deirdre
Senior Member.
i've never seen one. do you live in California? i'm on the East Coast.the film is still used in commercials to this day.
i've never seen one. do you live in California? i'm on the East Coast.the film is still used in commercials to this day.
that's a misuse of Wisdom of the Crowd, there are 4 conditions that need to be met. You're referring to mob mentality, etc. Very different things although they appear similar. Many of the comments I read seem to be (and they say so) from unbiased people , people with no strong feelings about Bigfoot's existence or lack thereof. They are commenting on Gimlin talking about it for 10 minutes and drawing a conclusion about his character and if what he says happened, happened. I can weed out the gung-ho Bigfooters, they make themselves very apparent right off.While I agree with the general principal of a "jury of one's peers" we should note that the "wisdom of the crowd" also gives us things like, oh maybe, lynchings and the Holocaust.
The fact that a group of Bigfoot believers comment positively in what amounts to a giant feedback loop on YouTube is hardly a form of compelling evidence.
it's not nailed it. its a different suit, different lighting, different body position, different camera zoom, different blur factor etc and a guy who is 40 years older.Here is Patty vs. a recreation Bob H. did in 2005. If you can say ' Nailed it ! ' then good for you.
Krantz isn't the only one clinging to this "slight exaggeration""Assertions that the kinematics of the film subject cannot be duplicated by human agents are thus demonstrably false.". So they caught Krantz in a slight exaggeration regarding 'impossible to duplicate'.
The attach shows the knee-bend, foot raise situation that occurs. Do you see this configuration when people are walking? I dont.
But the walk - its right there in front of your eyes.
But beyond that, it has a brief segment with Grover Krantz, the first academic to get on the side of Bigfoot being possible. He demonstrates the complexity of the walk, and in his typical direct language calls it "inhuman". Yet the second after a noted anthropologist/primatologist says the walk is inhuman (to carry on for a distance), the host says he just demonstrated it, so it is possible and therefore its a man in a sui
"gait cant be duplicated by a human" to conclude it was not a hoax
As to the gait, did you watch Grover recreate the walk? Have you seen the athlete try to re-create it in Legend Meets Science? Its all on YT, anyone can be a Bigfoot gait expert in a few clicks lol. I'm just saying that when a top expert (like Krantz) says the walk is "inhuman" , explains why in a clear manner, then the skeptic has to counter that.
He concluded "inhuman". You watched it, did it look like he was walking naturally? Clearly not. Yet the filmed subject is doing it with complete ease.
did his "inhuman" gait walk to perfection.
(same as saying that Roger told him to "walk like a gorilla", with the resulting walk being judged too human by the first viewing experts and "more efficient than a human" by the Russian bio-mechanics experts
to be a walk completely in line with an animal weighing hundreds of pounds and could not be matched in all respects by a person being given verbal instructions by two experts on gait kinematics?
Krantz and others have said the walk is very efficient for an animal weighing 400+ pounds plus. It's not suitable for people, which is why he has great difficulty doing it (as he states).
The most notable difference, and most disingenuous, is the Bob photo is much sharper. Note that the pine needles in the background are discernable, while the foliage in the Patty picture is not. I have to assume that the Bob picture was taken within 10-15' of the subject and presented as is. Not from 60-80', then zoomed in like the original.it's not nailed it. its a different suit, different lighting, different body position, different camera zoom, different blur factor etc and a guy who is 40 years older.
you dont neeed suit advancement, you need a younger man in the suit and proper cameras.They had 40 years of suit advancement (and just flat out 40 years) to get it right,
I cant thank you enough for that, you're doing my research for meyou dont neeed suit advancement, you need a younger man in the suit and proper cameras.
or you need Patterson to modify the suit.
View attachment 52958
Because the color was so glaringly wrong, if they are both in B&W we are at least getting a little closer to apples to apples.So the manipulation (in a negative sense) to revert to B&W seems unnecessary
Which is not what you said when you first posted it:I do agree on the provenance problem with the picture, and will try to find a primary source. I saw it elsewhere long before it made it to Reddit.
And you justify it with complete speculation:. Here is Patty vs. a recreation Bob H. did in 2005.
