Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow-Logic, I know you are going to cite this study, that shows Feral Humans growing a hair suit due to being unclothed.

I wait for your response.

You didn't have wait long now did you?! Its a good read and if you can't get all the words maybe get somebody to read it to you.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/hypertrichosis.php

And here another part of my follicle post that you can fact check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Although humans appear hairless compared to other primates, with notable hair growth occurring chiefly on the top of the head, underarms and pubic area, the average human has more hair follicles on his or her body than the average chimpanzee. The main distinction is that human hairs are shorter, finer, and less heavily pigmented than the average chimpanzee's, thus making them harder to see.[45]

The hue of human hair and skin is determined by the presence of pigments called melanins. Human skin hues can range from very dark brown to very pale pink, while human hair ranges from blond to brown to red to, most commonly, black,[46] depending on the amount of melanin (an effective sun blocking pigment) in the skin and hair, with hair melanin concentrations in hair fading with increased age, leading to grey or even white hair. Most researchers believe that skin darkening was an adaptation that evolved as a protection against ultraviolet solar radiation. More recently, however, it has been argued that particular skin colors are an adaptation to balance folate, which is destroyed by ultraviolet radiation, and vitamin D, which requires sunlight to form.[

[Guest Tontar]

Part of the basis of proclaiming that Patty is most likely authentic is the idea that creature suit technology was not adequate in 1967 to produce a patchy haired, anatomy revealing form. Plus, the idea that creature and ape suits were non-gender. A LOT rests on this side of the argument.

In One Million Years BC, released in 1966 (one year before the filming of Patty), there are ape men featured twice in the film which have patchy hair of varying lengths, anatomy revealing, and gender revealing (with breasts). I snapped a couple of photos of our TV screen of a few bits of one scene and am attaching them here. One of them looks remarkably like the Jacob's Creature, in fact. I thought that was quite a strange coincidence. Don't know what that means, but it looks as if the Jacob's Creature may have been a star in one of Raquel Welch's best movies!

Point being, these "suits" look amazingly similar to Patty in that the shoulder blades and various other parts of the torso and body have lighter and darker shades, or textures, or lengths of hair. Additional movies and television programs that featured fairly realistic looking suits would be Skullduggery, which also had males (complete with mostly or partially disguised male parts) and females (complete with breasts), released in 1970.

I'm not trying to undermine the idea that Patty is authentic. I want to believe that she IS authentic. But I also don't want to base my "belief" on false assumptions and conclusions, such as the idea that the ape makeup in Planet Of The Apes was the best there was back then, because there are other examples that are extremely good that simply can't be, or rather shouldn't be ignored.

Aaron

[wiiawiwb]

Aaron (Tontar)

I'd have to disagree with you based on the pictures you posted. I don't see any similarity at all but maybe it's just me.

[Guest yetifan]

Tontar said:

I'm not trying to undermine the idea that Patty is authentic. I want to believe that she IS authentic. But I also don't want to base my "belief" on false assumptions and conclusions, such as the idea that the ape makeup in Planet Of The Apes was the best there was back then, because there are other examples that are extremely good that simply can't be, or rather shouldn't be ignored.

Well said. And good visual examples Tontar.

[Guest]

Tontar said:

Well said. And good visual examples Tontar.

Second that.

Although they still look like Chaka to me.

[Guest Tontar]

Aaron (Tontar)

I'd have to disagree with you based on the pictures you posted. I don't see any similarity at all but maybe it's just me.

Okay, try these for starters. 2 shots of Patty, and one shot of the cave man from One Million Years BC. Check the arms, the hands, the posture. Similar is one word for these shots.

Second image, one shot of the Jacob's Creature, one shot of the cave-ape from One Million Years BC. Not only the hair distribution, but even the poses are "similar".

You can agree or disagree as to whether you see similarities, but I'm not trying to prove anything as real or fake. ALL I am saying is that it is a bit disingenuous to base the probability of Patty's being authentic on the idea that creature suit technology was not advanced enough at that time in history. There were "similar" hairy folk being portrayed in films quite nicely and convincingly back then. They were not all hack costume jobs. And some of them featured breasts and other assorted gender anatomy back then. So to say Patty has to be real, or the probability is that she had to be real "based on" no other costumes being seen that were realistic or gender specific, is using a biased and incomplete set of facts.

Again, I want to believe Patty was the real deal. But I also know that there were good hair suits in films before patty was seen, complete with breasts. The probability thing can go many different ways based on what the foregone conclusions are meant to be. She is, or she isn't real no amount of arguing will change that. No amount of leveraging true and false information will change it either.

[bipedalist]

Well except for the lack of a butt on the Patty-wannabe suit, you got something there!

[Guest]

Well except for the lack of a butt on the Patty-wannabe suit, you got something there!

The "suits" you have pictured are more prosthetic than suit, and skin tight ones at that. "Patty" is much more massive, yet maintains muscle definition. Padding out a suit to those proportions would give it a "teddy bear" or "Ewok" look that it doesn't have.

Furthermore, you say NOTHING about the fact that to construct such a suit (allowing for a suit for purposes of discussion), would be hideously expensive AND require the services of the fx department of a major motion picture studio. At no time has any evidence been adduced to show how Patterson and Gimlin could a) afford to commission a suit or have a "money man" to commission such a suit, let alone c) have the connections to get a private project like that done by a professional FX studio.

