- FOLLOW AT TWITTER : twitter.com/AMCfearfest -

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Sunday, September 3, 2017

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, How Future Generations Can Misinterpret The Past

   Directed by Don Siegel, Invasion of the Body Snatchers was produced by Walter Wanger, who had just been released from prison for attempted murder. Filmed in under three weeks on a meager budget, the 1956 film adaptation of Jack Finney’s novel The Body Snatchers was ignored by critics on its initial release and only earned recognition in subsequent years as an influential moment in American cinematic history. The film, which invented the “pod people,” has been remade multiple times.
   In an audio interview on the 1998 DVD release, lead actor, Kevin McCarthy, said that he was not aware of any intended political allegory when the film was made. The novel’s author, Jack Finney, also professed no specific political allegory in the original work.

  In his autobiography, I Thought We Were Making Movies, Not History, Walter Mirisch defended the film as pure fantasy and not a political statement. He said, "People begin to read meanings into pictures that were never intended. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is an example of that. I remember reading a magazine article arguing that the picture was intended as an allegory about the communist infiltration of America. From personal knowledge, neither Walter Wanger nor Don Siegel, who directed it, nor Dan Mainwaring, who wrote the script, nor original author Jack Finney, nor myself, saw it as anything other than a thriller, pure and simple."
  Invasion of the Body Snatchers was not the first or last film to be assigned a retroactive social message, but it is undoubtedly one of the most often cited examples.


Mr. Dark is a DJ, Writer, Promoter, Casting Director and PR Publicity Manager in Dallas, Texas. 
Famous Monsters of Filmland and Domain of Horror

Mr Dark, Jason Russell, Dallas, Texas horror, Texas fright, Dallas horror convention, Jason Brazeal

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Reasons Why Bigfoot Doesn't Exist

The reasons why Bigfoot doesn't exist and Bob Gimlin is lying are plentiful. 

As Mark Chorvinsky points out below: 

It is problematic that various rumors persist of a person in a suit.


I tend to agree with this statement. In fact I’ll go so far as to say that it is definitely, without a doubt a man in a suit.

Charlie Gemora made a much superior suit in the early 1940s
.. The allegations by many Hollywood makeup artists that makeup master John Chambers made the suit have been snowballing since my investigation into this subject began several years ago.

I personally don’t believe that it was a Chambers suit. The suit is very shabby even by his standards, as my friend Don Glut pointed out. I’ve spoken with many of my FX friends and many of which have worked on films such as Raiders Of The Lost Ark, The Fly, etc. The general consensus is NOT that it’s a Chambers suit but that it is a Morris suit which was modified. 



Scientifically speaking, the existence of a Bigfoot would be incredibly unlikely. As naturalist Frank Beebe noted in 1967 after seeing the film, "From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest facts to go against is that there is no evidence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere of primate (ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely primate. So either a large primate got stranded in North America-or the film is a fake." (The Times-Standard, Nov. 5, 1967)


Despite what Bigfoot fans write in their books and articles, there are a number of negative opinions of make-up experts like Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker, Howard Berger, and many others. These make-up artists are not impressed by the subject of the Patterson film and believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise.


This statement is absolutely true, it’s sad and interesting that such a poorly shot film of such a poorly done suit could convince fringe believers so acutely. 


Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of the science of cryptozoology and President of the International Society of Cryptozoology, believes that the film is of a man in a suit.
The reasons that Patterson and Gimlin give for not following a Bigfoot are unconvincing. They say that they were afraid of the creature getting angry and turning on them, but they had guns to defend themselves if necessary. Why not follow the creature while maintaining a safe distance, then? It certainly was not running away from them--its pace has been described as "casual ambling." They allegedly had the object
of their quest just ahead of them and they were content to take a short bit of film of their quarry and let it amble off.

This is absolutely correct. It makes no sense that they wouldn’t pursue. 

Film digitization, of which much is being currently made, is still extremely subjective and open to misinterpretation. The original film was only 16 mm and the creature takes up a small part of that already small frame. There comes a point where digitizing and blowing up the image creates another image quite different than the original, where just about anything can be found, depending one's frame of reference.

Or the fact that it takes a film restoration technician to properly examine film. Someone versed in celluloid film artifacts and restoration. 

Where was the film processed? Why is this still a mystery after all these years?

This is a definite indicator that there’s a deception afoot.


According to Bigfoot author Barbara Wasson, "[Patterson] never went back to Bluff Creek, to any search except Thailand." If this is true, one wonders why he did not go back to the site where he actually found his quarry, unless there was really no Bigfoot there.


Absolutely! Why on earth would he not return to where he found Bigfoot to hunt further unless he didn’t really find Bigfoot there.  


Bigfoot expert Danny Perez, author of BigFootnotes and Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, writes that Roger Patterson was considered a "shady" character by many that knew him. In my investigations of strange phenomena-related film and photographs, the context of the evidence has consistently been more important than analysis of the image.


