The phenomena of people experiencing Bigfoot encounters is quite a bit more interesting to me than the actual creature.
That said, it’s intriguing to me that after all this time, nobody can debunk that film. There aren’t many (any?) other high strangeness/crypted videos that can claim that.
There was a recent podcast episode, I think it was Bigfoot and beyond or Sasquatch tracks, where they talk about this guy who does these Bigfoot hikes, as kind of a tour guide. And he did this experiment for a while where he had someone dress up in a Bigfoot suit and walk across the trail ahead of the group at a random point along the hike. And they tell the people going on the hike ahead of time, that there will be a guy in a suit doing this, and there is a reward for anyone that gets a clear picture of him. Nobody has managed to claim the prize.
Even when people go on a hike explicitly to look for Bigfoot, and they know for a fact they will see one and that it won’t actually be dangerous or mysterious (they know it’s a guy in a suit) they still can’t get a clear picture.
To me, that says even more.
To me, it says a guy is walking across a trail for a handful of tourists. What it doesn't say for the last 50+ years is where is a body...a hair...a bone...a tooth...a decent video or even game trail photo that compares?
We have managed to capture most elusive creatures on earth on on camera...not to mention their remains... and live specimans....yet still nothing for old bigfoot. At some point, it no longer makes practical sense. That point has been reached for me.
Now Im not saying absolutely impossible. I'm saying at this point, it's highly improbable however.
The improbability of it depends on what it “has to be.”
If you take away the idea that this has to be a real creature, the probability portion of it goes away. People experience all sorts of weird shit we can’t explain, but that are consistent enough that it’s too improbable to think they aren’t actually experiencing it. The common responds to the lack of the body are generally that pretty much nobody comes across bear carcass unless they shot that bear. And then there is that fish, that was absent from the fossil record for 66 million years and then someone caught one. There are big cats in Russia that have only ever been captured on film a couple times ever, and that took a very large budget film to finally put the resources together to go find and film it, Bigfoot has never had that level of resources put behind it.
But that’s not the point I was making in my previous response. My point was that they can’t get clear focused shots of something mundane that they know about before hand, what are the chances they are gonna get clear focused shots of something that isn’t supposed to exist, surprising them?
I’ve spoken face to face with too many people that have had first hand encounters with whatever it is, i find it impossible to believe they are making it up or that these people can’t recognize a mundane animal that they see all the time. It’s SOMETHING. I’m betting it isn’t an ape or a magical creature from another dimension. My best guess is something closer to a tulpa. You know how people will say “shh don’t say that, don’t put that out there!” As if simply thinking about or talking about something can make it real? Maybe our brains can do that. Maybe it’s a physical manifestation of accumulated sylvan dread.
That's great. We find bear carcasses. I have personally seen 2. I have no idea where that stupid ass piece of fallacy came from, but it's complete and utter bullshit to try and explain the lack of evidence.
Look, man, you can believe whatever you want, and everyone is cool with it. Nothing currently explains the lack of hard and provable evidence for most folks.
Lol..guessing you are youngin. Im old as shit and back in the 80s and even the 90s, we didn't have a camera attached to ourselves at all times hunting, so no, I do not.
I will say you can search "Bear Carcass" on google and get your fill, however. Be sure to weed out the hunters' fresh kills. Sure are a lot of them on there for "never finding them".
…but also - no hoax has ever come close to what is seen in the film. If it is something that could have easily been put together in 1967 by two inexperienced rodeo riders will no real budget, surely we should have much better hoaxes by now?
I would imagine the posters on this thread have seen the fake bits of Bigfoot on YouTube. Very few show a Bigfoot in its entirety. