Creature Suit Analysis - Part 8 - Neck Hackles

[Guest soarwing]

I'm still trying to figure out how it can be stated that a layman could build the Patty suit, if there's not enough visual information in the PGF to tell WHAT is shown on the film itself.

[Bill]

First, I wanted to review the generalized discussion on fur "availability" comparing Longtabber's "yes of course it was available" stance with my "real world, we couldn't find it" position.

Available discussion;

1. Each industry has it's jargon, it's specialized terminology. An insider knows the jargon and can "talk the talk", can communicate effectively with another insider. An outsider probably doesn't know all the terminology, and that can't even effectively communicate their need to the industry sales rep trying to help them fill an order.

Example: I go to Longtabber, and ask him to help me find some stretch fur. So he asks me, what kind of substrate do I want? And I think a substrate is a layer of soil in my garden, so I have no idea why he's talking about my back yard.

So he moves on to asking me about the pile. But I think that I only want two yards and if that's wadded up and thrown on the ground, it wouldn't really make a pile. More like a small mound. So I don't want a pile of fur, just a few yards.

So he's getting frustrated here and tries to move on, to make some progress, and asks, "okay, how about the denier?" Well, I hardly know the guy, so why should I have dinner with him.

The point being, if I don't know that a substrate is the base weave, and the pile is the fiber woven into the base to form the mass, and the denier is the unit of fiber weight or thickness, I can't even talk to him in a way that he could write up an order or search his catalogue for a product having the particulars of my need.

This lack of fluency in a specialized industry terminology is a powerful obstacle for anybody going to another industry and trying to buy something.

2. The usual workaround, when example number one (above) fails miserably, and he turns out to be a lousy dinner date, is to actually get a sample of what you want, go to a vendor, and just give it to the guy and say "I want to buy more of this stuff? Have you got some?"

Like CrowLogic's interesting comment about ball bearings for a vintage Jaguar automobile, you might go to a metal parts supplier and take this round metal thingie that's smooth and hard, and ask the store person for more. The store person looks at it, pulls out a mircometer and measures the thingie, and yells to the back room, "Have we got any 2mm tempered steel ball bearings?" (or something like that). But you, the customer, don't have a mircometer and can't tell tempered steel from aluminum siding. You could not talk the talk. But with something in hand, you can at least say, "can I have more of this thingie?"

But in the late 60's and 70's us creature guys diudn't even have a sample, a 3" square swatch of stretch fabric so we could go to a fabric guy and put it in his hand and say, "Can I get more of this stuff?" We didn't even know if it existed, and we didn't know the industry lingo, so if we even tried to talk to a fabric industry guy, that industry person would immediately assume we need a R&D contract just to finalize the exact specifications that satisfied the customer's need, before they could set up the mill for the actual product run.

So not only did we not know all the fabric industry terminology sufficient to write up an order, but we didn't even know what we wanted was existant, and we certainly didn't have a sample swatch so we could cut through the jargon bottleneck and just ask "Can I get more of this?"

And we didn't have R&D budgets.

So, real world result, we couldn't get the stretch fur, even if, as Longtabber continues to assure us, it was "available".

Gigantofootecus Post #104

I think my set of notes #5, does a good job of explaining how a suit might be built. Please check back with that. If it still doesn't answer your questions, then I'll take another stab at it.

Melissa:

Referencing NFT's letter, the company would sell to anyone, industry or public. But they only promoted thier products within the industry, their most obvious customers. I, as many others in the industry, only found then by referral from others in the business (the industry "grapevine" so to speak)

But you could have bought it, for your prom dress in high school, if you wanted to have an unforgetable look. It would have cost you about $50 a yard (I think, back then)

:evillaugh:

Bill

[Guest]

Once the muscle padding is assembled, with it's closure devices (zippers, velcro, snaps, or such), the mime comes in for a fitting session, to try it on, see how it fits, and test its mobility, how much freedom of movement it allows the mime. Tight areas (if any) with potential to restrict circulation are examined. Later, any adjustments are made based on the evaluations made during this fitting session. If substantial adjustments are made, another fitting sesion is needed to verify the modifications were successful and sufficient to allow the mime the necessary comfort and mobility.

