Jump to content
Backdoc

Attempts To Make A Patty Suit

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

^^

 

As someone who has studied biomechanics and anatomy and dissected human beings, I would not say I would be easily impressed if we are discussing the facial movements on Dr. Zeus talking to Charlton Heston at the end of Planet of the Apes.  We are talking about leg movements and muscle movements on the leg and ankle of patty.   Just look at what Dr. Grieve had to say from England back in the day. (don't know if he ever got a chance to see an enhanced PGF):

 

Anatomist D.W. Grieve of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine studied a copy of the film in 1971, and wrote a detailed analysis. He notes, "The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film" but also writes that his analysis hinges largely on the question of filming speed.

Grieve concluded that "the possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 frames per second. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man." If filmed at the higher speed, Grieve concluded that the creature "walked with a gait pattern very similar in most respects to a man walking at high speed."

Grieve stated, "I can see the muscle masses in the appropriate places... If it is a fake, it is an extremely clever one."[32] Like Krantz, Grieve thought the figure's shoulders were quite broad. Also like Krantz, Grieve thought Patterson's estimate of the figure's height was inaccurate. Grieve concluded the figure in the Patterson film revealed "an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)." He notes that a tall human is consistent with the figure's height but also notes that for a tall human "[t]he shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours."[33]

Grieve notes that his "subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."[34]

 

  When I and others with these type of backgrounds point to muscle movements as impressive to us, it is simply because it dawns on us what it might take to pull it off.  

 

We are not so quick to just dismiss these findings.  These findings beg for an explanation from the skeptic.  It must be an equally credible one.

 

Thus, we can quickly dismiss Dr. Zeus face movements as that of a man in a mask.  

After a careful look and the muscle movements of patty, we are not so quick to dismiss them.

 

Backdoc

Edited by AaronD
to remove quote of a post directly above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

 

D.W. Grieve's obviously did not know that by the late 50s that while the dials on movie cameras still had 16fps written on them - the internal mechanisms had been changed to run at 18fps. The faster film speed put an end to the blinking effect that the old time movies had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

BFhunter

 

Great point. I actually was thinking of the quote relative to the anatomy issue and being impressed by what he saw as a non laymen at the time.   The film speed issue itself is not talked about as much but i personally know little about cameras and film speed of that era.  Thanks again for the insight   I tend to read your postimgs closely and usually learn something from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

You are welcome. It was the principal maker (Roland Zavada) of Kodachrome II film that I first learned of this. When a camera films at 16fps or less, it gets the blinking effect associated with old time movies, thus camera makers started making movie cameras that ran 18fps. Zavada said that makers of movie cameras thought it to be too expensive to dispose of the millions of parts already in stock (in this case the 'speed dials') so they used them which many camera owners didn't know.

 

The Patterson film when projected did not blink, thus its internal mechanism had been changed even if the dial had the old 16fps written on it.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

It is nice to have a pool of real experts to draw upon.  In just a few weeks I feel light years better informed from the experts on the PGF.  I love the fact Discovery, History, and other channels have devoted more time toward serious attention of the Bigfoot subject.  Lucky for me there is often some talk of the PGF.  After watching these type of shows, I would then think of a point or two I would love to have clarification on.  Then, I run across the BFF.  There are many people with expertise who can really shed light on issues.  Camera, anatomy, wildlife, costumes, and so on.  Where else can you go and have a dialog with people who have actually been to Bluff Creek.  

 

Thanks again.  Let's keep it rolling, Believers and skeptics alike.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

D.W. Grieve's obviously did not know that by the late 50s that while the dials on movie cameras still had 16fps written on them - the internal mechanisms had been changed to run at 18fps. The faster film speed put an end to the blinking effect that the old time movies had.

 

 

It was the principal maker (Roland Zavada) of Kodachrome II film that I first learned of this. When a camera films at 16fps or less, it gets the blinking effect associated with old time movies, thus camera makers started making movie cameras that ran 18fps. Zavada said that makers of movie cameras thought it to be too expensive to dispose of the millions of parts already in stock (in this case the 'speed dials') so they used them which many camera owners didn't know.

