To all Big Foot Friends ---
I had originally wanted to give some info to Bill Munns on the other thread as I could see he was starting out pretty much as I had and voicing similar questions. I did have a little concern that by positing skeptical opinions of the film and backing them up with visuals I might, once again, find some responses seemingly based more on emotions than scientific analysis. And I did.

So... rather than upset people more by posting on the other thread, it makes sense to have at least one thread in which some skeptical information can be deposited for viewing for anyone interested. I'd like to do that here.

Remember, just because hoaxers have gotten involved and helped to popularize the story doesn't mean there isn't some truth at the core of it. However, I believe it's important to uncover hoaxes. Twisting logic around to prop up hoaxes will only continue to harm any real investigations you might wish to undertake.

BILL -- This info is mainly for you to have and use as you wish, but I'm sure there are a few other people driving by who might also benefit from it. Those who feel upset by these opinions and perhaps unable to avoid name-calling or cries for me to stop everything should avoid looking further at what I'll present. No need to defend any 'American Legends' here. Just absorb the info and consider it. That's all.

Let those who feel there's a hoax behind this use take a long look and consider a few theories I present. It may be important to someone in the future. It's for anyone who wants it. No ulterior money motive or anything else. I'm not selling a thing here. Just hoping to help someone.
Here goes:

Click to view attachment There is nothing unusual about the hair on Patty. Short, long, mixed colors, shiny. They had it all. Most of it came from a guy in New York. Stretch fabric was commonly used by the 60's and it all worked just fine. I was told once by someone here that rubber feet had not been invented when Patterson shot the flick, but they need to research the Squatch-like man ape suits of the 1920's-1960's and understand that all you needed to make Patty was there by 1945.

Click to view attachment This is from the early 1930's. I like the way they used thicker hair on the back and less on the other areas to show more definition. I've done this myself. It looks pretty good.

Click to view attachment Lots of guys worked with the Project Unlimited group founded by Wah Chang. John Chambers, Janos Prohaska, and many more. Here we see Unlimited member Harry Thomas using a line of hair on human skin and on a suit.

Click to view attachmentThis suit was never meant to have the arms of the performer showing but we get to see it here in this pic. You can add as much or as little hair as you like. It's just low budget stuff from back in the day.

Click to view attachment When Wah and the guys worked with Tuttle on his Morlocks, they used a line of white hair on human flesh. They also used it on fabric. The TOP PIC shows a guy on the right who is wearing fabric. The stuntmen in the lower frames also are wearing fabric with the hairline on the arm. This is important as later they would follow this type of "caveman pattern" as they called it on "Patty".

Click to view attachment Janos used this "line of hair" technique himself. Here it's used on one of his comedic bird characters. He uses the caveman line on the "wing arm" of his creature. The legs are the same ones he wore for the 1964 STAR TREK network presentation.

Click to view attachment Janos began using this dark brown chimp suit around 1960. This is the main hair color of Patty as well.

Click to view attachment Here Janos used shorter hair for a LOST IN SPACE monster.
Click to view attachment Sometimes he'd just bring in a hair suit. But any decent creature fx guy could re-work this into a less hairy suit if he desired. It's no problem.

Click to view attachment As I'd mentioned before, the Star Trek original script called for some spider-type creature in a cage. Since there was no time, Janos put on a hairy upper body, Morlock gloves, a mask sculpted by Wah Chang, and used his own leggings and latex feet. He glued hair around his butt pad to blend it in but didn't have time to complete it.

Click to view attachment This is the condition of that head he wore in 1964 today as I found it. Like the Gorn head, it is still around. Gives me some small hope that "Patty's" head could still be in one piece.

Click to view attachment Most of those suits had wrap around hip foam and circular butt pads. Patty was no exception.
Click to view attachment That is what award-winning creature fx artist CHRIS WALAS was trying to tell us. He told me to go and look for this type of thing and I did.

Click to view attachment If you check out most of Patterson's drawings you'll see he usually drew Sas with an Neanderthal looking face and a stripe of darker hair down the middle of the back. These drawings and his casts are what he said he wanted in a suit. The one he rented in the early 60's from (possibly from Crash Corrigan) was too ape-like. He wanted a human face.

Click to view attachment This is the sculpt Wah Chang created for STAR TREK that would later become Patty's head. The episode required 12 foot tall cavemen types who left giant footprints and wore animal skins.


Click to view attachment This animation is Patty's face merging with the Wah mask. (*btw Bill: My avatar was made by gluing two DON POST masks together. I wasn't trying to imitate Patty I was just making a quickie Bigfoot display for Halloween. The STAR TREK HEAD by Wah works like any gorilla head of the day. It's padded inside and has a mouth that opens and closes to reveal the huge blocky teeth.)


Click to view attachment From the late 1920's people have made rubber gorilla heads with hair and working mouths. Older ones used metal frames. Some use Fiberglas. Some simply use foam padding (feels like one of those old timey football helmets when you put it on - as Heironimus tried to explain).

Click to view attachment When I glued a Tor mask from Don Post to Wookie lips, I had to add a little jawline to it by sticking some rubber bits on it. I also noticed how Tor's nose was not nearly as wide as the spread out nostrils of Patty. JOHN VULICH told me that he figured the guys just cannibalized various suit parts and put Patty together in a couple of days or less. But that would most likely mean there was a head already sitting around to be used. That's why I went looking for a head that matches Patty's dimensions. I first noticed that the Star Trek creature had lips and a philtrum that matched Patty. Patty also has a round "golf-ball" looking nose between those wide nostrils. Everything matched up.

Click to view attachment Wah was giving away various masks and things in 1966. Some Janos kept. Some Chambers had. And some stayed with Wah to be sold or given away later.


Click to view attachment I notice that people keep referring to Janos' interview regarding the PG film. This was done after DeAtley left it with Patterson and Olson. The Patterson/Olson Bigfoot documentary is where this appears. It's much like asking Clifford Irving about Howard Hughes. Or maybe asking Bob Gimlin about Bluff Creek. The camera Wah is holding was his favorite. It's the one he liked to test fx tricks with. It's the same one Patterson requested.

Sometimes hoaxers leave clues for us. Freeman used his own fingerprint for a "dermal ridge" and stood there to be photographed with it. The Alien Autopsy guys actually implanted the word, "video" in their supposed footage of alien writing. Patty was supposedly between 6'5" and 7 feet tall according to Patterson/Gimlin. Yet Janos said he couldn't imagine how they could find a man big enough to wear such a suit. The cowboy above is Buck Maffei - he wore the Star Trek head. He's over 7 feet tall. Janos worked with him and guys like Lamar Lundy (also pictured, 6'8" tall). So why is he saying this when he worked daily with guys that size? Did he forget?

