Atlantis Online
July 23, 2019, 01:55:02 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Remains of ancient civilisation discovered on the bottom of a lake
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071227/94372640.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film  (Read 452 times)
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« on: March 11, 2007, 03:09:40 pm »

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film



The Patterson-Gimlin film is a short motion picture of an unidentified subject filmed on October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin who claimed the film was a genuine recording of a Bigfoot. It has been hailed by some as genuine evidence for such a creature but by others to be a hoax.

The film has been subjected to many attempts to both debunk and authenticate. Some experts declared the film a hoax, showing a man in an ape suit. But some, such as physical anthropologist Grover Krantz, say the film depicts a genuine unknown creature. Others, such as ecologist Robert Michael Pyle, refuse to endorse the film as genuine, but Pyle also admitted that it "has never been convincingly debunked." (Pyle, 208)

Critics say that a stabilized enhancement of the film[1], released in late 2005, clearly shows the subject in the film to have human-like rather than ape-like movement, though it is worth noting that the creator of the stabilized film argues just the contrary.[citation needed] Many skeptics also turn to the testimony of one Bob Heironimus (see below), who recently claimed to have been the person inside the suit. Supporters counter that 1) neither Heironimus nor anyone else has ever found the suit that Heironimus claims to have worn and 2) Heironimus is not the only one to claim to have worn the suit. Supporters of the film (and even some skeptics like the Skeptical Inquirer's Michael Dennett) also state that Hieronimus' story, described in Greg Long's 2004 book The Making of Bigfoot, relies too heavily upon often-contradictory anecdotal evidence to provide conclusive proof that the film was faked. [2]

Patterson died in 1972 of cancer. Gimlin is alive and has recently begun making appearances at Bigfoot conferences. Previously he kept out of the public eye and had little contact with those who believe that Bigfoot is a real entity. Both men dismissed allegations that they had faked the film, and Patterson was firm in his insistence that they had encountered and filmed an animal unknown to science. Gimlin too maintains he did not falsify the film, but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham, he said that for some time, “I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I’m an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson].” (Long, 166)
Report Spam   Logged

Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2007, 03:11:41 pm »

And here it is, in case people want to judge for themselves:



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif
Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2007, 03:15:42 pm »

Background

Patterson said he became interested in Bigfoot after reading an article about the creature by Ivan Sanderson in "True" magazine in December 1959 (Perez, 6). His book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterised as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson’s circus-poster style prose." (Hunter and Dahinden, 113) It did however also include 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters, 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text, five hand-drawn maps (rare in subsequent Bigfoot books), and almost 20 photos and illustrations from other sources. It was reprinted in 2005 under the title "The Bigfoot Film Controversy," with additional material by Chris Murphy.

Some decades after the Patterson-Gimlin Film's publicity, Greg Long interviewed people who described Patterson as a moocher, a deadbeat, and sometimes worse. Pat Mason, Glen Koelling, Bob Swanson and Vilma Radford claimed Patterson never repaid loans they made to him for various Bigfoot-related ventures. Radford alone had corroborative evidence: A $700 promissory note “for expenses in connection with filming of ‘Bigfoot: Americas Adominable Snowman. (sic)’” (Long, 300) Patterson agreed to repay her $850, plus five per cent of any profits from the film. However, other persons quoted in Long's book called him merely irresponsible, and some gave aspects of his character good marks. No one doubted the sincerity of his belief in Bigfoot; he was consumed by the search for it.

After securing funding for his Bigfoot documentary, Patterson and his friend Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California, USA. Patterson chose the area due to intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by Green, Dahinden, and Abbott on and after August 28, 1967 (Perez, Cool. This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.

Though Gimlin says he doubted the existence of Sasquatch-like creatures, he agreed to Patterson's suggestion that they should not attempt to shoot any such creatures they might see. According to Krantz (Krantz, 1992) years later, Patterson and Gimlin agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature; both for financial gain and to silence naysayers.