 

The Patterson film when projected did not blink, thus its internal mechanism had been changed even if the dial had the old 16fps written on it.

 

 

Due to tolerances in the mechanism, it is still possible that the PGF was shot at 16fps....even if it the 'filming speed' was set to it's slowest position of 18fps.

 

As far as I know...(from what I've just read on-line)....it is actually the projected speed that causes flickering...rather than the speed the film was recorded at.

 

Here is an excerpt from an article, explaining how movie films work...

 

Shutter Basics

  • As in photography, the shutter in a film projector is a mechanical device which opens and closes, determining how much light will get through. In photography, the light allows the film to be exposed, while in film projection, the light allows the visual perception of motion. The lowest limit of frames per second that a brain will "see" as motion is approximately 10 fps, such as in a child's flip book. With a movie, however, a frame rate that low will cause "flicker," and 16 fps is therefore considered the lowest threshold for film projection.

    With the advent of sound in film, 24 fps became the industry standard (silent films had used a variety of film rates).

    In order for persistence of vision to work smoothly, however, it is necessary that the light is also interrupted and re-illuminated 24 times per second, so that each individual frame be shown clearly and without overlapping the other frames. It is the shutter that controls the light in this way, creating what we perceive as continuous motion.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6570456_do-film-projector-shutters-work_.html#ixzz2aDmk1WE6

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Backdoc:

"All I am asking is a demonstration that illustrates the major factors collectively observed in the film.  I want to be clear it is the complete lack of this that has moved me to the position Patty is a creature of nature. 

 

"The major factors collectively observed in the film", are all subjective; therefore, it would be impossible to create a suit that would fulfill your suit requirements.  

 

Backdoc:

The continued failure of attempts to debunk the film is why a thinking person becomes convinced.

 

It goes both ways, Backdoc. After twenty seven years as a believer, I had my own ahhh Ha moment. As a thinking person I became a non believer.

 

 

Backdoc:

"So, he is what I am asking:

 

Make a suit using only 1967 tech

1)The walk must result in about 15 inch footprint (and near 40'' heel to heel) with a midtarsal break effect on vaired soil ala Bluff Creek in 1967.

2)The Toes and Fingers must flex and extend as clearly observed in the PGF

3)The thigh muscles must flex and contract as the do esp in the quads of the right left (the left closer to our viewing) with the same or similar flexion and ext of the leg muscle groups.

4)The suit must not be so bulky as to make the person only be able to accomplish this for say a 20 foot walk but at least say 100 yards since the PGF does walk for at least a bit.

5)The result of all of this must leave no more traces than what Lyle Loverty discovered when he arrived on the scene right after the filming.

 

The reason I am asking this much is simple.  Bob and Roger have delivered this much to me in the form of the film. "

 

Backdoc:

"I am ready to believe you.  You must show me."

 

Attempting to create a suit to someone else's exacting standards, hoping that they would have and "ahhhh Ha" moment: Delusional.

 

I asked you what it would take to convince you that the PGF is a hoax. You did not give me an answer.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

....and in the end, it's clearly a man in a suit - everything else but Patty that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Romano and I can't see eye to eye.  I have no doubt we actually share the same basic view of this in that we are both doubting Thomas.

 

If one does not willfully see obvious detail or cannot see it or does not agree it is there, then we a re left to argue each point.  Instead lets just use only one obvious thing. I am sure you will agree the patty turn back or money shot has muscle movements in the thigh that are observed in the patty film. 

 

 

 

1)   Lets not even worry about the other stuff. Just give me a suit with 1967 era tech that will result in that type of movement of muscle groups under the fur. I will not ask that it is even biomechanically accurate as I am quite certain just to do what I am asking would be impossible since it has yet to be done.

 

So if you agree you observe such muscle movements in the legs that occur many places but esp on the money shot turn back of patty moment we will limit any challenge to just that.  I you do not think this occurred then you won't want to do it since you think I am reading into things.

 

Now keep in mind, since you must believe it is a creature of man and not nature, I would think doing this one thing would be pretty easy.  Certainly someone has done it by now right?

