Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Drew]

Bill, LTPE-

We know Patterson worked at Corriganville, we know that Patterson was into it enough that when they built their own Corriganville-like park in Washington, that some of the actors from Corriganville went to work at their new place in Washington.

following is hypothetical

If he knew Chambers from his days at Corriganville, and if he got the body of a gorilla suit from Chambers, If patterson had said, 'I'm not trying to make a gorilla, now, do you have any more of this fur laying around your shop so I can modify it?' do you think Chambers would keep the extra that he used to build the suit laying around his shop?

Also,

If while working at Corriganville, he said, "if I'm filming this gorilla suit how can I make it so no one can see the seams?"

HERE IS THE QUESTION FOR BILL

ARE THERE TRICKS THAT GORILLA SUIT GUYS OF THE 50's &60's USED TO HIDE SEAMS WITH REGARDS TO MOVEMENT OF SUBJECT OR CAMERA OPERATION? (not knowing of course that we'd be blowing the frames up and looking at them like we do now)

i.e. Shake the Camera, Have the Gorilla Jump around alot, Film with light from the side instead of the front, Have a broken background, etc...

[Guest longtabber PE]

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.

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:

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

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.

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?

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.

I think you 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.

>>>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.

I must respectfully ask you exactly what posts you are reading and attributing to me? I dont recall ever saying or even implying that i did ( or did not) want to "get involved" in anything. Most i believe would conclude that since I'm here and posting- I actually AM "involved" ( altho I'm not entirely certain what this "involvement" of which you speak actually is) Since my theories ( actually fruits of legitimate research and professional knowledge) are mine and not rehashing of "old"- dont you think it obvious they would differ to a degree from all others? What hat and what ring? I'm posting verified factual information and drawing logical conclusions to build a theory that is factually and functionally sound. If thats throwing my hat in a ring- i guess so. ( I think)

>>>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?

Its dangerous arrogant presumption and not analytical reason to make definitive statements regarding unknown people who may or may not have done something- then offer unqualified speculation as to why they may or may not have acted in a given manner then try to pass that off as a legitimate point. Just to give you several logical alternatives- Patterson may have used different people who only did pieces so they never were aware of the total scope, maybe they got hit by a train and died, maybe they have a code of silence and actually honor their word. Who knows?

>>>For what reason? They obviously were not paid for their silence.

How is this "obvious"?

>>>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.

What does that mean? What does that prove? What does that even suggest? Who has seen a complete final statement of net worth or any of these? Who knows who may have contributed what? Again, theres another meaningless statement thats born of speculation trying to be used as a fact.

>>>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'm not speaking for or against anyone- my answer is who do i need to put into it? I dont see your point here. it could have been "Ned the wino" or even "Carlton the doorman"

>>>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?

You need to ask Bill that question- not me. I'm an engineer and know how to get whatever materials I need for a project.

>>>I have no problem with you "changing things up", but there are questions within the skeptical argument that will need to be answered.

Then those skeptics need to answer their arguments- i can only answer mine

>>>I personally think Bob H is full of jelly - but whatever

I dont disagree with you but I have never met the man so dont know

>>>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.

Sure, but people also can keep secrets ( those who wear patches like my avatar know all about that)- but as stated earlier- thats not including that this was so spread out that many of the people didnt know what was going on

>>>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.

Check post #45 in this thread

>>>I think you 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.

I happen to know to know it to be correct and honestly "personal opinion" is the only thing thats been thrown against the factual truth that the materials existed, were not cost prohibitive, the technology was in place and obtainable.

>>But, I love to watch underdog cases.

So do I and right now the facts are showing the possibility of making a suit to be climbing- so those underdogs need to stop trying to argue opinions as evidence and start re evaluating their case.

[Guest]

I happen to know to know it to be correct and honestly "personal opinion" is the only thing thats been thrown against the factual truth that the materials existed, were not cost prohibitive, the technology was in place and obtainable.

Ok, so, the manufacturer or retailer of this fur OR suit was??

P.S. I can do this with you, as much as you do it with me :evillaugh: LOL

Let me just add in this quote from Bill - that you, yourself quoted.

