Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Subject: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Profile name could not be found posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 1:09am 
Hey everybody, haven't posted anything crypto in a while....

Yesterday I was watching this show called Ancient Mysteries on the Biography Channel, and the episode was about Sasquatch. They were talking to this anthropologist named, something Kratz/Krantz, who is also a Bigfoot researcher. He made a very interesting point regarding the Patterson-Gimlim film.

When the creature in the video is looking back, it is obvious that the "line" of its shoulders is higher than that of it's chin, i.e, if it turns around the whole way, its chin would bump into its shoulders. Unlike humans, and you can try this yourself now, actually, if you turn around, your chin does not meet your shoulders.

That is what the anthropologist in the documentary said, the following is my reasoning and other observations:

The only way you can do that is if you hunch your shoulders. However, if you do that, it becomes very difficult and awkward to swing your arms (you can try this for yourself as well), something which the creature in the film can do with ease.

A few other points against Patty being someone is a suit, and for it being a living creature (Sasquatch/Bigfoot):

1. The movement of muscle beneath the fur is apparent, and even obvious in some frames.

2. Say that the guy is just wearing a bigger suit, and that the suit has shoulder padding to make him seem taller. That would give a more "flappy/flabby" appearance as the creature is walking, which is not what is seen in the film.

3. The creature's speed while walking is quit fast, but reasonable in regards to its size and weight. It would be difficult for someone in a suit large enough and bulky enough to give the impression of a large creature to walk with such ease and quickness in a very natural manner.

All these points are, of course open to debate, and I'd be interested in seeing your take on it. I know that the Patterson film has been debated so much, but I think that the mere fact that we are still debating it like what, 30 something years later shows that it's not just like, you know, an obvious hoax or something that can be judged right away, or that even a conclusion can be reached after say one or two viewings or analyzations of it.

Hoping to see some interesting feedback.

Cheers,
CP
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Profile name could not be found posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 1:37am 
Dang pic didn't show up in main post, anyways here it is:
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: McHaggis posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 5:39am 
Not to put a downer on your thoughts, but have you ever seen an American footballer padded up. His head appears below his apparant shoulder line.

And lets dissect your points.


1. The movement of muscle beneath the fur is apparent, and even obvious in some frames.



Where you see muscle movement, I see fabric rising up and down.



2. Say that the guy is just wearing a bigger suit, and that the suit has shoulder padding to make him seem taller. That would give a more "flappy/flabby" appearance as the creature is walking, which is not what is seen in the film.


A tight bulked up body suit would not appear flabby as you say. It depends on the fit of the suit

3. The creature's speed while walking is quit fast, but reasonable in regards to its size and weight. It would be difficult for someone in a suit large enough and bulky enough to give the impression of a large creature to walk with such ease and quickness in a very natural manner.


Patterson could not remember what speed he set his camera on when filming. Depending on which setting it was on, greatly alters your perception of the images. This is something that very few people ever mention, which I find surprising.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 6:12am 
"A tight bulked up body suit would not appear flabby as you say. It depends on the fit of the suit"

Actually, I see something that reminds me of a costume. When "Patty" turns to the camera, watch the waist. There is a small, even ripple or bulge appears that developes just above the hip and extends around the visible midsection. It just doesn't look like flesh on fat or muscle to me. It just too closely resembles what material does for me.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Goro posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 7:26am 
The famous "look" to the camera is excecuted in a rather stiff necked manner...this is indicitive to me of restrictions of the construct of the costume, rather than a biological likeness to gorillas.

Grover Krantz always came across on Tv as a very nice guy, affable and interesting, and I would have loved to have him as a professor in anthropology class. During broadcasts of the mid 1970's, ("In Search Of"..."Mysterious Monsters", etc.) I felt he was a great counterpoint to the anti-Patterson arguements of Geoffrey Bourne (Yerkes Primate Center) and John Napier (Smithsonian Institution). However now, I feel Krantz was given to overly didactic and erroneous statements about the Patterson monster. His statement that he was 100% certain the Patterson film is real is grossly unscientific. And his multiple attempts to imitate the creature's walk on TV programs in the 1990's, while uttering such phrases as "No human can walk in this manner" were absurd.

Dante's observation of material bulging on the thigh of the creature are correct. Cleaned up versions of this film have not been kind to it's subject.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 11:38pm 
I am in 100% agreement with the turn executed by "Patty" and with your feelings about Krantz. I like Meldrum, because he recognizes and acknowledges the problems caused by hoaxes.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: bfthunter posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 9:36am 
Bob Hammermeister claimed to have worn the Patty suit. Now guys Im a believer from personal experience with the big guy/gal LOL however, a little known fact of Hammermeister is that he has only one eye. Look at the film when the BF turns toward the camera. There is no eye shine from both eyes. This is a factor which has puzzled many who sought to prove the film real. Why cant you see both eyes. The false eye dosent have the reflective properties of the real thing. Hammermeister states he wore some cloth, undershirt type material over his head with cut outs for the eyes and a modified football helmet. Im sorry but I believe the guy. It just makes since.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: paddy posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 8:22pm 
In the photo above that side of the figure's upper body and face is shadowed. Hence no eye shine.

Bob Heironimus described the costume differently from the person who claimed to have made it. He also claimed Patterson made it out of a horse hide, which is in opposition to the person who claimed to have made it.

Some who believe it's a fake have said that it would have to fit tight on the body of a big man in order for the muscles to move the way they do. In other words these people acknowledge the muscle movement. They do not think the suit is padded with fabric.

For Heironimus to convince us Patty was him in a suit he needs to: 1.)
Produce the suit. The original suit. 2.) Go to Bluff Creek, put the suit on, walk the sandbar, execute the turn, while being filmed on 16 mm. 3.) Submit the film for comparison to the Patterson film.

A BBC documentary attempted a replication several years ago. In trying to prove the film was a man in a suit they inadverdantly displayed just how good the figure in the Patterson film looks compared to their man in a suit.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: McHaggis posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 9:02pm 
You can ignore the BBC documentary, the suit they used was a very cheaply made fancy dress type costume. This was due to major financial restraints on the programme. I have friends who are TV producers, and they often moan just how tight the BBC are with their budgets. This documentary was made very cheaply, and was never intended as a major expose of the patterson film. It was just tabloid type tv show, that built up the hype as a major piece of tv work, in order to improve ratings.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 10:08pm 
'Does not change the fact that big budget movies about BF, King Kong or depicting known apes have never even come close to replicating this, authenticity-wise.

The supposed flaps of cloth/wrinkle on the torso is not unlike what I'd expect as flab & stretch-marks after having given birth very recently...which helps corroborate why it didn't "run" and why the breasts we're so enlarged.

Horse hide does not have the varying hair lengths, or have growth direction that's exactly consistent with that of a natural primate (why this one looks so much better than angel-hair suits). Horse hide is think, heavy, would require numerous alterations and thus be not very flexible, etc. (unless still un-tanned and direct off the horse).

It might be possible to build a man-powered partly animatronic suit to duplicate it, but would someone have done it back in the 60's...and if having done so well with a hoax, would they have opted for the pretty much worthless hoax as compared to a promising career in the film and costume industry?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 10:34pm 
Tanned and worked, horse hide becomes soft and subtle and can be sewn into any number of uses.

horse hide coat

Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: DiJiT posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 5:02am 
A horse's Winter coat is much more varied in length and coarseness than usual and if it isn't kept brushed or groomed it is even more so. Watch one of those Animal Cop shows when they do a case involving Horses who have been neglected. You will see lots of variation on their coats.

The "Flaps" that have been mentioned look like ordinary seperations in the material sections of the suit to me. I've yet to see anyone with that much "Flapping" going on.

Just because it is flowing one way on the suit doesn't mean it was flowing that way on the horse. Once it is off the animal is can be sown on at any angle and direction you choose.

Patterson was a well known prankster. He loved to pull pranks and get to people. Gimlin would have made the perfect cover since he was said to be very trustworthy and honest. Some people just enjoy messing with people. You wouldn't believe how elaborate some people get on Halloween.

Think of the setting. They said that Patterso was taking Gimlin out to "Hunt for Bigfoot". HE took him to the spot where they saw "Patty". He was the one who had the camera. HE was the one who started the agreement not to shoot it unless they were in danger and HE was the one who was carrying the gun anyway.

Add all the clues together and you get one BIG HOAX.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 6:37pm 
Actually, Gimlin had the gun.

Gerry
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: DiJiT posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 5:03am 
oops...sorry about that. Got confused, but my other points were alright lol.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Edwardpickman posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 1:24pm 
Not true. Gorillas in the Mists didn't have shakey distant shots they had CUs of gorillas intercut with CUs of men in gorilla suits. In some shots there were a mix of suits and real gorillas. Gorilla experts couldn't tell which were real and which were fake in most shots.

The whole argument is pointless because for true believers it's impossible to disprove. Non believers would believe if a body was found but what could possibly make true believers disbelieve? If there's no way to disprove something then it's faith not science. Until there's physical proof science has to be skeptical. Remember that extreme claims require a higher level of proof not a lower one. A large ape like creature in North America with zero physical evidence, bones not footprints and blurry film, requires a very high level of proof. If you want Cryptozoology to be accepted as a science you have to hold it to at least the same standard as the other sciences. Until Cryptozoology sets high standards it will be religated to a field including crop circles and alien abductions. Remember there is film of people making crop circles, some crop circles are of cartoon characters and school coats of arms for gods sake, and they still have true believers. If you saw a photo of Patterson and partner standing next to a guy in a paddy suit with the head off would you call the film a hoax or the photo? Most phones have cameras, video cameras seem to film every event in the last five years. There have never been so many cameras in the history of the world yet the best evidence is one piece of film shot 40 years ago?

I still say show me one bone that is definitely from a large ape of any kind in the last 100 thousand years anywhere in the US or Canada and I'd say the odds go up. If they came across the land bridge show me one from Asia in the last 100 thousand years from a bigfoot like primate. We aren't asking for a recent dead body or skeleton I'm saying bone from either contenient. I want it to be real but the evidence simply doesn't exist and witnesses are poor evidence. Everyday some one is let out of jail because a witness was wrong and often times multiple witnesses. Did you know before Betty and Barney Hill there were virtually no reports of grey aliens or abuctions. The handful of abduction stories before them mostly described humans or humaniod characters covered in tin foil. The phenominum exploded after the TV about the case was shown and now millions of people worldwide think they've been abducted. Around a million in the US alone by some estimates. How many people saw bigfoot before the Patterson film? How many saw it after that? Before the film dark shapes in the forest were bears and deer. Now every dark shape is Bigfoot. There's no doubt Betty and Barney Hill started one of the biggest urban legends in history, isn't it possible Patterson did as well?

I'm not saying there is no Bigfoot, there's no proof either way. I'm saying the more likely explaination is the film was a fake and people are seeing what they want to see. How many countries have elaborate crop circles where there's no TV? Urban legends follow a pattern and at least for now bigfoot is a text book case of one.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 11:58pm 
Not only are there a lack of photos or film, none of those that have surfaced resemble Patty (other than one photo from Ray Wallace that is reported to be his wife in a costume. Note the BFs head is supported on the shoulders and that would restrict head movement; the crest; the relatively flat face; a well defined spinal column; and if you look real hard, you might be able to see some structural definition in the shoulder area). It would seem that sooner or later, someone would inevitably photograph or video one that looks like a close relative to one already on film (or digitalized).

I detest the hoaxers for what they have done to so many good people who are honest and sincere in their search for cryptids, and for what they have done to halt any real scientific research on any crypto that may actually exist.

Elna Wallace hoping no one with a rifle was nearby...
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 10:15pm 
Why must Heironimus convince anyone that he was the person in the suit? No one has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject in the video is an authentic Bigfoot (ie., there has never been a second one like it filmed, captured, killed, etc).

Purported witnesses who claim to have seen the suit include:

Opal Heironimus, Bobs mother, who claims to have seen the suit in the trunk of her car.

Willa Smith, Opals sister-in-law, saw the suit in the trunk of Opals car.

John Miller, Heironimus' nephew, who remembers playing with the suit and putting the headpiece on.

Merle Warehime (unrelated to Bob) claims to have seen the suit.

Bob Hammermeister (unrelated to Heironimus) states he saw the suit in the trunk of Heironimus' car.

Mike and Howard Heironimus Bobs brothers (I believe), although they don't claim to have seen the suit, they heard about the hoax and Bobs involvement in it at the time it was filmed. Several other people around Yakima state (one whose name I could find easily was Les Johnson, a rancher new Yakima) that they have known of the hoax for decades but kept it quiet because they enjoyed watching people clammer on about "Patty".

The gait means little since Patterson was never able to say at what speed he filmed "Patty". He stated in his haste to film, he didn't notice the speed the camera was on, although he normally filmed at 24 feet per second. That camera could film at 16, 24, 32, 48 or 64 FPS. At 24 FPS, Patty's gait cannot be distinguished from a normal human gait, and since by Pattersons own admission, he normally filmed at 24 FPS, that would seem the most reasonable position to take. (At 16 FPS, there are those who have argued that the gait becomes nearly impossible for a human to match, but remember, Pattersons own words were that he normally filmed at 24 FPS. So if not at 24 FPS, it's just as likely to have been on 32, 48 or 64 FPS as it would be to have been on 16 since anything other than 24 would be speculative).

While I'm not totally convinced that Hieronimus was the person inside the suit (because of some of the discrepancies between his description of the suit and the suit that Philip Morris claims to have sold to Patterson, and his description of the area at Bluff Creek), Hieronimus can produce far more witnesses close to him and Patterson who have attested to his involvement in the hoax than have been presented to say he was not involved. And I have to admit, it has been more than 30 years since he saw Bluff Creek or the suit. When I look back more than 30 years ago, I'm not sure my memories of places or events is as accurate as they were shortly after any specific event.

And if you're looking for proof of Bigfoot, personally, I'm far more impressed by some of the sounds (howls and other vocalizations) recorded across the country during the past couple of decades than I am by films and photos. There are strong similarites in sounds across thousands of miles and several years that do not repeat themselves in videos and photos. I have two very good friends who have heard howls or whoops very similar to vocalizations recorded on two occassions; once in Montana (terrorizing their dog into a whimpering puddle on the ground), and once in Oregon (terrorizing a late teenage grandson so that he doesn't venture into the deep woods anymore).
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Ghost of TC posted Sat, Apr 14 2007, 11:04pm 
most vocalizations have been proven to be owls
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 12:04am 
There is now a computer program that the government is planning to, or has implemented as a way to recognize potential terrorists in disguise by their gate; it is similar to programs that pick wanted people out by facial features, but is said to be harder to fool. I eagerly await the day that this technology will be used on the Hieronimus-Patty question.

"Supple" does not mean "elasticity"...stretch some supple horse hide over you tight enough to show muscle flexion then try to walk and move around as fluidly as Patty. Can't be done (IMO).
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 12:27am 
Maybe that program will answer some questions. We'll have to wait and see. Until then, I'm on the fence concerning Hieronimus, but with those who believe it's a hoax.

Those who don't believe that "Patty" is an authentic BF fail to see muscle flexion. I am one of those.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 12:40am 
Owls, and I read recently that some howls were identified as coyotes. The friends of mine who heard the vocalizations that they couldn't identify come from Western Montana. The wife is reservation raised, spent more time in the woods than in school; and the husband is an avid hunter and sportsman. They currently own and operate a plant the processes several forest products. The husband spends a great deal of time in the forests looking for the products they need. When playing some of the recordings from the internet for them, the wife paused on one of them and said, "That sounds like an owl to me." That was the first time I heard anyone identify one of the sounds. The vocalizations they heard in Oregon and Montana were unlike anything they had ever heard before or since. The closest we've come to finding those vocalizations are recordings of orangatans. Doesn't mean that the sounds are made by a primate. Could easily be something known that has never been heard to make that particular sound before. But the mystery intrigues me......
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 12:44am 
And I'm sorry, the vocalizations they heard sounded like a series of incredibly loud "whoops".
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: paddy posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 1:13am 
The film speed has been worked out to be 18 fps based upon the up and down motion of the camera corresponding to Patterson's steps. If it was 24 fps he would had to have been running as fast or faster than an olympic sprinter. The camera didn't have a setting for 18 fps, but the manufacturer said there was a potential for the speeds to run a certain percentage faster than the dial settings. Someone (I think it was Grover Krantz or John Green) worked out that the camera at 16 fps actually ran 18+ fps.

Heironimus has claimed he was in the suit, so the burden lies with him to prove it. Otherwise, why should we believe him over the 2 or 3 other guys who claimed to be in the suit? Most of his witnesses are family members who would stand to profit from his story. There's already been a book, and apparently a movie deal was in the works.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 2:32am 
We disagree on the camera silm speed setting. I don't see any room for movement from either of us. The film is inconclusive and allows too much room for interpretation. What bothers me as much some things I see in the film is Pattersons character, his contacts with Ray Wallace and the resemblance between "Patty" and the hoax photos produced by Ray Wallace. Taken in its entirity, I went from a believer in Patty to a disbeliever.

What proof could Heironimus possibly provide to convince anyone (including me) beyond a reasonable doubt that he wore the costume on that day? If he did produce the costume, wouldn't most people assume that it was a copy made to promote a book and/or movie?

And speaking about a book and/or movie, Grover Krantz and John Green have made money off of books about Patty. Patterson was hoping to make money off of his film. Why not someone else?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 4:04am 
Dante, I respect your opinions as much as anyone's and must admit that your arguments, for the most part are pretty good. Also, I'm not totally convinced Patty is not a fake, but if it is one it's the mother of all hoaxes, especially for it's time. Not only did the inconsistencies coincide with laws of nature and physics in regards to foot/leg/arm dimensions, gait, height to weight ratios, surface area to pounds per square inch on tracks, etc.,....must be a several million to one shot that all falls within limits allowing the possibility of truth. But, the real point I want to make---again, no disrespect intended---from what all you've said in this thread (and none of us will settle anything in this thread) is that in your opinion it's a fake, and it's based largely on your perception of what a Bigfoot ought to look like and because the people who are generally regarded as scientists and experts in their field and specifically on the Patty film have beliefs at least largely supported by scientific method that differs from your opinions about the film. If you have some information to show that Krantz, Green and the other scientists involved are scientifically-mathematically inaccurate or have a record of trying to further hoaxes, I think now's the time to expound on it. As for "profiting" from "evidence" I think (opinion) that it would be a bit stupid to not profit on it when you could especially in light of spending all that money on college, and using your valuable time on the project, etc. This is not along the same lines as a profiteer who films a hub-cap flying through the air to sell to the evening news. But, yes, it could still be faked.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 8:26am 
Profitting from it? I can tell you that I had an angle on the video that was unique, I'd try to publish it and make a million. I can't hold any profits made by any of them against them.

And there are scientists on both sides of the argument. All equally qualified in their fields. I will not argue against their method, because I do have the qualifications to do so.

But my main response is to your last sentence, "But, yes, it could still be faked."

But down deep, I hope it's not.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 2:03pm 
I thought so....only those who hope it's not fake would bother to do that much research on why it might be, hoping to prove themselves wrong:)
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 6:34pm 
If he wore a cloth over his head/face, he had to have glued it to the contours of his own face. That's not just cloth hanging loose.

Gerry
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 3:44am 
McHaggis, if you watch, a football player has little trouble turning his head back over his shoulder. Also, if you look at Patty's back, you see shoulder blades in V-formation, not the straight lines you see with shoulder pads. I can't say this isn't a costume but I can say that if it is, those aren't football shoulder pads underneath it.

Gerry
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 4:37am 
I realize this isn't a real football team but if you'll go here Detroit Lions you'll see plenty of pics which illustrate my points.

Gerry
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: kittenz posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 5:45am 
McHaggis, I agree. To me "Patty" is obviously a person, dressed and made up to look like an animal. Especially the face; it looks like a man wearing a ski mask or something. And I believe that a huge, fully bipedal animal would have massive buttocks, to drive those huge legs into that long stride. We just do not see that in Patty; on the contrary, there is no suggestion actual buttocks. Patty looks like "she" has a long seam down the back, that does not separate at the butt. A real animal constucted that way would not be able to take long swinging strides. The breasts do not look like those of real apes either.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: TheGreatAuk posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 3:59am 
Here's another great picture of Bigfoot.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: YarriWarrior posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 6:33am 
Ok. I told myself to stay out of this free-for-all(isn't this the 20th time this has been debated?)But I have to jump in and defend Patterson/Gimlin. Call it unscientific if you wish-but I see it as 100% genuine. If it was a hoax, and perpetrated by the parties suggested, replicating it should be be a breeze. Yet no one has even come close. That's the bottom line. If two cowboys and a short indian had the talents to confound Disney studios, and even Chambers(who was targeted as the perp early on, who later said he didn't create the suit-and said he couldn't have done anything that good)that in itself would be astonishing. So they were looking for bigfoot when they happened upon one, and that points to a hoax? Sorry, but you have to put your line in the water if you want to catch something. And they were searching that area because of previous sightings/tracks that came from there.
If Roger pulled off the biggest hoax in history(one that still has some scientists on it's side-and growing)I don't think he would have left this mortal coil broke. And a guy that has passed away sure can't defend himself-let the mud sling. Gimlin is still around, and he still stands by the encounter.
All the heresay aside, the subject is very massively built, and looks completely natural in movement and stride. As far as I can tell, "Patty" does have a huge g. maximus. The breasts don't look ape-like, this is true, but they look human, which is exactly what I think Patty is: a giant humanoid with ape-like qualities. And by the way, those breasts look like human breasts carrying milk, as pointed out by a family doctor to Meldrum.
Some have suggested the look of some sort of small fastner about the waist, but have totally ignored the injury to the thigh muscle that when contracted, bulges like a baseball-in just the right place-for those in the know. The footprints left behind by the subject seem quite legit, and look nothing like the super-fake Wallace prints(someone else who claimed he was the person in the suit). Ever see Ray's costume? A total joke that wouldn't fool a kid. The fact that this subject can't be duplicated even today all these years later speaks volumes. And I bet decades in the future it will still be debated. Looks human? It IS human, but not someone dressed up in a "ape" suit. Yarri
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: TheGreatAuk posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 7:18am 
(To those who don't know, this is Ringo Starr)
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Rangoon posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 6:47pm 
To those who don't know, this is Ringo Starr

Really? I thought for certain it was Heather Mills!
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: paddy posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 7:48pm 
Many bigfoot researchers had dealings with Ray Wallace, so the fact that Patterson did proves nothing.

Krantz and Green wrote books on the subject of Sasquatch, not books specifically on the Patterson film.

I definitely see a large butt on Patty. I once joked on this board that Patty was the J-Lo of Sasquatches.

Heironimus' story has Patterson and Gimlin faking the tracks at a later date. This I flat out reject. If this was a hoax Gimlin wasn't in on it, therefore the tracks couldn't have been made later.

Awhile back someone posted photos of the backs of gorillas along with stills of Patty's back for comparison. The similarity of the back musculature of Patty to that of the gorillas was striking.

Patterson was cash-strapped towards the end of his life and had medical bills to pay. If he was a hoaxer why didn't he attempt another hoax in order to make some money?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: shenron posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 10:20pm 
Is that Ringo?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: shenron posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 10:22pm 
Damn, should read the following posts first before I post...again.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Infinity242 posted Tue, Apr 17 2007, 9:54pm 
Correct me if im wrong, but wasent that movie admitted to be a hoax?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Entity posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 7:40pm 
Why patty IS a guy in a suit: SASQUATCH DO NOT EXIST!

Simple, eh?
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: shenron posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 10:33pm 
The point is that if you believe in BF/Sasquatch, you will see a real living BF in the film. On the other hand, no matter what kind of professional anaylsis applied to study the film, a sceptic will dismiss the subject as being real living BF.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Entity posted Sun, Apr 15 2007, 11:13pm 
Of course. The C. brothers saw a sea-serpent instead of pelicans. Many people claim to see BF, but if there is a BF lurking in the N. American forests then where is the evidence? Now really. Dry land, population around and about, cameras etc.. And all the evidence we get are footprints? Haha. How silly. Yes, us sceptics actually need evidence. Blind faith just aint our thang.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: YarriWarrior posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 12:36am 
However, I trust my technical eye in evaluating evidence, and I feel confident that bigfoot does exist, and I am comfortable with that decision. It's too easy to brush aside all evidence on the basis that "I haven't seen one", or "none have been captured" ect. Sometimes evidence or eyewitness testimony is all we ever have to deal with in many other aspects of life in general. If my house is robbed, it did happen even though I may not have seen the actual event. Humans think that we are all seeing masters of everything under the sun, and nothing could evade our detection for long. I beg to differ, and a lot goes on in the world(natural or otherwise)that most don't even consider. The thought that bigfoot is real is not an exercise in the lunatic fringe. I wouldn't think Jane Goodall a fool, and she's on board. Yarri
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Entity posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 12:58am 
The problem still is the lack of physicall evidence. The reason I mentioned above. Populated areas and NO concrete evidence just doesn't add up. If there was a species of very rare fish in the ocean we didn't know about I am game (there are for certain). But BF? Nah. Just seems to much like a fairytale to me. But proove me wrong if you can!
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: iknowmystuff posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 12:56am 
Harry and the Hendersons. perfect replication of bigfoot.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 5:04am 
Yes, they done a marvelous job of shaving him, cleaning him up and teaching him to call himself Lithgow.