 

I share your feelings in many ways.  I won't ask you to do what you don't agree is even on the film. If you don't think the toes extend- something quite obvious to me and many others- then let's not even go there. 

 

Do you think there are the muscle movement effects of the thigh in the PGF.  If no, then never mind.  If yes, can you please demonstrate how my 2 cowboys and John Chambers and Bob Herioniumus and so on did this. 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Romano to Backdoc:

I asked you what it would take to convince you that the PGF is a hoax. You did not give me an answer.

 

 

Romano,

 

I don't want to keep repeating myself but I will try again:

 

An obvious smoking gun such as catching Bob and Rogers in the act in a as-of-yet undiscovered film hopefully would do it for anyone.  Now I am not asking for that. I am just letting you know that as a reasonable person I would not scoff at evidence so obvious.

 

Why should I not ask for what Bob and Roger have given me. That is a film of a subject that does all of what most of think we see in the film.  Now it either has to be real creature or some version for whatever the motivation of a man made suit or hoax of some kind. It must be one or the other.

 

For those claiming it was made by man should be able to reproduce what is made my man.  That is, if one person can do it in 1967 then another should be able to do so.  Now, why should I when I observe moving toes, muscle movements and so on not demand that a suit made by man do those things.  I mean, anyone can walk in a gorilla suit mimic a walk similar to patty's that does not do so many other things shown in the film. That would not equal even a minimal standard.  I am not asking for a perfect match.

 

You can't get away from 2 points:

1)  Anything made by man can be remade by man.  Whatever was available in 1967 would be a lot cheaper now (like an 8 track player in 1967 vs a garage sale with an 8 track player and a box full of 8 tracks for 10cents)

2) The things the Patty figure is able to do or show us --that which we observe are not all reading into it.  Even many skeptics can agree the toes extend.  Most agree on the thigh muscle movements.  Thus, why should we lessen the standard of what we see in 1967.  Since you think Patty is a man in a suit why should it be a problem to show how the toes extend on walking and the thigh muscle become visible and contract?  Why is this always a Bridge Too Far?

 

So I hope I have answered you Q.   I am not ask you or anyone to spend $250,000 on a suit.  Just get the '8-track' version of what was around in 1967 and make it do enough of what we see in the PGF to show us it could be done.

 

You seem to indicate I am asking such a high standard. I will happily dumb my standard down.  I will not ask for every point I can think of.  Just do what should by the standard you are setting be easy to do.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I've never quite understood the fervent reaction among the PGF proponents that one is not entitled to an opinion that the PGF is fake without doing rigorous study to explain how it was done. That is simply not necessary. It looks like an obvious fake to me. Why would I bother with spending any time trying to figure out how it was done? Where is the motivation for that for the average viewer?  I look at it, think fake, then move on. As probably do most people. Why do proponents think someone would look, think fake, and then immediately think " and now I simply must figure out how this was done".  That is not going to happen many times to be honest. I'm not interested in spending time and effort into deducing how a couple of cow boys faked a Bigfoot before I was even born. Why would I?

 

It's kind of like when I watch a science-fiction movie. I know that I am not watching an actual star ship, but I am not in any way compelled to go out and figure out how it was done to prove to folks that is not an actual star ship.  I know it is a special effect, I don't need to know how it was done or explain it to any one else. Why is the PGF so different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

While I understand your point at least if someone was to doubt the sci fi movie was just a movie you could show them the Bonus Features and show how Chebacca was a man in a costume on Star Wars.

 

If you dismiss the film as an obvious fake that is your right.  I somewhat felt the way you did.  Then, I said to myself:  If this is a man in a costume why have so many efforts to mimic it failed.  Think of it.  In 1967 they put a costume on a guy and he walks across a sand bar. The film it. --the end   

 

Then consider if that were true then anyone today should be able to grab some stuff from 1967 and do it. Heck they should be able to do with todays high tech materials.  So when these attempts by those trying to prove the point fail, then people like me are left to ask why.   That point does not point to it being a real creature of nature. It does at credibility to the those who think that it is.  Now I can only speak for myself when I say if you were able to show me the basics of what should be easy to do-- a 1967 suit in a same or similar patty like result--- then I would be the first to say it is a hoax.

