Creature Suit Analysis Part 11 - The next Step

[Guest comncents]

Thank you for the update. Have you put together enough info to establish a budget? This is an endeavor, that if presented in the correct forum with adequate finanacial controls, that I would be interested in donating to. You may be able to find your funding through small donators. In any case, I hope you continue posting info in regards to this experiment, especially the parameters of the shoot.

Re: the name, I have seen so many theories, explanations, etc on so many web sites that IMHO they lose touch with common sense. So, I try to bring this point of view in any posting ???

[Bill]

Comncents:

Thank you for inquiring about the research.

My main workstation, with all my research notes, died a motherboard failure a few days ago, so I'm waiting for a new workstation and a data recovery of my hard drive to a new portable drive. I expect to be back to full functionality by the week end, and I can better respond to your questions when I can access my files and notes.

So I will followup on this by next Monday.

Bill

[Bill]

Comncents:

I finally got my new workstation set up and so I'm responding to your inquiry about the proposed experiemnts.

The following is a generalized description of what I envision at present. It's generalized because I expect that I would have to finalize all details and scope of work with anyone who has interest in helping it to succeed. Also, you made a comment above about presenting this in "a correct forum". I'm not sure what you mean by this remark, and would welcome any descriptive elaboration on the comment.

Also, you may communicate with me either by Personal Message through this forum system, or e-mail me directly through my Creature Gallery website, ( www.billmunnscreaturegallery.com ) if you would like to discuss particulars in more detail or in confidential exchanges.

Thank you for your interest.

Bill

Issues related to funding my proposed experiments:

As I see it, there are three basic options for funding the experiments. One is a financial "angel" who simply believes in the merit of the research and has the financial resources to contribute. Two is a TV/Cable producer who will fund the research and use the results as part of a TV program, and possibly a later DVD release for sale. And Third is an independent investor who may want to help produce the research and the video documentation, and then later explore options to sell the content in some manner to recoup the investment.

The first is the ideal from the researcher standpoint, because the sole agenda is what the researcher aspires to learn, discover or prove. But this first is also the least likely to occur, so pragmatically, I have to assume the more likely options are the second or third. And in either case, the needs of the investing person or entity do impact on the research plan. And since I do not know anyone yet in the second or third category who is in the deal discussion phase, I have kept the research plan generalized and the budget somewhat flexible thus far.

But in general, here's what's involved:

A. Purchase of the HD Video camera, and purchase of an old Kodak 16mm film camera like the one used by Patterson, same prime lens, etc. and the tripod or mounting equipment to insure these two cameras take the same scene, with the HD Video camera zoomed in to the subject while the film camera positions a human-sized biped subject in essentially the same scale to frame size as the figure seen in the Patterson film. I'm estimating this will be about $2500 total.

B. Film stock and processing - Until the scope of the experiments is finalized, it is difficult to determine exactly how much film stock is needed, how much the processing costs will be, including duplications so the film scanned is second, third, or even forth generation (to compare with the common scans of the Patterson film which are mostly third generation, maybe even forth generation). Then the scanning costs themselves need to be accounted for. I have roughly estimated this at about $10,000.

C. Making the actual demonstration fur suit objects to film - Filming real zoo animals is just a matter to going to the zoo (or several zoos, depending on the animals to be filmed and sunlight conditions in their enclosures), but for the filming of suits or suit parts, these elements must be fabricated to specific experimental specifications. I have two options here. One is to job out the work to other "Creature Shops" (people who currently do film prosthetics and suits), in which case they will charge me for the labor, materials, their shop overhead, and their profit. The alternative is for me to open up my own small workshop, and do the fabrication of these suit components myself. Either way, there is cost for labor, materials, shop overhead and such. I would prefer to do the fabrication myself, because it allows me more control to create exactly what I need, it allows me to videotape the entire fabrication process, and document the fabrication method, which is a more scientific and credible method for good experiments, and I can give the most work for the labor budget, making this aspect of the work most cost efficient.

A rough estimate for this would be around $60,000 to $80,000.

