Is This Amazing Story from the Late 1800's True?



This story comes from an essay written in 1901 about a hunt that took place for a creature known as a Mai-as, or "Man-Monkey". The story sounds amazing, but is written as if it is a factual account of an event that took place in the late 1800's. Is there a skeleton stored away somewhere of some sort of creature that was possibly a missing link?

The brave fellow first fixed on his hands and feet coverings of hide with strong thorns fixed therein to enable him to get a hold of the slippery bark, which offered no projections or footholds whatever; and taking with him a "shooting-iron," he resolutely began the ascent. This "shooting-iron" is really a blow-pipe, somewhat similar to that used by the Indians of the River Amazon, but having a sharp spear-head firmly fixed at one end in such a manner as not to interfere with the passage of a dart through the hollow pipe.

Breathlessly the onlookers watched the young man as, foot by foot, he crept up the tree, until when within about 8ft. of the Mai-as (who so far had showed no inclination to move) he raised his weapon and prodded the animal in the leg, whereupon the huge creature retreated higher up the tree. The Malay crept after him, and repeated his spear-thrust, and again the Mai-as retreated, while the daring hunter followed him.

Afraid that the tree would not bear his ponderous weight if he went any higher—it was already beginning to sway dangerously—the Mai-as stopped and, leaning down, stretched out one hand, and with a lightning-like movement grasped the iron spear - head. Then he commenced to pull, and hand over hand, hanging on solely by his muscular legs, he commenced to haul up the wretched Malay, who was powerless, the blow-pipe being attached to his wrist by a strong leather thong.

Little by little the powerful brute drew up the man until, holding the blowpipe with one hand, he reached down with the other and wreathed his huge hand in the thick, luxuriant hair of the miserable native, who, paralyzed by fear, could do no more than gaze at the savage face of his captor with terror-stricken eyes. Spell-bound with horror, the Englishmen below then saw the Mai-as with a single twist wrench the Malay from the tree and commence to swing his victim backwards and forwards by the hair, chuckling all the time with fiendish satisfaction.

Too fascinated with horror to use their rifles and slay the monster or else kill the man and put a merciful end to his sufferings, the hunters watched the wild man swinging the Malay faster and faster until, with an unearthly yell of devilish malignity, he hurled him down. The wretched man turned over and over as he fell, and came to the ground with a heavy thud that sent a sickening thrill through the hearts of the watchers. They rushed to the spot, but it was too late—the man was stone dead.

Furious with rage one of the Englishmen raised his rifle and, hastily sighting, fired. The bullet struck the Mai-as fairly in the ribs under the left arm, and with a cry the brute slid to the ground, where for one- brief moment he supported himself against the tree, with one hand on the wound. Then with a groan, quite human in its intensity, he pitched forward on his face, dead.

It should be mentioned that the party, after the unsuccessful hunt related, relinquished the idea of securing a live specimen, and the dead body of the monkey having been skinned and the flesh removed, the skeleton was brought back to England, where it remains in the possession of the owner of the yacht who had organized the expedition.

To read the entire story, click here.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Obama Plans to Transfer Ebola-infected Foreigners to U.S. for Treatment.
      all going according to PLAN

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. The drawing is a live sketch. Back then known as a photograph.

      Delete
  3. Early settlers spoke of Melissa Adair already posting these stories ad nauseum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Early settlers also spoke of Joes cut and paste fetish. Who's Melissa and is she a hottie?

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. Become on of his naked models. That might soften him up.

      Delete
    2. Tried that. Like most footers he remained soft until I put the monkey suit on.

      Delete
  5. Sounds like a wonderful night that DMaker The Sharkhead and I had. Science, sweet Science!

    D Campbell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you throw him around by his hair?

      Delete
    2. By his short hair if you catch my drift.And dmaker was asking for more!

      D Campbell.

      Delete
  6. I guess I see what it really comes down to: there's a guy with costume experience who says Patty can't be a fake because if she were fake then there are certain things that would absolutely HAVE to happen on the surface of her body as we saw her walking.

    OK. That is enough for Footers. That one guy can't see a way it could have been done in a way that hides what he expects to see on a costume.

    That's it? For Munns to think that showing why the HH costume presents as a costume is somehow responsive proves it: "it may look real to you, but I can tell how it's fake. I can't tell why Patty is fake, therefore she is real."

    He thinks by telling us how he knows the HH costume is fake, it bolsters his credibility in saying that Patty would be real or else he would be able to see it.

    That's the only way I can read the logic of his post. He thinks we want him to prove that it's not as real as we think it is.

    But the point we're making is: here's a 50's suit from one angle that has a weird midtarsal break, funny proportions, and fits pretty snugly. Looks as real to us as Patty does, so...how again does it matter how it looks to you? Do you think we believe the juvenile doesn't look like it was made out of a fur pillow case? How does that possibly relate to our point?

    You'll never be relevant saying Patty doesn't look as fake to you as it does the rest of the world. I don't care who you are. You're one guy, a guy with expertise in some areas. But Patty is judged by how she looks to the world, not to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read Munns in a simpler fashion:

      "I couldn't make a Patty suit and since I'm the best that ever was, no one could make a Patty suit therefore Bigfoot is real. Send money."

      Delete
    2. you really have to be a booger-eating idiot to call that science

      Delete
    3. The JREF footers are going bonkers over Bill Munns' new book and have come out swinging with charges of fraud and professional incompetency. This war seems personal for the JREF numbskulls and appears to be no holds barred folks.