Patterson’s expensive 16mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on Oct. 17 (Long, 167). This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in good working order. (Long, 169)

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2007, 03:16:42 pm »

The encounter

As Patterson and Gimlin were allegedly the only human witnesses to their brief encounter with a Sasquatch, theirs are the only testimonies available in studying the account. Their statements agree in general, but Long notes a number of inconsistencies. In an article in Argosy magazine, Ivan T. Sanderson gave the time of the encounter as 3:30 p.m., which differed from 1:30 p.m. time in other articles and in interviews by Patterson and Gimlin. They offered somewhat different sequences in describing how they and the horses reacted upon seeing the creature. Patterson in particular increased his estimates of the creature’s size in subsequent retellings of encounter (Long, 162 - 165). In a different context, Long notes, these discrepancies would probably be considered minor, but given the extraordinary claims made by Patterson and Gimlin, any apparent disagreements in perception or memory are worth noting. (On the other hand, if it was a hoax, much effort was invested in it and a great reward was in the offing; it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment affair. Thus, it could be argued, with so much at stake and so much time to prepare, hoaxers would have "gotten their stories straight" on such basic details.)

In the early afternoon of October 20, Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek. Both were on horseback when they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room" (Gimlin, quoted in Perez, 9). When they rounded it they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously, while it was “crouching beside the creek to their left” (Krantz, 85). Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure.

Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon seeing (or perhaps smelling) the figure, and he spent about twenty seconds extricating himself from the saddle and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, who thereupon crossed the creek on horseback, rode forward awhile, and, rifle in hand, dismounted. (Presumably because his horse might have panicked if the creature charged, spoiling his shot.)

The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 53 seconds long) is initially quite shaky until Patterson gets about 80 feet from the figure. At that point the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264 (Perez, 12). To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature’s expression as one of “contempt and disgust ... you know how it is when the umpire tells you ‘one more word and you’re out of the game.’ That’s the way it felt”.

Now the steady middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous frame 352,(see above at the very top for picture of frame). Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times" (Wasson, 69), the first time therefore being before the filming began. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for awhile after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, then fades into the trees again and is lost to view as the reel of film ran out. Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach.

Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and “the men then tracked it for three miles, but lost it in the heavy undergrowth” (Coleman and Clark, 198). They returned to the initial site, measured the creature’s stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

A few hours after the encounter, Patterson telephoned Donald Abbott, whom Krantz decribed as “the only scientist of any stature to have demonstrated any serious interest in the (Bigfoot) subject,” hoping he would help them search for the creature (possibly with tracking dogs). Abbott declined, and Krantz argued this call to authorities the same day of the encounter is evidence against a hoax, at least on Patterson’s part.

Forestry worker Lyle Loverty happened upon the site a day later and photographed the tracks. Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his brother-in-law nine days later. Titmus made casts of the creature’s prints and, as best he could, plotted Patterson’s and the creature’s movements on a map.

Patterson initially estimated its height at six and one-half to seven feet (Patterson & Murphy, 195), and later raised his estimate to about seven and one-half feet. (Some later analyses, anthropologist Grover Krantz’s among them, have suggested Patterson’s later estimate was about a foot too tall.) The film shows a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure with short black hair covering most of its body, including the figure's prominent breasts. The figure's head is somewhat pointed; some have argued this feature is a sagittal crest, a type of ridge also found on gorillas. The figure depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen the creatures.

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2007, 03:18:08 pm »

Aftermath

Krantz writes (Krantz, 1992) that "Patterson had the film developed as soon as possible. At first he thought he had brought in proof of Bigfoot’s existence and really expected the scientists to accept it. But only a few scientists were willing to even look at the film, and most of them promptly declared it a fake. It was then incorporated as the centerpiece of the documentary film that Patterson had set out to make in the first place." This film was a modest financial success after it was shown in local movie houses around the Pacific Northwest. This was a muted triumph, however: Patterson sold overlapping distribution rights for the film to several parties, which resulted in costly legal entanglements.

Though there was little scientific interest in the film, Patterson was still able to capitalize on it. Beyond the documentary, the film generated a fair amount of publicity. Patterson appeared on several popular talk shows to show the film and promote the documentary: on Merv Griffin's program, with Krantz offering his analysis of the film, and also on Joey Bishop’s talk show (Long, 258).

While Patterson sought publicity, Gimlin was conspicuous by his absence. He only briefly helped to promote the film (Long, 265), and avoided discussing his Bigfoot encounter publicly for many subsequent years. He would later report that he’d avoided publicity after Patterson and promoter Al DeAtley had broken their agreement to pay Gimlin a share of any profits generated by the film (Long, 159-160).

Krantz reports that “A few years after the film was made, Patterson received a letter from a man in Thailand who assured him a sasquatch was being held in a Buddhist monastery. Patterson spent most of his remaining money preparing an expedition to retrieve this creature,” only to learn it was a hoax. Patterson died of Hodgkin's disease in 1972, still swearing to the authenticity of the film.