Patterson was a swindler and a used car salesman type of con artist, to put it nicely. 


There was extreme pressure on Patterson to produce Bigfoot footage quickly. An arrest warrant was brought against Patterson for not paying the bill for his long overdue, rented camera. He was up against a wall and had to come up with a film of a Bigfoot. There are two possibilities--that he is the luckiest Bigfoot searcher in history or that he is a hoaxer. Patterson not only was able to supposedly film a Bigfoot but was also lucky enough to allegedly find fresh Bigfoot tracks on the very first day that he went into the field. Maybe he was a little too lucky with regard to Bigfoot.


Amazing! Don’t you think? Tongue in cheek. 


Many have wondered why there was no deathbed confession by Patterson if the film was hoaxed. Would you decrease the value of your greatest financial asset on your deathbed, or would you want to pass it onto your survivors? The Patterson Bigfoot film was worth a significant amount of money as long as it was alleged to be real. The instant Patterson or Gimlin or whoever else may have been involved stated that it was a hoax, its value would take a nosedive.

How could Patterson have come up with the money if he could not afford to pay for the camera rental? It is possible that he was out of money because he put it into a suit, but this is pure speculation. Special make-up effects master John Vulich thinks that Patterson needed little money to create a suit. In my article on the Chambers/Patterson connection in Strange #17, Vulich opines that Patterson would most likely have rented a suit from make-up man John Chambers (Patterson writes in his book about having business in LA to attend to) for several hundred dollars at most, and having a head adapted from an existing creature mask or fabricated from scratch. (Mark Chorvinsky, "The Makeup Man and the Monster: John Chambers and the Patterson Suit," Strange Magazine, Fall, 1996). If make-up man Tom Burman is correct and the suit is an amateur job, the cost might have been limited to the materials, which make-up artist Rick Baker has suggested looks like fake fur.

Another consideration: the aforementioned Ray Wallace is a wealthy individual, with the resources to purchase a suit.

Bigfoot sympathizer John Napier, then-director of the Primate Biology Program of the Smithsonian Institution, wrote in his excellent book Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., NY, 1972), that the walk of the creature in the film was consistent with that of a modern man, that the body movements were grossly exaggerated, and the walk self-conscious, that the cone-shaped top to the skull is essentially a male characteristic "only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in females." Furthermore he felt that the center of gravity of the film subject is that of a modern man, rather than at a higher level as suggested by the physical build of the creature.

Bingo! A dead ringer for a hoax. The cowboys were emulating the alleged female sasquatch sighting related by William Roe. 
   Patterson was obsessed with the William Roe female Bigfoot encounter (which itself turned out to be a hoax) to such an extent that he stole an artists interpretation of it and used it in his book almost a year before the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film occurred. 
  Subsequentally, these two cowboys, Patterson and Gimlin, wouldn't have been aware that the domed head characteristic is male and not female. 


Most telling perhaps is "the presence of buttocks, a human hallmark, [which] is at total variance with the ape-like nature of the superstructure.... The upper half of the body bears some resemblance to an ape and the lower half is typically human. It is almost impossible to conceive that such structural hybrids could exist in nature." (Napier, p. 86)


Napier, one of the most reasonable of the scientists who accepts the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot, concluded that, "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis." (Napier, p. 89)


When a hoaxer dons an ape suit and goes into the woods, there is always an element of danger. Someone with a gun could shoot the hoaxer. Interestingly, someone who knew Patterson would have been aware that there was little or no chance of being shot by Patterson and/or Gimlin. Patterson had made it clear that he would never shoot a sasquatch or allow one to be shot in his presence. As John Green writes in Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, "[Patterson] was certain that sasquatches were human and must not be shot, and was deaf to any argument to the contrary." According to Bob Gimlin, he and Patterson "...agreed once that if we saw one, we would not shoot it."


If you believe that the Patterson Gimlin film is real you’re either in denial or just very gullible. 












Mr. Dark is a DJ, Writer, Promoter, PR Publicity Agent in Dallas, TX. 

Famous Monsters of Filmland and Domain of Horror


Mr Dark, Jason Russell, Dallas, Texas horror, Texas fright, Dallas horror convention, Jason Brazeal

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Ghost en vivo en el (HELLFEST 2016) (Full-Length Video)


Find GHOST @ these locations online -
ghost-official.com | www.instagram.com/thebandghost
twitter.com/thebandghost  | www.facebook.com/thebandghost
Also @ VEVO  - www.youtube.com/channel/UCU_MfrF9fw0CUMOrGy7D1mQ

Jack Blood (Personal Quote) : "This band rattles my bones, and moves my blood.
I would definitely show this band 100% of my support. Check them out online.
I'm sure you love them as much as I do."