      Delete
    4. give it a rest DWA you are boring

      Delete
    5. 4:47, a clown shoe/foot, twice as long as the wearer's foot, bends at the wearer's toes/ball of wearer's foot, roughly at middle point of fake clown shoe/foot. That's a bending fake foot, not a MTB.

      It's a strange reversal effect, your entrie comment, because no one has succeeded in producing a credible copy of Patty. Everything you say has a weird reversal effect. Patty looks fake to you, all easy, easy to fake, yet in 47 years, nothing close. It's oddly self-contradictory, your comment.

      The gigantic foam padding over shoulders on the '50s costume you reference, detract greatly from that costume.

      Patty hasn't been duplicated ever, anywhere, ever, and this somehow to you = real bad suit cheapo easy to duplicate. (Evokes "Packham no attempt to recreate PGF" = Packham's own words "to recreate, to the inch, the action at Bluff Creek." It's the same level and type of weird self-cancelling contradiction. You are cancelling yourself out through your own comments.

      There's no logic there. The flip-flop inconsistency of your view makes it irrelevent. You or your clone stuck by doggedly that BBC's bigfoot was awesome replica of Patty, until you saw you couldn't continue that line any longer, and you changed your view to, "the BBC bigfoot was intentionally poor in order to keep the bigfoot gravy train rollin'".

      That's not making it. You can't swing back and forth between opposites and expect anyone to listen to you, take you seriously.

      The spinal erectors at end section of PGF not usually shown, muscular movement in leg, were not features of costumes in 1967. Fake or real, those details are in favour of real. There is a balance of details you can weigh on either side. It's silly to deny that those details are on the side of, not fake.

      Delete
    6. bottom line:

      zero bigfoots ever, anywhere, ever

      checkmate DWA

      Delete
    7. JREF footer and resident dolt "Resume."

      Delete
    8. ^ boo hoo. whassamatter? no magical mystical monkey
      boo hoody hoo

      Delete
    9. mexicuns lookin lack tham critters somtimes

      Delete
    10. It is the preference of some costume makers to start with the mask of suits. It was here Munns could calculate the proportions of the wider 'suit' that would have prohibited such a mask to fit the proportions of a normal human. Also... There is no known technique in costume manufacturing that accounts for the type of fur cloth you see on the PGF subject, and no desperate straw man comparisons to suits in the 50's cuts it.

      Delete
    11. Take a look at this;

      http://blacksun1987.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/day-38-countdown-to-legendarys-godzilla.html?m=1

      ... Do we see a realistic, modern costume that can be traced to pre-Patty that shows creative effects can make a simple costume appear impossible to fit a human body? Am I missing something here?? Ok... Let's look at another angle;

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d23Z5V3uvpU/UwF2apt-dnI/AAAAAAAAv6Y/rUiZ3uZKnw8/s1600/half-human8.jpg

      ... Now, I mean... That's a pretty tall costume to a pettitely built female who's sitting down, no doubt, but do we see any suggestion of proportions that look like impossible feats? Honestly, at this rate surely we can expect to see any monkey suit given as an example of the PGF, it's getting as cynical as that for some. And to the suggestion that the half human costume has mid tarsal breaks... I really can't see that flexible flubbery foot making as deep a track impression as Patty did, whilst if you can find me a screen shot where Half Human's feet show dorsiflexion, that would be something. The lower legs and feet of Patty feature toes that lift excessively, possibly due to limitation in dorsiflexion of the ankle joint. Here is Mr. Olinoslet's video, which does a nice job of pointing out this feature in the animal's foot;

      http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/compelling-evidence-toe-extension-of.html

      The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines dorsiflexion as "the turning of the foot or the toes upward". As physical therapist Kevin Cooney has explained that ankle dorsiflexion is one of the actions required to clear the foot during swing phase of gait, as well as setting up heel strike for initial contact with the ground. Lastly and very interestingly, if we use a direct source used to prop up the attacking notion;

      http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-05-2014/N6hZKA.gif

      ... We can clearly see in this very segmant of film that the costume's foot movement is mainly from the privet of the ankle, quite unlike anything we would expect from a mid tarsal break where two bendable angles would be, as the floppy, long toes at the ends of Half Human's feet of the costume are static against the floor, giving the impression that middle of the foot is bending rather than the toes of the gentleman wearing the suit.

      Delete
    12. The fur used in Half Human is very long and shaggy, which obscures any specific body contours like muscles, folds or fatty deposits, but the PGF subject has hair short enough to see the body muscle masses, folds and fatty deposits. Nearly every shot of Half Human is always photographed under dramatic lighting (the ones that aren't like he examples shown up top show up so many inferior efforts at realism it's untrue), which allows for hiding a multitude of costume sins, but Patty was photographed under harsh direct sunlight nearly straight on her, the most unforgiving of lighting, so comparing photos of the two is problematic by the variable of lighting. And then we come to the spinal erectors, shoulder blades, neck muscles... All of which is perfectly put into perspective here;

      http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/p-g44-buresh/

      Patty achieved mass along with muscle tone, an even bigger feat than the suit you claim outdoes Patty so many years previous. It's amusingly, attempting to use a key comparitive failure in favour of your own argument; it doesn't wash. And... Ummmmm... Now this is where I'm a little confused... Isn't the name of the flick, Half Human? I keep using this as a reference, purely because it's so damning, but here;

      http://blacksun1987.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/day-38-countdown-to-legendarys-godzilla.html?m=1

      In several places on Patty, groups of muscles in motion can be seen, these are especially seen in the arms, back and legs. One example on Patty is the equivalent of the quadricep muscle which is seen expanding while it absorbs the weight of the subject. Also seen is a structure similar to a knee cap, the shape of which changes like a human knee. This is particularly difficult to manufacture in a costume because of the need for surface conforming material. Surface plasticity in the side torso is seen near frame 352. This requires not only a conforming material, but a material with independent x and y plasticity to avoid detectable material folds.