THE FUR

The tailoring of the final surface hair material then can begin. A critical decision is whether to glue or sew the fur to the padding suit, or glue or sew the fur into its own suit structure that can be dressed onto the mime seperate from the padding suit. Both methods have been used successfully.

But in this circumstance, the front seam design, and the awkward way the mime must step into the suit, doing it once, with fur attached to the padding, seems more pragmatic. Better to do this awkward dressing procedure once, not twice. So it is decided to sew and glue the fur to the muscle padding structure.

The nature of the fur, being short and dense, and the need for critically smooth and tight tailoring seams to allow the fur the smoothest blend from one section to another, or across a wedge or dart, all suggest my best blends of one fur segction or piece to another will be done with cloth gussets and glue. That allows the fur cloth base of each section to butt up against the second piece with the hair lay maintaining the best flow and continuity. sewing invariable entails some type of bending the base for a tight sewn join. A loosely sewn join allowing the two furcloth bases to butt against each other with no beld or overlap is a loose sewn seam, and one piece of the furcloth can easily fold, the sewing acting like a hinge.

So a glued seam with a cloth gusset panel under the furcloth bases will allow the smoothest, tightest seaming of furcloth sections and close tailoring seams best. But the sacrifice is some flexibility and mobility to the already stiff-backed fur. And the added stiffness of the glued sections alos creates a discontinuity in the overall furcloth form flexigility, because certain lines or areas have more stiffness than others.

Closures are added to the fur suit structure to close up the segments needed to be opened for the mime's dresing and undressing.

Thanks Bill. Sorry for the cross-thread references. I reviewed #5 and you did address my question. So it appears that you favour a single step process of attaching the fur stretch cloth to the padding, then the mime is fitted with the suit components with a combination of seams and snaps. Bob H's contention was that the suit was put on in 3 pieces (t-shirt, hip waders and head) and that the hands and feet were already attached, which sounds a lot like how a traditional suit would be worn. But given these materials, in your opinion, is a 3 piece suit possible?

Thanx again, GF

Edited February 6, 2008 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

So the suit Bob H wore was made out of some stretchable hairy car seat covers! Or maybe he just covered a suit with rubber cement, and then rolled around in a pile of hair clippings they had acquired from multiple barber shops!

Materials available at the time = yes

Ability to make a suit out of so said materials = yes

Ability for a layman to make the suit = yes

Ability for a master suit maker from the F/X industry to make the suit = no?

This is where the kink is. We have it being presented as possible a layman made the suit, but we also have dynamics of it being virtually impossible for it to be a suit made by a master suit maker. This is according to the previous 7 and now 8 articles posted by Bill.

If creating a suit that could handle the motion of the mime, and the ability to hide all of the seams, finding the perfect material that was unknown to the F/X industry to use on the suit, the complexities of the mask, the elongated arms, why would all of this go away if some novice person were to try and make the suit? Wouldn't they face the same complications, only they wouldn't possess the knowledge of how to get past it?

Bill and LT, the verbal dance routine you guys are performing is very informative, and I'm soaking it up like a sponge. It just seems like you're going in a circle, although it be an ever expanding circle, but the results stay the same. We end up back where we started. You gentlemen talked it out, explained your perspectives, and compared notes. You're coming across as having reached an understanding and agreement, but I'm still seeing the same original contradiction with nothing resolved. It's like watching a duel of equally matched opponents in two separate styles.

So the materials were in fact technically available. So said materials could have been made into a suit. The technical aspects of creating a suit as it appears on the film however would have been an impossible task for a master of the craft, but it could have been made by a novice layman?

What exactly is the probability that it is a suit?

What degree of expertise and technical know how would it have taken to produce the suit?

If a novice could have created the suit, how would they have overcome the problems that a master suit maker would have faced had they been working on the same project?

[Bill]

Gigantofootecus:

The t-shirt/hip waders/head design with hands and feet attached (to shirt and waders, respectively) is possible. No technical obstacle. It limits the wearer's size, because slight adjustments of arm or leg length are usually absorbed in the overlap of shirt sleave overlapping seperate gloves, and leggings overlapping the seperate feet/shoes piece.