He then goes on to tell us that hair would need to be glued onto the suit and it would take about ten hours to do that. Why'd he say that? Most suits were not made that way. Ten hours, eh? Nice round number. Very curious. I also love the way he said it must be the best he's ever seen if it is a suit. Watch his wife's face and his. Sounds like a certain Mr. Chambers talking to Bobbie Short. I can assure you Chambers was pulling this Bigfoot fan's leg, but that's how he wanted it. He'd made a promise and that was it.

Some of the guys with him didn't make such a promise and they were physically there. This I can promise you. What can I do to make them speak up? Nothing. They never will. It's up to you to figure it out.

Click to view attachment When you hear John Chamber's telling a Bigfoot fan that he "was good but not that good" you know he's having a blast. He loved that stuff. The truth is that he could make any body part he wanted. And he was way better than the joke suit they tossed together for a rodeo cowboy with friends in show business. If he can make an 11 year old boy look exactly like Dr. Smith for Lost In Space, don't you think he could advise Janos and the guys on how to throw Patty together? The truth is that no one would ever want to take public credit for that thing - just as Stan Winston has said many times.

Click to view attachment Here's a Vulich werewolf we used. Patty closed at the top the same way. It's very visible in the PG film for anyone to see. The back of the neck also detaches from the head at one point. Pretty clear how that happens.


Click to view attachment This is from Patterson's 1966 book. He describes himself as being on the hunt at Ape Canyon when the photo was actually taken across the street from his house. The person who took the photo is happy to confirm this for you. Why does that matter? Because lying comes so naturally to a hoaxer with a goal. Here we see Patterson lying for effect.

When Gimlin told Greg Long that some other Bob Gimlin must have been arrested as he'd never seen the inside of a jail in his life, he was lying. Long checked with Gimlin's family and the court records. Gimlin's parents had to put up their home to get him out of jail. Why lie? Because it comes naturally when you are a scammer. He's got an image going and that didn't fit it. He never expected the writer to actually check the facts. This rarely happens to him when it comes to Bigfoot. Usually they lap whatever he says up and take it as if it came from Jesus himself. Amazing, but that's how hoaxes work.

Click to view attachment When Crash Corrigan wore his last creature suit in the 50's it was the one on the left. Paul Blaisdell had made the head and suit to fit himself, but the studio boss wanted his buddy Crash (who was much bigger) to play the monster for him. Crash was busy with Corriganville at the time and simply sent over a pair of long johns. Paul made the suit from that and forced Corrigan's big head into the little mask he'd made (with a few compromises).

The skin of the "IT" monster had "dermal patterns" stamped all over it from various lizards. But there is a big problem in the shoulder that was typical of low budget monster suits of the day. Can you spot it in Patty? Yeah... the shoulder muscle appears upside down because of the way the padding sits. No one would do that today, but then... yeah... IF it's blurry and shaky maybe. If this were a real creature it could not raise its arm overhead. You don't have to be an anatomist to understand that one.


Click to view attachment Here's an example of the type of foot Janos often wore. This is not the one used for Patty, but it is of the same type of material. When you walk in it in the sand you create the mid tarsal break so often spoken of. It's very, very simple.


Click to view attachment Way back when I turned a kiddie costume around backwards and put it on a stunt dummy to stand in front of my house one Halloween I never knew it would lead to this. But here it is again. I'm just posting it to mention the fact that someone said something about hair shine as if that were a factor regarding the hair being available in '67. Obviously you could get that effect. I did it for some pics by simply spraying the hair down with the stuff they shine horses with. It's like Armor All for hair. But where would a cowboy like Patterson ever get such materials? It boggles the mind alright.

Click to view attachment This suit from 1968 has better breasts than Patty (no they are not real). I made breasts exactly like Patty's using materials that Patterson himself could have picked up at the hardware store in the 60's. It's easy as pouring a bowl of soup.


Click to view attachment But if you had $700 to spend on a suit in 1967 (remember that my own '68 Corvette Stingray cost exactly $2900 brand new) then you could waltz right into either of these places and talk it over with the guys. You'd get your Bigfoot alright.

Click to view attachment When Patterson and his buddy Jerry Merritt got out of the military in '58, Jerry hooked up with a manager/agent and began his life as a rock-a-billy artist. Patterson took to the rodeo and made money on the side by giving kids rides on little ponies and burros. Eventually they got the idea of making their own movies. They built a western movie town that duplicated Crash Corrigan's "Corriganville" down to each building and the same staged gun fights every hour.

But when I look back to the time Patterson first read about Bigfoot in TRUE magazine, I can't help but recall the little 5' 2" muscular rodeo guy in the above picture from Corriganville. He wasn't ill then. They said his name was Roger. He was fiesty. He must have looked awful funny standing next to the giant Buck Maffei. Almost like a Sasquatch and his hunter.

That would make a great movie. I'd make it about a cowboy and his pals searching for the legend and finding it... maybe with an Indian tracker guide and a funny old coot of a miner. And if you find movie-making too difficult and expensive.... you can always just film the real Bigfoot and go on tour. That would be a hell of a yarn, but who'd believe it? I mean... if you didn't even bother to keep looking when you knew a slow moving female Bigfoot was right in the area.... it really does boggle the mind.

Click to view attachment

here we go again.....

Dfoot please show me a moving picture film of your suit in action (you know, the one which you were building to show the rest of us dim witted BF junkies how Patty REALLY worked...) that does what the PGF subject does, and i'll concede your points....

but if all you have to show is more still photos (who knows if or how they've been been doctored, ), well then, i'll just move along

And a bonk bonk to my head for giving into curiosity and reading your post, which is just a continuation of where you left off.....

The amount of time and dedication required to collect and organize all this information is impressive to say the least. In addition, the materials and construction effort/time of putting together the foam suit is nothing short of obsessive.

Clearly, you are person dedicated to the debunking of the P/G film.

With that said, personally, I am grateful that there are people such as yourself that have put in all the time and hard work so as to provide people such as myself the additional information and/or viewpoint on this topic.

Thank you.

Now comes the proverbial ‘but’.

I equate what you have done with your suit to this point to a minor league baseball player. Just to be clear, this statement is not meant as a ‘dig’. Clearly, a minor league ball player can be just as good as some of the major league players, but the difference being they are in fact in the minor league.

In my opinion, to move from the minor league to the majors you need to cover your suit with short fur as was available in 1967 and film it. Even if this were done with no head so as to simplify the process would certainly be a step in the right direction. In my opinion, you really need to do this if you want serious consideration.

Once again, I applaud your dedication.

Sam

Having Dfoot film himself in a costume with short hair would not solve anything.

Dfoot has presented a compelling case that the costume materials were available, he has shown that there were masks similar to Patty, He has shown creases and seams in existing costumes of the day that exist as well on patty, he has shown that the costume feet of the day would create footprints similar to the prints casted at Bluff Creek.

It seems, before, the cries from the pro-PGF crowd were, 'show us the costume technology from the late 60's, there is no way it could have been done' and now that he has shown that it could have been done, the ante has been upped and he now has to film it in motion.

Even if he did film it, Honestly, if it looked similar to Patty, would you give him the benefit of the doubt and say, 'Gosh you were right Dfoot, Patty is a man in a suit'? or would you come up with problems with his video work, such as; 'you didn't film at the right time of day', 'your costume is only 6'3" tall, and Patty was at least 6'6" tall' or ' I can see a seam on your costume that I don't see on Patty.'

It's a Lose/Lose for Dfoot
If it is close to Patty, then you still find fault with it
If it looks nothing like Patty, then you say, 'See you can't do it'

Get out clause if ever I heard one.



LOL, really? You seem to be in a minority of 1 on that.



None he has shown either look like or even if fit 'Patty'.



He has shown these? I thought they were just opinions??????? Could easily have been fur lines etc etc in my opinion. Nothing is shown. They are opinions. No more. I could say 'Patty' is an alien. Hey, it's an 'opinion'.



I have not seen this displayed practically.



You are completely forgetting that the last time he was here he (D-foot) was arrogant and cocky enough to claim he would film it in motion and that what Patterson did was nothing special and that he (D-foot) could easily emulate it.

Am I missing something???????????????????????




Honestly? I wouldn't trust D-foot as far as I could throw him........................with his dodgy morphs and faked stretched imagery that he has 'offered' in the past.



Yup..because it's all mouth and no action. He insited he could make a moving suit to make Patty a loooooooooooooooooooong time ago. Er..........and?????



Let's have one 'close' to Patty for once in our lives............then we'll decide.



Well, that seems to be the usual standard these past 40 years.

Interesting post Dfoot, I'm waiting to hear Bill's opinion on some of your comments. I do feel you've presented here in a cordial manner and this debate makes for some good reading, however, it would only benefit your case as others have commented time and time again, to try and replicate the suit on film with movement. Unfortunately, for you and the amount of work it requires, I feel there is no avoidance of that fact.

You're right; maybe it wouldn't.

I would think if someone has put all the time into research and construction, that they would want to see it to fruition. It's kinda’ like building an AC Cobra kit (for those unfamiliar an AC Cobra it is a super-performance car from the 60's) and stopping at the point the body goes on and just leave it parked in the garage.

I would think a person would want to complete it for his or her own satisfaction.

Sam

Dfoot, You really are dedicated, but one thing you fail to do in my eyes is sew it all together into one plausible scenario. Much of the theoretic views you present don't jive with other theoretic views. For example I have seen you try to prove that BH was in fact the guy in the suit, but BH's accounts of the costume don't even come close to supporting the evidence you provide as to how the suit was made.

An example is the way in which BH describes the headpiece was made, but now that you've seen footage of the mouth moving you provide links and pictures as to how Hollywood could recreate that, but it doesn't at all jive with BH, or any others that have claimed to be in or have tailored the suit.

Welcome back!

Lydon,

Thank you for collecting this information. If BF 'researchers' are true to themselves then they need to look at all the information, pro or con, on the issue of visual hoaxes pertaining to the potential use of suits. At worse this information can make spotting future hoaxes easier for all involved.

I don't have a firm belief in either direction, but I enjoy having as many details as possible to consider. I also don't peg my belief of BF on the PGF so if it's a hoax or not isn't really a giant detail to me.

I agree with you completely geneaut - but at what point do we stop taking someone's word for what they say they can prove, and ask they finally do it?

I think Dfoot has reached that point. And so far, nothing he has done has even been close to what is seen in the Patterson film.

Melissa, I think D-foot reached that point in late 2006 (or was it late 2005, I've lost count how long ago it was?).

The garuantees, promises, insistances etc etc that he would do something akin to the P/G footage were all passed long ago.

I'm tired of all this bragging and bravado. Do it and shut up. Show us what fools we are Dfoot.

Well - thats what I meant.... LOL.

Dfoot,

This is one of the most informative and interesting discussions I have seen here in a year.

Now, if it's as easy for you to do as you claim, make the suit, get a guy the same size as Bob H. to wear it, and have him walk away from a video camera in a wooded lot somewhere at the same speed and distance and angle to the camera as the Patterson Film.

We're all waiting to see this. C'mon, just do it.

Hey Melissa <wave>

I'm coming into this debate late as a newer member here so I don't have the background with dfoot that some of you others have Sometimes us noobs step into something we aren't 100% aware of when we stick our noses into threads like these. I also kind of separate the info on suit effects he's presenting from the claim that he or someone else can actually replicate Patty.

I would enjoy seeing him take the next step with the info he's researched/presented and make a video from it to show here. I'm not sure that would solve the issue one way or the other, but it would be interesting to watch.

Because we all know that when a claim is made, you must be able to prove that claim, right Robert?

Sorry if I missed something up-thread or on another thread, but, even assuming that a suit that
looks exactly like what is seen in the PG film could be constructed in 1967, how does one account
for the fact that (according to Krantz), the area and depth of the footprints indicate a weight of
about 600 pounds?

Great post, Drew. Spot on.

If someone faked the suit, would it be wrong to assume they faked the prints as well?

In other words, how does Krantz know that the person in the suit made the prints he measured?

So, I guess you wont be demanding anyone prove their claims about video or other pieces of evidence in their posession they think is worthy of scientific scrutiny?

Why are you cutting Dfoot slack, when you give none to anyone else?

Turn about is fair play drew.



<waving back>

I am the last person on this forum who can claim complete knowledge of this film.. LOL. Everyone has their own opinion - and their right to it, and I hope you did not take my question in a harsh way, it was truly not intended in that manner.

But, its a good question and I think a very fair one. Dfoot was pretty much untouchable, until he was asked one very simple statement "Show me the monkey suit in motion" - instead of doing what he said was so incredibly easy, he instead continued on to make more claims and left the costume he said was just about ready to be walked out into the view of his waiting digital camera for our inspection.

Never happened. The months came and went - nothing but more pictures of other peoples work, and promises that as lyndon said were never kept...

Oh, by the way - Hello Dfoot

Just a quick question about a picture posted by DFoot.

Dfoot can you explain how the rump of patty is more flat in the picture on the left and much more rounded or "flexed" appearing on the right?

gee D-foot when you gonna quit smashing dreams with common sense?

I must be that proverbial one someone spoke of because Ive always seen your work as valid. Thanks for not letting the ego maniacs around here run you off for good.

If you turned your presentations around to say that because of your work it has to be real theyd lap it up like a kitten does milk.

I DO believe there is something out there but Patty isnt it.

I'm still waiting for the 40 year old claim of 'Patty is bigfoot' to be backed with something other than 'Look how real it looks'. And I didn't and still don't think that Dfoot making a video of his costume would solve anything (See my above post) it's a lose/lose for him.



When I watch the video of Patty, I see a guy in a suit. Why wouldn't I support someone who believes he has the answer to this 'guy in the suit' scenario?


What ?

Because Drew is a polite troll............er who seems to get away with being a polite troll.




Hi geneaut,

Well, let me just say that Dfoot did not approach this in a "I think this is a suit and I can show you how it was done" kind of fashion.

In fact, for a long while Dfoot was actually of the opinion that the P/G footage was real. Somewhere along the way (gawd knows when) he changed his mind/played another game (take your pick). From then on it was a case of "Patterson was a liar and a conman" and "Gimlin is a charlatan and a swindler" and "the suit is goofy and really bad and I can do better and I will prove it to you" blah blah blah.

Then, after he couldn't do what he kept telling us he would do.............................he disappeared for a year and a half or so and has only now just reappeared.



That's ok.................and anybody reading Dfoot's posts for the first time would be taken in but believe me.............the man is a con artist and a proven faker here on BFF.



I thought the same back in 2006 (that it would be interesting to watch)...............but even then I knew he was full of hot air and said as much. Time has proven me 100% correct.

Then apparently your alone in that thought too - as Dfoot claims filming himself in his suit would answer all the questions...

I dont care what he does - I personally wish he would stop talking about doing it, and actually do it. Im not sure what your defending either - as probably 90% of what your looking at posted by Dfoot was work done by others.

Where is this suit that will end all the questions??

It would not answer all the questions, and I believe he was advised of this reality.

Do you know why Dfoot didn't do it? maybe he'd even tell you why if he was contractually allowed to do so. I don't know, but I will just assume that either he is working on it for someone else, or he got a little touch of the common sense flu, and agreed that he couldn't win either way.

Not saying he is doing it for someone else, but there are reasons for not living up to what people expect of you, contractual, or personal are two of them.

I didn't take harshly at all. I also understand your view of dfoot's pledge to do something more with his research.

A good healthy debate is always fun in my book

Well, according to all reports I have read, only one set of prints was found. If someone came along
before-hand, and somehow made the prints, wouldn't there have been two sets of footprints found...
one set representing the before-hand faked tracks (deep), and one representing the tracks that the
thing in the film made (shallower)?

The other alternative for a hoax would be that the thing in the film is a person in a suit who either
weighs 600 pounds, or is carrying enough weight to equal 600 pounds (say, he weighs 300 pounds,
and is somehow carrying 300 pounds, yet is still able to take fluid 5-foot strides).

Again, sorry if this has all been covered elsewhere, but it just seems that, if the PG film is a hoax,
then there are a lot tougher questions to answer than whether it was possible to make such a suit
in 1967.

Really, so he is here insisting he has all the answers because?



Nope, he was asked by myself and many - and he never answered the question. The question was only met with more commentary on the work of others. He avoided the question completely.

I would have to say, if he is so confident in his work and his theory - this should be a no brainer.. Maybe he realized he couldnt do it? Maybe he realized there was more to the Patterson film subject than he originally thought? If thats the case, why wont he just admit it - especially if he is only after the truth??



Are you seriously making excuses for him? Dfoot never gave any indication he was doing any of this for anyone else - and disclosing that might have helped in his putting off revealing any information. Now, it simply sounds like an excuse. If he is under some sort of contractual obligation - he should have disclosed that right away - instead of leading people on with the commentary about how he would prove Patty was a man in a monkey suit by showing us all with his own work.

Show me the monkey suit in motion!!!



Good, I really didnt mean to sound rude.. I agree debate and discussion is very healthy.

Dfoot:

Thank you for posting your material in this new thread, which is the best forum for it.

I'll try to offer comments in the order of your material, and reference the replies to sections using your photos as reference points.

Planet of the Apes Photo panel of 5 pictures.

In the text below this, you say stretch fabric was available in the 60's. Correct, but stretch "FUR" was not. The distinction needs to be cleared up. Non-stretch fur was available in many types and quality levels, yes. The New York supplier may have been one such source of many.

Regarding the photos, they show an arm sleave of fur, easy to tailor with only one seam on the inside of the arm close to the torso, and hidden by camera here. So the seamless quality of this image does not go to larger issues of fully tailored body suits. It does represent excellent suit work, as to be expected given the excellent budget and talented professionals working on the film.

Not sure why you're talking about rubber feet with a photo panel showing only upper torsos.


Next Photo: A Tarzan film still, with Jonney Weismiller, apparently, as Tarzan. Staged publicity photos of the era were not taken during filming, in general, but rather staged as seperate photo shoots during production. Costume groomers would be standing close by to insure the fur is groomed to it's best appearance, and seams or suit flaws hidden. The static pose also does not give any indication of the capacity of the suit to move well, or indicate how the fur may buckle or seperate during movement.

Such photos also tended to be highly retouched. Indeed, the studio photo retouchers of the era were the true masters of the art. A fine book called "Hollywood, fact or Fantesy", if I recall, had a chapter on studio photo retouching, the authors having found many old studio original negatives as well as the retouched prints, and this material reveals some of the extent of retouching. And many of the Universal monsters, in their publicity photos (like the metaluna Mutant creature from This Island Earth were heavily retouched to hide seams and flaws in publicity photos.

The photo does represent a rather fine fur costume, I agree.

On the three werewolf-like creature , all illustrate the look of hair glued onto a skin surface instead of using a fur cloth.

On the Morlocks from "The Time machine" (panel of three images of greenish men with white hair), the hair was real fur pelts from the black&white colobus monkey, Given that it is applied only to accent areasof the body, and not as a full suit, it's application methods and tailoring considerations are seperate and different that full fur suit tailoring or gluing.