>>>Melissa, in your post #43, about the shuttle tiles, it actually goes to the heart of this whole fur issue, in that we have Longtabber's wonderful research and knowledge to confirm the fabric industry had the capability to make a stretch fur cloth (like the ones that finally surfaced in the 1980's) but we have no apparent proof such a product actually existed until the 80's, and we have the practical consideration that going to any big and easy to find fabric industry mill would entail a massive machine run (1000 yards or more, enough for 400 suits) plus maybe some serious R & D money if we didn't have an existing furcloth sample in hand to say "match this, please".

The delimma is that there is the theoretical "it's possible" and the "it's not likely" we are trying to balance. That something can exist does not mean it does exist, and that something may indeed truly exist does not mean a given person can get it.

While the movie industry issues may not apply to you - they certainly apply to those who are using the theory that Roger Patterson employed someone in the movie industry to help make this suit. Which is what Bill has been speaking to.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Melissa

[Guest longtabber PE]

Ok, so, the manufacturer or retailer of this fur OR suit was??

P.S. I can do this with you, as much as you do it with me :evillaugh: LOL

>>P.S. I can do this with you, as much as you do it with me LOL

True and the only real difference i see is that I will answer a direct question with a direct answer and give a basis in fact, logic, reason to explain and define my answers as applicable and dont skip over or avoid those that appear to chellenge me on multiple points.

>>Ok, so, the manufacturer or retailer of this fur OR suit was??

I never said suit ( I'm not in the modified suit crowd but acknowledge its as valid a theory as any) and the term "fur" isnt the name to search for. It would be woven,knitted,tufted synthetic pile for either clothing or inddustrial usage.

Known manufacturers during that time were JP Stevens, West Point Peperell, Outer banks, Burlington, Baum and God knows how many other smaller mom and pops. All had national and global supply chains, all advertised in a variety of industries and the like. All of this is upthread.

While the movie industry issues may not apply to you - they certainly apply to those who are using the theory that Roger Patterson employed someone in the movie industry to help make this suit. Which is what Bill has been speaking to.

Thats true and correct but it also ends there as well for the alternate theories that Hollywood had no involvement in it.

[Guest]

>>P.S. I can do this with you, as much as you do it with me LOL

True and the only real difference i see is that I will answer a direct question with a direct answer and give a basis in fact, logic, reason to explain and define my answers as applicable and dont skip over or avoid those that appear to chellenge me on multiple points.

Does this mean our truce is over?

I wont reply to the samethings you post over and over again... I can only type so much during a day. Doesnt mean I dont read it... I dont really think you meant to imply I am not thinking logically or using reason within my arguments. They are just not arguments you agree with - that doesnt make them wrong LT - just not something you agree with. This is something you should be accustomed to.

Ok, so, the manufacturer or retailer of this fur OR suit was??[/i]

I never said suit ( I'm not in the modified suit crowd but acknowledge its as valid a theory as any) and the term "fur" isnt the name to search for. It would be woven,knitted,tufted synthetic pile for either clothing or inddustrial usage.

Known manufacturers during that time were JP Stevens, West Point Peperell, Outer banks, Burlington, Baum and God knows how many other smaller mom and pops. All had national and global supply chains, all advertised in a variety of industries and the like. All of this is upthread.

Does this mean you wont be sending me a valentines day card??? :annoyed:

Well thanks for the laundry list - but which one?? Answer the question I asked you. I think your being argumentative instead of answering the question.

P.S. :evillaugh: Hopefully this will end the tension

Edited February 6, 2008 by Melissa

[Guest Remember November]

Hello Bill, you're observations on the PG film are some of the best i have seen. Your posts alone are why I joined this forum. I have been saying for years more needs to be done with the film, and you sir are doing just that.

My question is, I noticed the picture of the Gorilla is from Owen Caddy. Is this just coincidence, or are you associated with him in some way?

[Guest longtabber PE]

Does this mean our truce is over? :evillaugh:

I wont reply to the samethings you post over and over again... I can only type so much during a day. Doesnt mean I dont read it... I dont really think you meant to imply I am not thinking logically or using reason within my arguments. They are just not arguments you agree with - that doesnt make them wrong LT - just not something you agree with. This is something you should be accustomed to.

Does this mean you wont be sending me a valentines day card???

Well thanks for the laundry list - but which one?? Answer the question I asked you. I think your being argumentative instead of answering the question.