[wiiawiwb]

I'm honestly not trying to be debative but in just don't see the similarities. The example on the right compares the suit to a bear. The example on the left is like comparing Don Knotts to Arnold Swarzenegger. A still picture is one thing. Seeing muscles flex and move is quite another.

[Drew]

CROW LOGIC-

You can't make a claim like this:

It has also been found that feral humans such as children raised with wolves etc have in fact a discernable hair suit. It is thought to be the body?s reaction to being unclothed and having to moderate body temperature without artificial covering.

And when asked:

Crow-Logic, I know you are going to cite this study, that shows Feral Humans growing a hair suit due to being unclothed.

You can not provide a link to a Feral Children website, that is not a study.

You didn't have wait long now did you?! Its a good read and if you can't get all the words maybe get somebody to read it to you.

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/hypertrichosis.php

That website itself explains hairy children with the following three explanations, and makes no reference to it being "THE BODY'S REACTION TO BEING UNCLOTHED AND HAVING TO MODERATE TEMPARATURE WITHOUT ARTIFICIAL COVERING"

Here are the three reasons your website lists.

Explanations

Descriptions of hairy children have understandably been responsible for casting doubts on the veracity of reports of feral children. There are three possible explanations for this bizarre phenomena.

1: Somebody made it up

One explanation is that someone made up these stories in their entirety and embellished them with hairiness, or invented the fact that the children were hairy. This doesn't seem likely, as the result of adding this implausible characteristic would simply be to make the stories less credible.

However, it is interesting to note that there are no photographs of feral children covered in hair.

2: The children weren't hairy

An alternative possibility is that the children were very dirty, and that this looked like hair. Feral children would be filthy indeed. And although they were supposedly impervious to cold, it's difficult to imagine Victor, for example, going to much trouble to keep clean using the ice-cold water available to him in that bitter winter of 1799/1800. But these children were caught only with some difficulty, and had to be physically manhandled. No one that close to them could have mistaken dirt for hair.

3: Hypertrichosis

There is a condition which does cause hair to grow all over the body. Known as hypertrichosis, it can be caused by a number of factors, including two that are likely to be relevant: malnutrition and untreated infection. Of these, malnutrition seems to be the most likely explanation (hypertrichosis is a common symptom of anorexia nervosa), although both are possible causes in feral children.

Epic PFAIL!!!111! by the way Crow Logic.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Drew

[Guest Tontar]

I'm honestly not trying to be debative but in just don't see the similarities. The example on the right compares the suit to a bear. The example on the left is like comparing Don Knotts to Arnold Swarzenegger. A still picture is one thing. Seeing muscles flex and move is quite another.

I'm not going to debate whether or not the Jacob's Creature is a bear or not, but this still from the movie did resemble that pose somewhat. I suppose that the point I brought up is only relevant to people that have open minds. The claim has been that Hollywood creature suit technology was not adequate in 1967 to produce anything remotely similar to Patty, and that claim has been used to support the idea that Patty is authentic. The movie, One Million Years BC, as well as the other examples I listed, demonstrate that claim as inaccurate. That creature suits that were realistic did exist and were used, and some even did have female breasts.

Hollywood did have convincing hair suits, and did have female ape people at the time of the Patterson film. That doesn't mean Patty was not the real deal, but some of the elements of the study in probability were based on false assumptions. Patty was either the real deal, or a hoax. The idea that a hoax was not possible or not probable, BASED ON 1967 COSTUME TECHNOLOGY, is not as solid or secure as some people want to insist. blind belief and rejecting objective evidence puts the whole subject into the category of religion and not science or fact. One "fact" that is being rejected, is that suit technology did exist, contrary to popular opinion. I am only pointing that out, even if some people don't want to believe it.

rent the movie, see how realistic the suits are.

Aaron

[wiiawiwb]

That's fine but just because you point it out doesn't mean someone can honestly disagree.

[Guest]

I'm not going to debate whether or not the Jacob's Creature is a bear or not, but this still from the movie did resemble that pose somewhat. I suppose that the point I brought up is only relevant to people that have open minds. The claim has been that Hollywood creature suit technology was not adequate in 1967 to produce anything remotely similar to Patty, and that claim has been used to support the idea that Patty is authentic. The movie, One Million Years BC, as well as the other examples I listed, demonstrate that claim as inaccurate. That creature suits that were realistic did exist and were used, and some even did have female breasts.

Hollywood did have convincing hair suits, and did have female ape people at the time of the Patterson film. That doesn't mean Patty was not the real deal, but some of the elements of the study in probability were based on false assumptions. Patty was either the real deal, or a hoax. The idea that a hoax was not possible or not probable, BASED ON 1967 COSTUME TECHNOLOGY, is not as solid or secure as some people want to insist. blind belief and rejecting objective evidence puts the whole subject into the category of religion and not science or fact. One "fact" that is being rejected, is that suit technology did exist, contrary to popular opinion. I am only pointing that out, even if some people don't want to believe it.

rent the movie, see how realistic the suits are.

Aaron

And I've already demolished your so-called "similarities". Some fake hair punched into a unitard is NOT the same as the type of sophisticated costuming/prosthetics that would be necessary to create "Patty".

[bipedalist]

Reminds me of that nonprofit donation I recently made to: Open Minds United for Unitard Malfunctions

[Guest Tirademan]

OK, here's some stuff I've posted before about suits and "hoaxing."

The "must be a guy in a suit" answer was offered way before Patterson was born!

Seems that making furry suits and terrorizing your neighbors goes waaay back...or at least claiming someone did does!

tirademan