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

wiiawiwb

Sweaty, thanks for providing. Two  questions.  On the diagram to the left, the clarity of the entire foot is not visible to my eyes. Wouldn't the measurement from the knee to the foot be measured to the bottom of the midpart of the heel? If so, isn't that what GF measured on the diagram to the right? The pictures are a bit fuzzy but it appears that's how GF calculated it and his anchor points at each critical point also appear, to my untrained eye, to be places correctly. How could his numbers be off? 

 

You're using a different frame in the PGF.  Did you try taking the exact frame he used and redoing the calculations?

 

Also, GF said in his paper that the average human standing-to-walking height is different by 8%-10%. Your calculation of 6% is less than that. Given her unusually stooping gait and well-bent knee, shouldn't we expect the result be higher than the average human?

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Sweaty, thanks for providing. Two  questions.  On the diagram to the left, the clarity of the entire foot is not visible to my eyes. Wouldn't the measurement from the knee to the foot be measured to the bottom of the midpart of the heel? If so, isn't that what GF measured on the diagram to the right? The pictures are a bit fuzzy but it appears that's how GF calculated it and his anchor points at each critical point also appear, to my untrained eye, to be places correctly. How could his numbers be off? 

 

You're using a different frame in the PGF.  Did you try taking the exact frame he used and redoing the calculations?

 

Also, GF said in his paper that the average human standing-to-walking height is different by 8%-10%. Your calculation of 6% is less than that. Given her unusually stooping gait and well-bent knee, shouldn't we expect the result be higher than the average human?

 

Those are fair, and good questions, wiiawiwb.  I'll look into it later on tonight, and get back to you. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gigantofootecus

What I find most compelling about Patty is that she had very short hair for a costume, which would normally be used to cover suit flaws, yet I defy anyone to spot 1 fabric fold/crease over her entire body. How the hell did Roger do that? Styrofoam padding like Dfoot?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
8 hours ago, Gigantofootecus said:

How the hell did Roger do that? Styrofoam padding like Dfoot?

 

Not without ending up with gross folds at the joints. Not without loosing elasticity.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch

Friend sent me Unsealed Files dvd on Bigfoot, they suggest that Gimlin was duped by Patterson who had his buddy in the suit waiting out there and needed Gimlin as a credible witness to seal the Money Shot of which he sold for $50,000 soon after of which Gimlin got zero...  

 

I don't agree with the show but it's a take on the PG Film that I'd not seen before on video.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
8 hours ago, SackScratch said:

Friend sent me Unsealed Files dvd on Bigfoot, they suggest that Gimlin was duped by Patterson who had his buddy in the suit waiting out there and needed Gimlin as a credible witness to seal the Money Shot of which he sold for $50,000 soon after of which Gimlin got zero...  

 

I don't agree with the show but it's a take on the PG Film that I'd not seen before on video.

 

 

Was that show the Xcreatures ?  by Packman?  It’s nonsense if it is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
12 hours ago, SackScratch said:

Friend sent me Unsealed Files dvd on Bigfoot, they suggest that Gimlin was duped by Patterson who had his buddy in the suit waiting out there and needed Gimlin as a credible witness to seal the Money Shot of which he sold for $50,000 soon after of which Gimlin got zero...  

 

I don't agree with the show but it's a take on the PG Film that I'd not seen before on video.

 

Gimlin had a loaded rifle at the ready. I simply cannot subscribe to this theory.

Share this post


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

Friend sent me Unsealed Files dvd on Bigfoot, they suggest that Gimlin was duped by Patterson who had his buddy in the suit waiting out there and needed Gimlin as a credible witness to seal the Money Shot of which he sold for $50,000 soon after of which Gimlin got zero...  

 

I don't agree with the show but it's a take on the PG Film that I'd not seen before on video.

 

 

That could not possibly have been the case, SS....for one simple reason....the trackway.

 

The realistic appearing foot impressions...especially, the depth and realistic contour of the toes...along with the pressure ridges....simply could not have been made by costume feet. 

And under the proposed scenario....(Roger duping Bob)….Bob would have to have seen Roger replacing the "actor's" footprints, with faked footprints.

 

Bob Gimlin could not have been hoaxed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch

No, it's another newer show, just maybe a couple years old, I thought it was this one... 