D. Independent Analysis of filmed results - I would think it is essential that independent photo analysts be provided with the scanned images of various experiments, and wherever scans are of alternate subjects (like a head with some type of braided hair strands, and a head without), the image analysts are given "blind" copies, so they do not know which are with or without, except as determined by their own analysis. I assume these analysts would be paid for their service, but I do not yet have any quotes from people as to what those service fees would be and I don't have an inventory of exactly what number of image sets they would analyze. My best estimate currently for this aspect is about $10,000 but this may change.

Things to be tested - This is not a complete list, but rather is a summary of the elements I think should be tested. Other tests can be added.

1. All neck/head blends, as I diagrammed in my notes and charts, part 7, Neck Seams, should be build and tested for capacity to do the "look back" sequence.

2. A hand should be tested to see who a finger bend looks as compared to a wrist turn of slightly bent fingers, since people argue for both in various film studies.

3. Several head shapes (including one resembling a Star Trek face mask some people describe as the one likely used, in their opinions of a filmed hoax) should be made and filmed and studied to see if we can finally determine with some systematic way the actual head shape of the figure in the real film, since the studies of head shapes from frame to frame in the PG film do reveal curious discrepancies of head shape (even though we may reasonably assume that the actual head being filmed did not change shape during the filming).

4. Legs with contours resembling the highlight/shadow patters seen in the PG film should be fabricated and studied for any possible shifts of form.

5. The lines on the pelvis and right leg thigh should be replicated with obviously amateurishly constructed suit components to see in a "poor quality" fur suit will in fact match those various lines and fur irregularities through a walk cycle.

6. Various types of padding, including the infamous report of hip waders, should be built into fur suits and subjected to a walking sequence to study any padding impressions that can be seen on film.

Other tests will come to mind and so the above list should be considered a starting point, not a fixed inventory of tests.

Publishing Conclusions - While a sponsor may want to use highlighted segments as part of a TV Cable documentary program, and thus would edit the experiment footage, I believe some form of complete content should be available to all researchers and interested parties so they can do their own independent analysis of these experiments. I assume the material would need to be released on a multiple Disk DVD format package. of appropriate cost to reimburse for manufacturing and shipping costs, at a minimum. I would like to insure that the experimental material be released as fully and transparently as possible, so others can study the process of the experiments and not just have conclusions offered. The specifics of accomplishing this goal I remain flexible on.

Financial controls - I have no specifications on financial controls, but will be willing to consider any specified by a potential financial participant, and respect the concerns for any such participants that their investment be used as agreed, wisely, and effectively.

[Guest comncents]

Again, thank you for the info. My comment concerning the "correct forum" and "financial controls" is really in relation to a 4th funding option. This option would be soliciting "small" donations from interested parties. If I was considering "donating" or "investing" in any venture, I would want be sure the money was being spent on the project (i.e its not a scam). Please keep us informed.

[Guest Teresa]

I was thinking of that fourth option too, though with the expense involved I don't know if that would give Bill what he needs. I hope that angel shows up Bill!

[Bill]

Teresa:

Thank you for your well wishes.

My assumption is still the most likely backer would be one of the TV Cable channels doing a documentary, but we'll see what the future brings.

Bill

[Guest Bigfoot_Hunter]

I am very impressed with Bills analysis. In fact it is 40 years overdue.

Here is a link to a video showing an interview with Janos Prohaska and his opinion of the Patterson suit being a fake. The video is the one on the bottom left.

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/bigfoot_..._and_audio.html

[Guest Sasquatcher]

Not in 1967.

[Guest Tontar]

Can't wait to see the results Bill..

As far as this one goes..

My only qualms about using Velvia film stock is the accentuation of colors it produces. The images look great, but I wouldn't say they were truer. If you've ever used Photoshop's Velvia filter you'll know what I mean (which is something you could do after digitizing the film, if you do). Otherwise, I'd suggest you stick with Ectachrome. JMHO.

I've used Velvia film quite a bit, actually, and yes the colors come out extremely saturated, and the effect upon scanning has always been such that it appears almost as if the extreme saturation bleeds beyond the subject's color. Not that it does in reality, but I ended up not using Velvia 50 in the end because even though it is rated as a very slow film, 50, the grains were reportedly larger than say a 100 in Provia. Ectachrome would be a decent choice.

