Jump to content

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?


xspider1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moderator
 
On 9/9/2016 at 1:11 PM, salubrious said:

 

The one for the elbow is off,

 

Ah. Forgot about that.

On 9/9/2016 at 6:37 PM, kitakaze said:

You do not know with any certainty where Patty's elbow actually is. This is the best you get...

swinging_breasts.gif

 

For some reason I feel like I get better than that. Maybe because the images I look at didn't come from you?

 

You can see where the elbow is pretty easily even in your image there. My assumption for the last year or so is that you are actually a proponent, as so much of your output simply supports the PGF as the real thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
1 hour ago, xspider1 said:

Thanks, Sweaty.  :rolleyes:  

 

Wasn't sure, kitakaze.  :unsure:    8  )

 

It might be interesting to hear from those who are genuinely skeptical (not just skoff-tical based on some omniscient opinion of what can and cannot be), why they suppose that the realism of the PGf subject has never been approached with a costume since the animal was filmed almost 50 years ago.  To say that no one has either wanted to create a realistic Bigfoot costume or had a sufficient budget just doesn't cut the mustard.  

 

Agreed on both parts.

On the first part of the bolded sentence, (this is just my thinking) It seems to me that in the past 49 yrs. there have been enough critics of the PGF that if it was possible to recreate a replica of the costume, you would think someone would have by now. If it's a costume, why didn't the maker produce another suit just like it? (he/she could have made good money in Hollywood)  Since no one has been able to replicate the suit, what is the most logical conclusion?  

 

On the second part, if anyone truly believes Roger faked the PGF with little money, why hasn't anyone else been able to do it with little money? If the film could be done with what little money Roger had, then why did movie studios say they couldn't re-create the figure? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

Anything made by man can be made by another man. This is esp. true when it comes to knowing the end product.  When it comes to the PGF any maker would know how it must look using the era materials.  They would also know how it is expected to function.   Instead, we get this nonsense observed at the end of this baloney:

 

 

 

Oh my!

 

BD

 

 

(at 6:57, Morris shows the inside of this suit is made of 'stretch material'    <----- did Morris have a time machine?!)

 

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

When watching the PGF, the hair on Patty's back and buttocks appears to be shorter than the hair on the arms and legs.

Were there any fur suits prior to the PGF that were made with this feature? 

If the PGF shows a fake suit, how would the suitmaker know this how a Bigfoot's hair should look? Maybe I'd lose it but I'd bet a dollar that prior to Oct.-1967 there were not any sightings reports that said the creature's hair was shorter on it's back and buttocks but longer elsewhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that many other-wise 'costume experts' tend to underestimate the difficulty in making a realistic Ape suit such as a Bigfoot.  I think the conceptual problem for many is that Bigfoot are sort of human, but need to have significant realistic differences, along with everything else.  We are very much accustomed to looking at bi-pedal apes and fakes tend to stick out like a sore thumb, not so much with Patty at all.

 

 Thanks for the cool avatar idea, PatB!  I just had to laugh at that "live" for a few minutes!   :thumbsup:

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

Bob H and others contend that Roger "Shook the Camera" and it is even contended this was done to bluff out the man in the suit.

 

If we consider this we must ask what a typical shaking effect is. Most people if they shake something up do so in a back-and-fourth motion or an up-and-down motion.  To do the left to right and right to left goes about the same distance. Shake it up a little and maybe it is 6 inches left and 6 right for 10 seconds.  A more vigorous shake might be 1 foot left and one foot right.  The point is, each time most of us shake something we tend to shake it a nearly equal distance right to left or up and down.  There is must twist and other motion which match the idea of someone running with the camera on in a frantic run.

 

Look at this video where these guys are going to shake things up.  Look at it and notice the left -right or the up-down back and fourths are basically equal distance more or less.

 

 

  This is not what the PGF shows. 

 

Thus, if Roger shook the camera on purpose it stands to reason his shaking efforts would look like these guys on the video and not what is the resultant PGF.

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only camera shake I have seen that looks purposeful...is most every time I've seen it.

