commentary is in the possible materials and their respective bonding/shaping methods.

To correct something I stated upthread- I was commenting on Soarwings comment regarding the horsehair being absurd( which it is- whatever is on that film- it aint horsehair)- I didnt intend to imply he was the originator of that theory.

I had to look at the film a few times today really focusing on the "hair" ( or is it hair or a fiber is the actual question) and the film doesnt allow for a clear distinction. ( just comparing samples in some of my books and whats on the frames)

There are 2 main points i am focusing on as a follow up

1) this is in regard to general availability ( Bill and i have 2 different definitions)- the question on the table is- without directly contacting a manufacturer and having such a product made- was there a product line in production in 1967 ( for whatever end use) to where such material could have been available for use in constructing a suit. ( this would include brochures, specs or whatever)

Thats going to take some digging and inquiring and after 40 years and no internet then- I'm not confident I'll be able to get an answer either way but i am going to ask and see.

2) Was there small "job shop" textile facilities that could have made such a product in SMALL quantity

There are many specialty machines but by and large the average textile machine has a run range ( this is the entire fabric path) of over 1000 feet ( to include the steam cans for drying, batching rollers, washers, weavers, bleach ranges, dye ranges etc) just to make one run because any fabric has to be "threaded" to make the run. The average fabric parent roll is about 108 inches wide. ( there are larger and smaller machines but the production range for the process often determines the minimum size parent roll)

This is important because ( as he and i discussed) the technology and materials did in fact exist then to make materials to construct said suit. The problem is- thats the start of another problem.

UNLESS ( item 1 above) a product was already in production for another application ( which would put scraps, tailings etc in the market and available) the only other option would be to literally "custom order' it.

Just to make such a product would require set up and then the parent rolls to run such a product- you would wind up with several parent rolls just by virtue of the process and the size of the machines. You cant just order 200 feet. That cost prohibitive for anyone.

So, the next question is were there smaller mills in business then manufacturing small orders of like substance for the materials or were tooled up to 'custom make' to order. ( thats going to be a hard one to research but it needs to be done to answer the question)

Those results are critical in determining if the raw materials were available for anyone to obtain and construct such a suit.

[Bill]

Here are my notes from my phone conference with Longtabber.

He sent me one comment, which I have included and credited to him.

Conference Followup notes,

In my off line communication with Longtabber, regarding the fur cloth issues, I believe there was some misunderstandings which we cleared up, based on resolving the perception that sometimes a word we both used had in fact to different meanings in our respective minds.

One example and issue was the fact that my frequent term of the phrase "stretch fur" which I stated as not being available before the 1980's (and necessary for what I saw in the film). In my mind, I was expecting "stretch" to mean elongation, the ability of a material to be stretched, elongated or otherwise deformed into a larger physical dimension, and then the material could relax to return to a native or inherent smaller dimension when released from the force pulling it to a elongated form.

Longtabber had conveyed to me the following: "OUR definition of "stretch fur" is any weaving or knitting pattern on any substrate thats 'flexible"- what is the definition you or the wig industry is attaching?"

By this, it appeared he was taking the words "stretch fur" to imply a capability of flexing or bending, in general, as opposed to specifically elongaion, as I assumed.

So to clarify to all concerned, I am talking specifically about a furcloth that has an actual capacity to elongate, to stretch more than twice it's at-rest dimension, so a 1 foot square piece of this fur can be stretched to over 2 feet wide, and still be 1 foot long the other way.

We then defined the fabric weaving/knittting process and agreed that while I referred to the stretch fur for creature suits (the material I know of and not being available before 1985) as not existing in Hollywood in 1967, the actual fabric knitting or weaving technology of 1967 had the capability to weave a spandix fiber into a base or substrate and then weave a fiber resembling fur into that substrate as the pile or body of the material. In other words, nothing was specifically invented in the 1980's that technology of the 1960's couldn't do or accomplish.

So that brought us to a point we respectfully disagree upon, the definition of the word "available". I look at the word "available" and intrepret it to mean an actual product, with a product number, spec sheet, sales flier, catalogue number, or an actual existant product in a store made from this available fur material. In otherwords, I defined "available" as something I could find and buy, an existant product in a fabric shop or a fur coat made of the material in a store women's coat section I could see or buy (or maybe a fur-covered toilet seat cap??).

I believe Longtabber refers to "available" as potentially existant, in that if you go to a manufacturer and ask them to make it, they have the capability and expertise to do so, or in the more broad sense, that within the international market of specialty fabrics, he saw no reason why it could not have existed. It is available if you order someone to make it for you. I suppose there is a legal basis for this definition of "available" in that many things do not exist until you, the customer, go to the professional person or company, order a product, and pay them money, and they fabricate or otherwise cause that product to exist on your order. That service is "available", and thus the resulting product can be considered "available" (by using the service).

In his review of this Longtabber offered this brief note, and I quote "I would offer one other addition here ( this would have taken some hunting i agree)- someone could have ordered a run for something else and the scrap was available. Even tho thats a possible scenario- thats a true high odd "luck of the draw" scenario. Unquote.