The photo panel of a bird character. No comment, I see no relevence.

Photo panel of six images you describe as a chimp suit. A reasonably fine fur suit

Photo of fur character in cage, and two photos below See to be reasonably fine examples of fur suits of the time.

Photo of Fantesy character with auburn fur - example of furcloth used to accent a mask.

Photo panel of foam padding and PG reference photos - Padding shown is the traditional professional method and shows high degree of profesional skill.

Drawing of ape and car - not sure the relevence.

Face mask clay sculpture. - fair example of sculpting skill of the time

Photo of PG face -


Photo panel of two ape faces and to shots of underlying substructure with teeth. - The method shown here was pioneered by Stuart freeborn for 2001 Space oddessy, and John Chambers on Planet of the Apes was still using the same foam blocks with small plastic teeth glued into the foam as were used in the Wizard of Oz. This more sophisticated design by Freeborn was not adapted by Hollywood untill after Chewbacca in Star Wars (Freeborn's work also) and then Rick Baker and Rob Bottin in the Howling and Americal Werewolf.

Panel of three photos including mask and PH face

Does show that masks somewhat resembling the PG figure could or did exist. I am unaware of any argument they could not have existed them.

Two image Photo panel of a man is suit, bare skin face, and many obvious furcloth folds consistant with loose furcloth.

Panel of 4 photos of assorted people - relevence?

photo of John Chambers and friends, and alien makeup from TV show (I believe the "Sixth Finger" episode of Outer Limits, but not sure) - relevence?

photo panel of PG figure and more modern fur suits. - Modern suit photos likely stretch fur, not 1967 fur option.

photo of person camping - relevence?

photo of a character suit and PG figure. - Some shapes compare, in general terms.

photo of foot - not uncommon prosthetic foot.

Photo of ape figure with fur sheen - sheen can be manipulated by numerous treatments and agents, yes.

photo of female in fur suit.- rare example of a "female" ape character with breasts.

photos of western set and 60's landscapes and don post studio - relevence?

photo of Roger patterson and ape mask photo below - Relevence?


In summation, you have demonstrated a considerable skill as a photo researcher.

As a constructive criticism, I would suggest that you outline your advocated position from a more systematic method of stating a hypothesis or contention, examining the specific and relevent facts that pertain specifically to that hypothesis or contention, and focus on specific logic paths which lead to your conclusion and similarly lead away from alternate conclusions. What your presentation lacks now is focus, and tends to include extranious material that causes the reader to be distracted from your contention more than receptive to it.

I’m for giving credit where credit is due. You have obviously put a great deal of effort into trying to sort this thing out.
I don’t recall reading any of your rebuttals that conveyed hostility.
I also think it was good form to revive the discussion outside of the scope of Bill's thread.

I cannot bring myself to pour back over the previous threads. But I will tell you openly where I began to question your account was when you drastically switched tracks. You built an impressive static BF replica. Everyone at the time acknowledged as much. Had you never gone further than refuting the argument regarding the materials necessary to construct a Patty suit being unavailable, or the construction impossible, you would have been on terra firma. You greatly expanded the scope of your premise. The details of which became convoluted, even somewhat conspiratorial. (I don’t know if that’s a real word but if not it should be.)

I can accept that you believe that it is a suit, plain as day. I can accept that others believe it is a genuine animal, plain as day. I could take up a chair on either debate team.

I’d like to ask some questions. I’m not going for entrapment, or to shoot you down. I just want to ‘condense the nonsense’. I think it would benefit many who are not familiar with your notoriety, or infamy – you get to pick.
I’m trying to frame them in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response format, but you can choose to reply (or not) as you see fit.

You originally believed the Bluff Creek Footage to be authentic?

Your subsequent research into whether or not Patty might have been a suit, has led you to firmly believe that it is indeed a suit?

Bob Heironimus wore the suit?

Bob H’s description of the workings of the suit and how it was constructed are not accurate?

The suit is a Morris ape suit foundation?

The suit was constructed/modified by Patterson?

The suit was constructed/modified by Hollywood FX professionals, commissioned by Patterson?

AMEN brutha!

Now please be aware, THAT just won't happen. Despite all the pictures and seeming effort, Dfoot is still a notorious TALKER (as I may be too, but you don't find me chewing on my own toes near as much). He conveniently forgets the REALITY of things. REALITY being things not just in his head. His notions, while at times 'plausible', never seem to have an ENDING or CONCLUSION. Just mud and obfuscation. He does a good take on the premise of 'knowing just enough to be dangerous'. For the record and just so it's clear to some of the newer members, in his previous stint here, Dfoot was given ALL the slack one could expect and he never came up with any REAL (part of that REALITY thang) answers, just more confusion. There were also allegations (admitted true eventually?) of him PhotoChopping™ certain pictures to, let's just say, lean more his way. I know I said it back then and will now again, Dfoot, IF YOU DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, RE-CREATE the PGF (at least in 'form'), we'll probably solve the entire mystery...and you become the HERO you wanna be. We're WAITING!

Now here's a problem, if you believe what you wrote and believe what Dfoot has written, then you are saying Bill is totally wrong and when he says it couldn't be done, he's lying? is that right?

Punisher:

Just to clarify one point, I haven't said categorically "it can't be done" so much as pointed out that the best professionals of the time, using the materials of the time, haven't done something I'd say was comparable in terms of motion and seamlesness with the fur type shown in the PG film.

The second consideration is any proof it could be done doesn't exactly prove it was done.

But as long as there are conflicting stories of who made the suit and how, they actually tend to cancel each other out and weaken the basic contention of a suit, rather than advancing the argument.

So for someone to advance the argument of a suit, it would be wise to settle on one maker, one methodology, one level of expertise in the fabrication and use during filming.

Bill

Bill I believe that DFoot is in the industry and may actually qualufy as one of the Youngsters that you mentioned in another thread.

Least we forget, there are a few people in, for lack of a better term, Dfoots camp.

Rick Baker
Howard Berger
Tom Burman
Bob Burns
Matt Croteau
Scott Essman
Dave Kindlon
Mike McCracken, Sr.
Mike McCracken, Jr.
John Vulich . . . to name a few.