That makes sense since Bob H. wanted to finally cash in. A TV show would be the only way possible. So having some stills to 'bolster' a potential project makes sense, but I cant say for sure that's Bob H. in the Teletubbies suit.
Assuming Bob reads Reddit and cares at all about what it is currently getting up votes. I know some Reddit people have a hard time understanding that not everybody gets all their info from Reddit, but it's true.But you'd think there'd be a strong denial out there if it was not.
I gave it a go because you claimed it was Bob when you posted it. Now it seems it's just a picture from Reddit, so that explains the lack of sourcing. Actually, it looks a lot like the time Morris tried a suit out. This looks like the suite and face and it's not Bob H. wearing it:You analyze it as if you think it is (otherwise why take the time), so maybe it is
Because it is. It is taken much closer to the subject and has higher resolution. Patty was shot from 80' away and this is what it looked like, as previously noted:Yet the reaction from hoax proponents is always 'that's an unfair comparison'.
not really, didnt find the original source. i found other pics (because i was thinking it was the costume designer in the suit) add: Philip Morris.I cant thank you enough for that, you're doing my research for me![]()
i think that's Bob. no?This looks like the suite and face and it's not Bob H. wearing it:
yea it seems like Morris is saying in this interview with slides that it is Bob in suit (the second suit shown above)
View attachment 52979
at least Morris is wearing the same shirt and tie in all the pics with Heironomous.
Source: https://youtu.be/l1N-gTaAEok?t=98
I stand corrected.i think that's Bob. no?
in case you havent seen them, from my notebook as i tried to find source for the orange/blue face suit pic (all Heironimus related):more !! I cant take any more, this is amazing.
another insight into your value system, where 26-year-old men are untrustworthy somehow?And Roger gave Bob H. the film too ?, not just the suit. Handed a 26 yr old the most valuable thing in the world (to Roger anyway) for safe-keeping.![]()
as Rogers's (apparent) friend Bob H. says "Roger was a crook. Roger was a con man and a crook". It's in the video I posted titled 'Bigfoot or Big Phoney' . He also says he kept quiet for 35 years because he promised he would. But apparently he'd had enough and the truth needed to come out. Shows his value system. My age reference was more aimed at there being a slight generational gap in play, Roger was 34 and Gimlin 37, whereas Bob H. was only 26. I think Roger was married at this point, so handing over his 'million dollar baby' to a guy nearly 10 years younger seems odd to me (I just noticed in re-watching that in this interview at least, only mention of Roger and Gimlin giving Bob H. the suit is mentioned, not the film. Could be an omission by the narrator, but it's a big one if so. Or Bob H. didnt mention that in this interview? )another insight into your value system, where 26-year-old men are untrustworthy somehow?
I'd say this factoid strongly suggests that Bob did not mutilate the suit, and wasn't about to extort Roger; and that instead they were friends who trusted each other.
They had 40 years of suit advancement
yet another weird takeThe purpose of a costume is to deceive, to be something other than real or true.
best costume suitPlease show the history of all the advances that they have been working on over the last 40 years
They had 40 years of suit advancement (and just flat out 40 years) to get it right
Are you denying there's been progress in primate suits since the 70's ? Nobody had been using musculature at that time. The special effects guy in the BBC documentary (1998) said that's what he'd use and he could duplicate the appearance. Maybe a Time Traveler costume designer made the suit in 1967. I was just now trying to find a fairly convincing Bigfoot YT video I saw months ago that was clearly designed to mimic the Patty creature. Darn good costume I had to admit, and they clearly made an effort to put musculature underneath. I now cannot find it ... because there's so much Bigfoot garbage on YT now. It's out of control. If I somehow find it among the hundreds of videos I will share it. The short backstory is that it was posted fairly recently as 'new' but in fact had been on another guys channel for years, the other guy being a shady character. People stealing other channels videos, clickbait titles, its a horrible situation. The PG film started it and is unquestionably the best in all respects. Now, anyone can fake anything.Please show the history of all the advances that they have been working on over the last 40 years (and please identify who "they" are).
I can do the same with nuclear fusion, it would amount to many thousands of papers, and hundreds of press releases. But that's gone nowhere, so I'm much more interested now in all of this "suit advancement" that you claim has been undergoing constant progress.
What's the next advancement we can look forward to, and when? You've got me really excited now.
Are you denying there's been progress in primate suits since the 70's ?
Growing up in NZ where I didnt wear shoes until I was 13 (which makes buying shoes difficult cause my feet are much wider than normal), you can tell this bigfoot impression is based just on a shoewearing persons dimensions but just scaled larger.I forgot about this, as did Patterson I think. If the creature's foot is as large as this:
View attachment 52862
Yes, as noted above Gimlin was riding Chico, a horse that belonged to Heironimus:@NorCal Dave in my slogging around the internet i also read that the third horse with Patterson was Hieronimus' horse. i didnt save the link and its super late, so off to bed...but if anyone wants to pursue that.
on a different site a guy said the horses name was Chico. ???
i always wondered why they would need a third horse to go 3 miles and yet even with an xtra pack horse they didnt put the plaster cast material in any of the saddle bags? what were they luggin on 3 horses?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_filmExternal Quote:Chris Murphy wrote, "I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony 'Peanuts'. Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of 'Chico' from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use ... Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition."[63] Heironimus stated that Chico (a middle-aged gelding) "wouldn't jump or buck ..."[64]
So here is the part about the unknown and as yet unidentified piolet that was either on stand-by all week in case Patterson found something, or Patterson knew and/or rounded up a piolet on Friday night to send the film to Yakima so it would be ready for viewing on Sunday afternoon. Or something like that?External Quote:We planned on going and taking the film over to the city next closest. I get Yreka and Eureka mixed up, and forgive me for that. Whatever city, we took it to the airport to send it up to his brother-in-law, a gentleman by the name of Al DeAtley, to get the film developed.
was reading an argosy article from Feb 1968. according to Gimlin and Roger bigfoot can run (and btw several parts in article describe Roger running at her)I just cant envisage this thing running, it doesnt appear 'built' to run. I think it was intended to represent some apex animal, and what would it have to run from?
thanks for the Argosy link, that really started it all in most peoples minds. I would have been 6, so I definitely did not purchase it, but I know I saw it in my teen years at the library. Truly 'first source' material. I think even some experts dont recall all the details in that article. Todd who runs the Sasquatch Archives channel seemed surprised when I mentioned that Roger mentioned in a 1971 interview that they 'chased' the thing for 3 miles. His (and others) belief was that Gimlin went in a short ways (300 yards) and somehow Roger shouted for him to come back and they worked on the casts and drove back to town with the film. End of story, end of chase. But clearly they both went on much longer (as I would have, since the camera was now re-loaded). As for breaking into a sprint in the "real heavy stuff", seems a strange place to start a sprint with a stride 50% longer than the already lengthy walking stride. Forgot she left the iron plugged in? I wonder if the opposite happened, and she slowed down and the strides were now 32" (being half the 65" he mentioned - could they have missed tracks in the "real heavy stuff"?) since she had no pursuers. There is no mention of seeing her run, so it's an open question. The Memorial Day footage shows 'something' running, but thats a whole other case. Maybe I'll watch the "Six Million Dollar Man" episode (yet again lol) to see if Andre the Giant broke into a sprint at any point. He was 7'`1" and weighing close to 500 pounds, so if he could 'sprint' and take long strides, then I'll believe Patty could.was reading an argosy article from Feb 1968. according to Gimlin and Roger bigfoot can run (and btw several parts in article describe Roger running at her)
Argosy (1968) page 28
gimlin: "he was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into that real thick bush"
same page : apparently bigfoot can run Roger:"when she got around the corner and into teh real heavy stuff she DID take off running.."
you need to scroll down the page to see the scans of the Argosy article
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/argosy-1968.html
that's only because they were told they are seeing muscle movement in that super blurry footage. if they are actually seeing padding movement and light shifts off fur in a blurry movie, then that changes the whole equation.he himself denied doing so, supposedly said "I'm good, but not that good"
They are telling this story to Ivan Sanderson.gimlin: "he was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into that real thick bush"
Todd who runs the Sasquatch Archives channel seemed surprised when I mentioned that Roger mentioned in a 1971 interview that they 'chased' the thing for 3 miles. His (and others) belief was that Gimlin went in a short ways (300 yards) and somehow Roger shouted for him to come back and they worked on the casts and drove back to town with the film. End of story, end of chase.
1.This is ancient history and was debunked a long time ago. Philip Morris exposed that he made the suit back in the 70's.
The Morris suitExternal Quote:Morris says the Patterson-Gimlin film depicts a man wearing a gorilla suit, which had been hand-sewn in the basement of his Kistler Avenue home.
Notwithstanding,External Quote:Figure 10. Image artifact. Comparing a Cibachrome print to a film scan shows the "hand" (what has been taken by some as a thumb and finger in opposition) appears only on the Cibachrome image and not on any other copy. This verifies that the "hand" is, in fact, a copy image artifact, not a true image of the hominid's hand.
And:External Quote:Hollywood has never succeeded in duplicating the P-G film. They have made their hairy ape-men, they have deluged our TV screens with furry snarling antagonists, and suffocated a legion of brave actors under a veritable sea of prepackaged yak hair, but they have never duplicated the P-G film.
So, is it simply a man in a late 1960's hand-sewn Monkey suit? Let us take a look at some high-end production examples contemporary with the time.External Quote:the P-G film escapes scrutiny unscathed. No hints of shortcuts, no fingerprints of clever trickery. Hollywood cannot touch it, and we need to ask why.
External Quote:Whatever his later feelings on King Kong, Baker did give the job every effort using all the 1970's technology at his disposal. His hairy ape was as anatomically correct as possible, with fake ape extendo arms that stretched his human arms to ape-like proportions. Baker did the best he could with these arms, but extendo arms have a very serious drawback -- they do not move. The wrists, the hands, and the fingers are all frozen in place.
He goes on:External Quote:Problem: Costume is put on in pieces, leaving seams everywhere.
Solution: Chewbacca does not have a single hair under 8 inches in length. It hangs off his forearms, off his wrists, around his ankles, down his back, everywhere. Try to find some open skin, they were very careful to ensure that you would see none. All the seams are carefully obscured and it only took about 10 pounds of extra hair. It is cheap after all.
3.External Quote:Chewbacca is a scarecrow, being thin as, well, a human. Now is a good time to bring the P-G film subject into this. She is plenty thick, both in depth and width. Depth can be easily fixed with foam padding under the fur, as costumers are usually all too proud to demonstrate. Width however, is not only a superhuman jump in difficulty, it is almost never even attempted. And Chewbacca did not even try.
We see these ''wrinkles" in the Star Trek Episode around the right shoulder.External Quote:One of the most, if not the most, troublesome areas for would-be monster makers is the neck. The combination of twisting and retracting muscles can make wrinkles glaringly apparent in almost any costume. As we have seen, furry monsters in the past have avoided the problem by adding excessive hair, thereby obscuring the neck, or by deliberately altering the character to give them some clothes to cover the area
Much like Chewbacca, which also had many parts. But surprisingly with none of the issues.External Quote:Morris informs that his suit was made in six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet.
So, let's reiterate, Morris uses no shoulder padding, no foam padding of any kind, no arm extensions. It's just Bob Heironimus in a hand-sewn hairy suit. That had been modified seamlessly by Patterson.External Quote:Morris notes that his suit—which he positively identifies from the film—was modified. The face mask was replaced, probably by one of leather such as horsehide, and stuffed breasts were added, no doubt from extra fake fur Patterson had asked to be included with his suit. The modifications were necessary to convert a gorilla costume into a more credible Bigfoot suit.
why are you trying to match 2 completely different body positions. Big foot does turn towards us in the video (which is what Bob is copying)...why not use that film screenshot?has noted in this video that Bobs dimensions do not match up to the alleged suit.
![]()
You're comparing stills from film and/or photographs to grainy film, of course details will be visible that don't match up. Also, if you're referring to the "creases" on the front of the shoulder, those aren't creases in the suit, they're fur clumping up. That's very typical of fur in joints.We see these ''wrinkles" in the Star Trek Episode around the right shoulder.
I'm not, a channel called https://www.youtube.com/@ThinkerThunker/videos is. I had used a video of he's to show arm vs leg measurements. Like this one for an example. But it got whittled down.why are you trying to match 2 completely different body positions. Big foot does turn towards us in the video (which is what Bob is copying)...why not use that film screenshot?