Our truce is fine.

No, I made no implication ( expressed or implied) regarding your mental proclivities.

There are 2 things going here- statements of impirical fact and theories based on "whatever"- they arent wrong or right- facts are facts and theories are theories

>>>Well thanks for the laundry list - but which one?? Answer the question I asked you. I think your being argumentative instead of answering the question.

The question ( as stated) is IMPOSSIBLE to answer UNLESS you had a sample of said suit or material for these reasons.

The processes were common and in use industry wide ( very little proprietary technology on weavers, looms, knitters etc) so they would be all identical.

The raw materials ( fibers and backings) were all common as well and purchased from the same manufacturers. ( there is a longshot if it was discovered that a specialty fiber was used that could be traced)

So, unless said sample had a lot or batch # on it- it couldnt be traced by anyone. ( in 1967- tracibility and such like modern ISO and BSI standards didnt exist in American Industry)

>>>Does this mean you wont be sending me a valentines day card??? :annoyed:

I'm going to get you a card and box of chocolate

[Bill]

To All:

I just got an e-mail back from National Fiber Technology, the company that actually DOES make the stretch furcloth we use in Hollywood for suits, the stuff I've been saying wasn't available until the 1980's, and the new owner/manager, Fred Fehrman, provided me with the following:

Dear Bill,

John and Alan retired in 2001.

My partner, Kim Clark and I, have been here ever since.

Here is the History as we know it, although, we are open to hearing other

versions as well.

Spandex was introduced in 1958.

It was used for undergarments and hose.

It was not used by a sporting team until 1969. (French skiers.)

Then it came to general use in sporting goods in the 1970's.

It was fully introduced into general outerwear fashion by the 1980's.

Reid-Meredith Wig Co was started in the late 1950s. A Patent for hair fabric

was granted in about 1962.

Hair fabric blanks were bought buy FX people starting in the 1970's, but

these where made on a 2-way knit backing. (Give but no return.)

It was not until about 1981 that Spandex was introduced to the hair fabric

process.

It was developed by Hair Technology (now NFT) for Henson and Disney.

So 2 way stretch fur was available in the 1960's but true 4-way did not come

about until the 1980's.

Granted, FX people and the like have been Hand tying on Spandex since the

60's, but 4-way stretch hair-fabric was not manufactured commercially until

the 1980's.

If your associate has some alternative facts, manufacturers, buyers and

users) please let us know.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Fred Fehrmann (rhymes with hair-man)

& Kim Clark

NFT

The 4 way stretch Fred refers to is the suit furcloth now Hollywood standard, the one I kept saying wasn't available in the 1960's.

If you Google "National Fiber Technology", you should get their website and product descriptions, in case anybody wants to research them more.

Bill

[Guest]

Our truce is fine.

No, I made no implication ( expressed or implied) regarding your mental proclivities.

Thank you. Just wanted to be sure others knew that.

There are 2 things going here- statements of impirical fact and theories based on "whatever"- they arent wrong or right- facts are facts and theories are theories

EXACTLY my point. I would hope the end result of all this is to distinguish between theory, fact and "whatever"... All three are thrown around in regard to this film - and so far there are very few of either of those three... But, I happen to agree more with the thought that this film is authentic.

>>>Well thanks for the laundry list - but which one?? Answer the question I asked you. I think your being argumentative instead of answering the question.

The question ( as stated) is IMPOSSIBLE to answer UNLESS you had a sample of said suit or material for these reasons.

The processes were common and in use industry wide ( very little proprietary technology on weavers, looms, knitters etc) so they would be all identical.

The raw materials ( fibers and backings) were all common as well and purchased from the same manufacturers. ( there is a longshot if it was discovered that a specialty fiber was used that could be traced)

So, unless said sample had a lot or batch # on it- it couldnt be traced by anyone. ( in 1967- tracibility and such like modern ISO and BSI standards didnt exist in American Industry)

EXACTLY... Which is why one can not say with absolute certainty - that this was purchased fur. We know from reading bills words, going the manufacturer route was not used within the film industry - and he should know. So, that is something we may be able to strike from the skeptical argument that this was purchased by someone in the film industry to make a suit for Roger Patterson. To do so was most likely neither cost efficient or practical, or even attainable.