At the very least these gentlemen have at one point referred to the PGF creature as a man in a suit.


m

I'd like to reiterate this also:

P/G has and always will be argued ad nauseum. Bill as good as he is and Dfoot as much pictures and montagesz( ) he puts out, neither is gonna solve the film. Both might make some excellent points but nothing short of a beyond the grave admission from Patterson or a live confession from Gimlin will change the fact of what Patty is......a maybe. Maybe a guy in a suit, maybe a sasquatch. It doesn't matter much, I could live with either. It does really boil down to personal opinion and everyone has their own, so the debate continues. I'm interested in the view point Bill has and would like to hear it out for the sake of hearing another angle. As far a Dfoot, I'm not a fan. His extreme degree of switching sides, constant wabbling, never drawing a conclusion, endless post of pictures and Like Harry stated:

I'm checking names and gonna>>>>>
no all kidding aside, I still like MK Davis'
analysis and think a Zapruder like study
by JPL or Cal Tech would be great for
somebody like Wally Hersom to fund

Well thats all fine and dandy - but I am unaware of any comments by those above stating they could and WOULD recreate the patty suit.

Personally, I think dfoot proves a good case with all the effort in the research he's done on the subject, and the creature suits he's shown. It has to have been discussed before, but in the eye witness sketches I've seen Bigfoot has what is roughly an "athletic" shape to its body. In the PG film it looks so bulky, like its fat. And being that its apparently female pregnancy or just had a baby could be argued but that just doesnt cover how -thick- it appears around the middle. My belief (I've never seen one so what do I know?) that these creatures exist CAN'T revolve around the PG film.
Just my 2 cents. Basically, I love when dfoot posts its seems to give everyone a kick in the seat.

Mangler

Your list of makeup people is impressive. I know of most of them, worked with a few, hired one on my crews. Their talent and knowledge are formidible.

But you must ask yourself, do you want to try and resolve the controversy by the scientific method, or popularity contest. For a makeup/creature artist still active in the business, it is a pragmatic consideration to call things a hoax, and proclaim to not be fooled, as a matter of raising one's own self esteem and expertise from a PR standpoint. From the scientific method, such considerations should be discounted, and conclusions should be supported by factual analysis that is subject to review.

My intention, from the beginning joining this forum, was to try and provide as much factual and reasoned analysis, subject to the review and potential criticism of others herein, and to seperate analysis and factual deduction from opinion which may be influenced by the personal agenda of career advancement. I would certainly like to see similar contributions from those on your list.

I'm aware of some fine contributions by Chris Walas, but not from the others you mentioned.

Bill

Said perfectly

There seem to be a few of you throwing this kind of statement out there. I am not following your logic. I seem to be noticing a trend here.

At least two of those have showed us their own sasquatch suits..................both are severly lacking compared to what's in the P/G footage. The Vulich Optic Nerve abomination in particular was notoriously poor.




Thank you Bill. I couldn't have said it better myself, although I have down the years tried to get the same point across. The point seems to be lost on quite a few people.

Sure. Thanks for asking a reasonable question about it. All suits are made differently, but some follow certain patterns depending on who made them and what they were supposed to accomplish. I'm only demonstrating how the HIP PAD circles the hip and then another ROUND PAD is placed over this. This is what you see JANOS PROHASKA using in the frame from the STAR TREK pilot presentation. Those pads are under his pants section and the top part of his suit is pulled over this.

Click to view attachment I've outlined the ROUND PAD in green and the HIP PAD in red. I've also outlined the kneecap. This type of kneecap was used by Janos and others when making their suits. The THIGH PAD I'm wearing was a little too small so I made it larger after this pic. You can see the "hamstring moving" in the pic of me walking outside. These are simply made of soft pliable foam. You can get it in any density or thickness you want. They will move with your own muscle movement - or even with the movement of a stiffer suit frame. The "skin" goes on top of this. Hairless or semi-hairless or long-haired. You decide.

Click to view attachment I just tried posting a moving animation, but I'm having some trouble with it. All I can say is that I never built a suit. All I did were some experiments one weekend to see if I could recreate those troublesome lines found on Patty as well as some of the "muscle masses moving" things often brought up. I did just that with a tee-shirt, some glue and foam.

Schilleville --- Actually I've directed scenes involving some of those people Bill mentioned. I can tell you that all of the top professional creature fx people I've spoken to agree on one thing: It's a suit.

For some reason people keep harping on me to build a suit. As if that were my job or something. What I always said I would do is INVESTIGATE HONESTLY whether or not this could be a suit and if so then answer the questions as to who did it and how. That is what I've been doing. As time went on I would post the info I came up with. Today I've got it even further narrowed down and hope to be speaking to someone soon about where certain objects went to.

I did do that psychological test based on Houdini's test. He told "Cottingley Fairie" believer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to tell a crowd of people that a new film he was presenting showed real live dinosaurs (stop motion was fairly new at the time) and some people bought it. This didn't change Sir Arthur's mind about the Fairies though - even after the father of one of the girls confessed and even though the book the pics were cut out of was found. Amazingly the author of the logical Sherlock Holmes could not allow himself to believe he'd been fooled.

This is a lot like that. And that is why no suit demo will ever suffice. Even though I've shown the actual HEAD that Patty was made from and told you where it came from and how it was made, most cannot recognize it. Heck, most people still mix up Wallace print photos and wooden feet deliberately and fool themselves. Look at Dr. Meldrum's book. The matches are right there on other pages. He chooses not to see them as does John Green. It's really bad and sad.

And to pull off another Patty-type hoax would require a different type of suit altogether. For if anyone ever saw Patty clearly they'd be shocked at how unrealistic it really was. The mind fills in the blanks with all sorts of things that are not there.

Bill - Some of what you say makes sense. Some of it doesn't. Maybe you're looking at the pics and not reading what goes with them? The relevance is explained with each (or perhaps as you become more familiar with the story you'll begin to see what I'm talking about). Never-the-less, I may not have expressed myself too well... so I'll try to explain:

I don't quite get your not understanding why I mentioned the story about someone telling me rubber feet had not been invented yet. It's just a story containing information. No need for it to also go with the photo that I'd already explained. It's pretty self-explanatory. Sort of how I'm not using a photo here.... but next up... pics galore.

Planet of the Apes pics -- That was to show the brown hair that was being used. Someone had told me there was nothing but facial make-up in that film, but mainly it's to show the hair. This is the color of much of the hair used on Patty and it came from the same group.

Tarzan pic -- Again the explanation is pretty clear. I'm demonstrating how hair can be thinner over whatever area you wish. No need for the entire suit to be simply fun fur in one length or anything like that. (The suit looked good in the 1932 film too - not just in stills.)

The three "werewolf like creatures" -- Actually you're incorrect there Bill. Take a closer look and read what I said. The last pic shows hair glued to a cheap 1950's horror suit. It's not his skin. The suit ends at the elbow and he has gloves just over the wrist. I posted these to show that sometimes people THINK they see skin when they are looking at a suit with sparse hair.

The Morlocks --- Again, I think you may not have understood. What you've said here is not actually true. Take a CLOSER look and read what I'm saying. The TOP PIC shows a stuntman on the far right. He IS wearing a full body suit. So are the two stuntmen in the bottom frames. The fabric stretches and one was treated with flame retardant for the burn gag.

This is an example of hair on a bodysuit that fully encases a person in the 50's - and yet even a make-up man can look at it and not realize he's looking at fabric. Yes, most of the guys were bare-chested, but some were not and they can be clearly seen. It's just an example of how people see not with their minds sometimes, but with their pre-conceived notions of what should be there. Happens all the time with "Patty".

The chimp suit -- An early suit of Janos wearing the brown hair of the type used for Patty.

The bird -- The relavance is that this is Janos and he's using the "line-down-the-arm" technique that is also seen on Patty. This is something they adopted after TIME MACHINE.

Fantasy character with auburn hair -- I'm thinking you are talking about the mask Wah made that Janos wore on the Outer Limits and then on the Star Trek pilot. It's posted because that means that a 1966 mask used for Patty could still exist - just like this one from the same people.

Drawing of ape and car -- You must not be reading the captions. Patterson drew various Bigfoot types. Most had Caveman faces and a darker stripe down their backs. The relevance? This is what Patty has. Not something witnesses usually describe. It's found on Janos' brown bear suits though. It looks EXACTLY like Patty. So the idea here is that Patterson had drawings to show his idea of what he wanted in a Bigfoot.

The clay face sculpture --- That IS what you are looking at when you watch the PG film. This was the sculpt Wah did that the Patterson mask-head was created from.

Photo of Patty -- Yes, but if you click on it it'll become an animation for you and the head created by Wah Chang will overlay on Patty's face and match up to her forehead, nostrils, jawline, lips and that philtrum (which is something I never found in any other mask of this type). All features match. The head comes from the guys who put Patty together.

Photo panel of two ape face with teeth --- This was an example to help people understand what Bob Heironimus is talking about when he describes some kind of mouthpiece working. He's never seen a professional gorilla head before and had no idea the "old timey football helmet" he described is exactly how those heads worked.

This is why my caption carefully explains how some of the early ones used a metal structure, some used plastic and foam. It all depended on the year it was made and who made it. But this has been done since the 1920's and became the norm in the 30's and 40's. This is how the Star Trek mask used for Patty's head worked. Exactly as described by Bob H.

Click to view attachment Here's another example; but not from the days of the movie 2001. This is from the 1930's. This is what I'm trying to get across about how the Star Trek-Patty head works.


Click to view attachment From the 20's. Mouth opens and closes. It's old school. Rubber feet and all that.


Bill, the mask did indeed exist. I"m showing it to you. It came from the very guys every creature fx guy in town (and Canada) already know worked on the suit. The head existed from another job exactly as John Vulich has explained. This made putting it together not hard at all.

Two Image Panel of bare skin face and many obvious fur cloth folds -- I don't know if I'm understanding what you are writing here. There is no "bare skinned face" in the two panels. That is the head created by Wah Chang and later used for Patty. It's put on like most of the gorilla heads of the day and had a moving mouth. The bottom panel is Patty's face overlayed onto the Wah mask.

Panel of assorted people - relevance? -- Okay... now you're starting to make me think that your really LAL ( an old poster who made little sense to me) because once again that's Patty's head that I've shown you over and over. The caption next to the photos explains everything in detail. The relevance is spelled out... Janos was lying in his interview when he said he didn't know anyone who could fit the suit. These are those guys. The 7' 2" cowboy knew Patterson and gorillaman Corrigan. They worked at the western movie lot that Patterson and Merritt attempted to copy. Wah Chang is actually holding the very same camera Patterson requested because it was the one Wah recommended.

Are the words too small to read? Seriously, Bill. C'mon. You're making me tired here.

Chambers pic -- Again the relevance to the story is spelled out in the caption next to it. His tale regarding the PG film to Bobbie Short that his friends later laughed with him about and the fact that he really, really was THAT good.

PG character and more modern suits most like stretch fur -- The suit is shown with Patty because it works the same way. I used this suit. It does not have stretch fur. It pulls over the top of the head and has separate legs. The front fastens exactly as Patty's does. That is the relevance. That and the fact that any creature suit expert knows how the back of a neckline can show as it does while his head is off AND as it does when Bob Heironimus turns Patty's head. Pretty relevant stuff to know.

man camping -- For the love of Sasquatchery, please read. That's Patterson in the midst of a hoax. A hoax involving publishing Bigfoot material. Sort of relevant here.

Don Post Studio and Western set pics -- John Chambers, Post and Verne Langdon at the place I described as the source for Morris. The other place is Project Unlimited. These (as I explained in the caption with with photos) are the two places you would visit to get a Patty or info on who to talk to.

The western set shows a guy named "Roger" in 1959 or the early 60's giving rides to kids on ponies. The relevance is that Patterson did this and the guys who worked there told me they think this is the very same Roger Patterson who later worked with Jerry Merritt to imitate this place down to its hourly gunfight shows. This is Corriganville - the home of Hollywood westerns and gorilla movies. Corrigan had a storehouse FULL of gorilla suits for rent. Roger Patterson was known to have rented a gorilla suit soon after this. The giant he was working with IS the man wearing the Patty mask on STAR TREK in 1966. Relevant? Only if you want to find out the truth about this scam.

I included Roger's sly comment from his book as it fits perfectly with what other hoaxers have done and said. The eyeball? That's just me looking up at Roger's enormous testicular hypotrophy.

In summation: Bill... you slay me with your dry wit. You rascal.

NOW SOME OTHER BITS to leave behind ---

Click to view attachment I made breasts on foam. Just wanted to see how hard it might be. It isn't. I didn't use anything that wasn't available in '67, but I would say that you could also simply stop by Don Post and get some without a hassle. It took all of 20 minutes to do this simple test.

Click to view attachment A 1960 Caveman with hair glued onto a suit. The relevance? I like him because he takes the native women to his cave dwelling - like the Sasquatch. He's alright by me and I admire the fact that he comes in focus.

