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

Backdoc
8 hours ago, Oonjerah said:

 

"Planet of the Apes" came out the following year.   

 

 

I'll agree it looked like crap but 2001 A Space Odyssey come out at that time as well.   Those suits looked pretty dang good.  Yes, those suits had editing, controlled lighting, and even gofers to get the crew coffee and doughnuts.  Gotta admit the suits were impressive even after all these years in a degraded state:  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
10 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ I wouldn't get too carried away, but if it was a suit it certainly wasn't made by some geek in Hollywood.

 

It's simply not their "style" of creature.

 

I would say when the great and talented Chris Walas tried to make a yeti type creature for his Forbidden Valley movie it is a fail.  As a Patty-like effort which is it not directly designed to be, it is a great reveal on a swing and a miss.  Walas who was a member of the BFF I have read, never once attempted to just make a suit recreation with all his talent to easily show how Patty is just a suit.  

 

 

Quote

One thing that I'm not clear about though is this: Perhaps I'm wrong but haven't many PGF proponents stated that according to Hollywood it would cost up to a quarter of a million dollars to make a comparable suit?

 

Stan Winston said about $1000 back then and a couple hundred today. I think that is a fair est.  We don't know if Stan felt the labor and still back then in 1967 might be adding to that $1000.  I would bet it would.   

 

 

Quote

Yet here we have one of Hollywood's "finest", Rick Baker, auctioning off a state of the art gadget suit at a price between 4 or 6 thousand bucks.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something here....

 

 

I have never seen any trace of a mask! Have you?

 

I think you make an excellent point.  If there is one thing the Bigfoot discussion seems to have is a lot of wild numbers being thrown around.  I think a suit effort for Patty could not reasonably be expected to exceed some suit typical of the era of 1967.   Say John Chambers charged X per suit on the Planet of the Apes.  I can't imagine a Patty effort made for a hoax would be beyond that price or much beyond.  I just can't see it.  I could be wrong.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

(added)

 

the real cost of a suit is not the suit maker. The real cost of the suit is the money needed to keep guy who made the suit when they find out the film made BIG $$$$$$$$$$.

 

 

 

🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
20 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ In my opinion these Hollywood creations all have the same basic look to them.

 

In other words, they look like they were made in Hollywood.

 

Are they meant to look realistic? To actually fool anyone? To be kid friendly?

 

It is important to consider the intent of the creator. What are they attempting to convey?

 

Patty looks nothing like these slick L.A. movie industry offerings.

 

 

 

 

 

Or....these "slick" L.A. movie offerings look nothing like the PGF film subject... ;) ...

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Bob-AG2.gif

 

Baker-Suit-Arms-FAIL-AG1-B.gif

 

  F347-F360-ArmBend-Matt-AG1.gif

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk

The film is still a matter of disputer after all this time, imo, neither side has the winning argument and with those "who were there" not getting any younger the film is doomed to be inconclusive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
3 hours ago, starchunk said:

The film is still a matter of disputer after all this time, imo, neither side has the winning argument and with those "who were there" not getting any younger the film is doomed to be inconclusive.

 

Sadly you are right: Some of the Key Players have died with perhaps the most important one- Roger Patterson.   BFF member and researcher Daniel Perez has stated here on the BFF words to the effect that PGF research is a bit like a race against the undertaker.

 

As far as who is winning the argument, I think we have to define what the argument really is issue by issue.  The PGF is compelling but I leave open the possibility it could be a hoax. I will say since reading many posts over the years on the BFF that seem less likely to me vs more.  That is, the more harshly challenged points I read here on the BFF they more they keep favoring Roger Patterson.  

 

There are many issues which have been covered on the BFF by various topics. I would boil things down for simplicity to just this one for now:  The suit.  

 

Patty MUST either be a real creature or she MUST be a man in a suit.  There is not 3rd option.  It is interesting one of the best ways to test is Patty is REAL is to test if Patty is a man in a suit.  That has been the elephant in the room.  Can a man take 1967 era materials or earlier and replicate in a same or very similar way the PGF result.  If they can it highly suggests Patty could be a man in a suit.  That would possibly be enough for most (yes not all) people looking into the subject.  The fact this has not been done and efforts to do this have failed should be telling. The reason is how easy and I mean Easy it should be to accomplish that.