      Delete
    13. you're a day late you douchebag

      you always post on threads after everybody is gone?//////

      Delete
    14. Awh, what's the matter nerd, you got your cut and oastes kicked down the basement back at ya?

      "Boo-hoo"

      Delete
    15. I found your dirty little secret by accident. Do you talk to yourself a lot?

      Delete
  7. The drawing should be blurry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I bought this book expecting to learn more about bigfoot. Instead I got a book about Bill Munns.

    In this book we are told not to pay any attention to Roger Patterson's back story, and to focus only on what we can see in the film. Most skeptics realize that is because the back story is extremely damning against the authenticity of this being a film of bigfoot, and that back story points to a hoax for profit. Yet while so very little attention is paid to the back story of the PGF, it appears that the majority of this book focuses on the back story of Mr. Munns, who appears to put himself and his story front and center as proof that his work has validity. However, if we apply the same philosophy, and pay no attention to Mr. Munns' back story, and only focus on what evidence we actually see in the book, the same thing happens; we see the continuation of a hoax for profit, part deux. The main premise seems to be that Mr. Munns cannot figure out how to make a convincing bigfoot suit, and so Patterson's bigfoot suit must be a real bigfoot. Don't need over 500 pages to say that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Teacher: What does your daddy do for fun at home when he's not working ?

      Kid : He looks up Bigfoot stuff.

      Teacher: Oh.

      Kid : He posts about it on a bunch of different websites and he also watches Bigfoot shows and has some books about it.

      Teacher: So he's a footer ?

      Kid : No, he says he's not like those idiots cuz he's a skeptic.

      Teacher: Sure he is.. LOL

      Kid: Mommy doesn't believe him either...(giggles)

      Delete
    2. the kid in that story is calling footers idiots by the way

      Delete
    3. Well for starters, the simpletons that post about Bigfoot on JREF are not skeptics. Think about this, there are only about 10-15 morons on the whole planet that post regularly about Bigfoot while simultaneously claiming to be a Bigfoot skeptic. That's not how normal, well adjusted adults roll. Adults usually have no interest in what they consider mythical creatures. Your real Bigfoot skeptics, who actually equate Bigfoot to fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus etc. would never waste their time posting or thinking about Bigfoot.

      I've even seen posters on JREF who post on other threads question why the JREF footers are allowed to post about Bigfoot on JREF.

      Delete
    4. 2 tired old copy pastes DWA, come on bro, at least try....

      Delete
    5. the truth is funny as f*ck, people believing in bigfoot, never gets old

      Delete
    6. continually posting it doesn't make it any funnier.

      Delete
    7. The JREF is going down anyway.



      MMG

      Delete
    8. I tried to find a picture of J Randi's husband on the net but can only find his arrest mug shot. Any others out there ?

      Delete
    9. If you can't tell, I have a fairly serious problem.

      And it's not the chopstick I stuck up my pee hole, either.

      MMG

      Delete
    10. The backstory... Greg Long; he's been caught out falsifying interviews that were published in his book. The 'costume expert' that 'made the suit' has no record of Roger buying anything from him and had to hire a costume expert to make a gorilla suit that looked nothing like Patty. Bob H has more contradictions about the suit he wore than anything I've heard and can't even find the 'film site'. You see... There's money in hoaxing a hoax, expecially when your target audience are largely skeptical of the subject already. Author David Murphy had spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson. In this time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. This is in direct contrast to Greg ‘Liar’ Long who’s book was an attempt at making money from hoaxing a hoax.

      Delete
    11. Nobody cares about those idiots. Why are the tens of thousands of hunters and fishers and trappers and biologists going to the remotest areas of the continent NEVER finding any signs of this gigantic mammal?

      Delete
    12. You care son. And there are physical signs accumulated every month in tracks and we have examples of unknown primate hair. In fact... We have every source of evidence short of modern type specimen for this creature, to show for all these people in remote wilderness areas.

      Delete
  9. "The specific choice of a site with a creek separating him from his subject at first is a major logistical error for a hoaxer . Based on the film image data of his start position and Patty’s start position, the creek and the distance would make any communication between Roger and a costumed actor, except big arm gestures, impossible, and because Patty has her back to him throughout all the early activity , a costumed performer couldn’t even see arm signals. Having no communication with your performer is genuinely irrational for a hoaxer."

    Munns throughout his attempts to think like a hoaxer is actually him thinking like a conventional filmmaker. The creek is a logical choice for Patterson to hoax. How were two men and three horses able to get the drop on the stealthiest creature in North America? Well, that's easy. It didn't hear us on the other side of that creek. All the mime has to do is walking a very simple easy and even path along the sandbar. Keep going, walk like we practiced, look back a couple times when I get close. There is no need for any elaborate verbal or hand signal communication between Roger and the mime. The mime can see Roger on the first look back and get an idea when to do the money shot in segment 5 of the film as described in Chapter 6 - How the Event Occurred. Everything else is meant to show the dramatic nature of the event. Roger need only act like it is a real event. Segment 3 which Bill demonstrates to be an accidental camera trigger slip was not done on purpose. His finger legitimately slipped while he was coming up to cross the creek. Accidents can happen in a hoax just as much as a real encounter.

