PGF Related Material

Over the past couple of years I've collected News articles and PGF related material, so I thought I'd put them up here to share.
Maybe some people haven't seen these, and if you have any to add to these, feel free to do so.

Interesting stuff but what is more interesting to me is how I have heard a lot of proponents saying it isn't not about the back story but all about looking at the actual film. This is because when the back story is examined it does not do anything to help the case.

I think the first article I read on it was Readers Digest when I was a kid. I was fascinated by the whole story. I think its the foundation of many
who like to read about it now. The group of people who were teenagers and preteens in that time frame. The pics from the film were in the mag
and in color. Before we even had a Color TV set.

BurdenOfProof wrote:Interesting stuff but what is more interesting to me is how I have heard a lot of proponents saying it isn't not about the back story but all about looking at the actual film. This is because when the back story is examined it does not do anything to help the case.

Some people look at it that way Burden, but in my opinion all the evidence should be weighed. I'm on the fence with the film and I'm only presenting material so others can see it and form their own conclusions.
I have more pictures I'll post after work today.

@Burden,

yes look at the Film A ape costume at the time couldn't have been made with the detail it had.
Explain the extended arms and hand hand that splays.
explain how the hair/fur stretches over muscles...The material that could do this was not created at this time period.
Explain how the hair/fur is thinner around the abdomen which is common in primates but ape costumes at the time period were made with fake fur cut to same length...Again the 4 way streatch material was not made back when this film was made.
Explain if you line the knees up with a human the shoulders don't line up, and if you try to line the shoulders up your knees are off.
Again if they wore stits or some kind of lifts the knees will still not line up and the lower legs would be longer not shorter like they are in the Creature.

The story around Patterson does make it look bad. But the outfit that was supposely created by a costume designer just didn't have the materials to do it correctly at the time it was made.
The people who say it is a hoax also have different stories... So who is correct? People say they know for a fact the costume was a standard gorilla costume that was modified while another says he comissioned it. So what is it?

Firstly how do you know such a costume could not be made?

Arms are in human range and nowhere in the film shows the fingers splaying.

All fake fur material has some element of stretch. You don't even know that what you are seeing is material stretching, the film is not detailed enough.

Once again you can not say the hair is thinner, the film has nowhere near enough resolution to see individual hairs. All we can see is a brown mass moving across the screen.

The lining up of various body parts to show the limb ratios is ridiculous. Humans come in all shapes and sizes and yes that includes varying limb proportions. So unless you have compared patty to every single human alive in 1967 you dont really have an argument.

You even admit the story looks bad but you want it to be real it just has to be right?

I think a lot of people underestimate rogers capabilities.

A cowboy creating a bigfoot suit that fooled the world? Stranger things have happened.

Ok so you are purposely avoiding the conflicting information about the Hoaxers.
If you take the time to listen to professional costume and special affects artists at the time and now. They have said that the FUR that would have had to be used to make the costume was NOT made at the time.
Have you ever made something with fake fur that most of these costumes were made at the time?
I did and it doesn't stretch to well at all. it had a stiff backing on it.
You claim it is Hoax and the detail isn't enough to show anything.
Then explain how people supposedly can see a zipper?
They have just as many different stories on why and how this was hoaxed but in your own admission the film isn't detailed enough.
And the people who say it is a hoax have conflicting stories on how and why.

Your assuming the hoax because the mans past and other issues around him. Its very good disinformation just like a politician.

Yea the story looks bad just like the politicians mud slinging each other in this current election. Just because someone says something about someone else doesn't make it factual.


I am taking the film on its face value till someone can prove to me 100% it is a Hoax IE. show me the Suit! Just like skeptics say show me a body of Bigfoot show me the suit.

The only make up artist who says it cant be done is munns but he seems to have his own agenda to prove its real rather than looking at the evidence. Maybe because he is unable to create something comparable. That doesn't mean its not possible.

I haven't heard of anyone saying they can see a zipper and yes you are right we could not see such a feature due to the resolution and the fact that a suit wouldnt have a zipper on show.

What we can see in the film however is features large enough to be visible at that resolution. The large diaper butt is right there plain to see. We can also see the leg subducting underneath the thigh! Things like the size of the hairs we can not see.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/korff04.htm


http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

Amazing the person who "made the suit" can not keep his story straight.
First their was Zippers then their wasn't.
who is hoaxing?

Some other reading for you
http://www.karenlyster.com/lloyd.html

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=6213

Morris is quoted as having described his suit in precise detail, and how he made it. The suit had six separate pieces: a head a body (arms, torso and legs), two hands and two feet. A knitted cloth material served as a backing to thousands of synthetic nylon strands called dynel, which were driven by a powerful knitting machine with needles through the knitted cloth material and then pulled back through to the other side. It had a 36-inch zipper up the back.

Bob Heironimus is also quoted, saying that Patterson made the suit himself by skinning a dead horse and gluing fur from an old fur coat on the horsehide. It was in three parts, head, torso and legs that felt like big rubber boots and that went to his waist.

He thought the feet were made of old house slippers. The suit weighted 20 or 25 pounds and he needed help to get in and out of it. It also smelled bad. “It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse.”

So when you talk about hoaxing you need to look at both sides.
For me to many issues in the story how the suit was made and what it looked like that leads to me saying well someone wants IT to BE a HOAX or a mystery not that it is.

I'm including photos in this thread as well.

Here are some more that I have.

The Gang





Many have used these photos to evaluate the film to determine the authenticity of it.

Thanks for sharing what you have collected SN. Your dedication and openers is greatly appreciated.

Burden says
"Firstly how do you know such a costume could not be made?"

Because one of the best ever costume makers in Hollywood history says it couldn't have been made in that time frame of Hollywood history.
Not only that he analysed it and published a report that goes through every weak argument ever made of the film. He uses forensic science to point
out the musculature of the film couldnt be produced back then.
Read the report instead of saying- "Its a hoax" "Science says its a hoax" (thats not true and you havent named one source)
It even has a part of the report that YOU really need to get familiar with and that section is called "The Beginners Guide"
The report is at:
www.themunnsreport.com
The section YOU need to read is at:
http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr_v2_design_012.htm

Munns was a hack, has always been a hack, his opinion is worthless. he has hypnotized the footer world with his "scientific claims" based on a pre made agenda, because he knows most of you will think "well this guy is kinda famous, he must be right" no , he isn't, he's a man with a conclusion he is trying to prove. He ignores obvious problems, paints over discrepancies and hand waves away the facts.

he is a bad scientist

StankApe wrote:Munns was a hack, has always been a hack, his opinion is worthless. he has hypnotized the footer world with his "scientific claims" based on a pre made agenda, because he knows most of you will think "well this guy is kinda famous, he must be right" no , he isn't, he's a man with a conclusion he is trying to prove. He ignores obvious problems, paints over discrepancies and hand waves away the facts.

he is a bad scientist

My gawd give it a rest. Scientists in general go to try to prove conclusions they came up with.
Scientific method.
Make a Hypothisis (I expect this to happen)
Test it and test it to see if my Hypothisis is correct.
So I am doing things to prove my Hypothisis.

Skank Wrote:
"Munns was a hack, has always been a hack, his opinion is worthless."

Munns was a period Hollywood costume designer. Which makes his word worth more than anyone on this board. Two things I know, his report is NOT worthiess and its worth ALOT more than anything anyone else can say on this board. He is an expert it that field and the MAJOR argument of skeptics of the film is that it was a costume. I can't think of anyone else who could be MORE qualified on the subject. Calling him a HACK is a weak argument and has much less worth than his report. I dont know of another report including specials on the Discovery network of channels that has said anything that would confirm that it was a costume and a not real skeletal and muscular tissue we see walking along the creek. Munn uses logic and his expertise to show that not only is it a real animal but at the time the technology JUST WAS NOT THERE to mimic what is seen on the film. Look at the 1968 film the Planet of the Apes. That is laughable compared to what you see in Pattys flim. It wasnt like Charlton Heston was begging for work at the time and chose a low budget film to star in that had the worst makeup the artists. They had the best they were and the masks were poor plastic replicas compared to what we see today. ON the contrary, he may be the best person TO speak on the subject. To call him a HACK really undermines any thing you may have to say on the subject. Too bad.

If you have expertise on late 1960's costume design for major motion pictures I would like to know, then maybe you have something to stand on to give your opinion some value.

I went to film school and have lots of books on movie makeup and it's history. I think there are lots of suits made back then that would be just as appealing if shot at 100 feet with an 8mm camera.

StankApe wrote:I went to film school and have lots of books on movie makeup and it's history. I think there are lots of suits made back then that would be just as appealing if shot at 100 feet with an 8mm camera.

You do know Patterson used 16mm, right?
I used to work for a company that made costumes of the metal variety for television and movies. People would be amazed what props are actually made from. We had no hand in that specific area of props but I've seen my share of props for distance shots, fight sequences, and then the props for the "beauty" shots.
It's amazing what cameras can filter out if the DOP is experienced.

I actually did and made a mistake.


still though, a grainy film shot at 100 feet will hide a ton of details. The blown up images are so full of grain and artifacts that there are all kinds of movement in the background and on the subject itself that has caused all kinds of amusing "evidence" claims regarding moving hands, mouths calf muscles...etc

The argument over this is really moot. Nobody is going to change their mind I reckon (even though I did) and there is next to a 0% chance that any sort of proof either way is established...

so it's really just an interesting piece of film that is ultimately worthless

StankApe wrote:I actually did and made a mistake.


still though, a grainy film shot at 100 feet will hide a ton of details. The blown up images are so full of grain and artifacts that there are all kinds of movement in the background and on the subject itself that has caused all kinds of amusing "evidence" claims regarding moving hands, mouths calf muscles...etc

The argument over this is really moot. Nobody is going to change their mind I reckon (even though I did) and there is next to a 0% chance that any sort of proof either way is established...

so it's really just an interesting piece of film that is ultimately worthless

Aside from the camera error I was agreeing with you. I still don't have an opinion one way or the other if the film is authentic. Aspects of it make me think it's a hoax and other aspects make me thinks it's authentic. Every know and then I revisit the film to see what I can see, and I dig a bit more to see if any new information can be found.

GT3Paul wrote:Skank Wrote:
"Munns was a hack, has always been a hack, his opinion is worthless."

Munns was a period Hollywood costume designer. Which makes his word worth more than anyone on this board. Two things I know, his report is NOT worthiess and its worth ALOT more than anything anyone else can say on this board. He is an expert it that field and the MAJOR argument of skeptics of the film is that it was a costume. I can't think of anyone else who could be MORE qualified on the subject. Calling him a HACK is a weak argument and has much less worth than his report. I dont know of another report including specials on the Discovery network of channels that has said anything that would confirm that it was a costume and a not real skeletal and muscular tissue we see walking along the creek. Munn uses logic and his expertise to show that not only is it a real animal but at the time the technology JUST WAS NOT THERE to mimic what is seen on the film. Look at the 1968 film the Planet of the Apes. That is laughable compared to what you see in Pattys flim. It wasnt like Charlton Heston was begging for work at the time and chose a low budget film to star in that had the worst makeup the artists. They had the best they were and the masks were poor plastic replicas compared to what we see today. ON the contrary, he may be the best person TO speak on the subject. To call him a HACK really undermines any thing you may have to say on the subject. Too bad.

If you have expertise on late 1960's costume design for major motion pictures I would like to know, then maybe you have something to stand on to give your opinion some value.

I shouldn't post after a night out on the town probably....perhaps Hack was a bit much, I take it back

Planet Of The Apes, if I recall, won an OSCAR for special effects, proving that it was the BEST Hollywood had to offer!

Blobsquatch, I think your post puts a period on what I was saying.