 

How do you like this attempt:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

deleted

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

deleted

 

 

 

 

OM,

 

Don’t delete.  Always love your input

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
5 hours ago, hiflier said:

t's only a reminder that at face value only the film will always be called into question. It's only after seeing what other researchers have done on the film that any arrivals at the truth can be made.

 

 

thats all I meant

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

Don’t delete.  Always love your input

 

Thanks BD, I enjoy your material as well...

 

In this instance I had replied to Hiflier's post and then realized that I had totally misread his post. It was too late to rewrite.

 

The perils of old age... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The PGF is the only film I know where we KNOW where it was shot. Know there was a collaborative trackway associated with the film subject. And was documented well by follow on investigations. Including John Greens McClarin film.

 

Its about as good as it gets. No other film or trackway or audio carries as much weight as the PGF. It stands on four or more legs instead of one.

 

But its still a film and we need a body. With each passing year my hope wanes. I drive 1000’s of miles each year on NF roads. And Ive always got a gun. This is what Grover Krantz suggested to do. Zip. Zero. Nada.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
24 minutes ago, norseman said:

I drive 1000’s of miles each year on NF roads. And Ive always got a gun. This is what Grover Krantz suggested to do. Zip. Zero. Nada

 

I don't know what to say about that, Norseman. Beyond having two people ride with you looking through a good thermal imager out each side of your vehicle, or doing the same on horseback, spotting a Sasquatch who had maybe hid before you approached an area would be danged near impossible. For me to use one while on a trail as one person is a tedious, slow going affair and not much ground gets covered. Even at camp I cannot look through one for long day or night. Using one while driving? Too dangerous to do unless someone is with me, which is like never because I've yet to find anyone who will go with me. Some people think this should be easy stuff to do but in reality? It isn't at all easy.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

I respectfully offer that if you knew how to conduct your own investigation into the film's subject you may think differently? My own efforts in that have determined that Patty couldn't be a person in a suit. I had a thread here that discusses Patty's shoulder width and how I was able to determine it's ratio to her height. The outcome of that when taken in context with the rest of the creature's actions speaks for itself. The only ones who dispute the fill are, and will continue to be, the ones who either do not do the work themselves or will not accept the work already done by others if they even know about what's already been determined.

 

This isn't a slam on you, starchunk, it's only a reminder that at face value only the film will always be called into question. It's only after seeing what other researchers have done on the film that any arrivals at the truth can be made.

 

For those who have been on BFF for a while, you may remember Gigantofootecus' 2005 thread where he provided a discussion and his analysis of Patty's ASH ratio (height to arms span comparison).  His conclusion is it was 1.30 meaning her armspan was 130% of her height. That's clearly outside human proportion.  I believe the average male's armspan is 1.02.  I believe Bob Heironimus was 1.00 and because he was the only person alleged to have been in the suit, it debunks those allegations.

 

Here is some of his work as it relates to the PGF for those unfamiliar with him:

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

By the way, another blockbuster conclusion which is contained in his report above is that Patty's standing height is 18% more than her walking height. If her walking height is 6'3", then her standing height would be nearly 7' 5". In my opinion, that's game, set, and match.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
18 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Here is some of his (Giganto's) work as it relates to the PGF for those unfamiliar with him:

 

http://www.readclip.com/crypto/review.htm

 

By the way, another blockbuster conclusion which is contained in his report above is that Patty's standing height is 18% more than her walking height. If her walking height is 6'3", then her standing height would be nearly 7' 5". In my opinion, that's game, set, and match.

 

 

Unfortunately, wiiawiwb....Giganto's differential figures, of 15.6% and 18%....are both flawed. 

 

Here is a graphic I made some time ago....using the same method, and I got a much more conservative differential figure, between Patty's 'walking height' and her 'full standing height'....(about 6%)...

 

Giganto-Graphic1-F362-AE.jpg

 

 

A 6-foot tall person, in the walking pose of Patty...would lose about 7 - 10 inches...approximately.

 

 

And, interestingly....if Patty's 'full standing height' was about 6' 4"....(fairly tall, for a female human)…..it would compress to a height of only about 5' 8", or so, with her walking posture. 

 

And that 'walking height' figure is not too far off of the result we get with the 25MM lens' focal length figure inserted into the Photogrammetry equation.  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...