>>>Does this mean you wont be sending me a valentines day card??? :evillaugh:

I'm going to get you a card and box of chocolate

I can just imagine what the card will say - but the chocolates - oooooohhhhh

[Bill]

Replies to all, picking up from my post #79 last night:

Incorrigible1:

So now all we need is to trace Patterson to one of the Jackalope makers, and case solved.

:evillaugh:

Killian:

If you look, my Giganto figure was made with NHT stretch fur, and they did do promotions of their fur once my model became a media darling. So, yes, a manufacturer would very possibly come forward and claim "that's my fur " Nobody did.

Longtabber: Post #82

Yes, matching pelts into a new animal is a nightmare, but matching sections of manufactured furcloth is far easier, because of it's uniform manufactured structure. Good distinction.

Melissa Post #84

Yes, I did a lot of the stuff on Return of the Living Dead (1984). I did the tarman, the skeleton who climbs out of the grave and yells "Let's party", Linnea Quigley's punk kid red hair and her naked zombie transformation (a rough job, but somebody's gotta do it), and most of the zombie extras wandering around. The half corpse talking was done by Tony Gardner, and Kenny Myers took over for me midway during filming, and contributed some effects as well.

I apologize for the movie messing you up, and I promise I won't do it again.

Texas Bigfoot and Longtabber

The whole debate on "easy to make/hard to make" must factor into it "proficiency", how skillful a particular person is at the specific skillsets needed to do the job. I often hired people for crews, and finding people who could "sew" was easy, but finding people with real "proficiency" in tailoring a creature suit was rare. Big distinction. But impossible to quantify in any numeric way.

But many people can rebuild a carborator on a car, and all I can do is loosen the wingnut that holds the top of the air filter on, and then I'm lost. Any technical or artistic skill has a group who can do it, and the masses who cannot. As skills go, the number of people with proficiency tends to mirror the size of the industry and the frequency of the need for that specific skill. Most creature guys made a few suits in their lives. Most fabric sewing specialists spent the majority of their careers, sewing stroller costumes of Gumbys and similar cartoonish characters.

Few people ever made a real fur suit to try and pass for a real creature, so the proficiency of that skill was very rare.

Obiwan:

I agree. The suit looks more and more unlikely, as I continue to study the options.

Drew Post #91

Drew, yes, there's a great trick to hide seams, even back in the 50's and 60's. It works every time, and so nearly everybody used it. The trick is make the fur at least 6" long, or more, and that shaggy long hair will hide your seam every time.

Don't see the "trick" in the PG film.

Remember November: post #96

Thank you for those kind words.

Owen Caddy has been kind enough to provide me with many reference photos, as well as have a "peer review" first look at a few of my notes. He is a very kind and knowledgable man.

Bill

[wolftrax]

Bill,

Can you explain the 2 way stretch fur that NFT said was available?

[Guest longtabber PE]

EXACTLY... Which is why one can not say with absolute certainty - that this was purchased fur. We know from reading bills words, going the manufacturer route was not used within the film industry - and he should know. So, that is something we may be able to strike from the skeptical argument that this was purchased by someone in the film industry to make a suit for Roger Patterson. To do so was most likely neither cost efficient or practical, or even attainable.

I can just imagine what the card will say - but the chocolates - oooooohhhhh :evillaugh:

OK, let me comment on this and tie in Bill's thread above ( for those who are following this and were not there for my and Bill's conversation)

>>>EXACTLY... Which is why one can not say with absolute certainty - that this was purchased fur. We know from reading bills words, going the manufacturer route was not used within the film industry - and he should know. So, that is something we may be able to strike from the skeptical argument that this was purchased by someone in the film industry to make a suit for Roger Patterson. To do so was most likely neither cost efficient or practical, or even attainable.

Bill and I are both some of the top in our respective professions. At the same time, we are both also colored by our experience and the indiginous nuances of our respective worlds.