Seems to me that there is more evidence interpreted to support it being not a human in a suit that is in some way backed by science....the science is tending to say that the likelihood is being not human (or "us" type human, anyway). The multiple people having sighted it, got pretty good video of it, and really hard to fake tracks, etc., is about as good as it gets evidence-wise without getting a body. I know the MN Ice Man was considered real (the first one examined; not the later one) by some "experts" who examined it, and then it disappeared----I'm not sure that had they shot Patty and had her stuffed that everyone would even believe it was real.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Megladon posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 12:33am 
If making a sasquatch suit like this one is the question.
Consider making one like this and see if you can convince even yourself.

In 1967 special effects were lame. Best we had was "Planet of the Apes" make up.
In 2007, Stan Winston's group could make one! Harry and the Henderson's was a amazing however not convincing.
This would cost ton of cash even back then. Patterson-Gimlim must have went broke making this suit! However we all know they didn't got filthy rich making this film, just ask them. I don't believe this was the case. Its no suit. Prove me wrong....Time for Cryptozoology dot com to have a best bigfoot suit competition.
Just an opinion...thanks
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: BillB posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 11:11pm 
The suits used in "Planet of the Apes" were not intended to look like anything other than Hollywood apes. They were not intended to be exact copies as there had to be room for speech, horse riding, upright walking to allow for carrying weapons, and all of the other things that chimps and gorillas are not capable of that had to be portrayed in the movies. And they were filmed with state of art cameras, film, lighting, sound stages, etc. There were a number of closeups of the actors in costume. The clarity of the film and images, the techniques used, all combined add to the ease at finding the weaknesses in the costumes.

If there had no closeups of "Harry", no professional cameras with lighting and staged scenes, and only a blurry few second long video image taken as "Harry" walked away from the camera, "Harry" might well have been much more convincing.

The quality of the images, as well as the intent of medium, makes a world of difference in how we view what is presented to us.

I hope there is a BF. I lean against its existance based on the lack of physical evidence, and if you compare all of the images of BF presented by "researchers" and/or people lucky enough to have had their cameras at a given moment in time, the wide diversity of physical appearance of the BF presentations has to raise viewers eyebrows. Not all of them can be real, in fact, maybe only one of them can be real. If only one is real, I would give "Patty" the best chance of being that one because the video is the most convincing. But with the high number of known and suspected BF hoaxes, I have to be very skeptical of all of them.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: ABWorsham posted Mon, Apr 16 2007, 7:39am 
I want to believe, i really do!!
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Dinokaiser posted Tue, Apr 17 2007, 12:55am 
I've seen this site showing that the son or grandson of patterson actually confessed that Patterson had his mother go into a big foot suit (which explanes the "breasts" of the creature) and filmed her on the mountain. I'll see if I could find the site.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: Dinokaiser posted Tue, Apr 17 2007, 1:01am 
I found it! this is a wierd but interesting site showing fakes (although most of them are obvious) and how/why they were faked.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: de_hart posted Tue, Apr 17 2007, 9:26am 
Maybe Patterson's kid looked like BF for another reason????


Actually the Harry & Henderson's comments....yeah, a blur from a distance would be hard to say it was fake, but wouldn't show muscle-tone and movement, etc. The way(direction) the hair growth was all over the body was correct for a primate---angel hair looks like angel hair.
Subject: Re: Why Pattie isn't Someone in a Suit
From: TheGreatAuk posted Sat, Apr 21 2007, 11:00pm 
That's a weird holy roller site.


Close Window