Jump to content
masterbarber

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities? (2)

Recommended Posts

gigantor
8 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

263431879_Pattyesreal.PNG.f31ee94927af51235ce8e92343dee7c4.PNG

 

Nice feet :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Go analyze yourself.

 

I have. My problems aren't with fantasies. They're with harsh realities.......like lawyers and their games and fantasies.

 

2 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

Nice feet :lol:

 

 

Looks like somebody's attempt to build feet with a midtarsal joint. I'll bet that was difficult to walk in. 

 

Makes me remember that guy who said he worked as a stuntman in Hollywood, and claimed he could build a suit. He started working on one and would post pics as he went (in fact, the mask that Squatchy posted a pic of looks very familiar..........). He ended up merging/melding pics of Patty onto pics of himself in his suit in order to make his suit look real, then when caught, he claimed that he did it intentionally in order to "prove" that when we said his suit didn't look real, that he would arise with an "Aha!", and show that we didn't really think that Patty herself was real. He was a lousy liar. I thought his moniker was dfoot or dmaker or some such nonsense.

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 hours ago, Huntster said:

I have. My problems aren't with fantasies.

 

No offense Huntster and as a fellow BF believer on a bigfoot message board, I can't help but appreciate the irony of this line.  😂😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Look at Squatchy go... :lol:  Tearing-down the PGF....one joke at a time. 

 

Suddenly....'analysis' means something, according to him.  I think I'll keep on analyzin' the film, then. :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I have. My problems aren't with fantasies. They're with harsh realities.......like lawyers and their games and fantasies.

 

 

(in fact, the mask that Squatchy posted a pic of looks very familiar..........). He ended up merging/melding pics of Patty onto pics of himself in his suit in order to make his suit look real, then when caught, he claimed that he did it intentionally in order to "prove" that when we said his suit didn't look real, that he would arise with an "Aha!",

 

Look I get it. You have a problem with lawyers. Heck I’m married to one and I don’t like them very much.  But I don’t feel the constant need to lash out at them every time I disagree with some random person on an internet discussion board. Your posts indicate you have a lot of displaced anger toward a great number of issues, social and otherwise. Good luck dealing with that in an informed and mature manner :)

 

Are you implying that the mask I posted was made by Dfoot?

 

Because it was not. It was made by an amateur on YouTube last year.

 

 

13 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

Look at Squatchy go... :lol:  Tearing-down the PGF....one joke at a time. 

 

Suddenly....'analysis' means something, according to him.  I think I'll keep on analyzin' the film, then. :) 

 

 

 

Sweaty your ‘analysis’ of the film seems to have peaked with a series of 2 frame gifs sometime around 2012 or so.

 

Since then, you have obsessed over former member Kitakaze. In every thread you posted in. Constantly. Yeah... admit it.... you did that ;) that was you...

 

Good luck finding some new material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
13 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Because it was not. It was made by an amateur on YouTube last year.

 

Squatchy, is there a video of that attempted recreation with the subject walking? Would be cool to compare it to the real thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

gigantor,

 

Here it is, really no comparison to the PGF sasquatch. Just another example of a man in a suit lookin' nothin' like the filmed sasquatch seen in the PGF. Even the few steps he takes wearin' the suit, he seems to have trouble with.

 

Pat... 

 

 

bigfoot suit.PNG

 

Context... it kinda means something. Thx!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Great find, PBeaton!  I've got more Upvotes to give when those are available to me again :).

 

So there we have an apparently very experienced, professional creature costume designer who has "always been fascinated with Bigfoot" stumbling badly just trying to take a few steps in his own costume.  Admittedly, in the scope of Bigfoot costumes, his is pretty good.  However, the extremely long and shaggy hair (designed to hide flaws), the almost complete lack of muscle definition and the dis-proportionally long forearms, etc. exclude that effort (like all others) from any favorable comparison to the PGf subject what-so-ever, in my opinion. 

 

Notice the "arm pits" which are about 1.5 feet below the shoulders.  No inadvertent revelations of a costume such as those occur with Patty, none.

 

nope4000.jpg.73fad8c5ebba837e5d1eb218660b6338.jpg

  

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The practical purposes of using really long hair for a fur suit are:

 

1. Long shaggy hair makes it easy to hide seams, and closures necessary to get a person into and out of the suit.

 

2. Long shaggy hair obscures the location of the real skeletal joints of the human inside and allows for cheats to  pretend the joints are inhuman.

 

3. The long hair creates it's own sense of motion, and distracts from the fact that the padded body won't move in any anatomically realistic way.

 

So doing a fur costume with long shaggy hair is an easy out for not trying to make a perfect suit with displaced anatomy.

 

Trying to do a fur suit with hair as short as Patty's is basically the hardest thing a creature effects artist can attempt, which is why we haven't seen any really successful attempts. And it's one of the reasons she''s real, and not a suit worn by a human.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rockstar
23 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^

 

I see the differences and I also see similarities.

 

Declaring  that “Patty could never be a costume”  displays pure ignorance and wishful thinking, imo.