    Looking at the actual creek shown here in your composite, we can see the creek is not deep at all...

    http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m484/LyndonPrist/compositelandscapePGFstart.jpg

    Roger charges directly at this supposed Bigfoot and it never runs. Where is one piece of footage showing a cameraman bolting at a wild animal that doesn't react by running away from the person. Munns tries to argue that Patty moves significantly faster in segment 5, but that is not what the film actually shows. Patty has the same slow and steady get throughout the film being charged by this human with something that looks very much like a firearm pointed at it...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuff6HTWGZo

    Yes, however, the film does show Patty standing there slouched over at the beginning. Munns interprets this as real Bigfoot in his attempt at a behavioural analysis. This does not to me look like a wild animal that just caused three horses and two men to flip out, one horse toppling over on top of its rider. What I see is a mime who's been waiting inside a hot bulky suit under the sun to having finally gotten his action signal. The gait is unhurried and the look back done a very deliberate way right at the most opportune moment to record it. What I see is a subject that is not behaving like any wild animal being pursued by a human pointing something that could easily be a weapon. If someone can show me footage of a wild animal acting Patty while being charged by the camera man, I would concede the point, but it seems totally unnatural to me but natural for a hoaxing situation in which running by the mime in the suit is only going to expose suit flaws that much more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ An unconvincing waste of time.

      Delete
    2. ^ a completely closed, irrational and highly delusional mind. probably a danger to himself and others

      Delete
    3. Patty is not an animal in the the same sense as a mountain lion or a bear. She is acting in the same way as you and me would react if we came across say a bear in the wilderness without a gun. There are also so, so many more accounts of Bigfoot behaving this way, too many to count in fact. It is almost a Bigfoot cliche in accounting that "I walked one way and the Bigfoot walked the other". The slow reaction is because she is merely of an equalled intelligence to us, and therefore is actually trying to remove herself from the situation as calmly and as safely as possible with no knee-jerk reactions that would cause panic to the two utterly foreign characters that are imposing themselves on her... You must remember that during this time, you have Bob Gimlin covering Roger Patterson with a gun, and you also have Roger Patterson pointing a camera at her, for all she knew this was a gun also or at least something that could have caused her great harm.

      We do not know if there is an infant Bigfoot nearby (though this has sometimes been suggested by enthusiasts, though there is nothing to really back up this claim), and we cannot claim for sure that a male Bigfoot would behave that way (we have a matching specimen in Leaping Russian Yeti, a younger male acting quite differently). In fact we have too many accounts to suggest that they would react the same way as Patty does. Also... There is a moment in the footage, where she looks at Roger first and then over her shoulder at Bob... In that moment you see the vulnerability of a subject that is very confused. She does not run because that it is in human nature, as well as it is in anywhere in nature; that you do not run when confronted with a challenging creature in the wilderness when caught out of your safety zone.

      Regardless that they are on the most part super elusive, super fast, can get through any terrain at high-speed, they do get caught out at times, and these account for a high number of accounts, not to mention the footage there is.

      Delete
    4. The creature, does not appear to be totally stopped in it's motion from the start of it's capture, however something that has been startled with a gun pointed at it, should not be overlooked as anything other than a natural reaction, in the same way as anyone who would indeed be out of it's natural cover. Patterson also said "it turned a total of I think three times," the first time therefore being before the filming began. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for a while after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point.

      Also, over-complicating the process of falling off a reared horse and then getting the camera out, stabilizing one's self and then proceeding in filming, would be just as what one would expect to successfully film a creature like that in that scenario. Patterson's success is not your means of argument.

      Also, it is common knowledge that Roger Patterson had help in tracking the Bigfoot by some of the best trackers in North America at that time. Patterson and Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967. This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.

      Delete
    5. Again the same cast of losers. Boring as unconvincing now as it was then.

      Bigfoot is not like a human. That should be obvious to even a small child.

      Delete
    6. Losers? Those people are linked to one of the greatest moments in modern anthropological science.

      Sorry... Patty's anatomy and morphology point to her being a type of human.

      "Esteban Sarmiento, a functional anatomist and primatologist, echoed some very similar views on the possibility of what bigfoot might be. Sarmiento is a bigfoot skeptic and pretty good scientist. He contends that bigfoot could not possibly be an ape. However, from his description of the evidence, he appears to be imply that bigfoot, if it exists, must be in the human lineage.

      “A great ape (chimp, gorilla or orangutuan) can’t do this. I guarantee there’s no great ape that can do this,” Sarmiento says, pointing to the frame in the film when the creature turns in full stride to look over its shoulder at the camera. “A gorilla couldn’t do this. It can’t turn its head. An ape would have to stop and turn around to look at the camera.” Apes can walk on two legs, he said, but not with the stride and gait the Patterson Bigfoot uses. That’s a human trait."

      Delete
    7. what has he done lately? Never mind, only a handful of people care. It's really not that important.

      Delete
  10. "Roger’s filming of Patty in the lookback segment (Segment Five) shows her body from more viewing angles than any other part of the PGF, and during that time, Roger is standing still and holding his camera with remarkable steadiness. All claims that Roger deliberately shook the camera to hide flaws of the costume fail as logic when we consider the true evidence of the film image data."

    The look back is essential to the film's success. What is the point of putting a face and breasts such as we see if you're not going to show them. The problem being that Roger and DeAtley blundered with the design of their suit. They should have never given Patty shaggy breasts that jut out from her torso the way they do. It's not consistent with any real primate and it's not consistent with real world physics. Munns himself writes hat Patty is no spring chicken. Therefore she should not have the breasts that jut out at a 50 degree angle. Then the flaws Munns does acknowledge he dismisses saying that a professional suit maker would not allow flaws. This is circular logic made in such a way to ensure no serious consideration of a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ This portion of the giant copy-paste is even worse than the first section.

      Delete
    2. ^ probably one of those obsessives that has to have the last word. let's see how long he can go.

      And I will check back tomorrow and the next day to see if you come back like Joe does.

      Delete
    3. There are many segments of footage showing chimps and bononbos with hair on thier breasts, those two primates live in tropical an subtropical areas. Take the mountain gorilla as a prime example, it lives in the colder mountains has the thickest hair of the gorillas, would it not be logical, perhaps even expected for a ape livin' in the cooler climate of North America to have a thicker coat of hair than those other primates livin' in the tropics? If you Google 'Rare Mountain Gorilla Born in Congo' you'll find a nice National Geographic image of a female gorilla with interesting breasts.

      Delete
    4. I skim your posts and see the same garbage. Fail.

      Delete
    5. You not being man enough to read a damning rebuttal ain't anyone else's fail son. It's your approach in a nut shell. Shut out the facts with fingers in yor ears and it'll aaaaaaaaaall go away.

      Pathetic.

      Delete
    6. I'm done. I'll leave you all alone to toss your turds into the void you freak.

      Delete
  11. "Patty has a head that makeup effects designers have wanted to accomplish for over 80 years, and nobody has."

    Munns is very specific in singling out a single frame that makes Patty look like a flat head when other frames from the same angle show the complete opposite...

    http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/bigfoot/bigfoot_face.jpg

    http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bighead4.jpg

    To compound the issue of selectivity in distorted images, Munns then after choosing one goes ahead and removes a significant portion of the head arguing to allow for hair length when said hair length has never been demonstrated to be that long...

    http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bighead5.jpg

    An average human head can fit and doesn't have to have an over-sized helmet, but rather snug fitting one on it...

    http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigsweats21.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Selectively distort the images" ha ha ha ha ha!

      God damn, Pate and other BFF lurkers were found with their trousers round their ankles force fitting photoshopped pics of Bob H with Patty.

      Hypocrites!

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    2. innerestin critter ans some folks sayin it be a bigfoot

      Delete
    3. @ 5:27. ha ha ha ha ha ha

      Delete
    4. I think 5:10 needs to watch a Monsterquest or something, honestly, start with the basics. Bill takes exactly what you see in the footage, images of every frame that shows the head proportions, calculates and then bases his effort at a mask around that. For example... If you were to incorporate a receding forehead on the proportions of a normal human's head mask to, the forehead would have to transcend the coned head height that you see on the subject in the footage. You would have a far taller coned head, not to mention the eye socket proportions mentioned not long ago... You don't have to be a costume expert to think along the lines of common sense, this is why most people have the edge on you, not to mention Munns. So you question him for not taking the stance of what you expect from a costume expert and then condemn him for using an approach that's not only natural for one (most costume designers start with the head), considering all the data in that footage that's obviously going to be the focal point of study? It started with manufacturing a mask... Ending up in a realisation that the proportions cannot be replicated.

      The link you provided here;

      http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigsweats21.jpg

      ... Merely strengthens our case. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.

      Delete
    5. YAWN

      Inconclusive, at best. Quit wasting your time.

      Delete
    6. You self obliterated with the link... Hilarious.

      Delete
  12. "Patty’s back has multiple lines and folds which tend to perfectly match real human anatomy, and run contrary to all conventional fur costume design, because these lines can’t occur on a costume by accident but to do them deliberately take time, skill, and a justification to make the effort."

    If researcher and enthusiast Leroy Blevins did one thing right, it was the back of his recreation which when seen from the same angle and similar distance shows feature very much like those seen in Patty...

    http://ourbigfoot.com/sitebuilder/images/patterson_bigfoot_suit_82009-600x439.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and only available in still format, mind you, not video, of course.

      Blevins's side view of costume is a joke. Hysterically awful.

      Delete
    2. can we talk about something that didn't take place during the Johnson administration?

      i'll go way out on the stupid limb and say PGF was a real creature. it must have been a one-off, because you have nothing since then. seems like a very shallow victory.

      I still think it was a fat mexican woman with that hair growing disease.

      Delete
    3. That's the best comparison I've seen, and lends even more credibility to Patty.

      Delete
    4. Im tellin you folks look at MK
      Davis close up of patty walking away, where one can
      See the separation of the
      gluteus maxamus, mk seems
      to think its a hemmaroid,,
      HELL NO!! Patty was in the process of giving "BIRTH"..
      That is why patterson&Gimlin
      Caught her off gaurd,,I am
      Flabbergasted that MK ,did not
      come to that conclusion, ,,

      Delete
    5. Blevins recreation hasn't the same muscle tone & hair texture and skin folds. Plus, the pictures you see the Blevins suit have had the width reduced by 5%. If we can only just make something a little close to Patty now... Then there's simply no way a Rookie film maker could have made a suit that good back then. If anything; Blevins' suit has helped to strengthen the claim that Patty is real, hominid flesh and blood. Blevins also used materials not available to Roger in 67, and it merely fuels my argument more than yours. Also... We don't see the subject in motion. Check it out at this angle;

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      It took Blevins ten years to make that.