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2007, 03:19:48 pm »

Filming speed

One fact complicates discussion of the Patterson film: Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera’s setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. The speed of the film is important because as Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 fps then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 fps, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait" (Napier, 94 (2nd printing)). Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct.

Krantz argues, based on an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson’s height is known, a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. Based on this analysis, Krantz argues that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed, and "We may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18".

Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 fps" (Perez, 21). And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 fps = 39.6], ... so I eliminated 24 fps" (Perez, 21).

Others (including primatologist John Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz--see Bayanov, 70) have expressed a different opinion, contending it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 fps" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative" (Napier, 94 (2nd printing)). More recently, skeptic David Daegling has asserted that even at 16 fps the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"]" (Daegling, 127).

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2007, 03:21:45 pm »

Legal status

Henry Franzoni reports that “Mrs. Patterson, Roger Patterson's widow, who still lives in Yakima, WA, has the TV and movie rights to the actual film. René Dahinden had the rights to the 953 still frames from the film.” Franzoni also reports that “The original film no longer exists. Five known copies were made of the original film. The five copies were once in the possession of René Dahinden, John Green, Dr. Grover Krantz, Jon-Erik Beckjord, and Peter Byrne. René Dahinden possessed one of the copies up until his death. The film now is in possession of Dahinden's family. It is no longer known who possessed the other four original copies, or if they still exist.” [3]

Beckjord has periodically put his copy up for sale (the film only, not the copyrights) for $1,000,000 on eBay and his own website.

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2007, 03:22:53 pm »

Analyses

In 2004, anthropologist David Daegling (who strongly suspects a hoax) notes that in 1967, movie and television special effects were rather primitive when compared to the more sophisticated effects in later decades, and allows that if the Patterson film depicts a man in a suit that “it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is better than some of the tackier monster outfits that got thrown together for television at that time” (Daegling, 112).

Daegling also writes, “The skeptics have not felt compelled to offer much of a detailed argument against the film; the burden of proof, rightly enough, should lie with the advocates.” Yet without a detailed argument against authenticity, Daegling notes that “the film has not gone away” (Daegling, 119). Similarly, Krantz argues that of the many opinions offered about the Patterson film, “Only a few of these opinions are based on technical expertise and careful study of the film itself” (Krantz, 92).

Curiously, the figure shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film appears to possess both a sagittal crest (usually restricted to male gorillas) and pendulous female breasts (as in human and chimpanzee females). Neither humans nor chimpanzees have hairy breasts as does the figure in the film, and critics have argued these features are evidence against authenticity. Napier has noted that a sagittal crest is "only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in females" (cited in Wasson, 74). Supporters speculate that a sagittal crest might be related to Bigfoot size or maturity, not to sex, and caution against applying established standards to what may be an unknown creature.

A few notable opinions on the Patterson film are listed below:

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2007, 03:24:27 pm »

Dmitri Donskoy
A formal academic study of the Patterson film was conducted by Dmitri Donskoy, Chief of the Dept. of Biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture, and later associated with Moscow’s Darwin Museum (Daegling, 45). Donskoy believed that the creature was non-human based on its weight and its gait. He inferred it was weighty from the ponderous momentum he observed in the movements of its arms and legs, in the sagging of the knee as weight came onto it, and in the flatness of the foot. Its gait he considered non-artificial because it was confident and unwavering, "neatly expressive," and well-coordinated, and yet non-human because its arm motion and glide resembled a cross-country skier's. Krantz describes Donskoy’s conclusion as being that the film depicts “a very massive animal that is definitely not a human being” (Krantz, 92).


D.W. Grieve
Anatomist D.W. Grieve of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine studied a copy of the film in 1971, and wrote a detailed analysis. He notes that "The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film," but also writes that his analysis hinges largely on the question of filming speed (see above).

Grieve concluded that "the possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 frames per second. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man." If filmed at the higher speed, Grieve concluded that the creature “walked with a gait pattern very similar in most respects to a man walking at high speed.”

Grieve noted that "I can see the muscle masses in the appropriate places ... If it is a fake, it is an extremely clever one" (Hunter and Dahinden, 120). Like Krantz, Greive thought the figure's shoulders were quite broad. Also like Krantz, Grieve thought Patterson's estimate of the figure's height was inaccurate. Grieve concluded the figure in the Patterson film revealed "an estimated standing height for the subject of not more than 6 ft. 5 in. (196 cm.)." He notes that a tall human is consistent with the figure's height, but also notes that for a tall human, "The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours."[4]

More personally, Grieve notes that his “subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film” (cited in Byrne, 157).


Bernard Heuvelmans
Bernard Heuvelmans — a zoologist and the so-called "father of cryptozoology" —thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human. [5]

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2007, 03:26:08 pm »

Grover Krantz
Krantz offered an in-depth examination of the Patterson film (Krantz, 87-124). He concluded that the film depicts a genuine, unknown creature, citing the following factors, among others:
•   Primarily, Krantz's argument is based on a detailed analysis of the figure's stride, center of gravity, and biomechanics. Krantz argues that the creature's leg and foot motions are quite different from a human's and could not have been duplicated by a person wearing a gorilla suit
•   Krantz pointed out the tremendous width of the creature's shoulders, which (after deducting 1" for hair) he estimated at 28.2 inches, or 35.1% of its full standing height of 78". (Or a higher percentage of its 72" "walking height," which was a bit stooped, crouched, and sunk-into-the-sand (Krantz, 106-08).) The creature's shoulders are almost 50% wider than the human mean. (For instance, André the Giant had a typical human ratio of 24%. Wide-shouldered Bob Heironimus (see below) has 27.4%. Only very rare humans have a shoulder breadth of 30%.) Krantz argued that a suited person could not mimic this breadth and still have the naturalistic hand and arm motions present on the film.
•   Krantz wrote, “the knee is regularly bent more than 90°, while the human leg bends less than 70°.” No human has yet replicated this level lower leg lift while maintaining the smoothness, posture, and stride length (41") of the creature.
•   Krantz and others have noted naturalistic-looking musculature visible as the creature moved, arguing this would be highly difficult or impossible to fake. Hunter and Dahinden also note that "the bottom of the figure's head seems to become part of the heavy back and shoulder muscles ... the muscles of the buttocks were distinct" (Hunter and Dahinden, 114).
•   Krantz also interviewed Patterson extensively, and as noted below, thought Patterson lacked the technical skill and knowledge needed to create such a realistic-looking costume.
•   Krantz reports that in 1969 John Green (who at one point owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film) interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film" (Krantz, 93). Krantz argues that if Disney personnel (among the best special effects experts of their era) were unable to duplicate the film, there's little likelihood that Patterson could have done so.
•   More recently, Krantz showed the film to Gordon Valient, a researcher for Nike shoes, who he says "made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see" (ibid).

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2007, 03:28:34 pm »

Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University cites efforts by John Green as important in his own studies of the Patterson film. "It has been obvious to even the casual viewer that the film subject possesses arms that are disproportionately long for its stature." Meldrum writes that "Anthropologists typically express limb proportions as an intermembral index (IM)" and notes that humans have an average IM index of 72, gorillas an average IM index of 117 and chimpanzees an average IM index of 106.

In determining an IM index for the figure in the Patterson film, Meldrum concludes the figure has "an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes. In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing."[6]


John Napier
Prominent primate expert John Napier (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program) was one of the few mainstream scientists not only to critique the Patterson-Gimlin film, but also to study then-available Bigfoot evidence in a generally sympathetic and even-handed manner in his 1973 book, Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality.

Napier conceded the likelihood of Bigfoot as a real creature, stating, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists" (Napier, 205--2nd printing). But he argued against the film being genuine: "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis." [7]

He adds "I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin, if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus" (Napier, 95).

While not challenging Napier’s expertise in primate studies, psychologist Barbara Wasson finds fault with his analysis of the Patterson film: “I must disagree with John Napier. In fact, I disagree most heartily with Mr. Napier. His logic is deplorable” (Wasson, 72). Wasson points out a number of what she contends are logical fallacies in Napier’s arguments, stating in summary, “It is clear to me that all of Napier’s views have very serious flaws in logic, thought process and visual perception. He primarily attempts to impose known standards on a creature that may be a live, unknown creature in an attempt to discount the existence of such a creature. Such an attitude, much less the ridiculous arguments he submits, is unworthy of a man of his profession” (ibid, 76).

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2007, 03:31:07 pm »

North American Science Institute
The North American Science Institute was founded in Hood River, Oregon in the late 1990s to study the Sasquatch phenomenon. As of 2006 the group is apparently defunct, but in 1998 the organization undertook a $75,000 study, employing computer analysis, of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Here are some of the authenticating details it noted:
•   Arm length (measured to the fingertips) as a percent of height: The percent for the human mean is 44%; the creature's percent is 49%, which is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean and is present in only .00019% of humans. Finger and hand flexion is observed in the film, which implies that [any arm-extending] prosthesis must support flexion.
•   Leg length (measured to the sole) as a percent of height: The percent for the human mean is 53%; the creature's percent is 46%, which is present in only .1% of humans.
•   Foot morphology: Figure 13 shows the foot undergoing flexion, which demonstrates that the foot is not a solid, inflexible prosthesis. Separate toes are visible. "Key features of the foot ... resemble the plaster cast taken by Titmus."
•   Face morphology: The jaw of the subject is below the shoulder line, as in a gorilla.
•   Body morphology: Unlike inexpensive costumes, the subject has non-uniform hair texture, non-uniform coloration and non-uniform hair length.
•   Kinematics: "The knee theta of the film subject shows a more gradual transfer of weight rather than a [human-type] separate phase" combined with the absence of the bobbing head typical of human locomotion.
•   Moving muscle groups: Groups of muscle in motion can be seen, in the arms, back and legs. "Also seen is a structure similar to a knee cap, the shape of which changes like a human knee."
It concluded, "If only a single dimension of similarity was shown in the P-G film it could be easily dismissed as a forgery [but it] is remarkable in the simultaneous presence of all of the dimensions listed above."
M.K. Davis
New developments in computer technology have permitted enhancements of the Patterson-Gimlin films to be made. M.K. Davis has created a version that removes the shakiness of the camera, permitting the creature to be seen from a stable perspective [8].
Some observers contend that the result can make the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin film look like a human being in a suit. However, Davis himself contends otherwise, claiming that there are subtle indications of muscles moving under the hair and movements impossible for a human, such as the calf bulging on foot-impact and mid-foot flexion off the ground. He has produced a second stabilized version incorporating enlargements of these specific indications that he notes [9].
Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2007, 03:32:48 pm »

Hoax allegations

Patterson and/or Gimlin


When considering the possibility of a hoax, many critics immediately suspected one or both of the men who witnessed the figure depicted in the film. Patterson and Gimlin both denied that they’d perpetrated a hoax, but, as noted above, Gimlin allowed for at least the possibility of a hoax on Patterson's part.

Indeed, if they had perpetrated a hoax, they were most confident of it, in seeking various experts to examine the film. Patterson screened the film for unnamed “technicians in the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood ... Their conclusion was: ‘We could try (faking it), but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible’” (Hunter and Dahinden, 119).

Anthropologist David Daegling writes that the “more cynical skeptics” see Patterson’s luck as “more than a little suspicious”: He sets out to make a Bigfoot documentary, then almost literally stumbles across a Bigfoot. Daegling, however, offers the benefit of the doubt, noting that Patterson’s reasoning is sound: In seeking something elusive, he went to where it had been reported (Daegling, 78).

Krantz thought Patterson might have perpetrated such a hoax, given the opportunity and resources, but he also argued that Patterson had “nowhere near the knowledge or facilities to do so--nor for that matter, did anyone else ... When I talked about some of the more technical details of biomechanics, he (Patterson) showed the familiar blank look of a student who had lost the drift of the explanation, but was still trying hard to pay attention. Yet he must have known all these details to create a hoax. For instance, he could see the anterior position of the front of the shin, but how that related to foot leverage was quite beyond him”.

Similarly, Daegling writes that “Most acquaintances of Patterson volunteered that neither he nor Gimlin were clever enough to put something that detailed together” (Daegling, 112).

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2007, 03:34:02 pm »

John Chambers
Rumors circulated that the creature seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film was a suit designed by movie special effects expert John Chambers, who designed the ape costumes seen in many of the original Planet of the Apes films, and was reportedly an acquaintance of Ray Wallace and Bob Gimlin.

Film director John Landis (who had earlier worked with Chambers on Beneath the Planet of the Apes) certainly helped spread such rumors, if he didn’t invent them outright. Coleman and Clark cite a 1997 Sunday Telegraph story where Landis says, “That famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers” (Coleman and Clark, 56). The allegation has been repeated by pioneering makeup artist Rick Baker.

Shortly after Landis's story was published, stimulated by inquiries from cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, Bigfoot researcher Roberta Short interviewed Chambers, who was living in a Los Angeles nursing home. Chambers asserted he did not know Patterson or Gimlin, was not involved in making the film, and had no knowledge of the Patterson-Gimlin film before its public exposure. Chambers added “that he was ‘good’ but he ‘was not that good’ to have fashioned anything nearly so convincing as the Bluff Creek Bigfoot” (Coleman and Clark, 56). Chambers also told Short he had once helped create a Bigfoot sculpture, and speculated that this fact may have started or fueled the rumors that he was involved in the Patterson film.

It is also worth noting that Chambers’ innovative Planet of the Apes make-up relied primarily on expressive masks, not on body suits, and whatever seams or "zippers" would have appeared on the Planet of the Apes suits were covered up by clothing. Clothing was also used to cover up certain folds and seams on the Ewok costumes in Return of the Jedi (1983). Even when the costumes became more elaborate in the 1970's, King Kong in the 1976 remake still had a clearly-defined separation between the body of the suit and the head mask. Folds in the material have appeared in every film in which there was human costumed as an ape up until Gorillas in the Mist (1988), and they can be identified as such either in close-up or at a distance. In the Patterson/Gimlin film of Bigfoot, there are no identifiable folds seen, which means either or both men had their hands on a costume that was far superior to anything made in Hollywood in the mid-1960's.

Other Costume Designers

However, very convincing full body suits were being used in the filming of another science fiction masterpiece, 2001:A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. The suits were designed and created by the makeup artists of MGM Studios. Less elaborate ape costumes were used in the original Star Trek series, most notably in the episodes "The Galileo Seven", "The Man Trap" and "A Private Little War". The Star Trek apes and other non-humanoid life forms were created by costume designer Janos Prohaska, who also performed many of the non-humanoid roles.

This fact demonstrates that somewhat lifelike ape suits were not only possible, but available and reasonably affordable at the time Patterson and Gimlin were filming. Since home-movie stock doesn't clearly record details at a distance, it is arguable that, if the film was faked, the ape suit did not have to be unusually elaborate.

Report Spam   Logged
Jennifer O'Dell
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4546



« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2007, 03:35:42 pm »

Philip Morris and/or Bob Heironimus
Philip Morris

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax privately in the 1980’s, but first admitted it publicly on August 16, 2002 on Charlotte, North Carolina radio station WBT-AM (Long, 444). Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: Giving away a performer’s secrets, he says, would be widely regarded as disreputable (Long, 453).
Morris asserts that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank" (Long, 446). (Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular side-show routine that depicted an attractive woman changing into a gorilla.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive" (Long, 448) and the "arms longer" (Long, 447). Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit. His assertion was also printed in the Charlotte Observer.[10]
Beyond his rather detailed account, Morris has offered no corroborative evidence or testimony.
Bob Heironimus
Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film, and his allegations are detailed in Long’s book. Heironimus was a tall (6-foot), muscular Yakima, Washington native, age 26, when he says Patterson offered him $1000 to wear an ape suit for a Bigfoot film.
Long uncovered testimony that he contends corroborates Heironimus's claims: Russ Bohannon, a longtime friend, says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969 (Long, 414). Heironimus says he didn’t publicly discuss his role in the hoax because he hoped to be repaid eventually. In separate incidents, Bob Hammermeister and Heironimus’s relatives (mother Opal and nephew John Miller) claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus’ car. The relatives saw it two days after the film was alleged to have been made (Long, 362). No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it" (Long, 398). However, this is awkward for Heironimus's case, because his account implies that he had possession of the suit after his return to Yakima for only 24 hours. (Long, 363-66)
Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing ape suits that are in many respects quite different; Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume.
•   Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that the suit was manufactured by Patterson from a “real dark brown” horse hide (Long, 344). This point is repeated several times: “It stunk: Roger skinned out a dead, red horse” (ibid). Heironimus also reports that he was told by Howard the suit’s fur was from an old fur coat.
•   Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris “used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967”.(Long, 449)
•   Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper “torso part” that he donned “like putting on a T-shirt” (Long, 344–45). At Bluff Creek he put on “the top” (Long, 349). Asked about the “bottom portion,” he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
•   Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back and into which one stepped (Long, 449).
•   Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
•   Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit. (Oddly, before Heironimus tried the suit on for size.)
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy