Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Here is another angle on the ' Ring Toss ' arms ...

http://www.gatzstuff.com/MISC/donuts.gif

I think the prosthetic eye on the right of Bob's that Roger used on the suit is clearly visible there in that frame. If anyone thinks that Bob telling that is an indicator of him lying about being Patty, I welcome them to discuss it with me.

[Tizzy]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Here is a better look at the comparison of the 'Arm Gap Triangles'....posted side-by-side, and downsized by 75%...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...tyAGTComp5.jpg



I arranged them left-to-right in order of increasing area of the largest triangles, in each image.
In Bob's case, the large triangles represent the arm at a 45-deg.angle...and, in Patty's case, the arm is somewhere close to 45 degrees.


I've circled the areas of the largest triangles. The area of Patty's triangle should be equal to 'Bob-in-a-suit's' triangle....but it's not even close....instead, it's significantly larger.


The reason for that would be due to either one of two scenarios....

1) distortion of the numbers, due to Patty being viewed at an angle...or...


2) Patty being an un-padded animal..(human, or Bigfoot), with an unusually long humerus bone.


Personally...I'm betting on the latter scenario being the reason.
A physical model will show just what the actual reason is....with 100%.....(reliable)....certainty.

What you're essentially saying is that a physical model will, with 100% reliable certainty, prove your second scenario (that Patty is an un-padded human (??) or an actual Bigfoot).

Who taught you anatomy? You might as well use elbow macaroni, construction paper and Elmer's non-toxic glue if you're going to build the model yourself.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti......wrote:
Late edit.....I should have writted "downsized by 25%". The results are images 75% of their original size.


Gee...parnassus uses big words.

And a working knowledge of anatomy.

Quote:

I'll elaborate on my earlier graphic, later.

Could you please state how a model will prove Bigfoot? That's where I'm having trouble. Drawing triangles all over Bob H. does not.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by parnassus

The primary assertion is that Sweaty and Bob H. have the same proportions. It is a priori unlikely. That is what keeps tailors in business and makes clothing stores carry a lot of different sleeve lengths, etc. You bear the burden of proving it. The entire issue is proportions, are you are begging the question.

I never claimed that Sweaty could be a substitute for Bob H. His dimensions can be confirmed when/if he posts his images. Surely you jest that I have some sort of burden to prove anything?

Sweaty doesn't have to match Bob exactly to be a useful model. He just needs to have KNOWN human proportions, right? Let's just see how someone "close" to Bob H's proportions stack up to the suit. In the meantime Kit needs to get Bob's body dimensions, then you can move on and argue about something else.

Quote:

Well then why don't you come to my home and do it, instead of trying to find somebody who by all odds doesn't have my exact proportions? And you will never know what the actual dimensions of the suited person were anyway, because you don't know the thickness of the padding or how it fit the person in the suit.

Huh? Why would I have to come to your home? If you post a video of yourself walking toward the camera, and give me your height, I'll measure your shoulder width and you can tell me if I'm right. Wear a padded suit if you like.

Quote:

actually the shoulder is one of the worst parts of the costume, along with the ridiculus butt and the thigh and the leg and Roger's boobs, and ...well, gee, just about the whole thing. As you know, the subject in the film wasn't raising his arm, so you won't see maximal distortion. Even as we see it, the supposed deltoid muscle is the wrong shape and makes a squarish bulge over the humerus, the scapula is the wrong shape. You can't show me a "muscle" that contracts. The entire arm looks like a game of ring toss. Most of which you can see here.

So ARE you a primate anatomist? Did you know there is an actual primate anatomist who disagrees with you?

Quote:

Of course, you can't "see" that, partly because you don't know anatomy and partly because you're blinded to the evidence, imho.

Right. I haven't been trained in primate anatomy but I have been trained in robotics and kinematics and I know how a 3D object is projected onto 2D film. What evidence am I blinded to? Last I heard opinions weren't evidence, nor are they facts. So excuse me if I take your opinions with a grain of salt.

Quote:

How can you "measure points of articulation"? a point of articulation is not a distance or an angle or a mass. Tell me how you measure a point? I'm sure mathematics can use such a revolutionary concept.

Your slip is showing. Of course you can measure a point of articulation. They represent the joints. Guess what the distances between the joints represent?

Quote:

I think of "them" as bones because that is what "they" are. How can you find the olecranon in a photo of a blurry padded costume? You are trying to make padded blurred blobs, "about 40 degree" angles projected onto a single plane, stand-ins, and foreshortened photos into actual inches on a human body. Now, if you want to get inches, you can measure the length of bones on Bob H., specifically the distance from his midline to the acromion and to his olecranon and wrist and tips of his fingers. That is about all you can put much reliance on. If you are trying to address the issue of proportion, rather than measurement, then I think that issue was put to bed a long time ago, by Bill Munns among many others, including people here, and you're just wasting everyone's time.

You measure the images in photo units to determine the proportions. Proportions don't involve physical units. Are you sure you aren't Longtabber?

Quote:

"validity" of his measurements? are you playing with words or don't you know what they mean? valid? you mean can he use a ruler? well, kind of...do his rulers and measurements and lines have any meaning in this context? of course not... even you admit that. He thinks, or at least says, that he proved something. Even you obviously don't agree, do you? In that sense, his conclusions from his measurements aren't valid and even you admit it.

Why would I play with YOUR words? You made the reference to valid measurements, not me. After all, you're the expert in sasquatch anatomy.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by parnassus

excellent images.

see the middle diagram of how the deltoid should taper into a point as it comes down from the acromion onto the insertion on the lateral aspect of the humerus.

now see this image, showing "Patty's" concave (!!!) insertion of the "deltoid:"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fa...cp_1697700.jpg

Parnassus,
Just want to welcome your informed and articulate contributions to these discussions.
Here is another study of the bulges in the shoulder area ..



The general shape would seem to support Bob H's recollection of football shoulder pads inside the suit ..

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

The general shape would seem to support Bob H's recollection of football shoulder pads inside the suit ..

It looks exactly like that to me.

Bob Heironimus told Greg Long about the shoulder pads, but Long did not publish any of Bob's comments about the shoulder pads in his book. I had never directly heard of Bob mentioning shoulder pads until I spoke with the man myself.

I have been on the record for quite sometime now as saying that I do not think Philip Morris had anything to do with the PGF. After now having examined what Morris has actually said, I am convinced that Morris did sell a costume to Patterson, though I am not yet satisfied that Patty was a modified creation of his. Morris is in Charlotte, North Carolina. Morris said that on one of his phone conversations with Patterson in Yakima (was this one of the long distance calls he was screwing his neighbour for, or was he sticking it to Jerry?), that Roger asked him how to make the shoulders more massive.

Morris said that he advised Patterson to go to a local high school and get some old football pads. He said that coaches would be happy to get rid of old, cracked ones. Whether or not the suit was made by Morris, I definitely think Bob was telling the truth about the padding on the shoulders, head and butt.

[SweatyYeti]

Originally Posted by Tizzy

Could you please state how a model will prove Bigfoot?

That's where I'm having trouble. Drawing triangles all over Bob H. does not.

Proving that Heironimus wasn't Patty does not necessarily prove that Patty is a real Sasquatch.

It is possible that Bob could be lying, and the film could still be a hoax.


The point of this thread is primarily about Heironimus...not Roger Patterson, or Gimlin......or any other types of analysis of Patty.

I just thought I'd mention that for the folks who are having trouble understanding what the title of this thread actually means.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Morris said that he advised Patterson to go to a local high school and get some old football pads. He said that coaches would be happy to get rid of old, cracked ones. Whether or not the suit was made by Morris, I definitely think Bob was telling the truth about the padding on the shoulders, head and butt.

This is where Patterson would have gone to get the shoulder pads for Patty. That is A.C. Davis High School (formerly Yakima High School) where Patterson and his brothers and sisters went. In 1951 Patterson was #22 of the Davis Pirates. Patterson I can imagine simply went to the school and spoke with the coach, whom might have been his former coach.

Here are the Pirates now. Here are some images of the type of padding the Pirates may have been using in the 60's...

http://ny-image0.etsy.com/il_430xN.20553180.jpg

http://www.antiquemystique.com/images/4145_jpg.jpg

http://www.antiquemystique.com/images/8426h.jpg

Patterson may have started out with a head and shoulders rig like this...

http://www.antiquemystique.com/images/8426_jpg.jpg

We know from the Anderson brothers that he was a hoaxer and rented a suit from LA before. We know that Morris was the top supplier of gorilla costumes at the time (which were mostly brown) and that he was advertising gorilla suits at discount in the Amusement Business magazine which ran stories on any outdoor amusments, including rodeos and rodeo stars. Patterson gave information on his first call to Morris that made him stand out to Morris. When Patterson called Morris saying he wanted a suit, Morris asked him if he was a carny (carnival nowner). The reason being that Morris knew where all his gorilla suits went as a matter of business and all the gorilla suits Morris sold at that time were for carnivals around the country doing a popular act called the "Girl to Gorilla" illusion. The act involves a pretty girl walking behind a door and emerging as a gorilla which would rush the audience.