[Bill]

Tontar:

"Ectachrome would be a decent choice."

The Ektachrome has worked well so far. We did manage to scrounge up a roll of Kodachrome too and run some tests with it.

Bill

[Guest Tontar]

RN:

"Bill:

never thought about objects being accentuated on film the way you have shown. Would this distortion be consistent in each frame?

Actually, I won't know this until I actually film things. I sort of expect some change as there is some motion, but I'm really not sure exactly what, and the study will hopefully give me something more to look at and evaluate.

Also, you agree that Patty's arms are longer than a proportionate human and based on your "quick patty hand question" post you must agree that the fingers and wrists move, do you feel that Patty's hands are a prosthetic? If so would this be nessascary given the distance Roger filmed the subject? Did prosthetics of this kind exist in 67? "

Going bach to Part 6, the figure study, if you put a guy inside "Patty" and he has normal height to armspan of 100%, then he would need arm extensions of maybe 6-8 inches. If, on the other hand, you hired a guy with an armspan of 112% to 115% of his height, his own arms and hands could fit Patty without any extensions.

I just don't know if his knees would line up correctly.

If you choose Guy #1 (normal arms), yes, arm extensions of the time may have been made, Arm extensions are a sort of puppetry, really, and that's been around far longer than the PGF.

So the arm extension issue sort of rests with who you try to put inside Patty. But purely from a biological point, some people have long enough arms to qualify. The thread has some basketball player statistics verifying this.

Bill

I'm wondering what the armspan ratio leads people to believe here. A lot has been done to demonstrate that Patty's arms are proportionally longer than a normal human's arms. And or that her legs are shorter, proportionally. I know that this is used to "prove" that Patty is not a human in a suit, but are longer arms really necessary to make Patty a real creature? Does a non-human, or semi-human being covered with hair, living in the woods, really need to have proportional differences from us to be real, or believable? Why can't Patty's arms fit into what really can be normal for a human, and still be classified as a new species? Why does she have to have a walk that we can't duplicate, or arms that are too long to be human, or a height that is beyond normal heights to be believable?

If they exist, and I suspect that maybe they do, they wouldn't have to look like a gorilla, or have ape-like traits to amaze me at all. I've been having a hard time figuring out why it would be necessary for them to have disproportionately long arms, since they likely are not swinging through the fir and pine trees around here. They seem to walk everywhere, why have long arms?

is it possible to analyze and conclude that Patty is real, without having to "find" differences from normal humans? isn't the possibility of a human or "homo" species (which al indications seem to suggest), covered with hair and living in the wilderness in a completely wild and "animalistic" way fantastic enough without having to find ways to make it non-human, more ape-like? I think that a large, robust, hairy, wild human species is fascinating enough without having to find ways to authenticate it by finding significant deviations from humans which therefore might add credibility to the idea it is real.

[Bill]

Tontar:

"I'm wondering what the armspan ratio leads people to believe here. A lot has been done to demonstrate that Patty's arms are proportionally longer than a normal human's arms. And or that her legs are shorter, proportionally. I know that this is used to "prove" that Patty is not a human in a suit, but are longer arms really necessary to make Patty a real creature? Does a non-human, or semi-human being covered with hair, living in the woods, really need to have proportional differences from us to be real, or believable? Why can't Patty's arms fit into what really can be normal for a human, and still be classified as a new species? Why does she have to have a walk that we can't duplicate, or arms that are too long to be human, or a height that is beyond normal heights to be believable?"

The thing with arguments of exclusion is to see if the option of a human in a fur suit or costume can be eliminated as an option. Finding physical attributes which cannot be replicated on a human is one form of exclusion that can be argued. The other form of exclusion is trying to find something about the appearance that a suit or costume cannot do, so you can argue for the elimination of a costume as an explanation.

Defining the physical attributes is where most of the arguing occurs, for the human or the costume.

A real Bigfoot doesn't need to have body proportions different from a human, but if it did not, a photograph of the subject would be impossible to prove as being a photo of something real. In that case, only physical evidence subjected to biological lab tests (like DNA) could distinguish whether it's human or BF.

Bill