      (Pfffft)

      Delete
    6. 47years ago tomorrow. What a senseless waste of human life to obsess on this.

      Delete
    7. Aren't you the one posting large extracts to reinforce your stance every day?

      It's one of the greatest moments in anthropological history... If you can't grasp that then go find something else to cry about.

      Delete
  13. "The Skin Stretch - The way Patty’s skin (and fur) stretches from her armpit to her knee, as she does the lookback, simply defies all expectation for the fur materials we had in 1967 , but it has a remarkable comparative similarity to the studies of real anatomy when markers were applied to the figure models’ bodies, and then frame comparisons were made as the forward leg extends to take the next step."

    Throughout Bill Munns' analysis he argues that the PGF could not be a hoax because Roger Patterson could not have had the necessary experience to create an expertly crafted suit, but when he observes such flaws seen as the arcing hip line, he dismisses that being an actual flaw based on the circular logic that a professional suit maker would not allow for an seams to be seen and would cover them with long hair. This ignores that Roger does not have to be the original creator of the suit, it could have been modified by him at any point, and that Roger conceived Bigfoot creatures to have short dense hair all over the body.

    The fact is that while Mr. Munns' experience in makeup FX does go back to the 60's when he started, despite the long-winded self-congratulating discussions of his own work, Mr. Munns' actual experience in ape suit making is limited. While Munns book claims that no FX artist before him has made a detailed analysis of the film, this is simply false. The vastly more experienced and accomplished Ocsar-winning FX artist and director Chris Walas (The Fly, The Fly II, Enemy Mine, Gremlins, Star Wars - Return of the Jedi examined the film in detail years before Munns began his seven year look at the film and has continued to examine the film to this day and has reached the exact opposite conclusion regarding the film's authenticity - that is was a hoax.

    The film shows a subject with completely hirsute breasts which are not seen in any extant higher primate species, which also jut out from the subjects torso at a 50 degree angle, nearly horizontal, and yet Munns argue the subject to be an overweight creature of somewhat advanced years that has been walking around in the wild since birth.

    The following is a two-frame gif comparison of stills from the PGF showing from armpit to knee just how plainly obvious the details of a man-made suit can be seen on the film subject...

    http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyTurningAG2.gif

    And comparisons with creature suits all made with suit technology widely available at the time of the PGF in 1967...

    http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigleg.jpg

    http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/buttcomp_zpsc0657892.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Christ, you can't be serious. Honestly. These hyperventilating JREF copy-pastes are a hoot.

      Delete
    2. resident butthurt footer, whos hopes and dreams have been destroyed, will now be taking a time out to ponder on all those wasted years and where to go with his life now^

      Delete
    3. RBF sure takes it seriously. He treat the PGF like a muslim extremist treats the koran

      scary

      Delete
    4. I pack Packhams hams.

      D Campbells.

      Delete
    5. The Illness "MIGHT be to Deeply imbedded to Treat!! ^

      Delete
    6. The hip argument taken apart with one simple photograph of an albino gorilla by Sweaty Yeti here;

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48501-thoughts-about-munns-book-when-roger-met-patty/

      "Munns has proven that you can get that exact concave "hip wader" line to appear on real women because of fat deposits."

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42192-pattys-calf-and-tricep/page-2

      Meaning the argument is void of any weight, because we have perfectly normal humans roaming the streets of the world with the feature you call into question. A 'suit feature' that you can't prove is just that in said source, because it's a natural physical trait in organic tissue. The line claimed to be hip wader line could be wear line in fur from brushing fingers or thumb during characteristic arm swing during walking. That is, a hair-wear pattern on the thigh. The painfully obvious muscle mass movement in right leg when she stumbles precludes any sort of covering, especially the lunatic fantasy of hip waders.

      Here is also two BFF threads were Munns obliterates the notions of fur cloth tailored back then;

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36948-patty-suit-actually-glued-fur/

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38109-bill-munns-pgf-presentation-from-the-texas-bigfoot-conference/page-3

      "The problem of tailoring furcloth that way is that it still has a tailoring seam right across the armpit fold, and a tailoring seam is stiffer than the furcloth alone, and thus more likely to buckle, which the PGF never does. But we'd be hesitant to use that design for a suit because the arm hair lay would be pointing to the arm, not directly down to the chest area, and no amount of brushing of the hair will get it to lay on the chest and look natural. And the fill in piece on the torso center (covering the collarbone) would have a hair lay straight down onto the chest, and so the seam where the arm hair goes sudeways and the center section goes down, that disparity of hair lay would make the seam very obvious. It would take a very sophisticated furcloth tailor to resolve those issues and make it look good. Smoke and mirrors tactics. They try to control the dialogue to distort real science. Real science will say, in essence, the PGF has something in the film that walks away from the camera. What Is It? Any determination which attempts to answer that question ("What is it?") must be accomplished with a rigorous scientific proof."

      - Bill Munns

      Also... There are many segments of footage showing chimps and bononbos with hair on thier breasts, those two primates live in tropical an subtropical areas. Take the mountain gorilla as a prime example, it lives in the colder mountains has the thickest hair of the gorillas, would it not be logical, perhaps even expected for a ape livin' in the cooler climate of North America to have a thicker coat of hair than those other primates livin' in the tropics? If you Google 'Rare Mountain Gorilla Born in Congo' you'll find a nice National Geographic image of a female gorilla with interesting breasts.