Patterson said to Morris, "No, I'm a rodeo cowboy. We're just going to have some fun." This is a major indication that Morris was not lying about speaking with Roger Patterson on the phone. Patterson being a rodeo rider was something that was very rarely published in any newspapers or magazines. At most he may have been reported as a cowboy, and usually as a Bigfoot hunter. On buying the suit Patterson said, "I want to make sure the suit looks like a real gorilla. You send me the suit, and if I like it, I'll send you the money. If I don't like it, I'll send the suit back to you." That is totally Patterson. Morris thought it was hilarious that somebody had the balls to suggest he send a suit worth hundreds of dollars without first being paid.

Morris made the feet of his gorilla suits for the Girl to Gorilla illusion shaped exactly as is seen in the PGF. They were made in that shape and not with a toe sticking out like a gorilla's because...

1) A human-shaped foot is easier to do. A foot made with a gripping toe sticking away from the other toes made it impossible to pull a sculpture out of a mold without breaking the mold.

2) The Girl to Gorilla illusion was done on a stage where the performer's feet would be obscured from the audience sitting at a lower height.

3) The feet were meant to be one-size-fits-all. Having the foot long and human-shaped made it easy for an actor to put on the feet and stuff padding or paper in if need be.

I was completely wrong in the past when I surmised that Morris told his story for publicity. Morris is a multi-millionaire with no need to waste time concocting lies to try and get some little publicity from Bigfoot kookery. Much more importantly is that fact that people have testified to Morris speaking about his business with Patterson for many, many years.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

It is possible that Bob could be lying, and the film could still be a hoax.

Yes, it is. However, just one of the great things that show Bob is no liar is the amazing way how he describes his trip to Bluff Creek with excellent detail and in such a way only possible for someone who was actually there in October 1967.

But wait, wait, wait a second. Yeah, it's possible that Bob might be a liar. What is an undeniable fact is that Patterson was a liar and Gimlin as well. You have no problem with the fact that the two prime figures in your Bigfoot fantasy were stone-faced liars. It is to laugh.

[Tizzy]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Proving that Heironimus wasn't Patty does not necessarily prove that Patty is a real Sasquatch.

Fixed it for you.

Quote:

It is possible that Bob could be lying, and the film could still be a hoax.

Sure, Bob H. could be a liar. That's exactly the reason I see others are trying to get to him before his time runs out.

Quote:

The point of this thread is primarily about Heironimus...not Roger Patterson, or Gimlin......or any other types of analysis of Patty.

I never mentioned anyone but Bob H. It is, however, going to be hard to talk about the film and not bring Patterson/Gimlin into the mix.

Quote:

I just thought I'd mention that to state the complete obvious for the folks who are having trouble understanding what the title of this thread actually means.

There you go.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

I never claimed that Sweaty could be a substitute for Bob H.
So ARE you a primate anatomist? Did you know there is an actual primate anatomist who disagrees with you?

your appeal to authority doesn't impress. You can see the diagrams and the stills. But I don't even think you're correct; show me who are you referring to and where they address this "malformation"?

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Right. I haven't been trained in primate anatomy but I have been trained in robotics and kinematics and I know how a 3D object is projected onto 2D film.
What evidence am I blinded to? Last I heard opinions weren't evidence, nor are they facts. So excuse me if I take your opinions with a grain of salt.

Well, you're blind to this, for one thing:

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Your slip is showing. Of course you can measure a point of articulation.

Au contraire; your slip is showing. You can't measure a point. You can measure a line, a distance, a mass, an angle...but you can't measure a point. For all your background, you missed something pretty basic in math. A point has no dimensions, no size.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

You measure the images in photo units to determine the proportions. Proportions don't involve physical units. Are you sure you aren't Longtabber?

Well, that's closer to reality. You estimate the proportions. And there are error factors to estimate. And what you come up with as estimated proportions and error factors are NOT the best way of determining the actual proportions of, you know, real, non-virtual beings. Anatomists, anthropologists, health care workers, etc, measure the bones. You can look up the definition of such things as Intermembral Index, if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Why would I play with YOUR words? You made the reference to valid measurements, not me. After all, you're the expert in sasquatch anatomy.

Nope, you made the reference to "valid." You can say it's my opinion, but you can see the pictures and diagrams. Those are not my work. That is what you fail to refute, in your dodgy post, you address every distraction you can think of, but fail to address the evidence. No, I'm not Longtabber; are you Rick Noll?

[mangler]

"No, I'm not Longtabber; are you Rick Noll? "

Now that's funny!


m

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

In the meantime Kit needs to get Bob's body dimensions, then you can move on and argue about something else.

I have many of Bob's measurements now. While I need to verify these myself, and make many more, I am confident in their accuracy.

I am very interested to see if Sweaty can acurately tell us Bob's sleeve measurement.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by parnassus

your appeal to authority doesn't impress. You can see the diagrams and the stills. But I don't even think you're correct; show me who are you referring to and where they address this "malformation"?

A poster on the BFF with the handle "Apeman", is a primatologist/anatomist and his evaluation of Patty's anatomy isn't quite so damning. But I'm not agreeing with him, I only pointed this out to demonstrate there is no consensus from authority. So playing the "anatomist" card doesn't elevate this discussion beyond opinion. And I'm not convinced yours is informed.

Quote:

Well, you're blind to this, for one thing:

You are under the mistaken impression that I believe the PGF shows a real sasquatch. I'm just critical of "expert" opinions on either side of the fence. You need to debunk the PGF with facts, not opinions. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Opinions <> facts.

Quote:

Au contraire; your slip is showing. You can't measure a point. You can measure a line, a distance, a mass, an angle...but you can't measure a point. For all your background, you missed something pretty basic in math. A point has no dimensions, no size.

Semantics? A point has an (X,Y,Z) position in 3 space. A point gets measured from the origin. Should I have said "located"? Ok then, locate the articulation points then MEASURE the distances between them. Better?

Quote:

Well, that's closer to reality. You estimate the proportions. And there are error factors to estimate. And what you come up with as estimated proportions and error factors are NOT the best way of determining the actual proportions of, you know, real, non-virtual beings. Anatomists, anthropologists, health care workers, etc, measure the bones. You can look up the definition of such things as Intermembral Index, if you don't believe me.

Do tell? These are the anthropometric measurements we need to concentrate on:

Intermembral index = [(humerus+radius) x 100]/(femur + tibia)
Humerofemoral index = (humerus x 100)/femur
Brachial index - (radius x 100)/humerous
Crural = (tibia x 100)/femur
ASH ratio = arm span/standing height

All these measurements are unitless and can be estimated from the joints (points of articulation). Seeing how they measure up on a person with known body dimensions, photographed at various orientations would be an invaluable exercise. If it works on Sweaty then it will likely work on Bob.

Quote:

Nope, you made the reference to "valid." You can say it's my opinion, but you can see the pictures and diagrams. Those are not my work. That is what you fail to refute, in your dodgy post, you address every distraction you can think of, but fail to address the evidence.

Address the evidence? You need to stop reading between the lines. My original reference to "valid" was: "..measuring Patty's images/proportions is a valid exercise." Forensic image metrologists determine the body dimensions from photos, video's, etc. all the time. No bones required. Maybe you can quote me where I said any of Sweaty's diagrams/measurements were valid. Waiting..

Quote:

No, I'm not Longtabber; are you Rick Noll?

Touche, LT!

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I have many of Bob's measurements now. While I need to verify these myself, and make many more, I am confident in their accuracy.

I am very interested to see if Sweaty can acurately tell us Bob's sleeve measurement.

Excellent Kit! Obviously there will be some compressions of the spine and joints as we age, but the long bones should remain the same length. Unfortunately, we can't expect Bob to duplicate the "walk" at his age, but it would be very useful to get clear footage of Bob walking at various orientations, using ~25mm lens at ~100ft from the camera. Once you get enough of Bob's actual body dimensions, Mangler could create a surrogate CG poser model of Bob and stuff him in the suit. Then let the games begin.

[wolftrax]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

So ARE you a primate anatomist? Did you know there is an actual primate anatomist who disagrees with you?

I'd like to see where Apeman actually disagreed about this.

Originally Posted by Kitakaze

Morris made the feet of his gorilla suits for the Girl to Gorilla illusion shaped exactly as is seen in the PGF. They were made in that shape and not with a toe sticking out like a gorilla's because...

I'd like to see photos of the feet of his suits from the 60s to confirm this.

Quote:

1) A human-shaped foot is easier to do. A foot made with a gripping toe sticking away from the other toes made it impossible to pull a sculpture out of a mold without breaking the mold.

LOL! That's ridiculous. A foot has to be made with a two piece mold, just as a hand would, which also has a thumb sticking out. A foot would be even easier because it doesn't have the bend of the fingers to try and compensate for. If Morris said this, he's lying.

Quote:

2) The Girl to Gorilla illusion was done on a stage where the performer's feet would be obscured from the audience sitting at a lower height.

Doubtful. It's suppsoed to give a view where the girl transforms right before the audiences eyes behind a cage and then jumps out at the audience, any stage tall enough to obscure the view of the feet would also obscure seeing the transformation. Here was Morris's suit and transformation scene in Diamonds are Forever, notice the gorilla is black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRlZvJhXefE

Quote:

3) The feet were meant to be one-size-fits-all. Having the foot long and human-shaped made it easy for an actor to put on the feet and stuff padding or paper in if need be.

This wouldn't make any difference whether it was ape shaped or human shaped. This is a claim made by Morris to answer the obvious question of Patty's feet not being ape feet. If these are an exact match, Morris needs to supply photos from that time of the feet for his ape suits, this would be an important and potentially damning against the film.

Quote:

I was completely wrong in the past when I surmised that Morris told his story for publicity. Morris is a multi-millionaire with no need to waste time concocting lies to try and get some little publicity from Bigfoot kookery. Much more importantly is that fact that people have testified to Morris speaking about his business with Patterson for many, many years.

I wouldn't say that. He needs to provide evidence to these claims that is readily available to him. Who are these people who can testify? Who's to say he's not trying to cash in on the Bigfoot craze, like he did on Barney. People get rich by advertizing and hyping their product.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by wolftrax

I'd like to see photos of the feet of his suits from the 60s to confirm this.

Exactly my thoughts. I've contacted Philip Morris with details on the documentary project I am working on and asked if he could provide me with a 1967 Morris Costumes catalogue showing the gorilla costume and the feet.

Quote:

LOL! That's ridiculous. A foot has to be made with a two piece mold, just as a hand would, which also has a thumb sticking out. A foot would be even easier because it doesn't have the bend of the fingers to try and compensate for. If Morris said this, he's lying.

That's a good point. I am not a costume designer, and I can't say anything for sure. Maybe it was a cost/efficiency thing. I don't know. I can see the sense in having a retail gorilla costume having more human-shaped feet. Morris definitely did say this, was recorded and transcribed by Greg Long. I think it would be best if I spoke to Morris directly about it, as the question is quite legitimate.

Quote:

Doubtful. It's suppsoed to give a view where the girl transforms right before the audiences eyes behind a cage and then jumps out at the audience, any stage tall enough to obscure the view of the feet would also obscure seeing the transformation. Here was Morris's suit and transformation scene in Diamonds are Forever, notice the gorilla is black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRlZvJhXefE

Yeah, that was one of the first things I found. I notice the gorilla is a black, not brown. Diamonds Are Forever is a 1971 film. Morris said his gorilla costumes in the 70's were mostly black with the rare white one. He said he had a white suit that went from the Circus-Circus Casino in Las Vegas to being used in Diamonds Are Forever. As we can see, the suit there is a black suit being used in the Girl to Gorilla illusion.

You might remember discussing it with MK Davis six years ago...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5101

I don't know what's up with that. Here are all the other videos beside the Bond one showing the Girl to Gorilla illusion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH7hui4rF0E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FWYh...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGnWt...eature=related

This one seems to show the human-shaped feet...

http://www.sideshowworld.com/G2G.html

And these images show that gorilla suits often are made with human-shaped feet...

http://site.unbeatablesale.com/img033/mrrs1238.jpg

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-2835517...097_1664640421

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-2835517...102_3652340476

Quote:

I wouldn't say that. He needs to provide evidence to these claims that is readily available to him. Who are these people who can testify? Who's to say he's not trying to cash in on the Bigfoot craze, like he did on Barney. People get rich by advertizing and hyping their product.

Wolf, what's the Barney reference? Are you talking about some proven dishonesty on Morris' part? I would need to see that.

Some info about Morris Costumes and Philip Morris...

- Morris Costumes is the largest wholesale supplier of costumes in America and Morris is a multi-millionaire.

- Morris was coauthor of a successful book How to Operate a Successful Haunted House.

- In the 60's Morris made his own gloves and feet for his gorilla costumes. Later in the 70's he bought them from Don Post in California.

- Morris stated in an interview with Greg Long that his gorilla feet could fit a size 10-12 men's foot and were about 14 inches long.

Selected Morris quotes from his November 26, 2003 interview with Greg Long...

On the subject of people who say he made up his story to help his business and why he told people about Patterson later:

"Frankly, it might not be good for my business. Back then I was making costumes for professional magicians. It wasn't professional to tell people after a costume or a prop was used how it was done. That would kill orders. It made no professional sense to come forward about Bigfoot back then. Professionally, I just couldn't come back when Patterson's film was shown and say, 'It's all fake.' That's not what you do. But then it got to the point that it wasn't a big deal anymore. Well, at one time it was a big deal to me when I first got around to talk about it, but not anymore. I've told this story at costume conventions, lectures, magician conventions. I'm surprised in all your research (Greg Long's) you didn't come across me"

On when he first started telling people about selling a suit to Patterson:

"Ah, sometime, I think, in the 1980s. I never viewed it as a hoax. I viewed their film as promoting something. I viewed it as a magician sawing a girl in half... That's not a hoax, just an illusion. It wasn't the professional thing for me to do, to tell how an act was done. The Bigfoot thing just wasn't a big deal in my life. In the 1980's, the film didn't have the momentum it had at first. I decided to start talking about it. In the last few years all these documentaries have come out. Most people by now know the film is a hoax, or they should know. We're at a point in the public's relationship with the Bigfoot story, it's time to tell my story."

One person who can testify about Morris telling his story about Patterson is his friend Ron Quinn, video producer, writer, illustrator and maker of costume parts, such as noses, ears, and masks, to be sold to wholesalers.

Ron Quinn recorded by Greg Long in late November 2003:

"When I was making costume products here in Tuscon from 1976 to 1980, I met Morris over the phone. Later I vistited him in Charlotte. I think it was either around October, the costume season, of last year, or the year before. I was talking on the phone with Phil. Out of the blue he says, 'You know, I am the one who supplied the suit for that Bigfoot film.' I had just read a story about Bigfoot and that some big Hollywood people were claiming that John Chambers had made the Bigfoot suit. You know, Chambers was the guy who created the costumes for Planet of the Apes. I mentioned Chambers to Phil. He said, 'No, that's not true.' He talked a couple of minutes about it and that was it."

Doesn't sound like Morris was trying to scam Quinn. Sounds like he was just mentioning something interesting to him.

Here's another person that can testify to hearing Morris talk about selling a suit to Patterson: Professional magician Tim Deremer of Canton Ohio. Deremer met Morris in 1968 in Canton. Morris was performing his road show there with local and famous magicians. Deremer bought a gorilla suit from Morris in 1975 for a Girl to Gorilla act. Here's him speaking with Greg Long...

GL: "When did you find out about his story that he supplied the suit for the film?"

TD: "He lectured on that this year, in May, at the Battle of magicians in Canton. It's a three day magic convention. They've been going on for thirteen years. He was talking about the Bigfoot film in his lecture."

GL: "What was your reaction?"

TD: "Well, I missed part of it, but everybody thought it was funny. He had videos and stuff he was showing. he showed the video of the Bigfoot running around."

Deremer goes on to explain how honest he thinks Morris is and how it makes no sense to him that Morris in semiretirement with millions of dollars and a costume empire would waste time trying to make money of of Bigfoot. I, personally, have little doubt that Morris sold Patterson a costume. The way he describes his first talk on the phome with Patterson, the things patterson told him, the way Patterson behaved, all of them are uniquely Patterson. We know from Yakima area business men that Patterson had talk to them years before the PGF about renting a suit from LA through Seattle. I have no reason to doubt that Patterson got costumes to film as Bigfoot. It's a natural conclusion from everything he did and his entire obsession with Bigfoot. Patterson was not an honest man and had no problem presenting things that were not true. He believed in Bigfoot, but the PGF was simply a means to keep him getting paid to look for it.

BTW, Wolftrax, I've been following your discussion with Bill at the BFF about makeup artists. Good stuff. I've contacted Chris Walas to discuss somethings and I'm waiting for his reply.

[wolftrax]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

That's a good point. I am not a costume designer, and I can't say anything for sure. Maybe it was a cost/efficiency thing. I don't know. I can see the sense in having a retail gorilla costume having more human-shaped feet. Morris definitely did say this, was recorded and transcribed by Greg Long. I think it would be best if I spoke to Morris directly about it, as the question is quite legitimate.

I have no doubt Morris said this, I seem to recall it from Long's book, and in no way was I bagging on you or is this nay reflection on you. It's justthat any way you slice it he'd have to make a two piece mold for a foot, so a thumb sticking out wouldn't be a problem. He made his own gloves, he would know this, so there's really no reasoning for it besides an excuse. Perosnally, I'd be very surprised to see the foot matched Patty's and see no reason why Patterson couldn't make his own feet.

Quote:

Yeah, that was one of the first things I found. I notice the gorilla is a black, not brown. Diamonds Are Forever is a 1971 film. Morris said his gorilla costumes in the 70's were mostly black with the rare white one. He said he had a white suit that went from the Circus-Circus Casino in Las Vegas to being used in Diamonds Are Forever. As we can see, the suit there is a black suit being used in the Girl to Gorilla illusion.

I'd like to see color photos of his suits from the time.

Quote:

This one seems to show the human-shaped feet...
http://www.sideshowworld.com/G2G.html

I don't know if it's my browser but the feet look cut off in this one.

Quote:

And these images show that gorilla suits often are made with human-shaped feet...

http://site.unbeatablesale.com/img033/mrrs1238.jpg

This one does have them.

Quote:

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-2835517...097_1664640421

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-2835517...102_3652340476

Look closer, they have the little thumbs sticking out the inside and running along the foot.

Quote:

Wolf, what's the Barney reference? Are you talking about some proven dishonesty on Morris' part? I would need to see that.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-54604569.html

Quote:

On the subject of people who say he made up his story to help his business and why he told people about Patterson later:

"Frankly, it might not be good for my business. Back then I was making costumes for professional magicians. It wasn't professional to tell people after a costume or a prop was used how it was done. That would kill orders. It made no professional sense to come forward about Bigfoot back then. Professionally, I just couldn't come back when Patterson's film was shown and say, 'It's all fake.' That's not what you do. But then it got to the point that it wasn't a big deal anymore. Well, at one time it was a big deal to me when I first got around to talk about it, but not anymore. I've told this story at costume conventions, lectures, magician conventions. I'm surprised in all your research (Greg Long's) you didn't come across me"

On when he first started telling people about selling a suit to Patterson:

"Ah, sometime, I think, in the 1980s. I never viewed it as a hoax. I viewed their film as promoting something. I viewed it as a magician sawing a girl in half... That's not a hoax, just an illusion. It wasn't the professional thing for me to do, to tell how an act was done. The Bigfoot thing just wasn't a big deal in my life. In the 1980's, the film didn't have the momentum it had at first. I decided to start talking about it. In the last few years all these documentaries have come out. Most people by now know the film is a hoax, or they should know. We're at a point in the public's relationship with the Bigfoot story, it's time to tell my story."

One person who can testify about Morris telling his story about Patterson is his friend Ron Quinn, video producer, writer, illustrator and maker of costume parts, such as noses, ears, and masks, to be sold to wholesalers.

Ron Quinn recorded by Greg Long in late November 2003:

"When I was making costume products here in Tuscon from 1976 to 1980, I met Morris over the phone. Later I vistited him in Charlotte. I think it was either around October, the costume season, of last year, or the year before. I was talking on the phone with Phil. Out of the blue he says, 'You know, I am the one who supplied the suit for that Bigfoot film.' I had just read a story about Bigfoot and that some big Hollywood people were claiming that John Chambers had made the Bigfoot suit. You know, Chambers was the guy who created the costumes for Planet of the Apes. I mentioned Chambers to Phil. He said, 'No, that's not true.' He talked a couple of minutes about it and that was it."

Doesn't sound like Morris was trying to scam Quinn. Sounds like he was just mentioning something interesting to him.

Here's another person that can testify to hearing Morris talk about selling a suit to Patterson: Professional magician Tim Deremer of Canton Ohio. Deremer met Morris in 1968 in Canton. Morris was performing his road show there with local and famous magicians. Deremer bought a gorilla suit from Morris in 1975 for a Girl to Gorilla act. Here's him speaking with Greg Long...

GL: "When did you find out about his story that he supplied the suit for the film?"

TD: "He lectured on that this year, in May, at the Battle of magicians in Canton. It's a three day magic convention. They've been going on for thirteen years. He was talking about the Bigfoot film in his lecture."

GL: "What was your reaction?"

TD: "Well, I missed part of it, but everybody thought it was funny. He had videos and stuff he was showing. he showed the video of the Bigfoot running around."

Deremer goes on to explain how honest he thinks Morris is and how it makes no sense to him that Morris in semiretirement with millions of dollars and a costume empire would waste time trying to make money of of Bigfoot. I, personally, have little doubt that Morris sold Patterson a costume. The way he describes his first talk on the phome with Patterson, the things patterson told him, the way Patterson behaved, all of them are uniquely Patterson. We know from Yakima area business men that Patterson had talk to them years before the PGF about renting a suit from LA through Seattle. I have no reason to doubt that Patterson got costumes to film as Bigfoot. It's a natural conclusion from everything he did and his entire obsession with Bigfoot. Patterson was not an honest man and had no problem presenting things that were not true. He believed in Bigfoot, but the PGF was simply a means to keep him getting paid to look for it.

All around the time of Romney's outing in "World's Greatest Hoaxes" and at shows where he is making presentations (hype and advertise) for his company.

Quote:

BTW, Wolftrax, I've been following your discussion with Bill at the BFF about makeup artists. Good stuff. I've contacted Chris Walas to discuss somethings and I'm waiting for his reply.

Thanks, Chris is a great guy.

The problem I have with the Morris thing, is that even with the black and brown suits he has shown, I've yet to see one that really looks like Patty's fur. I'd really like to see the Bob H recreation attempt.

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I think the prosthetic eye on the right of Bob's that Roger used on the suit is clearly visible there in that frame. If anyone thinks that Bob telling that is an indicator of him lying about being Patty, I welcome them to discuss it with me.

not exactly the kind of story one tells if one if making it all up.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by wolftrax

I have no doubt Morris said this, I seem to recall it from Long's book, and in no way was I bagging on you or is this nay reflection on you. It's justthat any way you slice it he'd have to make a two piece mold for a foot, so a thumb sticking out wouldn't be a problem. He made his own gloves, he would know this, so there's really no reasoning for it besides an excuse. Perosnally, I'd be very surprised to see the foot matched Patty's and see no reason why Patterson couldn't make his own feet.

Oh, don't you worry about offending me. We could talk anything and everything about the PGF and Bigfoot, and I would never think you were trying to insult me. I am way too confident in your commitment to sincere discussion aimed at the truth to think any such thing. Reality reigns here. I am not going to be like someone we both know and immediately jump out the window saying I won't talk to you because we have a logic disconnect when we have differing opinions on something. That is exactly the point when things get interesting.

For years now I have been content with the opinion that Morris was looking to cash in with his story about selling Patterson a suit. I've long been vocal saying that I think that Bob was in the suit, Morris was lying and had nothing to do with it, and that the suit came from Hollywood. I was of the opinion that at least Tom Burman was involved in making the suit, and that others contributed. I do not think John Chambers made the suit, more than anything because he denied that while admitting being involved with Frank Hansen and the Minnesota Iceman hoax.

I no longer think Morris is a liar and I'm chastising myself for sitting with that opinion until now and not having looked at what Morris actually said and did sooner. You are right that of the various reasons Morris gave for why his gorilla suit feet were human-shaped, the thing about not wanting to break a mold for the foot sculpture is a little wonky considering the hands. Once again, I'm not a suit creator, and I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that that alone in no way dismisses his testimony. Morris said he saw the feet and right away knew they were his, except that the color looked different. He gave Greg Long a pile of stuff to show what he made then. Long included a picture in his book of Morris on his TV show as Dr.Evil with one of his brown suits, but the feet are obscured. I will immediately agree that when you look at that suit, it looks nothing like Patty...


http://www.pattersonfilm.com/page2/files/page2_9.jpg

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/e-gor/tvhorro...ix/drevil2.jpg

Morris appeared from 1962 to 1969 every Friday night at 11:30 on WBT (now WBTV), Channel 3 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Here is a quote on the show the above photo was taken from...

Quote:

Dr.Evil's New Year's Eve show for 1964 was unforgettable. He opened with a gorilla sealed inside a cage, introduced the feature, Teenagers From Outer Space, then returned during several of the breaks to taunt the increasingly incensed ape. The sock finish at the feature's conclusion saw the beast tearing it's way through the bars and carrying a screaming Dr.Evil off the darkened stage. What a night! Horror Theatre continued apace over the next several years, and in 1967, actually instituted a double feature policy, which proved to be a mixed blessing inasmuch as the earlier, classic titles (Bride Of Frankenstein, for instance) would invariably be placed in the second position behind something like From The Earth To The Moon. The viewer would then be obliged to stay up past 2:30 a.m. to see the desired movie.

http://myweb.wvnet.edu/e-gor/tvhorrorhosts/hostsd.html

That was Morris doing a variation on the Girl to Gorilla bit (without the girl and transformation illusion).

So the important thing about Morris' claim of having sold a gorilla costume to a Roger Patterson in Yakima who identified himself as a rodeo cowboy is not only many of the things Morris says, but also what he doesn't say. Morris doesn't go up and down the film tring to claim everything as his or his idea. Greg Long asks him about Patty's boobs and he says he has no idea what he's talking about, and that none of his gorilla suits had breasts. He straight-up says to Long that he doesn't recognize the head and face and that they aren't his.

Now think about Morris' behaviour in telling about his making a sale to Patterson. He didn't whip out the claim in the 60's when the film came out and he was making suits with his wife in the basement of their house on Kistler Ave. in Charlotte. Boy, he could have used the publicity then! No, he waited until after Patterson was dead and the hullabaloo on the film had died down. And what did he do? Did he go to WBT Channel 3 in Charlotte where he had an award winning show for a whopping eight years running and say, "Hey, guys. Boy, have a got a story for you."? No, he did it just like he told Greg Long. Sometime in the 80's he started mentioning it at magic shows and conventions. We have people that were there and can testify to this. So if you're trying to suck in some money when you already have the nation's largest costume wholesale business, do you get the publicity by talking to some magician colleagues at conventions? What the heck is that? That is not the practice of somebody trying to milk something.

No, Morris' account of what Patterson said and did, along with supporting accounts and records of what kind of person Patterson was and the schemes he got involved in, along with the testimony of people who know Morris and his own behaviour, make it extremely likely that he did in fact sell a suit to Patterson in '67.

Tell me this: What reason do you have to doubt that Patterson would go looking to buy a suit and that Morris, who advertised discount suits in Amusement Business magazine, which always featured stories on rodeo and rodeo stars, would be the one he went to?

Quote:

I'd like to see color photos of his suits from the time.

I think this is the suit...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads...1084401366.jpg

Quote:

Look closer, they have the little thumbs sticking out the inside and running along the foot.

You're right, some of them do. But the first doesn't, and neither does Morris' suit. I have no reason to doubt that there were practical reasons to build feet for gorilla costumes that were human-shaped.

Quote:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-54604569.html

OK, not you, but this, this I have a problem with. This is the kind of thrown mud that footers will get all over and hope that it sticks. But it doesn't. It's no good at all. I need a solid reason to think that all the things that support Morris' claim that he sold Patterson a suit are poop. I need to be showed why I should think Morris has a habit of being dishonest. That is no where near what I need. The mold thing was much better.

Here's the problem: You give me a link that says that Morris Costumes was sued for copyright infringement by the creators of Barney The Dinosaur. It's a wee little thing that doesn't tell you what happened at all. The great thing about the judicial system is that those records are available to us, and I was able to examine them.

Check these out, Wolf...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6792,4121581

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/...20Costumes.htm

1999, Barney the Dinosaur is crack for 2 and 3 year olds all over America. Barney is the intellectual propery of Lyons Partnership of Texas. Barney is on every-frickin'-thing. Cups, knapsacks, bedsheets, lunchboxes, you name it. Lyons Partnership goes out and starts suing any costume shop in America that has a purple/pink anything that looks remotely like a dinosaur - lizards, frogs, dragons, etc. Morris Costumes has the rights to Duffy the Dragon. Duffy is a children's book character that was created in 1979, way before Barney was thought up. Lyon's lost their lawsuit against Alinco and Morris Costumes. The judge tossed it. Lyon's was trying to corner it's crack market and jump on anyone that had anything like Barney. That is no kind of evidence of Morris being a dishonest man. His company had the rights to a character that was around long before Barney became so popular. Not a surprising lawsuit when you are have a massive costume business with all sorts of costumes. Morris Costumes had the rights to Spiderman, The Hulk, and Batman. If they wanted Barney, they don't need to be sneaky about it. Maybe they could call their 1979 created Duffy character Blarney the Dragon, if they wanted to be sneaky.

Bottom line is that that story is footer mud and of no consequence in this conversation. I'm assuming you didn't no the suit was lost and tossed.

Quote:

All around the time of Romney's outing in "World's Greatest Hoaxes" and at shows where he is making presentations (hype and advertise) for his company.

Morris seeing that show and talking about it to colleagues at conventions is no problem for me whatsoever. That is to be expected. One of the people I gave you discussed the thing for a few minutes after recently having read a story on Chambers being fingered for the suit. It wasn't a big deal or a pitch. I need to see some real rip-off promotion. I thought Morris was a liar and now I don't. I need to see some "As seen in the Patterson Film!" type BS.

Quote:

The problem I have with the Morris thing, is that even with the black and brown suits he has shown, I've yet to see one that really looks like Patty's fur. I'd really like to see the Bob H recreation attempt.

Patterson is said to have cut it, and also to have ordered extra dynel from Morris. Makes great sense to me. That does not in anyway mean I am satisfied that Patty started out as a Morris creation, but I do think Roger bought a suit from him. Patterson already was experienced at working with film and Bigfoot suits by this time, and he was an extremely gifted artist and craftsmen, so I would expect him to up his game. The subjective opinions of people already long gone about what is on the film and what Patterson could or could not accomplish mean nothing to me. Have a look at his rodeo paintings, or his miniature coaches that he built, or the Triumph motorcycle he would disassemble then reassemble, or the saddles he built, or any of the various inventions of his he would take around to show people and try and tell me Patterson was not creatively gifted.

However gifted and smart Roger was, he was still a con artist and the last man you would want coming at you with a Bigfoot film. Anyway, not so smart that when he was stealing art from Morton Kunstler and dreaming up his hairy boss lady of the woods, he neglected to check what real ape boobs look like.

[parnassus]

Sorry if you took offense. But it is not my slip that is showing.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

A poster on the BFF with the handle "Apeman", is a primatologist/anatomist and his evaluation of Patty's anatomy isn't quite so damning. But I'm not agreeing with him, I only pointed this out to demonstrate there is no consensus from authority. So playing the "anatomist" card doesn't elevate this discussion beyond opinion. And I'm not convinced yours is informed.

I guess he didn't comment on the deltoid issue. The facts are in the image, and the diagram. You don't have to be convinced about my opinion.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

You are under the mistaken impression that I believe the PGF shows a real sasquatch. I'm just critical of "expert" opinions on either side of the fence. You need to debunk the PGF with facts, not opinions. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. Opinions <> facts.

See above. But I can also express my opinions. And i will continue to show the facts, through the images and anatomic diagrams.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Semantics? A point has an (X,Y,Z) position in 3 space. A point gets measured from the origin. Should I have said "located"? Ok then, locate the articulation points then MEASURE the distances between them. Better?

There are no "semantics" in math. It is what it is. As you say, facts. So I guess my slip is not showing?

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Do tell? These are the anthropometric measurements we need to concentrate on:

Intermembral index = [(humerus+radius) x 100]/(femur + tibia)
Humerofemoral index = (humerus x 100)/femur
Brachial index - (radius x 100)/humerous
Crural = (tibia x 100)/femur
ASH ratio = arm span/standing height

All these measurements are unitless and can be estimated from the joints (points of articulation). Seeing how they measure up on a person with known body dimensions, photographed at various orientations would be an invaluable exercise. If it works on Sweaty then it will likely work on Bob.

They are not measurements. I DO tell. They are indices or ratios. F A C T S
And there is not a single mention of points of articulations, or joints. F A C T S
And they are defined as being the ratios of bone length as measured on bodies. Having measured them myself, I can tell you that the bone is measured.That is their origin and use, and standards are in place, as well as normal limits. Estimating by using the theoretical point of articulation GIVES ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NUMBERS. I agree that in some circumstances they can be estimated from images, but they are not truly the same as the actual indices, as you are measuring "apples and oranges."

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Address the evidence? You need to stop reading between the lines. My original reference to "valid" was: "..measuring Patty's images/proportions is a valid exercise." Forensic image metrologists determine the body dimensions from photos, video's, etc. all the time. No bones required. Maybe you can quote me where I said any of Sweaty's diagrams/measurements were valid. Waiting..

Statements of what someone else "needs" to do, are the most arrogant of opinions, "imo."

"Valid", unlike "point" is one of those ambiguous words,and when dealing with scientific issues, the semantics become important. It sometimes means "genuine", in which case almost anything can qualify as "valid." In this discussion, I think it means more than that...something like "meaningful", "accurate," "does what it is supposed to do," etc.

I'm gonna just guess here, but "Forensic image metrologists determine the body dimensions from photos, video's, etc. all the time." is not actually FACT when it comes to guys in altered gorilla suits. Amirite? So I don't call that valid in the sense of doing what it is advertised to do.

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Touche, LT!

I am not Longtabber. FACT

[wolftrax]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I no longer think Morris is a liar and I'm chastising myself for sitting with that opinion until now and not having looked at what Morris actually said and did sooner. You are right that of the various reasons Morris gave for why his gorilla suit feet were human-shaped, the thing about not wanting to break a mold for the foot sculpture is a little wonky considering the hands. Once again, I'm not a suit creator, and I can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that that alone in no way dismisses his testimony.

I can say it does, I've seen the feet he has made (the recreation), I know by experience he would have to have made a 2 piece mold, and a thumb sticking out of the side would not affect that.

Quote:

Morris said he saw the feet and right away knew they were his, except that the color looked different. He gave Greg Long a pile of stuff to show what he made then. Long included a picture in his book of Morris on his TV show as Dr.Evil with one of his brown suits, but the feet are obscured. I will immediately agree that when you look at that suit, it looks nothing like Patty...

Here lies the answer you ask below...

Quote:

Now think about Morris' behaviour in telling about his making a sale to Patterson. He didn't whip out the claim in the 60's when the film came out and he was making suits with his wife in the basement of their house on Kistler Ave. in Charlotte. Boy, he could have used the publicity then! No, he waited until after Patterson was dead and the hullabaloo on the film had died down. And what did he do? Did he go to WBT Channel 3 in Charlotte where he had an award winning show for a whopping eight years running and say, "Hey, guys. Boy, have a got a story for you."? No, he did it just like he told Greg Long. Sometime in the 80's he started mentioning it at magic shows and conventions. We have people that were there and can testify to this.

The date of the quotes you gave weren't from the 80s, they were fairly recent.

Quote:

So if you're trying to suck in some money when you already have the nation's largest costume wholesale business, do you get the publicity by talking to some magician colleagues at conventions? What the heck is that? That is not the practice of somebody trying to milk something.

You'd be surprised.

Quote:

No, Morris' account of what Patterson said and did, along with supporting accounts and records of what kind of person Patterson was and the schemes he got involved in, along with the testimony of people who know Morris and his own behaviour, make it extremely likely that he did in fact sell a suit to Patterson in '67.

Tell me this: What reason do you have to doubt that Patterson would go looking to buy a suit and that Morris, who advertised discount suits in Amusement Business magazine, which always featured stories on rodeo and rodeo stars, would be the one he went to?

For this reason:

Quote:

I will immediately agree that when you look at that suit, it looks nothing like Patty...

Quote:

You're right, some of them do. But the first doesn't, and neither does Morris' suit. I have no reason to doubt that there were practical reasons to build feet for gorilla costumes that were human-shaped.

The fact that we haven't seen them.