Click to view attachmentOne the earliest of the professional gorillamen, Emil Van Horn. I just think it's awesome that someone from his time period could use rubber and hair like that - and open and close his mouth. If he were more blurred I might actually worry that a cowboy could film him walking. He just needs to shave a few spots and he'll be okay by me.

Click to view attachment Here's one of the type of old time leather helmets that Bob Heironimus was talking about. He said it felt something like one of these might feel. He's right. I can tell you from experience that is exactly what it feels like. The other pics show Wah's caveman creature in action. Those ribs were not meant to be seen close up. Can you guess what they feel like? I'll bet you can if you're a cowboy like Bob H.

Click to view attachment Here I've outline how a pad would fit under Patty's shoulderblade. Take a clear pic of this and show it to any of the top creature fx suit makers in Hollywood and ask them what that is on the back of Patty. Better yet, try it yourself. You've already seen me do it and I didn't even create those annoying wrinkles around the moving part that drove Stan Winston up the wall.

Click to view attachment I just wanted to post this kneecap again as it is very, very important. Yes, you can see the line of the top of Janos white suit even clearer than in the blurred Patty images. But the type of hard shell kneecap is also seen. Though Janos thigh pads are up under the top of the suit (as they should be) the kneecap shows through as it does with Patty. This is another common thing that anyone who knows anything about these suits can spot. And they do.

cryptidon -- (and everyone) --- You also ask some good questions. Thanks for allowing me to clarify things. Though somehow I fear that in doing so I'll find whatever I say will be twisted into something else somewhere down the line as that is the way things have gone so far.

This is what brought me here a few years back ---

Click to view attachment I worked with John Vulich. He gave the BBC guys a red hair suit so that they could demonstrate how any hair suit would look under the conditions Patterson shot his film. The photo known as "Notice the Arms" was one of the dumbest things I'd seen, but I could understand that these people had not understood what went on. There was NEVER any attempt to recreate "Patty". Everyone knows Patty wasn't a red ape with black feet and finger-like toes. The idea was simply to show what Patterson did.

The BBC producer didn't have enough money to pay the Vulich team to spend their time building anything for him. They were busy as hell on BUFFY and there was no way he could afford to pull them off that. But that turned out not to matter. He thought simply showing a guy walking was enough. I was amazed that people were measuring the arms of that suit and all that. Vulich could build anything he wanted.

Next I heard the story that John Chambers was some desperate old man seeking fame and glory by latching onto the Patterson flick. What a hoot that was! We howled over that one.

So I made a Halloween thing for the kids out of Wookie suit and Tor mask. People began to ask me if I thought the Patterson film was a man in a suit. I told them that everyone who is anyone in Hollywood creature fx has always told me that, but I had no idea as I'd only seen poor quality versions of it and I wasn't in the business in '67. So I was asked to write an article explaining why it most likely wasn't a man in a suit (for the Bigfoot Information Project I believe it was) and I said I needed to look into it.

I promised that I'd look at BOTH SIDES of the issue and see what turned up. I looked at it to see if Patterson could have made it himself. I checked into whether horsehide and hip waders along with modified Don Post materials could be behind it. Finally, I began following up a few leads in Hollywood and doing some tests on what clearer images showed me.

This all brought me to where I'm at now. It is a suit. It was cannibalized from other suit parts just as John Vulich had suspected. And the parts came from the group who worked around John Chambers and Wah Chang. The main person who keeps popping up in this is Janos Prohaska.

At this stage I've learned from sources who were actually there when the suit was being put together that Chambers gave his input as he did with the Frank Hansen Iceman hoax. Bigfooters think that he wasn't involved in that one too, but he was.

I've found out where the head came from and I'm going to meet some people who have inherited some of the old suits from Janos to see if they have anything related to this. I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is a suit and it did come from this group of guys who worked with Project Unlimited.

I wish it were real, but it's not. I wish the Wallace prints had been real, but they were not. I wish other hoaxers like Marx and Freeman had not gotten involved in this. And I really wish that researchers like Green and Meldrum would face the harsh reality that we can all be fooled if the con man is giving us what we want to hear. Al DeAtley explained it that way and he is absolutely correct. That is how and why it worked.

None of this means that there isn't something to the Sasquatch idea itself, but it does mean that we have to be on guard not only for the hoaxers that abound today, but especially those who came and went yesterday.

People have invested alot in this and get emotionally attached to an idea. I know that. But I promised I'd tell the truth - whatever it turned out to be. And the truth is that the PG film is a hoax. Heironimus is simply a cowboy trying to describe what the suit felt like in his own words. He knows nothing about how it was made or where it came from; only what other people tell him.

I really have not invested as much time as you might think. I only put those pads on one weekend for a test. I did a few other tests too, but it only took a couple of hours out of my life. I've looked up a few people and things and talked to some old time Hollywood vets who were there as I've run into them or their friends. That's about it. I posted here whatever I learned as I went. It's only a few mouse clicks. No big deal.

So I'm going to see if there is more to learn in the coming year. I do have some new info, but I'm not going to share that here until I talk to someone first. That's just how it is. Gimlin knows how that is and so did Chambers and Janos. A guy is dying and he wants to make some money for his wife and kids. That's what was at the bottom of it all really. I just hate the idea of seeing some people hurt their careers and lives on a fraud.


Click to view attachment

Being wrong, and lying are totally unrelated. Also, I'm assuming, so correct me if I'm wrong, that Bill is not taking into account the history of the Roger Patterson, & his affiliation with known hoaxers. Since he is focusing on the costume only, I don't think it would even be assumed that I am calling him a liar, but it is fair to say that I believe he is wrong at this time. If he is taking what info he has access to, and coming to a conclusion that Patty could not have been made at that time, then that is his conclusion, whether it is right or wrong and I make no claim that he is lying.

I do appreciate and read his point of view, but like anything I read, I will listen to counterarguments and process the information from both and reach my own final conclusion.

Note: I do not think he is wrong because I know anything about costume technology or anything like that. The reason I think he is wrong is as follows;

It looks like a guy in a suit, there is no verifiable evidence of the existance of an Unclassified, Hairy, bipedal, elusive, primate in North America, Roger Patterson was affiliated with known hoaxers, therefore it must be a man in a suit.

I'd swear I read somewhere that three sets of prints were 'found' at bluff creek. And the report was that P&G thought the middle sized ones were from Patty. Also, couldn't Patterson have create tracks after filming the Patty scene? According to the story they followed Patty up the hill for 3 miles or something like that. They also had to ride back and get plaster, Maybe they really used this time to mold some prints in the substrate.