      Delete
    7. Watch: Girl Raised As Bushman Running And Playing With Dangerous Animals [Mind Blowing];

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/watch-girl-raised-as-bushman-running.html?m=1

      The leg length expected for this height in a human is 46.4". The standard leg to height ratio is .53H. The observed ratio extracted from the film is .46H. The leg length of the subject is 3.0 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9 percentile and is present in one out of 1,000 people. While the length of the leg could be the result of a prosthesis, the probability of this is low because foot flexion is observed in the film. You can clearly see the split between the two halves of the Gastrocnemius muscle in back of her leg. Patty's calf muscles pop out as should probably be expected and they look real. There is just about a zero chance that such a dynamic feature was added to a fur costume in 1967. As far as Heironimus' muscles being seen through jeans, hip waders AND a 1967 fur costume, those chances should be exactly zero. There's more regarding the different muscles in this thread;

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/9610-its-all-about-the-muscles/

      Delete
    8. You cannot make a career out of posting things nobody will ever read. It is insane.

      Delete
    9. A career? What on earth are you talking about? And just cause you haven't the literary maturity to digest the comment, doesn't mean anyone else won't.

      Nerd.

      Delete
    10. 8:33,

      That's so true.....I laugh when I say Clueless Joe going off on a tangent saying : " you'll never be able to out copy and paste me!"


      (Dictionarydotcom:

      off on /at a tangent, digressing suddenly from one course of action or thought and turning to another)

      Delete
    11. Who's off on a tangent? Could it be the cry baby posting about the PGF on a story from the late 1800's comment section?

      You set em up, I just knock em down for fun, and you do digress from the fact that you got smoked son.

      ; )

      Delete
    12. "You'll never put copy and paste me!"

      Signed,

      Clueless Joe

      Delete
  14. "The Armpit Fold - Like the skin stretch, the armpit fold is a remarkably subtle feature of the body, and was overlooked for over 40 years. Only a person who really has hands-on creature costume making skills can appreciate how odd it would be if made in a suit or costume, and how remarkably correct it is for real anatomy."

    What is essential to understand when comparing the PGF subject to contemporaneous suits of the era was that Roger envisioned Bigfoot in his various depictions of it as having short dense hair. Patty has nearly uniform short hair and a combination of over stuffed areas such as the buttocks and loose-hanging areas such as the length of the arms. Munns interprets this as being an out of shape, overweight older female Bigfoot.

    The following is the armpit seen in motion...

    http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20Arm%20Comparisons/Copy8FR352WalkAG7.gif

    Here is the armpit in as high detail as we can see it...

    http://www.unknownexplorers.com/cryptogallery/hominids/hominidsgallery/bigfoot/images/101.jpg

    Here is an overlay highlighting the unnaturally loose areas of the arm...

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/loozer.gif

    This is not consistent with the arm of a overweight hominid. We can see that it is loose down the length of the arm including the forearm and there does also appear to be some glove/wrist separation evident. Bill tells us that the armpits of conventional gorilla suits show an armpit separation with a vertical crease, not a curving crease seen on Patty. What this is not taking into account is that Patty does not need to have been originated from a conventional gorilla costume. Patty appears to have in the arms a heavier, denser fabric used than many gorilla costumes of the time and instead to have very short hair. The following images show that in heavier fabrics a curving crease at the armpit is indeed present...

    http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/776647deedd9ec604.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only fold is through the middle of your skull.

      Delete
    2. "This is not consistent with the arm of a overweight hominid. We can see that it is loose down the length of the arm including the forearm and there does also appear to be some glove/wrist separation evident."

      Bill tells us that the armpits of conventional gorilla suits show an armpit separation with a vertical crease, not a curving crease seen on Patty. What this is not taking into account is that Patty does not need to have been originated from a conventional gorilla costume. Patty appears to have in the arms a heavier, denser fabric used than many gorilla costumes of the time and instead to have very short hair. The following images show that in heavier fabrics a curving crease at the armpit is indeed present..."

      “This Cibachrome image shows a detail which supports this apparent ‘low elbow-joint’ location. There is a sharply-edged shadow on the back of Patty’s arm, which appears to be due to a protruding elbow-joint and matches the look of the gorilla’s protruding elbow. Note the relatively short forearm…and the exceptionally long upper-arm. The proportion is very different from a human’s arm.”
      - Sweaty Yeti

      The length of the subject’s arm is computed from frame 326. Using the previously computed subject height as a scale reference, the subject’s arm length of 161 pixels is computed as 43". An error analysis has not yet been performed.
      The arm length expected for this height in a human is 38.5". The standard arm to height ratio is .44H. The ratio extracted from the film is .49H. The arm length of the subject is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9999981 percentile or is present in one out of 52.5 million people. This suggests that if the subject is a human in a costume that some form of arm prosthesis is in use. Finger and hand flexion is observed in the film which implies that the prosthesis must support flexion. The use of such a sophisticated prosthesis appears to be at odds with the year the film was made, the technology available at that time, and the financial resources of those involved with the filming.

      In several places in the Patterson film, groups of muscles in motion can be seen, in the arms, back and legs. This is particularly difficult to forge because of the need for surface conforming material. Surface plasticity in the side torso is seen and this requires not only a conforming material, but a material with independent x and y plasticity to avoid detectable material folds.

      Delete
    3. "Fur costumes, however, if generically tailored so the main torso area is cut from a flat piece of non-stretch fur cloth, do not exhibit any such folds. They do fold, but in very distinctive and artificial ways and highly non-symmetrical forms usually based on arm postures (Fig. 1c). The only way a fur cloth costume can exhibit the folds seen in the PGF or on real hominid anatomy is if the costume is custom tailored to the contour of a similarly configured mass of padding underlying the fold. This also requires that the padding beneath the fur be custom shaped with that in mind. It does not occur in costumes spontaneously through normal movement by the person wearing it. Instead straight line folds, running diagonally, sometimes across the entire torso from one side to other, occur as the torso rotates or the arm swings (Fig. 1c; personal observation: Munns, has personally constructed over 20 costumes of varied design and investigated dozens more by other professionals over the course of his career).

      The Deltopectoral Groove and Axillary Fold - On the PGF hominid, the dome shape of the deltoid muscle overlying the glenohumeral joint is separated from the clavicular head of the pectoralis muscle by an oblique crease in the skin marking the deltopectoral groove. A fold of skin, with a compound curve, covers the pectoralis major where it crosses in front of the axilla to attach to the humerus, forming the armpit. The fold is quite distinct, especially in the Cibachrome prints from the PGF (Fig. 4a, above). Human surface anatomy, especially in those which are aging and may demonstrate. some loss of skin elasticity and resiliency, demonstrate this same trait (Fig. 4a, below). In great ape studies, a photo of a chimpanzee with minimal body hair shows a similar compound curving fold of skin from torso to arm, separated below the deltoid muscle mass, below the deltopectoral groove (Fig. 4b). The shoulders of fur costumes are traditionally not tailored this way. They are tailored like a shirt, with an oval opening in the torso section and a tubular section for an arm sleeve joining the torso. There is no curving fold from arm to torso. To the contrary, the transition attachment is vertical, not horizontal. Straight folds tend to radiate along the length of the arm perpendicular to the seam, or alternately with arm-raising, run parallel to the seam (Fig, 4c). The only effective way to achieve the appearance of an armpit fold in a costume is to make a prosthetic rubber chest piece that flows over into the arm region. Hair is then hand-applied to this rubber appliance. This requires significant skill, planning, deliberation, time, and thus expense on the part of the costume designer. It does not occur by accident through normal fabric movement or folding."
      - Bill Munns

      On page 18 of SURFACE ANATOMY AND SUBCUTANEOUS ADIPOSE TISSUE FEATURES IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE PATTERSON- GIMLIN FILM HOMINID;

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Bill explains with excellent photographic references;

      "Figure 4a. The Deltopectoral Groove and the Axillary Fold. Above, the PGF Hominid exhibits a characteristic groove that marks the separation of the deltoid muscle and the clavicular head of the Pectoralis Major muscle, the deltopectoral goove (green line). Adjacent is a distinctive fold of skn that spans from the arm to the torso (magenta). Below, examples of human surface anatomy exhibit equivalent appearance of deltopectoral groove and axillary fold."

      Delete
  15. "Roger’s lack of skill making costumes - Arguing the PGF is a obvious fake with a cheap costume, simply will never rise above wishful thinking by a hoax believer. Any credible claim of a hoax will sooner or later have to face the reality that if Patty is a fur costume and mask, the designer and fabricator (s) is/ are brilliant, and Patty is something unparalleled in the history of makeup and creature effects."

    This is typical of the Rorschach sophistry over-interpretation of what is seen in the PGF by its proponents. It simply comes to the impenetrable circular logic set up by Munns in his book. Again, the argument is that Roger lacked the costume making skills to create this immense genius creation that is Patty. Yet any flaw encountered such as those in the waist area is dismissed because a professional suit maker would not allow such mistakes to be seen. This is a phenomenon I describe as "can't win for losing in Bigfootery." There is an impervious line of thinking here that will simply not allow and meaningful consideration of a hoax. Roger, first of all, does not have to be the original designer of the suit. He was funded by an extremely wealthy brother-in-law who had more than enough funds to engage a suit professional. It does not rule out that Roger could have made the suit himself. The subject shows features atypical of conventional ape suits of the time, yet plenty of flaws that are simply dismissed by proponents because a professional wouldn't do it. Some of the flaws we see such as the arcing hip line may be due to Roger altering an originally longer hair length. What we know is that such features are there and proponents have set up a teflon system of reasoning to protect their desire to believe with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Protecting the cult. Panic as the JREF folds.

      Delete
    2. wtf are you on about? you must be very dim

      Delete
    3. ^ ? U mean like a Bulb??

      Delete
    4. One minute Roger Patterson is a genius, the next he can't get his ducks in order.

      I don't think these 'skeptics' know if they're coming or going. I recommend you go here;

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      It has loads of comparitive photogrpahic references that show the subject fat folds and muscle tissue are organic and none could have been replicated in any suit made in 1967.

      Delete
  16. Poor tardists need to lay off the suit obsession. They have a mania about suits. Bloody heck, the half century failure to create a 'Patty' has them throwing all their toys out of their prams.




    MMG

    ReplyDelete
  17. innerestin whut tham mexicuns bein everwhar in tham amazone

    ReplyDelete
  18. On second thought, it probably was a bear.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey, very nice site. I came across this on Google, and I am stoked that I did. I will definitely be coming back here more often. Wish I could add to the conversation and bring a bit more to the table, but am just taking in as much info as I can at the moment. Thanks for sharing.
    Vissco Elastic Tubular Knee Caps

    Keep Posting:)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Human Bait Needed?