Plus we like shirt sleaves with naturally tapering wrists, but to do so, you ned to have seperate gloves, and a wrist that opens up like a short sleave has a split at the wrist which a button or cuff link then closes,(for a suit, we might close that split section with a velcro flap). Same for a tapered leg. Getting a foot through a tapered leg at the ankle can get tricky. Better to put on the suit pants, then fold the ankle fur away, put on the foot/shoe and then fold the ankle fur back down to overlap the footing piece.

So, three piece suit possible? Yes. Probable, in amateurish usage, maybe.

OklahomaSquatch:

You actually hit the truth with the start of your post. Possible, yes, probable, no.

Longtabber is taking the analytical approach, where "possible" is a more finite and determinable condition, while "probable" or "likely" is a far more subjective opinion, based on one's knowledge and perspective.

Apples and oranges.

Were the materials available? Possibly, yes, probably, no.

Could an amateur make the suit? Possibly, yes, probably no.

Was there a secret fabric mill making true 4 way stretch fur cloth before NFT did in the 80's, a secret fabric mill weaving spandix apparel suits before 1969? Possible, yes, probable no.

Longtabber is the Lawyer for the defense and I'm the laywer for the plaintiff. You're the jury. Sooner or later, we have to give it to you and you decide.

:evillaugh:

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill, my father got a chance to listen to Bob Gimlin and Owen Caddy speak last month in Washington. Mr. Caddy showed enhancements of the face in the PG film. My father said that the face was more ape like than human and that the mouth opened and closed. Mr. Caddy said out of respect for Mrs. Pattersons copyrights on the film he was not posting the enhancements online.

My question is, have you seen these enhancements, and if so, what is your professional opinion of them?

[Guest cryptidon]

My question crosses over from one of Bill's other threads.

Assuming for a moment that all of the material was at Roger Patterson's or John Chamber's disposal to make this suit. Isn't a body required to build it around?

In other words, whether this is a state of the art custom suit, or a 'cannibalized' off the rack job - would it not require customization to fit the intended wearer or mime?

Is the assumption that P&G befriended Bob H. because he looked like he would fit their suit? I have not found any references to Bob H. claiming the suit was built around him.

I would point to Bob H's donning of the Morris suit as a perfect example of how an "off the rack" suit would appear on a mime to whom the suit was not customized.

I should point out, I'm not trying to derail a discussion of materials into a Bob H thread, but simply would like clarity in understanding that regardless if the suit is an amateur miracle or a professional standard, is it likely or unlikely that the wearer would need to be involved throughout the design and manufacture, regardless of the material used?

Edited February 6, 2008 by cryptidon

[Bill]

Matt(OklahomaSquatch):

here's an afterthought, really trying here to put this into a respectful perspective.

We have a circumstantial argument, where the absolute potential ("possible") is being weighted against the compromised limitations of real life "probable", and those compromised limitations of the real world cannot be qualtified in any numerical or measurable way.

And we have no empirical evidence so solid, reliable, testable and unambiguous to rely upon, which if we had it, would clearly prevail over the circumstantial agruments.

Like a game of Tic Tac Toe, the "possible/probable" match ends in a draw every time, unless you are willing to give your own weight to the probabilities and make a judgment of your own, or accept the judgment of whichever proponent you feel made the better case.

I wish we could get to a conculsion more finite, more impartially determined to one proven conclusion. I personally think some more conclusive hard data could be determined, by scientific experiments testing the flexibility of the furcloths of the time, but there's no funding on the table to do so as yet.

So I sympathize with you if you feel we should be getting to a conclusion and keep asking "are we there yet?"

Remember November:

I have seen a few frames Owen has enhanced, but not all of his efforts in that respect. I am still studying the face through these enhanced images, including my own replication process, but I'm not far enough along to offer any conclusion (I'm trying to actually model a 3D digital head and see if I can position it with respect to a sunlight source, and replicate the light/shadows of specific frames)

And frankly, I don't exactly understand the enhancement process, so judging the results of a technology you don't understand is an unwise step, IMHO. But I'm working on understanding it.

Cryptidon:

Yes, a suit is generally built around a body, the intended wearer,actor, mime, etc. Building a padded suit is near impossible without having the human form to wear it determined first. I have heard of generic unpadded suits, but never a generic padded one.

If Patty's a suit, she's padded superbly for a snug fit.