 

Other than PG.  Right.  The fakes don't look like this...or shake like this.  So.

 

Are all those real and PG fake?  The logical answer says otherwise...but it says we have an authentic film of a sasquatch too.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that the film shake is indicative of a camera in the hands of a man running frantically after a subject while, at the same time, trying to steady the camera, just as Munns and others more qualified and dedicated than myself have also determined.  I remember a heated discussion here years ago regarding the camera shake when Munns, for the first time to me anyway, indicated that the steadiest images are when Roger is closest to the subject.  That cinched that particular aspect for me.  And, there are so many things that scream real animal it's no wonder PGf skoftics cling to notions such as camera shake hoaxing, diaper butts and suits that nobody can see...   8   )

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

I'm convinced that the film shake is indicative of a camera in the hands of a man running frantically after a subject while, at the same time, trying to steady the camera, just as Munns and others more qualified and dedicated than myself have also determined.  I remember a heated discussion here years ago regarding the camera shake when Munns, for the first time to me anyway, indicated that the steadiest images are when Roger is closest to the subject.  That cinched that particular aspect for me.  And, there are so many things that scream real animal it's no wonder PGf skoftics cling to notions such as camera shake hoaxing, diaper butts and suits that nobody can see...   8   )

 

I could at least consider the smallest chance the a hoaxer come up with an unintended lucky shaking effect in the act of a hoax.  It could in some remote chance be possible Roger somehow singles 'go', and the subject walks.  Then, Roger runs after and then turns on the camera.  As he is running the same things that happen to him in a run after a real subject just happen to happen in running after a fake subject.  I don't believe this.   One of the reasons this is less likely has to do with the fact those claiming to be involved stated Roger shook the camera by design. When you do that by design, the type of shaking is not the same as what happens by accident.  If you have someone fall down on the ground as a stunt man, it is a designed fall.  It behaves different than an actual fall caught on camera.  It looks different.  Directors are known for surprising the actors to catch a real 'boo' reaction vs faking it.  I just saw on an interview where the director of the Exorcist slapped an actor in the face and then yelled 'action'.

 

I doubt planned shaking is at all likely. If it would be it would happen completely by accident. The same goes with the suit/ walk.  If for some reason the walk if that of a man in a suit I don't accept that is rehearsed or planned. Bob h said it was. I don't buy it.  I don't buy him anyway. If for some reason this is a man in a suit the walk to me would be something happening completely by accident vs intentional by some yet unknown quirk about the suit itself.  I don't consider this likely.

 

If the film is a hoax I am betting there was no intentional shaking but it was all by accident.  The same would go with the Patty Walk.

 

When people intentionally do acts there is some intelligence which can be seen to go with it that tends to give it away to some extent.

 

The final thing which takes intentional shaking of the hoax out of the level of reason is the q as to why shake in the first place?  You shake to hide the suit from the viewer.  When you are the near closest to the subject you provide the best look at it by stopping the shake?!   No way.  This violates every principle of common sense with make-up or even a person putting on make-up to go out for  the evening.  You hide the flaws. 

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ I recently read a detailed analysis of the film which stated that the camera shaking was not "up and down" or "side to side" but rather a series of repeated circular motions. Not sure what that indicates...

I will try to find that info...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I'd say that's what happens when someone runs.   They shift foot to foot (straddle) running which creates the side to side component, they bob up and down creating the vertical component, and the sum of the two is something vaguely, roughly, but irregularly circular.

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
4 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ I recently read a detailed analysis of the film which stated that the camera shaking was not "up and down" or "side to side" but rather a series of repeated circular motions. Not sure what that indicates...

I will try to find that info...

 

 

Bill Munns had some info on it.

 

intentional shaking is balony and the film proves that.  The only 2 possibilities are the shaking occurred accidentally and not by intention in the hoax attempt or it occurred chasing a real creature.

 

BD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, the human head definitely moves in an elliptical motion when running so, a camera being held to one's eye while running would also move in an elliptical motion.  Imo, that's another PGf detail among many, many others indicating that it was not a staged event.

 

 

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor

^^^

 

Great point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...