Quote:

OK, not you, but this, this I have a problem with. This is the kind of thrown mud that footers will get all over and hope that it sticks. But it doesn't. It's no good at all. I need a solid reason to think that all the things that support Morris' claim that he sold Patterson a suit are poop. I need to be showed why I should think Morris has a habit of being dishonest. That is no where near what I need. The mold thing was much better.

Here's the problem: You give me a link that says that Morris Costumes was sued for copyright infringement by the creators of Barney The Dinosaur. It's a wee little thing that doesn't tell you what happened at all. The great thing about the judicial system is that those records are available to us, and I was able to examine them.

Check these out, Wolf...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=6792,4121581

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/...20Costumes.htm

1999, Barney the Dinosaur is crack for 2 and 3 year olds all over America. Barney is the intellectual propery of Lyons Partnership of Texas. Barney is on every-frickin'-thing. Cups, knapsacks, bedsheets, lunchboxes, you name it. Lyons Partnership goes out and starts suing any costume shop in America that has a purple/pink anything that looks remotely like a dinosaur - lizards, frogs, dragons, etc. Morris Costumes has the rights to Duffy the Dragon. Duffy is a children's book character that was created in 1979, way before Barney was thought up. Lyon's lost their lawsuit against Alinco and Morris Costumes. The judge tossed it. Lyon's was trying to corner it's crack market and jump on anyone that had anything like Barney. That is no kind of evidence of Morris being a dishonest man. His company had the rights to a character that was around long before Barney became so popular. Not a surprising lawsuit when you are have a massive costume business with all sorts of costumes. Morris Costumes had the rights to Spiderman, The Hulk, and Batman. If they wanted Barney, they don't need to be sneaky about it. Maybe they could call their 1979 created Duffy character Blarney the Dragon, if they wanted to be sneaky.

Bottom line is that that story is footer mud and of no consequence in this conversation. I'm assuming you didn't no the suit was lost and tossed.

Nope, I didn't know, I also haven't been able to find the suit or suits to compare.

Quote:

Morris seeing that show and talking about it to colleagues at conventions is no problem for me whatsoever. That is to be expected. One of the people I gave you discussed the thing for a few minutes after recently having read a story on Chambers being fingered for the suit. It wasn't a big deal or a pitch. I need to see some real rip-off promotion. I thought Morris was a liar and now I don't. I need to see some "As seen in the Patterson Film!" type BS.

Again...

Quote:

I will immediately agree that when you look at that suit, it looks nothing like Patty...

Quote:

Patterson is said to have cut it, and also to have ordered extra dynel from Morris. Makes great sense to me. That does not in anyway mean I am satisfied that Patty started out as a Morris creation, but I do think Roger bought a suit from him. Patterson already was experienced at working with film and Bigfoot suits by this time, and he was an extremely gifted artist and craftsmen, so I would expect him to up his game. The subjective opinions of people already long gone about what is on the film and what Patterson could or could not accomplish mean nothing to me. Have a look at his rodeo paintings, or his miniature coaches that he built, or the Triumph motorcycle he would disassemble then reassemble, or the saddles he built, or any of the various inventions of his he would take around to show people and try and tell me Patterson was not creatively gifted.

I wouldn't even try to tell you that. In fact, I think he was a lot more creative than Morris or Long gave him credit for. In fact, I don't think he needed Morris at all. Maybe it's the lighting, or the film grain, or any contrast done to the film that makes it so the fur sheen and general look don't match. Maybe it's the extent Patterson would have to go through to make how Morris made his suits match how Bob H said it was made. Maybe it's the way Morris claims the feet are his but provides nothing to support it, and it would be damning, yet the feet do have a distinctive Patterson signature. Maybe it's that Morris's suits have folds and wrinkles, a lot more than what it is interpreted on Patty, or Morris's suits lack many of the things that stick out on Patty. No I'm not talking about boobs.

Can I explain all of these things to you right now, to support what I'm saying? Not at this time. What I can tell you, is if you're going to have contact with Morris and back him, push him on showing the feet he had at that time.

Quote:

However gifted and smart Roger was, he was still a con artist and the last man you would want coming at you with a Bigfoot film. Anyway, not so smart that when he was stealing art from Morton Kunstler and dreaming up his hairy boss lady of the woods, he neglected to check what real ape boobs look like.

Now Kuenstler's image, that is confirmation. Morris? Not so much. Yes Patterson was a con man, he conned Vilma Radford. He welched out on every deal he made before the filming, and it could be argued afterward. But that doesn't mean Morris is telling you the truth. Get those feet, man.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by parnassus

not exactly the kind of story one tells if one if making it all up.

This is very, very important. When Long first phoned Heironimus on December 5th, 1998, he tried to cover for Gimlin and Patterson. He denied things that he should not at all have denied if he realized he was talking to an investigator who had done his homework. Heironimus had no way of knowing that Greg Long had been to see Bigfooter Larry Lund to discuss Roger Patterson and who had given him this photo from Roger South Fork, Ahtanum Valley documentary...



Showing left to right: Roger Patterson, John Ballard, Jerry Merritt, Howard Heironimus, Chief Gimlin and Bob Heironimus.

Bob denied to Long any involvement in the documentary and oops, Greg had his picture of him right there in it. Greg then visits Bob's house in Yakima on December 19, 1998 after being turned away by Judy Gimlin up the street. Bob accused to Greg, "So you're gonna get rich of this?" Long responded, "I'm not looking to get rich off it. I'm looking to tell the story about Roger Patterson and this movie." Bob tells Greg he'll need to talk with his attorney and maybe he'll get back to him. Greg then calls him again on the 27th and tells Bob he has a picture of him with Roger Patterson out on the South Fork. Bob says nothing. Bob then tells him to call his attorney, Barry Woodard. On the 29th Greg calls Woodard who tells him that Bob is a "real salt of the earth guy." Woodard says that Bob has mentioned other people involved in the PGF and some were prominent people and was concerned what would happen if their involvement was divulged. Bob was obviously talking about Al DeAtley. Remember a couple of years later DeAtley told Long he knew Bob Heironimus through Roger patterson.

Then serendipity kicks in and after meeting with Long, Bob sees the World's Greatest Hoaxes and gets choked. That's when the 1999 story comes out about the mystery Yakima man who is going to reveal his partiticpation as the man in the suit. But two years go by and nothing happens. Bob doesn't come out. Then on Thursday, January 11th, 2001 Glen Cassidy calls Pat Long looking for Greg who is at work. Glen tells Pat that he has convinced Bob to tell Greg his story, but that he was hesitant to call Greg. Greg gives Pat Bob's number. That evening Greg calls Bob and Bob asks him when he wants to meet. Greg suggests the weekend of January 20-21. Greg says he will call Bob on the Friday before to confirm. When Greg calls Bob on the 19th to confirm, Bob says, "Meet me at Jackson's Sports bar in Yakima at 1:00 tomorrow. My wife will be there with me. And my publicity man." Greg guesses to his wife that the "publicity man" will be Glen Cassidy. Glen Cassidy just happens to be the son of Ed Cassidy, owner of Franklin Press, who first printed Roger's 1966 book, and along with a Glen Koelling (one of the people Patterson was leeching off) wrote the last chapter of the book.

Everyone meets at Jackson's on S. 48th in Yakima at 1:00. It's Bob, his wife Glenda, and Glen. At that point the assumption by Bob and his friend Glen was that Greg Long was looking to cash in on the PGF. There can be no doubt that Bob did and does continue to feel he was ripped off and deserves recognition and to be paid at least what he was promised by Patterson. Greg asks Glen if he knows an Ed Cassidy, and Glen, surprised, tells Greg that Ed is his father. Later in the meeting Glen says to Greg, "Bob has something that will prove he's telling the truth." Then Bob adds, "But I ain't telling anyone what it is right now." Glen says, "No. But's it's proof."

So what could this proof possibly be? Does Bob have the fricking actual suit? Wait, no. Can't be that. We know now that according to Opal Heironimus, Bob's mother, that she saw a suit in the trunk of her Buick that Bob borrowed around 10:00 am on Saturday, October 21st after her son returned from his three day trip (she did not know then to have been to Bluff creek). The night before she reported seeing Gimlin's green one ton truck containing two horses: Chico and another she didn't know. The next morning on Sunday the 22nd she and Bob found Chico in the pasture by their house and the suit was gone from the trunk.

OK, so no suit. What is Bob's proof? Glen and Bob consider it so important as to be proof, so it must be something. Greg Long would not find out until June 3, 2001, almost half a year later after meeting with Bob, Glenda, and Glen in Jackson's where Bob and Glen first mentioned the proof. Greg and Pat were visiting Bob and Glenda at their home in Yakima so that Greg could discuss issues he had with Bob's testimony about features of the suit and a blowup of Patty's head that Greg had been examining. Here is the frame the blowup was taken from...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KFcEYw5WTV...onstill002.jpg

Bob had earlier told Long that when he wore the headpiece, that there was about an inch space between his eyes and the eyeholes of the suit. Greg was convinced that he could see an eye apparent right where Patty's right eye should be. He also thought that Patty's nose very much looked like Bob's nose, but Bob told Greg that the nose was false and not his. Greg finally came out with it in Bob's kitchen...

GL: "Bob, you've said you have something that will prove you're telling the truth."

Bob is silent.

GL: "You need to be completely honest with me. I'm attempting to write a complete, authentic. I can't force you to tell me what you don't want to tell me. It's a matter of your integrity and honesty."