But you can fit it to one person, and then end up substituting another person of generally similar physique. If the new substitute person isn't of the same physique, then you have to "re-fit" the suit to the new person.

Bill

[Guest Remember November]

Bill, are you familiar with Grover Krantz measurements of the PG film subject. He estimated the height of the subject to be 6'6'' with a shoulder width of 34''. He states that the average mans shoulder width is around 18''. So if the subject is a suit, when one goes to stick their arms out, the armholes would be so far apart that they would prohibit one’s self from putting their arms down. So one must bend their arm at the elbow and hold prosthetic extensions that move at the wrist and fingers. But now the shoulder width would be wider than 34''.

I have provided an image of me (I hope it loads). I am 6'6'' with a shoulder width of 20". The red lines are approximately 7'' from my shoulders illustrating a 34'' shoulder width. As you can see my shoulders end where the suits arms would begin.

My question is, is this a valid argument, and if so how would you address this problem if you were to recreate the PG film.

[Guest OklahomaSquatch]

Bill, I completely understand. I apologize for my frustrations coming through as they did, but I assure you it is not directed at you and/or Longtabber. I've always had a strong scientific mind and an analytical approach to most problems. Since getting involved heavily into this mystery seven years ago I have found myself at the same point time and time again. Every answer, every clue, every conclusion, only leads to more. Just when you think you have something figured out, 10 more questions arise. It's like climbing out of a sand pit. We're dealing with probabilities, and wanting the results to be definite. This is impossible to accomplish. I commend the time and effort you are putting into your own analysis, and now that extends to Longtabber as well. As I stated I am soaking it up like a sponge, as is apparent with most people who have been following you along this journey. Like any true scientific approach, it takes as long as it takes. You can't skip over parts just to hurry up and reach a conclusion, or that conclusion will be faltered. As new evidence and information comes along, it too has to be worked into the equation if the situation calls for it. In this case it certainly does.

Matt K.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Bill, I completely understand. I apologize for my frustrations coming through as they did, but I assure you it is not directed at you and/or Longtabber. I've always had a strong scientific mind and an analytical approach to most problems. Since getting involved heavily into this mystery seven years ago I have found myself at the same point time and time again. Every answer, every clue, every conclusion, only leads to more. Just when you think you have something figured out, 10 more questions arise. It's like climbing out of a sand pit. We're dealing with probabilities, and wanting the results to be definite. This is impossible to accomplish. I commend the time and effort you are putting into your own analysis, and now that extends to Longtabber as well. As I stated I am soaking it up like a sponge, as is apparent with most people who have been following you along this journey. Like any true scientific approach, it takes as long as it takes. You can't skip over parts just to hurry up and reach a conclusion, or that conclusion will be faltered. As new evidence and information comes along, it too has to be worked into the equation if the situation calls for it. In this case it certainly does.

Matt K.

I hadn't given the Sasquatch/Bigfoot issue a lot of thought in the past ten years but I'm not at all surprised to see many of the some old questions coming an going. But the work that Bill, Longtabber and dare I say even Dfoot have undertaken I believe will actually come to some sort of a meangingful conclusion. Its actually a win win situation. If the PGF shows a human in a suit then we get to understand how it was done. If it proves that a suit couldn't have been made then there is still the awesome possibility that the PGF is a rare and fortunate document of a special animal. We loose if the debate rages on and good minds expend energy into what is an enjoyable yet infinate black hole. Right now some good minds are gaining traction with this thing. I'm excited.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Crowlogic

[Bill]

Remember November:

I met Grover once and chatted with him for about an hour, but I can't say I knew the details of all his research or speculative studies.

If you look at my Notes, part 6, Comparative anatomy, I did put a digital human "inside" Patty, and while the human arms are slightly inside the Patty shoulder joints, you could cheat this with shoulder/upper arm padding at the deltoid and bicep/tricep regions, and possibly make it work. You wouldn't notice the mis-alligned shoulder joints (real human compared to suit apparent anatomy) unless the figure did jumping jacks, in other words, lifting the arms straight out to the sides, fully horizontal or even higher.

I suspect Grover may have been measuring to the outer edges of the shoulder fur, so you need to subtract 2-3 inches of overall width for hair, then 2-3 inches for deltoids, and you'd get a shoulder socket width of about 28 to 30". I can't say this categorically, because I don't know how he derived his measurements.

