Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest longtabber PE]

Bill,

Thats equally true ( I know if it were me and i was doing it pro bono- it wouldnt just be on the back burner- it would be on the back burner on the old stove at the cabin- LOL)

But since I'm a born and bred "swamp rat" who grew up on a farm- I know all about scavenging, rigging and such ( that skill set has saved my a$$ on more than 1 occasion in my professional career)

So, putting on my redneck cap and thinking out of the box and like Patterson would.

If i wanted to make a BF film and wanted expertise in making it look like a real animal- I wouldnt even consider calling anyone in Hollywood cauz dey make dem 'fake monsters" to help me.

I would consult my local taxidermist- hes the 'expert' in making things look like real animals. I would go straight to my duck and deer head stuffer for advice on how to hide stitches, sew pelts, making realistic animal shaping etc. I'd get me a copy of field and stream, outdoor life or whatever and hunt me up some of them thar taxidermy books and supplies.

I'm in the Carolinas ( we dont have much in the way of big game) but in Wa- I would imagine those taxidermists would have huge experience in stuffing big game such as moose, big deer, bears etc. I would think with their "suit making' experience ( when they are taking a hide over the form- they are essentially making a suit) and their artistic skill at making the forms look like real animals would equal or maybe exceed anything Hollywood would provide because because 'making animals' is ALL they do.

I dont see how such an obvious resource such as that wouldnt occur to Patterson ( or whoever was the alleged suit maker if in fact its a suit) or be beyond his ability to come up with it. He was a cowboy and hunted so he would obviously know of their skill and maybe even had a few mounts done of his own.

I dont see that avenue as far fetched .

[Bill]

Longtabber:

Again, excellent thought. A taxidermist is the perfect second choice to go to if you don't want to try those weird "Hollywood" types.

They do have expertise in tailoring hides of real fur, and seamlessly assembling them on a body form. . . .

EXCEPT . . . (you didn't think I'd let you slide on this, did you :evillaugh:

taxidermy figures don't move. They are glued solid onto a rigid foam manniken. So they could do a really great Patty if the **** girl would just stand still and look pretty.

But the whole process of soaking a hide and stretching it over a rigid form with hide paste underneath is in another universe from working the fur dry, and not stretching it at all, and reconifuring it into a whole different creature, which means you're patching fur in weird sections to other fur in weird sections, and you lose the whole smooth continuity of hair variance which flows across a single hide of an animal, when you put it on the same body form as the body of what you skinned it off of to begin with. . . .

All fun aside, yes, a taxidermist is the second level of most relevent skill to try a creature suit. And an amateur would rightly go to one if he didn't go to Hollywood.

But here's a weird thing about taxidermists. And for reference, I've twice competed in the World Taxidermy Championships (and won two "Best in World "awards, in 1988 and 1992) and then judged at the next two times the event was held, and wrote a series of articles for Breakthrough Magazine, the best wilflife art/taxidermy magazine in the USA, so I say this with some familiarity.

Taxidermists can do amazing deer, bear, lions, zebra, and anything that's traditional game animals, but they truly SUCK every time you give them a primate. Even in the great museums, the only good stuffed primates are the freeze dried ones. The rest are pathetic.

It's a weird thing, don't know how to explain it, but Taxidermists and primates go together like sand and vasoline. Patty's a primate.

Ouch.

But keep chucking these ideas out there, and we'll keep thinking them through.

Bill

[Guest longtabber PE]

Bill,

Thats impressive. I am one of the million kids who ordered the courses in the 60's and tried my hand at it too. My results were "less than" so i decided I needed to stick with things i was actually good at. ( now that I think about it- I did create a few "monsters" but they were supposed to be animals)

>>>taxidermy figures don't move. They are glued solid onto a rigid foam manniken. So they could do a really great Patty if the **** girl would just stand still and look pretty.

But the whole process of soaking a hide and stretching it over a rigid form with hide paste underneath is in another universe from working the fur dry, and not stretching it at all, and reconifuring it into a whole different creature, which means you're patching fur in weird sections to other fur in weird sections, and you lose the whole smooth continuity of hair variance which flows across a single hide of an animal, when you put it on the same body form as the body of what you skinned it off of to begin with. . . .

I'm completely with you on that and I am highly qualified in knowing how to screw it up royally. Now, I'm substituting an industrial knit fur pile in place of a real hide and applying their relative skill.

>>>Taxidermists can do amazing deer, bear, lions, zebra, and anything that's traditional game animals, but they truly SUCK every time you give them a primate. Even in the great museums, the only good stuffed primates are the freeze dried ones. The rest are pathetic.

It's a weird thing, don't know how to explain it, but Taxidermists and primates go together like sand and vasoline. Patty's a primate.

I'll accept your word on that- but I believe in one of your earlier threads you pointed out where patty looked primate from the waist up but more human from the waist down ( or words to that effect) so you might be seeing an example of how they tried to "blend" them. That could be a reason why it has elements of all sorts of things. I could see that being a screw up or even by design because the lower half would have to be more 'human" because the human would be the one doing the walking.

Also- if this alleged suit team was making a make believe monster for a hoax- they would be making something "unique" so they wouldnt be held to such a high standard as having to be as detail oriented.

>>>EXCEPT . . . (you didn't think I'd let you slide on this, did you

Of course not- i expect you to hold my feet to the fire- it helps ensure people keep thinking and put more research into the technical side of it.

[Bill]

Longtabber:

I took the same course, the mail order "Taxidermy School" course. Needed my dad to help me with a pet store rat, put out with ether, and then he skinned it while I watched, but we never got it back together, so I made it into a "rat skin rug".

Didn't go back to the field until I could do "recreations", actual animal sculptures created to the highest taxidermy realism, but not using the real hide of the animal (like my gorillas were with human hair, crepe wool, and synthetic furcloth, but no gorilla hide).

And I excelled in primates while everybody else was doing amazing white tail deer.

But all fun aside, as i said, if you want to look at somebody aside from a hollywood guy to do a Patty suit, a taxidermist would certainly be the next reasonable option of who to ask or hire.

But the real issue on that is when you take a hide of a specific animal, and try to "rearrange" it into another animal, with patches, the hair length/direction of lay issues make it real tricky, and all conventional taxidermy experience doesn't prepare these people to do this kind of patching. They start with one intact fur and end up with one intact fur, and end with the same species they started to skin. So their whole profesional mindset and procedure doesn't begin to address patching hides to make a different species than you started with. So the average taxidermist is probably unprepared. A rare creative artist with taxidermy skills could do a lot better though.

We may want to consider the guy who makes "Jackalopes". He's at least thinking along the right lines.

:evillaugh:

Bill

[Incorrigible1]

We may want to consider the guy who makes "Jackalopes". He's at least thinking along the right lines.

:evillaugh:

Damnit, I'm here in Nebraska. Jackalopes are a closet industry! Should any of you PNW folk wish to exchange guided expeditions for respective cryptids, give me a PM. Besides the wiley jackalope, I'll also guide us to hoop snakes and burrowing owls. I'll bring my own tent and equipment to the PNW. Contact me...................

Edited February 6, 2008 by Incorrigible1

[Guest Killain]

Just another thought that's probably been expressed in this back and forth, but even if this stuff was available, obviously it was for a select clientelle and its purchase corresponding with the PGF would possibly provide another potential for a witness to step forward and say...hey, that's my hair!

None did.

K

Edited February 6, 2008 by Killain

[Guest longtabber PE]

But the real issue on that is when you take a hide of a specific animal, and try to "rearrange" it into another animal, with patches, the hair length/direction of lay issues make it real tricky, and all conventional taxidermy experience doesn't prepare these people to do this kind of patching. They start with one intact fur and end up with one intact fur, and end with the same species they started to skin. So their whole profesional mindset and procedure doesn't begin to address patching hides to make a different species than you started with. So the average taxidermist is probably unprepared. A rare creative artist with taxidermy skills could do a lot better though.

Bill

Bill,

thats true ( especually when one is working with pelts) but when one is working with a synthetic made from a uniform process with no nap to match and by design ( and construction) can be nade to be seamless- those wouldnt apply.

[Guest longtabber PE]

Just another thought that's probably been expressed in this back and forth, but even if this stuff was available, obviously it was for a select clientelle and its purchase corresponding with the PGF would possibly provide another potential for a witness to step forward and say...hey, that's my hair!

None did.

K

I dont know if i would consider global availability to anyone in the world a "select clientele" and given the small quantity ( 2-3 sq yds) and the fact its ( the PGF) is basically just "dark" with no real distinguishable features regarding the alleged fur wouldnt make it easily identifiable to anyone. ( to me anyway)

[Guest]

I was looking at it from the "big plant' perspective and full size ranges. I was unaware that there were literally hundreds of "jobber plants" established as satellites for small runs with their own supply chains in all 50 states that could have made/sold by the roll or to order ( in a min quantity) I even got a name of one that was known to exist them doing this exact thing and had outlets in Washington State. I also didnt consider the complete industrial side either so going to auto supply houses ( that sold upholstery items), hardware stores, furniture stores, upholstery shops in addition to the normal fabric outlets would probably have catalogs etc to get these items.

Longtabber, you keep prefacing your arguement with this being completely done by Roger Patterson alone. You are forgetting - the skeptical argument has someone in Hollywood, a professional suitmaker as being the one responsible for the suit (just read DFoot's posts).

According to Bill - what your saying might be very plausible for someone who has the time and the resources, but apparently tracking down these people and manufacturers is not an option for those in the Professional Creature Suit making business. We have two choices when viewing this from the skeptical side:

1. Roger Patterson was a genius who created this out of horse hide (courtesy of Bob H).

2. Hollywood Creature Suit Makers (courtesy of Dfoot - and others).

As far as I know, these are our choices. I also think if someone working for one of these factories etc had received a purchase order for stretchable fur, then within a couple years the Patterson film broke - that person would know they sent fur to Washington State - and would most likely be searching their files. That wouldnt shock me a bit. But, we dont have that. I have seen people come forward after searching files over things they heard about on the TV - Local events.

Probablilty can be established, we do it all the time. The more and more Bill types, the more I am convinced a good circumstancial case could be built, to prove this film authentic.

Now - Bill...

Did I read you right?? Were you the person behind the costumes for "Return of the Living Dead"????

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MOVIE DID TO ME??????? That movie really messed me up..

Oh and:

I'm picking up from my post #42, and softening up Melissa (which could be an exciting thread of its own)

:evillaugh:

Edited February 6, 2008 by Melissa

[Guest longtabber PE]

Longtabber, you keep prefacing your arguement with this being completely done by Roger Patterson alone. You are forgetting - the skeptical argument has someone in Hollywood, a professional suitmaker as being the one responsible for the suit (just read DFoot's posts).

According to Bill - what your saying might be very plausible for someone who has the time and the resources, but apparently tracking down these people and manufacturers is not an option for those in the Professional Creature Suit making business. We have two choices when viewing this from the skeptical side:

1. Roger Patterson was a genius who created this out of horse hide (courtesy of Bob H).

2. Hollywood Creature Suit Makers (courtesy of Dfoot - and others).

As far as I know, these are our choices. I also think if someone working for one of these factories etc had received a purchase order for stretchable fur, then within a couple years the Patterson film broke - that person would know they sent fur to Washington State - and would most likely be searching their files. That wouldnt shock me a bit. But, we dont have that. I have seen people come forward after searching files over things they heard about on the TV - Local events.

Probablilty can be established, we do it all the time. The more and more Bill types, the more I am convinced a good circumstancial case could be built, to prove this film authentic.

>>>Longtabber, you keep prefacing your arguement with this being completely done by Roger Patterson alone. You are forgetting - the skeptical argument has someone in Hollywood, a professional suitmaker as being the one responsible for the suit (just read DFoot's posts).

No Melissa, thats totally wrong- scroll up and read just the posts in this thread- I have stated NUMEROUS times the POSSIBILITY/PROBABILITY that Patterson actually didnt make this or had help. ( and stated on other threads that its possible Patterson himself was a hoax victim and legitimately thought he filmed a BF- I can only conclude you are mistaking my ideas with someone elses on that because i have never believed that Patterson was an "army of 1" in this or stated such.

Dfoot ( and all his thoughts) as well as the 'skeptical argument" ( of the past) are by design and deliberately NOT a consideration for anything I state. I'm a stand alone engineer who designs and builds things for a career and apparently i'm looking at things thru a totally different set of eyes. If my thoughts hit on silimarities of theories past- thats a true coincidence. Just so you can hear me say it- a lot of the "skeptical" arguments I have heard over the years hold no more water than many of the "believers" arguments so I'm not married to either nor am I divorced to either and i'm not promoting either. My analysis and observations are simply mine alone.

There is one other point that may have some bearing here. I see this as 2 distinctly different and mutually exclusive things.

1) can a suit and subsequent film be made ( or replicated)

2) is the film subject in the PGF a real animal or a suit

Neither in reality has any bearing on the other and both could be true and both could be false

>>>According to Bill - what your saying might be very plausible for someone who has the time and the resources,

Thats correct and read the threads from late last night- theres no proof/theory or otherwise to suggest or imply ( or to refute) the legitimate possibility that the alleged suitmaker did NOT have the time, resources or anything else needed. Unless someone can show cause where for whatever reason Patterson HAD to film the film when he did or had some tight timeline he simply "had" to meet- this alleged suit and film could have been the product of months or even YEARS of effort and research.

The only take away from that is since thats an unknown and its factual that the materials were available and the technology was available- its as legitimate a premise as any other. BUT, if this was a well thought out plan ( in that model)- then that also answers a lot of questions.

Who is to say the PGF as we see it isnt suit revision 36 and take 20 after all the bugs were worked out? I dont know that, you dont know that and nobody on earth except anyone who was involved with the alleged suit would know that.

>>> but apparently tracking down these people and manufacturers is not an option for those in the Professional Creature Suit making business.

That assumption is a false presumption all the way around. ( Bill and i have already both said as much) Bill made it clear that in his world- they do cursory looks and rely heavily on scavenging et al and only on occasion talk to manufacturers. The simple and only fact is that the OPTION is there, was there, has always been there. If no one thought of it doesnt alter the reality that its a very SIMPLE process to pick up a phone and call. Its equally simple to logically deduce that anyone in the garment industry, fabric industry and others would be logical places to search. Nothing in that line of thought requires an expertise in hollywood FX, a degree in rocket science or a PhD in research.

>>>1. Roger Patterson was a genius who created this out of horse hide (courtesy of Bob H).

2. Hollywood Creature Suit Makers (courtesy of Dfoot - and others).

As far as I know, these are our choices. I also think if someone working for one of these factories etc had received a purchase order for stretchable fur, then within a couple years the Patterson film broke - that person would know they sent fur to Washington State - and would most likely be searching their files. That wouldnt shock me a bit. But, we dont have that. I have seen people come forward after searching files over things they heard about on the TV - Local events

There are plenty of other choices ( read upthread) and WHY would an order processor "have to remember" an order for 2-3 yards of a given fabric when they do it thousands of times a year? Why would they suspect their one lone order made a BF? How would they draw such a conclusion?

>>>Probablilty can be established, we do it all the time. The more and more Bill types, the more I am convinced a good circumstancial case could be built, to prove this film authentic.

All of these have a high degree of "probability" and a circumstantial case ( built on a legal model) for the pro side would have no more horsepower than the same case built to the adverse view.

[Guest Texas Bigfoot]

Longtabber, I know you're really trying hard to show us the way to find these resources, and finding them is easy for you, but the movie biz has it's own alternate reality of what's easy and what's hard. I can do some things effortlessly and well that you can't do, and you can do some things effortlessly and well I never could do. In a sense, we are each a product of the industry we worked in and so we survive and operate by the perimeters of our business, our effective reality, not an alternate business' effective reality.

Bill

That was my point all along. If a person isn't already in one of the industries in 1967, they would have virtually no chance of finding the needed materials and making a moveable suit. Neither RP or BG were in any of these industries. It would take them months just to gain the knowledge to get the materials.

Longtabber, and Bill to a lesser degree are looking at this through the lens of their professional lives. Sure you could whip up a suit in a weekend, it's what you do everyday. It's what you've done for years. But if it was that easy, you'd charge about $7.50 per hour for your services. I trust you both charge a bit more than that.

Like I said before, it's possible they made that suit, I'm not 100% convinced it's an animal. It's just easier to believe that it's an animal than it is to believe that two cowboys turned themselves into special effects wizrds in a few months with no budget.

[Guest longtabber PE]

That was my point all along. If a person isn't already in one of the industries in 1967, they would have virtually no chance of finding the needed materials and making a moveable suit. Neither RP or BG were in any of these industries. It would take them months just to gain the knowledge to get the materials.

Longtabber, and Bill to a lesser degree are looking at this through the lens of their professional lives. Sure you could whip up a suit in a weekend, it's what you do everyday. It's what you've done for years. But if it was that easy, you'd charge about $7.50 per hour for your services. I trust you both charge a bit more than that.

Like I said before, it's possible they made that suit, I'm not 100% convinced it's an animal. It's just easier to believe that it's an animal than it is to believe that two cowboys turned themselves into special effects wizrds in a few months with no budget.

TB,

I'm going to address your post specifically but throw it to the masses because I see your post containing a lot of similar themes I read all the time.

>>>If a person isn't already in one of the industries in 1967, they would have virtually no chance of finding the needed materials

I cant accept that as being true. Since these products were in the market, known thru a variety of industries( construction, manufacturing,upholstery, fabric, garments, automotive just off the top of my head) and able to be found by anyone who applied a bit of logic and common sense and a telephone.

>>>making a moveable suit.

The materials determine the ability to move- not the cutting/sewing

>>>Neither RP or BG were in any of these industries. It would take them months just to gain the knowledge to get the materials.

The problem is multifold here- we dont know who or what they know or didnt, we also dont know if a 3rd party who did have this information was involved ( or not) and we also dont know if in fact they didnt have months ( or years for that matter) Since all are "unknowns' and speculation- no legitimate theory has any greater value than any other.

To paraphrase Sherlock- when you remove the impossible- whatever remains ( however improbable) is the truth. Nothing i have come up with "impossible", or more "improbable" than the film subject being an actual BF. ( honestly- its more plausible than most since the "air' I've heard for years about all these 'impossibilities' has been reduced to a large degree to readily available and within the capability of mere mortal man since it is in fact 'so simple" it may have just been overlooked by the masses [ tunnel vision focusing on hollywood alone]. That said, its a potential nail in the coffin of film legitimacy and thus people are making more emotionally based arguments refuting soley on the basis of they dont want to ACCEPT it rather than the theory being factually false.) How much of the argument against what I have said is nothing more than simple denial?

I have seen nothing yet that effectively shows me thet these people didnt have or couldnt have gotten the information and materials, i have seen nothing that says they didnt have help, I've seen nothing saying this was a "rush job" and not a well planned out event. Have you?

>>>Like I said before, it's possible they made that suit, I'm not 100% convinced it's an animal. It's just easier to believe that it's an animal than it is to believe that two cowboys turned themselves into special effects wizrds in a few months with no budget

I see nothing n that film that speaks of 'wizardry" ( if it was- the controvery wouldnt be there or as much as it is) and we dont know what budget they had and the cost of raw materials wouldnt be much.

>>>

[Guest]

It sounds to me like both Longtabber and Bill both agree that a lot of people would have to somehow be involved in the process. According to Longtabber's theory, Patterson (or someone else) would have to go around asking a lot of questions and talking to a lot of people about this hoax before it could happen. To me, if I were going to do a hoax I'd talk to the least amount of people possible. So here we have Patterson (or somebody else) talking to fabric shops and taxidermists and fabric industry folks, and when "The Film" came out nobody thought to say hey, that dude was asking a bunch of questions about a costume and stretchy fur.

About Patterson being hoaxed, didn't he carry a shotgun, or am I making that up? (Sorry I'm new here.) Just seems like a stupid thing to try to hoax out in the middle of nowhere. Not that being stupid stops people...

So then someone makes an incredible suit for less than $100 bucks and it's better than anything in Hollywood, and then nothing... that is they don't do anything with it: wear it to a costume party, sell it to Hollywood, make some more movies, hoax somebody else, move to hollywood and make the best costumes ever using the techniques they figured out?

I'm not on one side of the fence or the other, I'm just thinking that in order for it to be a suit it sounds more and more unlikely.

Obiwan

"Sometimes men wear stretchy pants." - Nacho Libre

[Guest longtabber PE]

It sounds to me like both Longtabber and Bill both agree that a lot of people would have to somehow be involved in the process. According to Longtabber's theory, Patterson (or someone else) would have to go around asking a lot of questions and talking to a lot of people about this hoax before it could happen. To me, if I were going to do a hoax I'd talk to the least amount of people possible. So here we have Patterson (or somebody else) talking to fabric shops and taxidermists and fabric industry folks, and when "The Film" came out nobody thought to say hey, that dude was asking a bunch of questions about a costume and stretchy fur.

So then someone makes an incredible suit for less than $100 bucks and it's better than anything in Hollywood, and then nothing... that is they don't do anything with it: wear it to a costume party, sell it to Hollywood, make some more movies, hoax somebody else, move to hollywood and make the best costumes ever using the techniques they figured out?

On your first point, i fully agree that if this was set out to be a "hoax" its logical and likely the hoaxer(s) would build in a lot of secrecy. However, this was also 1967. It would have been easy to use a false name, pay by cash ( or money order) send stuff to general delivery as well as multiple source ordering and asking. It would be hard to connect all those dots.

I believe it was Frank Abignale who proved just how EASY that was back then. As far as amatuers, the modern TV was designed as a HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE PROJECT when the "industry" scoffed at such a machine. So as far as a workable theory- there is historical and documented established history of BOTH being done. Never underestimate the power and capability of human ingenuity and if patterson was this alleged "huckster and slick con man type" ( as many believe)- it would be well within his skill set to know how to cover his tracks effectively- especially in the 60's

On your second, it could be as simple as he got what he wanted- I dont know

[Guest]

No Melissa, thats totally wrong- scroll up and read just the posts in this thread- I have stated NUMEROUS times the POSSIBILITY/PROBABILITY that Patterson actually didnt make this or had help. ( and stated on other threads that its possible Patterson himself was a hoax victim and legitimately thought he filmed a BF- I can only conclude you are mistaking my ideas with someone elses on that because i have never believed that Patterson was an "army of 1" in this or stated such.

Well, if your going to finally stop saying "I really dont want to get involved in this" but yet, offer a theory which differs from others, just say so. I think you have officially thrown your hat in this ring.

Ok, if Patterson was not an "Army of 1", you just added people to a list - of those who could have blown this by now for Patterson or Mr. Gimlin, yet - have remained silent... For what reason? They obviously were not paid for their silence. Mr. Gimlin had to fight for the thousand I think he finally got in court for agreeing to help Mr. Patterson pack through that area, and then I dont even know if he ended up getting that much.

Dfoot ( and all his thoughts) as well as the 'skeptical argument" ( of the past) are by design and deliberately NOT a consideration for anything I state. I'm a stand alone engineer who designs and builds things for a career and apparently i'm looking at things thru a totally different set of eyes. If my thoughts hit on silimarities of theories past- thats a true coincidence. Just so you can hear me say it- a lot of the "skeptical" arguments I have heard over the years hold no more water than many of the "believers" arguments so I'm not married to either nor am I divorced to either and i'm not promoting either. My analysis and observations are simply mine alone.

Thats fine, but understand - your speaking against the skeptics "Man in the suit" Bob H.. So - now, who are you going to put in the suit? Just curious. I have no problem with you "changing things up", but there are questions within the skeptical argument that will need to be answered. I personally think Bob H is full of jelly - but whatever :evillaugh:

There is one other point that may have some bearing here. I see this as 2 distinctly different and mutually exclusive things.

1) can a suit and subsequent film be made ( or replicated)

2) is the film subject in the PGF a real animal or a suit

Well, I guess I thought these "points" went without saying.

Neither in reality has any bearing on the other and both could be true and both could be false

Umm, ok.

>>>According to Bill - what your saying might be very plausible for someone who has the time and the resources,

Thats correct and read the threads from late last night- theres no proof/theory or otherwise to suggest or imply ( or to refute) the legitimate possibility that the alleged suitmaker did NOT have the time, resources or anything else needed. Unless someone can show cause where for whatever reason Patterson HAD to film the film when he did or had some tight timeline he simply "had" to meet- this alleged suit and film could have been the product of months or even YEARS of effort and research.

The only take away from that is since thats an unknown and its factual that the materials were available and the technology was available- its as legitimate a premise as any other. BUT, if this was a well thought out plan ( in that model)- then that also answers a lot of questions.

Who is to say the PGF as we see it isnt suit revision 36 and take 20 after all the bugs were worked out? I dont know that, you dont know that and nobody on earth except anyone who was involved with the alleged suit would know that.

Nothing really to say, I just get all warm and fuzzy when you lecture me

>>> but apparently tracking down these people and manufacturers is not an option for those in the Professional Creature Suit making business.

That assumption is a false presumption all the way around. ( Bill and i have already both said as much) Bill made it clear that in his world- they do cursory looks and rely heavily on scavenging et al and only on occasion talk to manufacturers. The simple and only fact is that the OPTION is there, was there, has always been there. If no one thought of it doesnt alter the reality that its a very SIMPLE process to pick up a phone and call. Its equally simple to logically deduce that anyone in the garment industry, fabric industry and others would be logical places to search. Nothing in that line of thought requires an expertise in hollywood FX, a degree in rocket science or a PhD in research.

Ok, so then tell me why again - Bill says the creature suit makers scavange? Is it because these materials are easy to come by and accessible to them when they are needed?

>>>1. Roger Patterson was a genius who created this out of horse hide (courtesy of Bob H).

2. Hollywood Creature Suit Makers (courtesy of Dfoot - and others).

As far as I know, these are our choices. I also think if someone working for one of these factories etc had received a purchase order for stretchable fur, then within a couple years the Patterson film broke - that person would know they sent fur to Washington State - and would most likely be searching their files. That wouldnt shock me a bit. But, we dont have that. I have seen people come forward after searching files over things they heard about on the TV - Local events

There are plenty of other choices ( read upthread) and WHY would an order processor "have to remember" an order for 2-3 yards of a given fabric when they do it thousands of times a year? Why would they suspect their one lone order made a BF? How would they draw such a conclusion?

Oh come on. You know as well as I do - people love to think or know they have inside information on something as potentially explosive as this. You and I both know that. Also, I cant find where either of you posted that any of these places that make these types of fabrics or furs would sell only a couple yards at a time. I think Bill was specific when he said - he had to buy large quantities.

>>>Probablilty can be established, we do it all the time. The more and more Bill types, the more I am convinced a good circumstancial case could be built, to prove this film authentic.

All of these have a high degree of "probability" and a circumstantial case ( built on a legal model) for the pro side would have no more horsepower than the same case built to the adverse view.

I think your wrong.. I think the circumstantial evidence is very good - and if we didnt have to worry about personal opinion being the deciding factor (creeping in where it doesnt belong) - I think this would be a very interesting case to watch.

But, I love to watch underdog cases.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Melissa