Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Bill

Wet Dog:

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

A lot of what you described or have interest in can be found here:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/forum/159-the-munns-report/

 

As far as analysis of the alleged costume wearer's account, it's picked apart in numerous discussions, but the main account by Bob Heironimous, the alleged costume wearer, is featured in the book "The Making of Bigfoot" by Greg Long, where he interviews Heironimous and the man describes the costume he claims to have worn. His description fails miserably to match what we see in the film. The forum archives may contain several discussion threads about Bob H. and his claims.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wet Dog
14 hours ago, Bill said:

Wet Dog:

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

A lot of what you described or have interest in can be found here:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/forum/159-the-munns-report/

 

As far as analysis of the alleged costume wearer's account, it's picked apart in numerous discussions, but the main account by Bob Heironimous, the alleged costume wearer, is featured in the book "The Making of Bigfoot" by Greg Long, where he interviews Heironimous and the man describes the costume he claims to have worn. His description fails miserably to match what we see in the film. The forum archives may contain several discussion threads about Bob H. and his claims.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Bill

 

Thanks so much, Bill!!  That is very helpful indeed.  I will focus my reading accordingly.  I also will read the Greg Long book to assess exactly what the alleged costume wearer explains as the overall process, its specific components and his involvement. My belief is that participating in the customization, rehearsals and wildly successful deployment of the alleged costume, essentially from horseback with no supporting resources, at an exceedingly remote location, would be a rich experience with many great details and "lessons learned" to share.  It would be so extraordinary, if true, that I think it could be a case study for the entertainment industry, even perhaps by today's standards.  If the costume wearer's account is scant, porous and misaligned with reality, it can't legitimately tip the scales and should be cast aside, as is the case in official evidentiary forums across the country on a daily basis.  These thoughts may be treading old ground but I notice that the claim of a man in a suit seems to dominate the internet resources as "fact" when I search.  Anyhow, thank you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
23 hours ago, Wet Dog said:

 

Thanks so much, Bill!!  That is very helpful indeed.  I will focus my reading accordingly.  I also will read the Greg Long book to assess exactly what the alleged costume wearer explains as the overall process, its specific components and his involvement. My belief is that participating in the customization, rehearsals and wildly successful deployment of the alleged costume, essentially from horseback with no supporting resources, at an exceedingly remote location, would be a rich experience with many great details and "lessons learned" to share.  It would be so extraordinary, if true, that I think it could be a case study for the entertainment industry, even perhaps by today's standards.  If the costume wearer's account is scant, porous and misaligned with reality, it can't legitimately tip the scales and should be cast aside, as is the case in official evidentiary forums across the country on a daily basis.  These thoughts may be treading old ground but I notice that the claim of a man in a suit seems to dominate the internet resources as "fact" when I search.  Anyhow, thank you again.

 

Welcome Wet Dog. 

 

I didn't see where Bill Munns had mention it, but I would highly recommend his Book When Roger Met Patty.  (See Bill Munns background in the subject of creature costumes).  It addresses some of your Q as well.

 

You ask some great Q and I look forward to your addition here on the BFF be you a skeptic, believer or somewhere in the middle. Welcome.     There are a lot of good threads here on the BFF which subjects relating to the Patterson Gimlin Film/Bigfoot.

 

If you need help or have a Q or a thought I think you will find a lot of help by believers and skeptics alike here on the BFF.   Don't be afraid to ask since other probably have had the same Q.   We need thoughtful participation to move things forward toward solving this riddle.

 

Finally on one of your Q's about "a sui" I will leave you with this thought by Dr. Jeff Meldrum on one of these TV shows:

You can say Patty looks like a man in a suit until you see a man in a suit.   

 

  

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wet Dog

Thank you as well, Backdoc, for both the welcome and the tips!!  I will take the time to read Bill Munns' book. 

Based primarily on the PGF, I am a believer, though I am skeptical/doubtful of other cryptids and of all other Sasquatch evidence, to date; maybe with the exception of some particularly compelling examples in the footprint evidence.  Eyewitness accounts are too problematic for me because of the unreliability of human perception and recall, and risk of fraud.  

The PGF, however, is a video of a living, moving bipedal entity - either human or non-human.  It is what it is - evidence capable of focused analysis.  And to your point, it feels real.  It felt real when I first saw it as a child; and felt real every time I checked in on it over the years.  Men in suits look and feel like men in suits, always.  There is no other alleged Sasquatch video that comes close to triggering the internal instinct of realism.  Setting that instinct aside, as well as all the background clutter about the people involved, the film, standing on its own merit, seems like it generates more and more quality evidence as time passes.  