But I still find myself insisting on the distinction between "available" and "atainable" (meaning realistically, can I get it, and if so, how?)

That brought us to my question, did he know, either in his profesional capacity as a person working with fabrics, or personally from the standpoint of a person who goes to stores and sees products available to buy (like fake fur coats or fuzzy toilet seat covers, or fur-covered pillows, etc.) , and has somewhere in his life seen a product (or fabric) that specifically had a fur-like outer appearance and a stretch base capable of elastic expansion of over 200% (twice it's size, so you could take a fur cap, for example that fits a person snuggly, and stretch it over a basketball)?

He acknowledged that he had no knowledge of any such specific product (either raw cloth or tailored product made from the stretchable fur). I concurred in that I had no knowledge of any such fabric or any product tailored from such fabric, before 1985, when I first got my hands on some stretch fur from NHT to make a suit.

So we arrived, I believe, at a respectful draw, where I can concede to his contention that the fabric industry had the inherent capability to make stretch furcloth (capabile of elastic expansion) in the 1960's, if they so choose, but that neither he nor I could name or describe an actual or specific product or example to verify that any mill or fabricator actually DID make such a material.

That prompted my question about what if I, the "customer" back then, went to a mill or fabricator he knew of that had the capability to make such a spandix-based furcloth, and I wanted to get some of this furcloth. He informed me that a 1000 yard run, at 108 inches wide, was a minimum run to justify their effort to set up the mill machines to run the order. Less than that, they would have likely told me that they would have to respectfully decline to accept my order ("Buzz OFF").

Well, considering that for a 108 inch wide bolt, all I need to make a fur suit to cover a 6' tall man is about 2 1/2 yards, and my minimum to order is 1000 yards, that means I'd have to order enough fur to make 400 suits, before they would take my order to deliver the furcloth to my specs. I, for one, would not classify that circumstance as "atainable" for me or any other guy wanting to make a suit, even for a studio job.

And that brings me, personally, back around to the probability, the likelyhood of this stretch fur cloth existing in 1967. Was the technology existant in the fabric industry to make such. Appparently so, to me, and categorically yes, according to my friend, Longtabber.

Was an actual stretch furcloth actually made, marketed, sold, and used for virtually any product, or evidenced by any industry information? We cannot specifically name any or prove, by any catalogue listing, product literature, or relic product from the time still existing today in a second hand shop which would prove an actual stretch furcloth (capable of elongation) was actually produced and sold? That does not mean such does not exist, so I personally invite any of our forum members to add any information they may know of that might prove or demonstrate that such a product or furcloth did in fact exist then, indicating in the practical sense that it was "available" to Roger Patterson, or the Hollywood genius he hired.

So now we are officially back online and you all are officially a part of this dialogue again.

Just wanted to close with a personal observation I had communicated to Longtabber in a letter on a previous subject, where I asked his advice on another topic.

I said, in debating with him, "He(Longtabber) doesn't give me an inch of slack and doesn't hold anything back. Any person interested in finding the truth would cherish him as a friend."

Bill

[Guest soarwing]

Cheers to both of you and thanks for the updates.

[Guest]

>>>But actually, we spent most of the time gossiping about what a "Hottie" Melissa is.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH- she wasnt supposed to know that

I am reading the current response by bill - but I had to respond to this.

If either of you, think for a SECOND - flattering comments will get you off the hook with me...

Your BOTH

absolutely right :evillaugh:

[Guest soarwing]

This leads us back to Patty of course and WHAT type of material - if it's not natural - is seen in the film.

Do you guys basically agree that it likely was some type of stretch fur cloth? However expensive and difficult to obtain?

I am reading the current response by bill - but I had to respond to this.

If either of you, think for a SECOND - flattering comments will get you off the hook with me...

Your BOTH

absolutely right :evillaugh:

- - -

Nothing like a little sexual tension to spice up a "Neck Hackles" thread.

[Guest Apeman]

Are you serious? I know we don't know one another, but could you go out on a limb and just trust me on this one when I say the subject of the film was in fact covered in some sort of hair type material? Whether it be real hair, synthetic hair, horse hide, corn silk, or shag carpeting. To say we don't have enough resolution to make a practical judgment call on this is a bit... I can't even think of a kind word to use. Sorry.

If that were the case we could also say that we don't really know if there was sand, rocks, leaves, brush, trees, and everything else clearly visible in the film. It's not velvet, nor fine Corinthian leather. I assure you.

Matt-

You're absolutely right about us not knowing if the rocks and trees are plastic either (except that that would be a little strange and many people were on the scene shortly thereafter and didn't notice any fake rocks) but I think you're missing my point. The original question I posed was "Do we really know how long (or short) the hair on the figure is?" And to exaggerate/illustrate that question I went a little further to question if we could really even tell if it has any hair?

I can see how some might agree with you that such nonsense isn't worth discussing, and I myself partly agree, but on the other hand, many of us seem to make certain assumptions about hair length. I'm simply trying to be a good skeptic and challenge us to put forth the evidence (or at least a decent argument) as to how we can make some reasonable judgement or estimate on hair length. I assume someone with the experience and expertise Bill has should be able to offer something- and that's not a challenge so much as a plea!