 

The fact over the years they have not been able to do this has to mean something.  In a murder trial  they may claim the guy that is on the camera at the bank at 4:55pm somehow got across Chicago traffic in a 20 minute window and murdered their wife.  He may or may not be innocent. But we could at least test if he could drive those 20 miles, give 30 sec to stab her to death, and then so on in the time allowed.  We would test this in traffic similar to traffic on the road we think they took at 4:55pm in Chicago vs say smallville iowa.

 

Those who are skeptics or dismiss the film outright may do so.  When they ask a person why they could believe it, they must a least listen to the reasons why.  If those reasons are not compelling to you, that is fine.  But make no mistake about it, no one has ever reproduced anything close to the PFG with 1967 tech or even modern tech for that matter.  You are left to answer why you think that is.

Backdoc

Edited by salubrious
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I've never quite understood the fervent reaction among the PGF proponents that one is not entitled to an opinion that the PGF is fake without doing rigorous study to explain how it was done. That is simply not necessary. It looks like an obvious fake to me. 

 

 

 

 

I think you are absolutely 100% entitled to your own opinions, dmaker. Enjoy them. :)

 

They mean next-to-nothing to me, though. (Current Value is 2 cents, to be precise). 

 

 

 

I'm not interested in spending time and effort into deducing how a couple of cow boys faked a Bigfoot before I was even born. Why would I?

 

 

 

 

Likewise...why would I, or anyone else....think the Film is a hoax based on your unsupported opinion? :)

 

Enjoy your own thoughts, dmaker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I've never quite understood the fervent reaction among the PGF proponents that one is not entitled to an opinion that the PGF is fake without doing rigorous study to explain how it was done. That is simply not necessary. It looks like an obvious fake to me. Why would I bother with spending any time trying to figure out how it was done? Where is the motivation for that for the average viewer?  I look at it, think fake, then move on. As probably do most people. Why do proponents think someone would look, think fake, and then immediately think " and now I simply must figure out how this was done".  That is not going to happen many times to be honest. I'm not interested in spending time and effort into deducing how a couple of cow boys faked a Bigfoot before I was even born. Why would I?

 

It's kind of like when I watch a science-fiction movie. I know that I am not watching an actual star ship, but I am not in any way compelled to go out and figure out how it was done to prove to folks that is not an actual star ship.  I know it is a special effect, I don't need to know how it was done or explain it to any one else. Why is the PGF so different?

 

Dmaker:

 

First, seperate opinion from fact. You are entitled to your opinion, and if your opinion is that the film seems obviously fake to you, you have every right to say so and need not explain or defend that opinion. That is how you see it and you're saying what you think.

 

But if you (or anyone) tries to say that the PGF being a fake is a fact, that fact requires proof.  No skeptical person has yet to offer a formal proof that rises to the level of a scientifically credible and methodological analysis proving the PGF to be a fake. So while many people hold the opinion it is, nobody has proven factually that it is.

 

That is the difference between a person's opinion, and a claim of a proven fact.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

Added:

 

On the camera shutter and projection flciker issue, it should be noted that while the camera shutter opens once for each frame filmed, the projector shutter opens twice for eack frame projected. I've taken apart projectors (to build my scanner device0 and the shutter revolves twice in total for each frame pulldown, so the shutter opens and closes twice for each frame. Thus, a projector running 16 fps will open the shutter 32 times per second. This in intended to shorten each blackout period, and increase the number of projected impressions and to better trick the "persistence of vision" effect to see 16fps smoothly.

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I appreciate the objective and reasonable responses. I have mentioned before, in another thread, that my opinion on the PGF was that it is fake, and that that is merely my opinion based on my gut reaction. The response then was not as reasonable as I received here just now. In fact, Bigfoothunter made quite a little hobby of ridiculing my "gut reaction" despite my pointing out that it was just my opinion. As if merely holding an opinion, or rather a contrary opinion, on the PGF requires one to spend countless hours debunking the film before you are entitled to your opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...