Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

Backdoc

^^^

 

Thanks Giganto,

 

It is OK in my book for someone to think the PGF is a hoax.  We are all skeptics at heart but some art unreasonably so.  I am just asking for a skeptic to be reasonable enough to say the PGF figure (real or not) make the tracks. Put another way, realize there is nothing to be gained by sweeping the Patty tracks away and faking tracks after the filming.

 

So skeptic please tell us why tracks were faked at all.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I've always wondered if the soil there was marl especially considering the flooding.  You don't leave tracks when you walk in it if there isn't moisture, but leave high definition tracks where there is moisture.  It's finer textured than sand and it washes away easily unless there are layers upon layers of it like in this area where I took this picture.

 

The sandbar was three plus feet higher than the creek bed. I think I have read that the last flood had been in 1964(?) The area around the tree seen laying on the ground shows a darker color than other areas which implies it is damp. A comparison of the film clip of the trackway compared to one of the Laverty photos shows there was a range of texture in the immediate area that Patty walked over.

 

When I was there, I found the sandbar in many places to be rather loamy and depending on the underlying moisture at any given spot would effect the quality of my tracks left on the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

So skeptic please tell us why tracks were faked at all.

 

Don't expect much of a rational explanation when some can't tell the difference between dry dust and damp sand so not to waste time posting how swooshing a branch over shoe impressions will somehow put a wavy sandbar back to its original condition.     :crazy:

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall the outcome of what happened when the dog was brought in to track Pattie.  I am sure it has been mentioned but don't recall the thread.  Was Patterson or Gimlin at the filming site when the dog was brought in?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 

When I was there, I found the sandbar in many places to be rather loamy and depending on the underlying moisture at any given spot would effect the quality of my tracks left on the ground.

Bigfoothunter,

 

When I asked Bob Gimlin about the tracks he mentioned the same thing, there was variation in the quality in the tracks across the sandbar due to the variation in the substrate itself.

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I don't recall the outcome of what happened when the dog was brought in to track Pattie.  I am sure it has been mentioned but don't recall the thread.  Was Patterson or Gimlin at the filming site when the dog was brought in?

 

Roger sought to have that done, but was unsuccessful at accomplishing it. Remember - Roger and Bob were forced to leave the area when the rains came that caused the creek to rapidly rise where they were camped.

Bigfoothunter,

 

When I asked Bob Gimlin about the tracks he mentioned the same thing, there was variation in the quality in the tracks across the sandbar due to the variation in the substrate itself.

 

Pat...

 

 

Laverty's photos demonstrate this to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Backdoc

Harry and the Hendersons

 

It was on TV yesterday.  I watched it as a "suit critic".  Basically, the suit from the neck down is no big deal. Very average.   There are no muscle movements in the body when Harry walks.  The feet look weak and the toes don't move. There is a scene toward the end where a man is hunting Harry.  There is a close up of the feet walking.  The toes don't really move and do not extend at all.  Very fake.   The face is very animated but this was achieved by extras running effect on the mask to make Harry make some stock expressions.  Smiling, Sad, Anger, and so on.  This is not achieved by the wearer of the mask but by several others off camera running the controls. 

 

I find it ironic Stan Winston who was involved in this suit is so dismissive of the PGF subject.  He says the suit is so bad anyone working for him would be fired for making such a suit which would only cost $200 today make. Yet, Stan the Man did not achieve any of the muscle movements and so on observed on the PGF.  Harry is an example of a very modern effect nearly 20 years after the PGF which is a fail. Harry is not an attempt to create a PGF Patty suit but it seems clear to me if this is the best Stan and his team could do, there would be no hope they could pull off a PGF patty suit.

 

The feet are the issue. The toes do not extend or move in this movie. Patty somehow achieves this.

The muscles are the other issues.  The arms and legs look like big pieces of foam slipped over the extremities and covered in bad hair.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
AaronD

Sorry if this has been asked before but were there ever any dermal ridges on suspected Patty prints?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

The answer is 'yes'. Steenburg handed me a copy cast of a track that Laverty photographed and asked me if I saw any dermal ridges on it and I found several places that they appeared obvious me. He concurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Harry and the Hendersons

 

It was on TV yesterday.  I watched it as a "suit critic".  Basically, the suit from the neck down is no big deal. Very average.   There are no muscle movements in the body when Harry walks.  The feet look weak and the toes don't move. There is a scene toward the end where a man is hunting Harry.  There is a close up of the feet walking.  The toes don't really move and do not extend at all.  Very fake.   The face is very animated but this was achieved by extras running effect on the mask to make Harry make some stock expressions.  Smiling, Sad, Anger, and so on.  This is not achieved by the wearer of the mask but by several others off camera running the controls. 

 

I find it ironic Stan Winston who was involved in this suit is so dismissive of the PGF subject.  He says the suit is so bad anyone working for him would be fired for making such a suit which would only cost $200 today make. Yet, Stan the Man did not achieve any of the muscle movements and so on observed on the PGF.  Harry is an example of a very modern effect nearly 20 years after the PGF which is a fail. Harry is not an attempt to create a PGF Patty suit but it seems clear to me if this is the best Stan and his team could do, there would be no hope they could pull off a PGF patty suit.

 

The feet are the issue. The toes do not extend or move in this movie. Patty somehow achieves this.

The muscles are the other issues.  The arms and legs look like big pieces of foam slipped over the extremities and covered in bad hair.

 

Backdoc

 

That actually got plussed.

 

Pssst, Rick Baker...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^The feet with the moving toes in that scene weren't a part of the actual costume. They were animatronic feet worn on the arms -

 

http://propstore.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/22/lot/2553/?url=%2Fview-auctions%2Fcatalog%2Fid%2F22%2F

 

 

Other Harry pieces and misc Baker movie props:

 

http://propstore.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/22/

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

Kit,

 

The link provided  in #42 shows the toes.  I am sure you would agree though this link simply shows a 'dead' costume foot being moved by the hand of the actor.  In this way it is no different than a girl helping her Barbie 'move' her body.  If not for the effort of the actors hand, those toes do no wiggle independently in that scene provided.  More important to the point is not if the toes can move at all of someone grabs them but do they move when walking in an active way.  I would guess I could take about any gorilla suit and grab the toes and wiggle them if they are made of rubber vs a wood carving.  But the issue is Patty activity walking and those toes of patty extending up on walking which they clearly do in the PGF.  The walking of Harry does not accomplish this.

 

I would never say something made out of soft rubber cannot be moved or bent.  That is not the issue here though.  The issue is Patty's ability to walk an actively extend her toes while Harry does not.   Again, Harry is not a Patty recreation attempt.

 

Patty walks and the toes go up like this:    ________/     while Harry is like this on walking:   ___________

 

That is the difference.

 

(Looks like I took away the work of Rick Baker by thinking it was a Stan suit.  Thanks for the info so I get it right)

 

Backdoc

 

ADDED:  Thanks to the link provided by Rogue in #43, it seems we see how that was accomplished on Kit's link which even further proves my point.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"I am sure you would agree though this link simply shows a 'dead' costume foot being moved by the hand of the actor."

 

No, I wouldn't agree with that at all, as if you look closely, you'll see the toes moving on their own, the second and third toes in particular, but as Roguefooter pointed out, the movement is mechanical in nature.

 

"I would never say something made out of soft rubber cannot be moved or bent.  That is not the issue here though.  The issue is Patty's ability to walk an actively extend her toes while Harry does not."

 

I would say the real issue is making sophistry out of nothing. I see nothing about Patty's feet that is not explained thus...

 

Bigpattyflop.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
×
×
  • Create New...