And I think we need to address this question- to some degree- before debating things like the topic in this thread. That's all.

So for the third and final time, I am not suggesting that the figure does not have hair.

Apeman

[Guest longtabber PE]

This leads us back to Patty of course and WHAT type of material - if it's not natural - is seen in the film.

Do you guys basically agree that it likely was some type of stretch fur cloth? However expensive and difficult to obtain?

I have watched that film 30+ times today ( looking for a variety of things relating to potental fabrics or clues)

I feel that all things being ideal- a circular weave on an elastic backing at 800 TPI would be the ideal material to construct a suit.

But understand on what I'm about to say- I'm not looking at the film from a "suit" perspective ( thats Bill's area of expertise)- I'm just looking at the displayed mechanical properties of this "alleged" fabric.

Based on the film subjects articulation ( which is limited) and the fact there arent any displayed complex motions, its walking upright with no real "bending"- I dont see anything beyond the flexible range of any normal cloth backing.

[Bill]

Soarwing:

We didn't exactly agree on a furcloth type as a hypothetical. But from my perspective, the behavior I see on the film could be somewhat accomplished by a truly elastic furcloth (the one I say Hollywood wasn't aware of till the 1980's. and conversely, the more rigidly backed furcloth used typically for fake fur coats, etc. does not tend to exhibit the flexing actions I see on the film.

On the Melissa comments, actually just "softening her up before my interview next week"

Apeman:

I'll look into ideas of how we may better determine the hair type and length, based on the film. May take awhile.

Bill

[Guest]

But I still find myself insisting on the distinction between "available" and "atainable" (meaning realistically, can I get it, and if so, how?)

And I would agree, there is a difference between those two words. Just because they make special tiles for the space shuttle, that doesnt mean NASA will send me one... So, while something is available, its not always attainable (able to be purchased or given).

So, I am still sitting on the fence... But, I am leaning over the edge.

On the Melissa comments, actually just "softening her up before my interview next week"

Oh Bill - did you know its the day before Valentines Day?? LOL

Edited February 5, 2008 by Melissa

[Incorrigible1]

Oh Bill - did you know its the day before Valentines Day?? LOL

(Hint, Bill: More chocolate!)

[Guest longtabber PE]

Found out some interesting stuff ( far from complete yet)

I talked to an old friend of mine who does textile consulting specifically in the bed and bath area ( which are major users of synthetic fur) He has over 50 years in textile engineering and plant management with West Point Pepperell and J P Stevens ( now they are merged and Martex) and is a textile guru.

Regarding the availability of synthetic fur- During the 60's- the national market was huge but the international market was larger ( at that time the US was still the leading global supplier) The orient was one of the target markets.

In addition to clothing applications- other uses ( globally) were slippers, instrument liners, automotive, building insulation, filters, and the like.

He did draw the quick distinction that synthetics used for clothing were generally wovens ( which is the hard backed no stretch variety) but the knitted pile ( the "industrial" grade) was the "original" stretch pile ( fur) as it was normally knitted thru cotton gauze, latex weave and other substrates and could not only be stretched to over 100% in an X and Y plane but also had no "nap" ( run line to match successive runs to) but could be heated to blend to complex shapes and could be chemically bonded ( glued) to almost any substance. Its drawback was because it was elastic and knitted- it didnt have the strength of a woven on denser fabric. It could be made thicker and more dense and could have multiple passes to give it a layered,textured or even "fluffy" look. By virtue of its being knitted, backing and no nap- it could be joined invisibly.

So, both types were literally "made by the mile" every day

On specialty runs- The "big boys' of the day wouldnt bother with such ( specialty or small run) but what they did was assist people in their organizations in "start ups' for small individual plants which used standard paper converting equipment ( modified) with weaving looms and knitters. These facilities would then contract to the parent company and make small runs, specialty runs and make to order.

One he knows specifically who specialized in this in the 60's was Baum Textiles and their supply chain has retailers and distributors in all 50 states today and then. He said all one would have to to to get any of them was go to any fabric outlet, clothier, upholstery shop or any number of places and look in the catalogs or trade/vendor literature because they all advertised in them. Very few places actually stocked the fur piles because of the size ( bulk) and at the local level- it wasnt a big seller.

Pricing- he was in the business then and told me he didnt remember what a 67 price structure was but the knit fur pile could have been bought for well under a dollar a square yard retail.

Opinion- fired him off a couple of pics and some of the animations. ( he has no opinion on BF one way or the other) and here were his observations.

>>> He said it didnt look or act like any woven product ( fake fur grade) and in his opinion had too much "cling and natural flow" relative to whatever is underneath to be a woven of that day.

>>> he did say however it has many of the characteristics and appearance of a knit ( looks textured from multipass, has the cling.flow and formability to bond to whatever is underneath) and that knit could have been "form fitted" either with a heat gun or a steam iron. ( which is how its normally shrunk or made pliable to take complex shapes) and some of those "denser' areas are a hallmark of that trait.

Hopefully, I'l get more information this week