There is a frame where the rear of the subject is visible.  It's back, gluteals, soles, fingers.  Amazing detail, proportionality and symmetry.  Very stunning to me is the flexed calf muscle.  It is incredibly realistic, in a way that leaves one without a breath for a moment as the realisation sets in that the possibility of fakery, which might be reassuring on some level, is not sustainable, and that a creature such as this likely roams the Pacific Northwest.  Who would plan a hoax to include such a calf muscle?

I believe the lower leg and calf muscle should be studied carefully.  It looks accurate, large and powerful, and contracts, on a subject that fakery proponents would say is bulked up with padding.

The other thing that I am stuck on is head size.  The head looks small in some frames in comparison to the bulky body.  Yet the costume wearer says it is a football helmet under a mask, according to material from internet searches.  A football helmet under a mask would be huge - like a bobble head.  For such a bobble head to look smallish, the body would have to be massively bulked up.  Such a costume would look more and more ridiculous and lacking in muscle definition, perhaps exponentially so, as the body bulking increased with each millimetre.  Yet the body yields more and more definition as technology improves.

Anyway, these are the ruminations of a mind tortured by this mystery, seeking some truth, regardless of outcome either way.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Wet Dog:

 

Small correction necessary. The PGF is a 16mm film, not a video (even though most people watch it on a video conversion).

 

The football helmet Bob H claims he wore was described as an older leather helmet, not a modern plastic one, but even the old leather one expands a human head enough that no human can get his head into the size of Patty's head. I actually tested it with a scaled proportion mask and got a leather helmet and tried to put the mask over a guy's head while wearing the leather football helmet. No way it would fit. The small size of the head, as compared to movie gorilla suit heads is discussed and illustrated in my book, When Roger Met Patty, as Backdoc kindly referenced above.

 

As for your mind tortured by this mystery, I can honestly say I feel your pain, as I've dealt with it for 12 years now.

 

:)

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Excellent posting, Wet Dog. Welcome to the forum. Plussed.

 

And Mr. Munns is a valuable asset to our ranks. Ever the gentleman. Thanks, Bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

Welcome to the BFF @Wet Dog, good to have you here.

 

My issue with the PGF film creature is based on the images below. One is the "diaper butt" and the other is the "leg seam". Many members have good explanations for these but I have doubt. Having said that, It probably is a real animal based on all of the other factors, some of which you have pointed out.

 

Patty-240.gif

 

patty3.png                        patty4.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
4 hours ago, Wet Dog said:

 

The PGF, however, is a video of a living, moving bipedal entity - either human or non-human.  

 

Yes, the PGF is either a real "thing " or a man in a suit.  There is no in between.  If Patty is a hoax, it should be easy for someone to repeat how this was done in a same or similar way using 1967 era materials.   It's a fascinating film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot

Welcome to the forum Wet Dog!

 

gigantor, I too have a few issues with the film but keep coming back to the conclusion that it is a real creature and not a man in a suit! As far as the diaper butt I think some humans look like that. And don't upright creatures such as humans have to have buttocks to walk on two legs? Picture if you will a slightly over weight person who is covered with fairly short hair. Plus I'm not trying to be funny here! lol! And to me the leg seam could just be loose skin or the light playing tricks on us depending on the angle. Having been to Bluff Creek back in the 70's the film seems to have stood the test of time, just thought by now we would have more evidence! Never give up hope!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The irregularities in fur contours on the buttocks can be explained by fat being stored for the impending winter. That results in skin folds, which in turn fold the hair growing out of the skin.

The line on the thigh is scratched by the thumb, because the right hand actually scrapes and ruffles the fur as it swings forward and backward, and thus makes contact. The thumb is exactly where the line is. We can prove this by studying the thigh as the arm swings forward and backward, and the fur on the thigh goes lighter, then darker, then lighter, etc. This is what fur does with it is rubbed and changes it's lay from normal to disturbed. When it lays flat, it tends to reflect more light. When it is ruffled, it tends to stand up and reflect less light, getting darker. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

It would take some searching but a picture has been posted on some thread here that shows a gorilla with a butt that looks just like Patty's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
16 hours ago, Bill said:

 

The line on the thigh is scratched by the thumb, because the right hand actually scrapes and ruffles the fur as it swings forward and backward, and thus makes contact. The thumb is exactly where the line is. We can prove this by studying the thigh as the arm swings forward and backward, and the fur on the thigh goes lighter, then darker, then lighter, etc. This is what fur does with it is rubbed and changes it's lay from normal to disturbed. 

 

I wondered about this thigh line until I saw your presentation as part of the Texas Bigfoot Conf. on Youtube.   You showed this go back and fourth just as you point out.  If anyone has any Q's on this thigh line point at least,  I would suggest they look that up on Youtube. It appears toward the very end of your presentation as I recall.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...