Before i go further- you need to clearly differentiate anything I'm saying from all the "historical skeptical arguments" before because it appears i am "stand alone " here. They are not a part of my thought process nor are they a consideration for anything I'm saying. Let me start off with "calibrating" you

Regarding Joe ( me)- I let Bill know ( and posted it here before) my belief is PRO BF ( so i'm NOT a skeptic/scofftic as defined here)- that belief is based in TWO personal experiences. The PGF ( be it true or false) has ZERO bearing on my stance. As such, if its ever "proven" one way or the other wont even flag on my personal radar. My belief on the PGF has always been 51-49 PRO a BF ( not ANTI regardless of what you or anyone may read into my posts)

I have truly a NEUTRAL stance on the PGF. ( and honestly, dont care) I see VALID arguments from BOTH sides with no true tiebreaker.

So, do me the professional courtesy and dont color my comments by either camp. I'm not in either. I'm simply calling it as i see it using my knowledge and experience.

With that said- the subject here is on the mechanics of a suit

Can it be a suit- YES

Can it be a BF- YES

Is there a line in the sand with evidenciary support to either- NO

Bill and i discussed the stretch cloth issue at length- he is CORRECT in everything he has said ( dont take my word- ask him- we went into that conversation like 2 professionals having a brainstorming meeting)

Are there alternatives that could have produced this- YES and I am also CORRECT

Does the film, its quality/focus etc give enough VISUAL information to make an ACCURATE determination- NO it does not

Was the technology available as the raw materials to make such available- YES

Were any of these cost prohibitive- NO

Could it be manufactured by skills available to a layman- YES

Can I reproduce that film with either modern capability or 1967 materials ( especially after the answers i got in the last 40 odd hours) YES- hand me a PO and i'm on it tomorrow

OK, all that said- would anything done add or subtract any validity to the PGF- NO

Will it show the PGF is live or memorex- NO

Will it answer any question as to who did what and how in 1967- NO

would it answer any legitimate questions surrounding what patterson et al did or didnt do- NO

Will it make me or Bill "more" right or wrong- NO

Will it resolve anything regarding the PGF- NO

What else are you seeking that i didnt cover?

you will get the card and such- still working on the message

[Bill]

Wolftrax:

NFT's "2 way stretch" fur is a weave that allows you to pull or stretch the base to a longer dimension on one direction only (across the bolt width, if I recall). And the hair attached or woven into it, as I recall was sparce.

But the key, in Fred's letter describing it, was "stretch but no return".

Return means elastic memory, the capacity of an elastic material, once stretched or elongated, to return to its original shape (to contract). The words "return" and "memory" are more or less interchangible, as far as I know.

So the 2 way stretch material could be pulled (stretched around a curved shape without having to cut and tailor in so many darts or wedges), so tailoring the flat cloth to a curved shape (like a stroller costume) was easier.

But without return, once you stretch it, it remaines stretched, and then if you move in a manner that compresses it, it just buckles or folds.

All way or 4 way stretch spandix had elastic returm. To tailor it, you stretched it somewhat to the neutral size you wanted, or to a smaller size than your person wearing it (so it stretched as the person got dressed in it), and because it was stretched partially, it had more potential to stretch even more, or the potential to compress (relax) as well. So if, for example, you make the leg section as a tapering cylinder, and stretch it slightly to go down to the ankle, when you walk and bend the knee, the fabric doesn't buckle or crunch up behind the knee. It actually shrinks (compresses) as the inside knee skin ares shrinks, and stretches over the outer knee cap.

So the true key word here was "no return" for the 2 way stretch material. You must have a fabric with elastic return to have what you see in the PG film, if it's a suit.

Bill

Edited February 6, 2008 by Bill

[Guest]

Great stuff Bill!

Just trying to catch up with a couple of observations and a question:

There appears to be 2 contentions here if these materials were used for the suit:

1) Hollywood got involved (for some unknown reason) to create a suit using available materials (foam & stretch fur cloth, which was never used again until the 80's) so a cowboy could perpetrate a hoax. Then Hollywood vehemently denies any involvement and actually claims the suit was crap. Then Hollywood claims they did make it but it was still crap. (Maybe that's why they rejected these materials for future projects).

or

2) RP decided not to modify an existing gorilla suit, but instead create a superior one from scratch, with foam and fur on stretch fabric and/or water bladders, hand extensions, etc. Then he attempted to hide this masterpiece with some long distance shaky footage.

Both seam like a stretch. :evillaugh:

Longtabber, I know you're looking at this from an engineering standpoint and you watch the PGF and think, "hell I could make that suit", ergo so could RP. But confidence doesn't get the job done.