I think there's a margin of "estimate room" on Patty as between 5'9" and maybe 6'6", but my personal calculations can't come closer. But I may be able to do more extensive and precise 3D digital figure referencing in the future, time permitting.

To build a suit with wider shoulders, padding does a lot, and you could cheat the shoulder width easily 6" more than the real shoulders, based on a 20" to 21" outer width (mine are about 21"). So you could widen them by a factor of 28% to 30% and have a reasonably good "cheat" as long as you enforce the "no jumping jacks" rule.

Similarly, if you cheat the shoulders higher (as has been suggested) to make the arms appear longer, the strong arm swing forward to back would ruin that illusion, because the swing each way allows you to fix the rotation point. But the rotation point is different from the apparent width, side to side.

Each type of cheat has it's limits, it's range of how much you can move about and still fool people.

But I personally didn't see anything in the film to suggest an outragiously widened fake shoulder (could have been slightly widened fake, though), and nothing to suggest any faking at all of shoulder rotational point.

Keep in mind, a 34" wide shoulder on a 6'6" body is a 43% width to height, and Patty doesn't look that wide to me, and her slumped posture would make her look even widen in proportion to height. So as a preliminary reply, I'd be cautious of accepting Grover's measurements until I knew more of his methodology in achieving them.

Matt:

Trust me, buddy, we all feel the frustration at times. Ever see the movie "Blow-up", with the guy's obcessive ever-enlarging of a photo thinking he's seeing a murder?

At some point, to solve this in your own head (and each one of us has to pick his/her own point), we just start relying on probability, likelyness, to say "I just don't believe that could have happened, the odds just seem to great". This goes for and against, equally.

Longtabber, my friend, is still putting "possible" to the forefront, as more weighted, while i am clearly thinking "get real, man, that's just not likely" in some of our lively discussions. It's a personal decision ultimately each one of us faces, if we reserve the right to make up our own minds.

Thank you, Crow Logic, for that very thoughtful comment. I sure hope I'm adding to the solution instead of digging the black hole deeper, and I know Longtabber is truly trying to do the same, clarify based on his knowledge, always honest, always accurately represented. Can't speak for the third side of the triangle, though. Never could comprehend the banished one's concept of "relevence" (Still don't know what a Morlock from "The Time Machine" has to do with this)

Bill

[Guest longtabber PE]

Bill and LT, the verbal dance routine you guys are performing is very informative, and I'm soaking it up like a sponge. It just seems like you're going in a circle, although it be an ever expanding circle, but the results stay the same. We end up back where we started. You gentlemen talked it out, explained your perspectives, and compared notes. You're coming across as having reached an understanding and agreement, but I'm still seeing the same original contradiction with nothing resolved. It's like watching a duel of equally matched opponents in two separate styles.

Sorry I'm late ( had a situation develop yesterday)

The "issue" of the age old Suit V animal debate of the PGF will most probably NEVER be solved because of the film itself. Note- for what I'm about to say- i'm deliberately excluding EVERYTHING other than the film subject itself. ( all who may have done whats or gotten materials where or any methods available or possible)

Replication ( yes or no) which would answer COULD it be done wouldnt address whether is WAS done in this film.

The size ( if it could be verified accuately) could be a major factor ( scaling to the alleged foot print is probably the best that will ever be able to be done)

The "fur"- if the film was in better focus- a possible determination could be made- it cant be

Film subject articulation- if it was doing complex motions- you would probably tell immediately- its just strolling tho

Thats why we have what we have

[Guest]

Film subject articulation- if it was doing complex motions- you would probably tell immediately- its just strolling tho

Question, there have been 2 independent labs that have looked at the film now and tried to use humans to replicate the exact movements of "Patty".. Both labs have agreed, there is something unusual about the knee movement..

Have you listened to these opinions, and if so, what is your take on them?

[Drew]

Question, there have been 2 independent labs that have looked at the film now and tried to use humans to replicate the exact movements of "Patty".. Both labs have agreed, there is something unusual about the knee movement..

Have you listened to these opinions, and if so, what is your take on them?

Do you have any links to those reports?

Edited February 7, 2008 by Drew