 

but I'll have to go through those DVD's again, was excited to get a huge batch of bigfoot DVD's I'd not seen before and binge watched them all night! Will confirm the title and post the video if I can find it on YouTube after I figure out for sure which one it was... 

 

I was over 20 years late seeing the one you mentioned, I'd just downloaded it from YouTube into my Android a couple weeks ago since I couldn't find a dvd version of it on eBay or amazon! Ran across it while doing Bigfoot searches on youtube...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

go to:
https://bigfootforums.com/topic/69605-what-do-you-think-bigfoot-is/page/5/

 

this topic, page 5. Quote Patterson-Gimlin:
"Documented creatures can be protected and studied. Mythical ones cannot. 

 

"Expeditions like the one you described have been conducted by experienced mountain climbers with the Sherpas

and not a single Yeti has been documented. 

 

"You mention pictures of wild animals and they are countless. One iconic film of an undocumented creature is of 

no comparison to those pictures."


I differ.

Yeti has been documented.  It turned out to be a bear.

 

 

Backdoc, page 29: "... 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."

 

I can't say the Planet of the Apes were poorly done, for the time: the "chimps" wore just masks & were dressed as humans.

The "gorillas" were too poorly done to fool anyone.

 

I suspect the only way you could make a good-looking ape suit in 1967 would be simple: Skin out a gorilla.

Edited by Oonjerah
separating paragraphs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

And then install muscles so that they telegraph through the skin, install some zippers or sew in the poor guy  who was to get in the thing, stretch the suit's shoulders out to 28 or 30 plus inches and then do surgery on the wearer so that their clavicles could be extended to reach the new shoulder joint locations. The last thing would be to glue the face to the wearer's face so that lip  movements would look natural and then drive him to Bluff Creek and kick him out onto the sandbar.

 

Short of doing all that? Maybe just find a female Sasquatch in the Six Rivers National forest.....and film her ;) 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The X Creatures by Packman of the UK was a joke in the biggest sense.   

 

Here is the short version which is still long:

 

Packman's basic idea is a documentary where he was going to get to the bottom of a Bigfoot hoax.  He makes the claim the Bigfoot phenomenon started in 1967 with the PGF which is completely not true.  Packman must know if he accused the still living Gimlin of being involved in a hoax for money, Gimlin could sue him.  Therefore, he pretends to be honest and honorable and he makes up the idea Gimlin was duped by Roger. That way, he could accuse the PGF of being a fake without getting Gimlin to sue him.  So Gimln gives an honest interview over the phone and Packman twists his words along with an old edited interview until he can cherry pick what he needs.  

 

"there is honest Bob to witness the brilliant hoax"

 

Packman has the money to produce the show. He decides the crown jewel of his show is going to be a recreation of the PGF to show it could be done.  With all that money he doesn't get the suit guys he interviews to make a suit for very cheap but spends that type of money renting an off the rack suit.  Say that again? Yes, given the things at his disposal he uses the same kind of camera, a similar creek bed and exact distances to the extent they can be know.  Yet, when it comes to a suit they RENT one.   Oh, they did consult with suit people who showed them suits and used a suit with materials and methods which were NOT available in 1967.

 

Packman states that Patty walking away was not just unlikely but 'implausable'   For some reason Packman has never watched other animals in the wild who nearly always walk or trot away from humans.  Yet, he labels Patty's actions as implausible.   He can't replicate the suit even though he has the money and resources to do it.  Then, he tries to go to the bigger con that Gimlin was duped by Roger. 

 

Packman's show is an example of the worst of the worst of pretending to be in search of the truth. HIs failure to make a suit when the resources were there to do so is the biggest tell of the whole thing.  A former Skeptic on the BFF went so far as to say, "Well they were not trying to make a suit recreation"    WHAT?!   They were doing an entire PGF recreation! but they somehow forget to make a suit.   Wow.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Footprints:

 

 The X Creatures also willfully mislead about the track depth. They basically make the case around 10-14:00 esp at 13:03 the tracks are too deep to be real based on the weight of a horse vs the weight of an ape.   This sounds like it would be true but it is not even close to true in real life.  This misstatement be it by misunderstanding or design is one of the main points to help them sell the hoax idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

An old poster,  Bigfoothunter, did some good comparisons on human vs. horse tracks in a loomy substance.  It’s available with some searching, a good read.

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I can't resist.

 

"Does this holstered gun make my a$$ look fat?"

 

Why yes, yes it does, and I'm gonna wear it any way :)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...