BH: "I've got an ace up the hole. It doesn't concern you. It doesn't concern anybody. I know if I saw the suit, I could prove one way that I wore the suit."

GL: "If you have physical evidence, that would help. Do you have part of the suit or the suit itself?"

BH: "No."

GL: "Does Gimlin?"

BH: "I have no idea. He claims he doesn't know where the suit is."

GL looks down at the blowup: "Could it be something related to the mask?"

BH: "I wouldn't want to tell because if it got out... See, if it gets out, then they have a way to deny it."

GL: "As the writer of this book I really need to know."

BH shouts: "It wouldn't do you one bit of good unless you had the suit!"

Greg then pressed Bob for details about the nose and eyeholes. He told Bob if his eyes were back an inch in the eyeholes, Greg should not be able to see the right eye right there. His questioning was making Bob visibly uncomfortable. Greg proceeded to trick Bob into divulging his secret...

GL: "So, you're saying Bob, that there would have been artificial eyes in the eyeholes and holes in the artificial eyes for you to look through?"

BH, nervous: "No, there weren't artificial eyes."

GL taps right eye on blow up: "Isn't that your eye there?"

BH breaks: "Yes. Alright! You've got me cornered. I'm going to tell you this, but if you ever breather a word, I'll kick your butt. Uh, I have a prosthesis eye, right?"

GL: "Right. Your right eye."

BH: "OK. When we was practicing up there at Roger's with the suit on, I said, 'Wait a minute. This ain't gonna work. When I turn to look at you, Roger, you're not gonna be able to see my eyes lookin' at you.' I said to Roger, 'I don't know if you can see my eyes that far away.' So there was a simple solution. I took one of my extra prosthesis eyes, and Roger took it and molded it right there into the socket of the mask, molded it into the clay fabric or whatever he used, put that eye in there, and turned the eye a little bit, and when I turned my head the eye was looking right at him."

So Bob and Glen Cassidy had referred to this as proof six months before. Greg was not in front of the men with a blowup of Patty's head at that time with the right eye visible and the left a black hole. This was something that Long had to pry out of Bob. This was nothing at all that Bob was making up on the spot to keep Greg interested in his story. He was trying not to let Greg have his ace in the hole. He genuinely believed in the possibility of the suit surfacing. He thought that when it did, he would be able to say, "Check the right eye of the suit. It's prosthetic. That's mine!" and I don't know, do something grotesque like pop his eye out.

So who else but Bob could have known that? Who else but Bob could have known that there was a space behind the eyes and that they would look like black holes to someone looking closely. Who else could suggest such a solution on the spot with a Bigfoot head that would be looking to the right at Roger's camera? Who makes that stuff up? That was way to natural and spontaneous to be a lie. He was trying to keep his ace. Afterwards he told Greg that he would not consent to that being published in the book, but Greg in the end convinced him that it was important to include that part. It took Greg telling Bob that the suit was either destroyed or hidden and that whoever possessed the suit most likely had no interest in revealing it and stopping the flow of PGF money. Greg basically influenced Bob into thinking he really didn't have an ace because it depended on a suit coming out first.

For me, this is all way to natural to be made up lies. This all unfolds in a way that is consistent with Bob Heironimus telling the truth about the many circumstances behind the making of the PGF. It is just like Patterson to jerryrig something that way. With his perfectionist attention to detail such as in his rodeo art and miniature wagon coaches, though he might not have thought the camera might get that level of detail, since Bob would not be using his right eye to see, there could only be a benefit from molding in a fake right eye.

I don't think this is Bob lying at all.

[Spektator]

Friend of a friend of mine has worked as a monster/creature suit builder for mostly low-budget films in California and Florida. I emailed him and asked him about the foot issue. Unfortunately, he didn't want me to use his name, but here's what he said about making a foot for a gorilla costume:

Quote:

If the feet wont show theres no need to make the thumbs you talk about, all they do is trip up the actor and tear off. Its better to build human like feet, even if they are big like clown shoes they are not as prone to trip the actor up as feet with the side projecting toes.

[SweatyYeti]

Here is an explanation of how the 'Arm Gap Triangles' are created....showing how the placement, and lengths of the sides are determined....(it's neither random, nor subjective)...





The top point on the Triangle is not chosen subjectively, guessing at where the 'shoulder joint' appears to be located.....instead, it's simply the result of the intersection of 2 lines, which are placed using 2 identical points, on the two subjects.

The 3rd point on the 'Right Triangle' is determined by the intersection of a horizontal line, drawn from the level of the subject's elbow...forming the 90-degree angle.


The Triangles above were both formed using the same points on (allegedly) 'Bob-in-a-suit'....yet the areas of the Triangles are significantly different....when, in fact, they MUST be...at least...very close.



Here is a graphic demonstrating the 2 separate factors which account for the significant discrepancy between Patty's and 'Bob-in-a-suit's' Triangle size/areas...

One factor is the length of the humerus, itself...which creates a difference on the lower end of the hypotenuse/humerus....and the other factor is the padding along the side of the body, which creates a difference on the upper end of the hypotenuse/humerus....(net result...Right Triangles with significantly different lengths, on all 3 sides)...






The numbers used above are the lengths of the bases and heights...and the resulting 'areas' of the triangles....in pixels.

BTW...."BS" stands for 'Bob-in-a-suit'....not.......something else......

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

That reminds me...didn't MK Davis once claim to have found evidence of the camera being shut off a few times? I also seem to remember arguments about blank frames vs. overexposed ground shots.

Davis claimed that he found at least 3 occasions when the camera was off or edited during the PGF. Now Munns is saying at least 2 times.

Originally Posted by Bill Munns on SFB

The PGF has at least two camera start/stops in the sequence. But no editing. The sequence we all commonly see is essentially the real sequence Roger filmed.

One of the stops is quite obvious as Roger moves a considerable distance. Mangler also found another one which is shorter. But didn't Patterson say that he never shut the camera off? It sure is odd for a guy filming an unclassified bipedal primate to turn the camera off at least twice while that creature is in full view. Makes no sense.

[LTC8K6]

If you know you are low on film, you might stop the camera while you re-position.

Why that would be a secret, I don't know.

I'd just say that I knew I was low on film, so I stopped the camera until I had the beastie in the viewfinder again.

[Drewbot]

I asked Verne Langdon about the molds for the feet and hands.

Originally Posted by My question

Mr. Langdon, re: mid to late 1960's, in a rubber ape suit, how would the hands and feet have been molded? Would there be a two piece mold or some other process for producing the feet and hands?

Originally Posted by Verne Langdon

Hands and feet are usually created with a two-piece mold. One piece mold for the chest (unless a foam chest is required, then a two-piece mold.) Two or more pieces for the head. But aside from some cut foam inside shoulder or body padding, the suit itself is either ventilated into a net back, or made from a hair cloth fabric woven (as carpet is woven) on a large loom. Building your own ape outfit can be interesting and fun, but it's a lot easier to have one of the experts create one for you. Tom Woodruff Jr. is my choice - his gorilla in "Old Dogs" (as displayed at Monsterpalooza 10 this past weekend) is nothing short of ASTOUNDING!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

If you know you are low on film, you might stop the camera while you re-position.

Why that would be a secret, I don't know.

I'd just say that I knew I was low on film, so I stopped the camera until I had the beastie in the viewfinder again.

Makes one wonder why Roger filmed the trees for several seconds, waiting for Patty to emerge after the ' Turn-And-Look ' ?


Proponents seem concerned that stopping the camera, somehow gives skeptics an edge for a hoax theory....
Never mind that most of the film is missing..


I questioned Roger's behaviour while filming in this thread at BFF .. ( some of the images are no longer available )

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...opic=21716&hl=

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Makes one wonder why Roger filmed the trees for several seconds, waiting for Patty to emerge after the ' Turn-And-Look ' ?

Sure, if you are going ask questions...

[Óðinn]

Playing the devil's dude..

Originally Posted by kitakaze

This is very, very important. When Long first phoned Heironimus on December 5th, 1998, he tried to cover for Gimlin and Patterson. He denied things that he should not at all have denied if he realized he was talking to an investigator who had done his homework.

You still have to keep your skepticals on tho. Bob's hesitation (>30 years!) to come clean is suspect. You have to make excuses why he didn't "get in on it" sooner. With only Gimlin left, he came to realize no one could ever refute his involvement, regardless if the film was real or a hoax. Bob H might have been waiting for the guy in the suit to come forward and thought it was probably safe after 30 years. Maybe he was waiting for the guy in the suit to die. And damnit, it should have been him anyway!

Quote:

Greg then pressed Bob for details about the nose and eyeholes. He told Bob if his eyes were back an inch in the eyeholes, Greg should not be able to see the right eye right there. His questioning was making Bob visibly uncomfortable. Greg proceeded to trick Bob into divulging his secret...

Bob might have been hesitant to talk about the glass eye because it was and remains so outrageous. And talk about leading the witness. For starters, Long coerced this confession out of Bob. You don't keep a secret by spilling the beans to an "investigator". Coaxing Bob to confess doesn't sit well with me.

If the glass eye in the mask is bs, then Bob must have taken note when it was speculated that the cibachrome image of frame 350 looked like it might show the right eye. If it was an eye, it certainly couldn't have been Bob's if the mask was an inch from his face. Unless..he concocts the glass eye in the mask story. Otherwise, putting fake eyes in the mask would merely blind the actor during the filming.