 

You miss the key and  fundamental issue. Patty may be able to be replicated today with today's materials and mechanization and hair. But for an uneducated cowboy in 1967 with no costume experience and no money to create that film that when analyzed with technology 50 years later and there is still no smoking gun of fakery is an accomplishment. Patterson could have filmed the fake creature moving between trees at a distance. Did he? No. He filmed, according to you, a man in a 1967 monkey suit, up close, in clear view, and even capturing he face and muscle movement all while moving very gracefully. Can you imagine a man in a monkey suit with football padding and pillows stuffed into it moving so fluidly and not one time breaking stride even for one movement of the legs and arms? The man/creature moved flawlessly for a long long distance. A man in an unforgiving monkey suit, with sticks in his hands ( per bob h) and pillows and football equipment moved that flawlessly over rough terrain? 

 

Bob H and his accomplice who made the suit cannot replicate it.

 

No one has replicated it. I have been waiting decades for someone to use 60s materials and replicate it. It hasn't happened.

 

At least with ufos, people show how to create fakes. With PGF there is no replication. The one with bob h in a monkey suit makes me chuckle. You can see the pant legs buckling and wrinkling. With patty, you see skin and hair pulled over muscles. 

 

So the man who made the suit can't make another. The man who wore the suit can't replicate the movement.

 

In physics, I am a physicst, textbooks and classes and publications are created on not one quarter of the evidence in the pg film.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, rockstar said:

You miss the key and  fundamental issue. Patty may be able to be replicated today with today's materials and mechanization and hair. But for an uneducated cowboy in 1967 with no costume experience and no money to create that film that when analyzed with technology 50 years later and there is still no smoking gun of fakery is an accomplishment. Patterson could have filmed the fake creature moving between trees at a distance. Did he? No. He filmed, according to you, a man in a 1967 monkey suit, up close, in clear view, and even capturing he face and muscle movement all while moving very gracefully. Can you imagine a man in a monkey suit with football padding and pillows stuffed into it moving so fluidly and not one time breaking stride even for one movement of the legs and arms? The man/creature moved flawlessly for a long long distance. A man in an unforgiving monkey suit, with sticks in his hands ( per bob h) and pillows and football equipment moved that flawlessly over rough terrain? 

 

Bob H and his accomplice who made the suit cannot replicate it.

 

No one has replicated it. I have been waiting decades for someone to use 60s materials and replicate it. It hasn't happened.

 

At least with ufos, people show how to create fakes. With PGF there is no replication. The one with bob h in a monkey suit makes me chuckle. You can see the pant legs buckling and wrinkling. With patty, you see skin and hair pulled over muscles. 

 

So the man who made the suit can't make another. The man who wore the suit can't replicate the movement.

 

In physics, I am a physicst, textbooks and classes and publications are created on not one quarter of the evidence in the pg film.

 

 

 

 

 

But unlike physics? Biology requires a type specimen.

 

What many don’t realize is that Squatchy is working backwards.

 

In his world? Apemen do NOT exist! So of course he is looking to poke holes in the film subject. Even if the comparisons are weak sauce. Its a fake. It has to be!

 

I just look at the film based on its own merits. If it looked like the Heronimous film? I would think it was a fake too.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Agreed.  And, trying to work from a predetermined notion backwards is exactly what has hampered many, many people from seeing the truth for eons.  I do not pretend to know what Patty is, but it should be obvious to anyone not in denial that she cannot be explained with a costume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, rockstar said:

You miss the key and  fundamental issue. Patty may be able to be replicated today with today's materials and mechanization and hair.

 

That's not the case, Rockstar.  The PGF subject cannot be replicated via a 'man in a suit'....regardless of what material/mechanization, or hair is used.

 

A couple of aspects of Patty, which cannot be replicated...

 

It's 'arm proportion', for one...

 

Patty-Arm-Bending-AG10.gif

 

 

Breaking that animation into two halves.....note the exceptionally-long upper-arm...along with the relatively short forearm, which clearly does not include the use of an 'arm extension'...

 

F347-F360-ArmBendAG1_UpperHalf1.gif ... F347-F360-ArmBendAG1_LowerHalf1.gif 

 

Expanding on that detail....without the use of 'arm/hand extensions', within which to hide the subject's true wrist and finger joints....the clearly visible wrist and finger bending must then be occurring at the film subject's actual skeletal joints.  (I won't bother posting the images/animations showing the wrist and finger-joint movements, right now.)

 

 

There are several other aspects of Patty which cannot be replicated...but, for now.....just one other detail would be it's feet...

 

I told Huntster I would re-post these images of Patty's foot....showing the "elaborate"....(in the case of a costume)….and very realistic aspect of the toes on her right foot. They appear as two different lengths....depending on which side of the foot they're being viewed from...and their state...(lifted vs. relaxed)...

 

HumanFootXRay-ToeLengthComp2.jpg

 

HumanFootXRay2C.jpg

 

I will be posting more on that particular detail...including an attempt at re-creating it via a 'costume foot'.  The physical experiment will demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the notion of building such a detail into a suit would be....(if anyone had even ever had such a thought, in their head). 

 

There are additional aspects of Patty which cannot be replicated via this basic method...(wrapping humans in shag carpeting)...

 

Chuckles-The-Clown6.jpg

 

....even given lots of time, and money....but I won't post them all, right now. :) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...