Not trying to pick on you LT, but you're a little too sure of yourself here (as engineers tend to be). You haven't worked out all the logistics and you can't know how difficult the task would be until you make a best attempt to measure the film and establish the "outer" dimensions of the suit. Plus your assumptions re the suit quality is based solely on it being a suit. But the fur does not appear to be a uniform length (as I imagine fur cloth to be) and there is no evidence of hackles, pleating, seams, hand extensions, etc. How much attention to detail is reasonable? How much would you apply to constructing a suit? You have to establish the requirements first.

IF it could be established, for example, that the mime's legs were shorter than average, how would you incorporate this into a suit? Prosthetic legs? Find a disproportioned human to play the mime? Unless you do the preliminary analysis to establish the dimensions of the suit, how can you claim you could replicate it?

Does the film, its quality/focus etc give enough VISUAL information to make an ACCURATE determination- NO it does not

In your opinion. I don't recall seeing "film metrologist" on your resume. Before you say that these are intangible elements that can't be derived from the film, you need to know that there are several technologies for analysing film that haven't been applied to the PGF; namely motion analysis, feature tracking, image averaging, deconvolution and more. The film isn't out of focus, it just has limited resolution, as do any images. The slow shutter speed and camera motion has created most of the distortion you see. But the distortion varies significantly over the entire film. Also, the film processing has set these limits. Note the quality of the cibachrome stills vs copies of the film. Your opinion is based on whatever copy of the PGF you're viewing.

So, is there a consensus that the suit wasn't cobbled together from left over creature suit parts? Competency and resources are significant here. I realize this is just discussion, but it's based on a lot of assumptions. Conversely, Bill's approach is to identify the obstacles needed for a suitmaker to pull this off...and they seem substantial. Regardless of how available the materials were in 67.

Regarding Bob H being in the suit. The suit he describes doesn't resemble foam and stretch fur fabric. Which brings me to my question for Bill..

If the suit was created from a tight fitting foam undersuit with attached stretch fur fabric, how would you put this suit on? Could you attach the fabric onto the foam and put it on like a shirt and pants then voila, perfect fit? Or would this require seams and components parts? Dfoot's suit (minus the fur) is obviously component parts with stretch fabric pulled over the foam undersuit. How would a suit created from these materials be constructed?

[Guest]

To All:

I just got an e-mail back from National Fiber Technology, the company that actually DOES make the stretch furcloth we use in Hollywood for suits, the stuff I've been saying wasn't available until the 1980's, and the new owner/manager, Fred Fehrman, provided me with the following:

Dear Bill,

John and Alan retired in 2001.

My partner, Kim Clark and I, have been here ever since.

Here is the History as we know it, although, we are open to hearing other

versions as well.

Spandex was introduced in 1958.

It was used for undergarments and hose.

It was not used by a sporting team until 1969. (French skiers.)

Then it came to general use in sporting goods in the 1970's.

It was fully introduced into general outerwear fashion by the 1980's.

Reid-Meredith Wig Co was started in the late 1950s. A Patent for hair fabric

was granted in about 1962.

Hair fabric blanks were bought buy FX people starting in the 1970's, but

these where made on a 2-way knit backing. (Give but no return.)

It was not until about 1981 that Spandex was introduced to the hair fabric

process.

It was developed by Hair Technology (now NFT) for Henson and Disney.

So 2 way stretch fur was available in the 1960's but true 4-way did not come

about until the 1980's.

Granted, FX people and the like have been Hand tying on Spandex since the

60's, but 4-way stretch hair-fabric was not manufactured commercially until

the 1980's.

If your associate has some alternative facts, manufacturers, buyers and

users) please let us know.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Fred Fehrmann (rhymes with hair-man)

& Kim Clark

NFT

The 4 way stretch Fred refers to is the suit furcloth now Hollywood standard, the one I kept saying wasn't available in the 1960's.

If you Google "National Fiber Technology", you should get their website and product descriptions, in case anybody wants to research them more.

Bill

Bill - I know this may seem silly.. But I would you please "bottom line" this for me and others.

Based on the above quote: Was this fur available for purchase by those in the movie industry or the general public?