What seemed preposterous to me was the idea that Bob came up with the idea at the film site and just popped his fake eye into the rubber mask. I suppose Bob's interview with Long dispels that notion. So was this the only version Bob ever told? If it did actually happen, then Roger must have used a bonding material (clay?) to keep the eye in place in the rubber eyehole. Being able to see this feature on film from over 100ft thru a shaky camera is quite a stretch. For starters, it took the absolute optimal attainable resolution (cibachrome print) to see even a hint of the eye. But it's impossible to claim that is what you are seeing and not just a film artifact or the result of enhancements. Is that a booger in Patty's nose too? And what was that "clay fabric" that Bob referred to?

The glass eye is 1 thing, but I have even more of a problem with Bob's claim that the Patty mask was 1 inch from his face. Bob must have been practically blind. And that's a pretty sloppy fit for a rubber mask that didn't show any folds or wrinkles during the head turn. Have you ever tried to turn your head with a loose rubber Halloween mask? Doesn't work. IMO, the Patty mask appeared to be closer to the face. Maybe Bob can tell us how similar it was to the Morris (non-rubber?) headpiece.

Quote:

For me, this is all way to natural to be made up lies. This all unfolds in a way that is consistent with Bob Heironimus telling the truth about the many circumstances behind the making of the PGF. It is just like Patterson to jerryrig something that way. With his perfectionist attention to detail such as in his rodeo art and miniature wagon coaches, though he might not have thought the camera might get that level of detail, since Bob would not be using his right eye to see, there could only be a benefit from molding in a fake right eye.

I don't think this is Bob lying at all.

If this was Gimlin making similar outrageous claims in support of the PGF being real, you would be all over him like stink on a monkey. Be careful not to fall into "it's so crazy it must be true" trap. Because if Bob's bs-ing, this one's an eye popper! Time may tell. Keep digging Kit!

[wolftrax]

Originally Posted by Spektator

Friend of a friend of mine has worked as a monster/creature suit builder for mostly low-budget films in California and Florida. I emailed him and asked him about the foot issue. Unfortunately, he didn't want me to use his name, but here's what he said about making a foot for a gorilla costume:

Quote:

If the feet wont show theres no need to make the thumbs you talk about, all they do is trip up the actor and tear off. Its better to build human like feet, even if they are big like clown shoes they are not as prone to trip the actor up as feet with the side projecting toes.

If you look at the costumes Kit posted, the thumb is there running along the foot, instead of sticking out on the side. This adds authenticity yet reduces the tripping factor.

A practical reason given by your friend, however not the reason given by Morris, that it would make it impossible to pull from the mold.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

"it's so crazy it must be true"

Are you talking about BH's story or Gimlin's ?

Really, what's more likely ?

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Davis claimed that he found at least 3 occasions when the camera was off or edited during the PGF. Now Munns is saying at least 2 times.



One of the stops is quite obvious as Roger moves a considerable distance. Mangler also found another one which is shorter. But didn't Patterson say that he never shut the camera off? It sure is odd for a guy filming an unclassified bipedal primate to turn the camera off at least twice while that creature is in full view. Makes no sense.

One of the splice points detected by Davis is the discontinuity between the initial subject sequence [the "perfect foot" sequence, where the subject is walking directly away from the camera] and the "looks back" sequence. It just switches from the one scene to the other, from one frame to the next, with zero transition.
According to Davis, the fact that we see no signs of camera startup (over exposed or double exposed frames) after the discontinuity means that there was an actual splice/edit there.

[Óðinn]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Are you talking about BH's story or Gimlin's ?

Really, what's more likely ?

Can't they both be boolsheeters?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by parnassus

According to Davis, the fact that we see no signs of camera startup (over exposed or double exposed frames) after the discontinuity means that there was an actual splice/edit there.

Munns is saying that the K-100 doesn't do that...

Originally Posted by Bill Munns on SFB

In the matter of the K-100 camera, I've had a chance to both shoot film with two cameras myself (both a single lens version belonging to Chris Murphy, and a three lens turrit lens version owned by Daniel Perez), plus studying some of Roger's filming with a K-100 before his Bluff Creek Expedition, and so I've had ample opportunity to study the start-up frame exposure capabilities of the K-100. Generally, it starts up a new camera scene with a very good exposure, close to optimum, so we don't see much over-exposure of the first frame of a camera start-up). Occasionally there is over-exposure, possibly because of low spring tension, but generally, the K-100 is good about a clean start-up with good exposure even on the first frame.

Roger's other camera for his documentary filming earlier in 1967 (camera currently not identified positively, but might be a Bolex) does show more over-exposure of start up frames, suggesting a heavier shutter mechanism that needs a bit more time to get up to filming speed. Simple inertia, really.

[Óðinn]

Speaking of costumes & Bluff Creek..I wonder if Bob knows anything about this picture?



I believe Ray Wallace claims to have bought this photo in 1978(?) from an anonymous source, who allegedly photographed a sleeping bigfoot, "with child", in the Bluff Creek area. The negative of this photo was supposedly examined and determined unlikely to be a darkroom creation. The quality of the photo isn't good enough to see much detail in the suit but what can be seen is a peaked crest like Patty's. If this photo can be dated before or near the time of the PGF, and placed near Bluff Creek, then this shows that there was at least 1 fairly sophisticated BF suit with striking similarities to Patty's. Of course the Wallace photo could easily have been created after the PGF and the suit was merely patterned after Patty. In which case, these 2 suits could have come from the same maker, or however unlikely, been the same suit. Perhaps the Wallace photo was a Patty test shot. Maybe this is Wallace's link to the PGF. I doubt this is the case, but it would be interesting to know the date and place of this photo. Did Wallace create the suit(s) his wife wore? Is this a photo of the wifey? Is there another suitmaker involved here?

What this photo does show is that someone made a BF suit and Ray Wallace was involved in the hoax. Could this suit be somehow linked to the PGF? "Tale Of The Two Suits"*

* (not to be confused with Roger Knights' article)

[parnassus]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Playing the devil's dude..

You still have to keep your skepticals on tho. Bob's hesitation (>30 years!) to come clean is suspect. You have to make excuses why he didn't "get in on it" sooner. With only Gimlin left, he came to realize no one could ever refute his involvement, regardless if the film was real or a hoax. Bob H might have been waiting for the guy in the suit to come forward and thought it was probably safe after 30 years. Maybe he was waiting for the guy in the suit to die. And damnit, it should have been him anyway!

Remember Bob H. is part of a community there, a lot of people that pretty much knew the score. Two consequences of being part of a community:
a) you don't want to make enemies with DeAtley, or with Pat P, or Bob G. He has no particular gripe with any of those people. And they were really the dishonest ones...who should have admitted it. Bob H. tried to get get Bob G. to do so, before Bob H. went public....Bob H. never tried to sell this movie as real.
b) and this is really the force of Long's book...the community there supports Bob H.'s story. That is, to me,
what makes it believable, imho. Those people are the same people who lived there 40 years ago. And if you look at Gimlin's behavior, in that community, HE has been pretty much of a clam all these years about the authenticity of the film. IMHO, because the community knew the score. Patterson, of course, was a liar, and everyone knew it...he had no reputation to think about. But Gimlin, on the other hand, did have to think about his reputation, and apparently the community knew the truth, and so Gimlin just tried to be Sgt. Shultz, from the old Hogan's Heroes.

This may not make sense to urban dwellers, but it makes a lot of sense if you've ever lived in a small town.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:

BH: "OK. When we was practicing up there at Roger's with the suit on, I said, 'Wait a minute.

So much for kitakaze's explanation as to why Bob never noticed the massive inner padded-core of the suit......that being...(paraphrasing)...

..."Bob didn't notice because he was only there at the film site for a short time. They slapped the suit on him....he did his short walk, and then flew right out of there".


Now we learn that Bob practiced with the suit, beforehand......and, amazingly.....NEVER noticed the massive, custom-formed, inner padded-core...either then, or later, during the filming.

(That's the padded-core with at least 2 inches of padding on the sides, about 3" on the back, and on the shoulders, narrowing up to the back of the head....with a solid 3 inches, or more, around the buttocks. )


The noteworthy thing that Bob has pointed out, though.....is that, contained within all that thick custom-molded core, there was an old pair of football shoulder pads....thrown in for good measure.

(Another very strange detail...on it's own. Given the fact that Patty's "suit" had such an elaborate design...in dimension and contour....why would a set of football shoulder pads even be used, in it?????????

Like William Parcher said......"Makes NO sense".

[SweatyYeti]

Here's a look at the 2 inches of padding on the side of "Bob's" upper-body......





The yellow arrow is pointing out the dark-shaded shoulder blade area. That area on Patty's back is clearly directly above the widest part of her body, highlighted by the blue line.

Patty isn't just wide at the butt, and hips....the width continues all the way up her side.



Now...here is the real Bob, (with the 2 inches of padding I added onto his side)......right next to the other "Bob"...






Hmmm....seems like Bob needs a little more than just 2" of padding on his side, to get his upper body as wide as "Patty-Bob".....but, that would reek havoc with the area of his 'Arm Gap Triangle', which is already about 40-50% percent short, area-wise, of "Patty-Bob's" Triangle.

Seems we have a dilemma here...

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by Óðinn

Can't they both be boolsheeters?

Sure they can, many people play two sides of the fence.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...dpost&p=590970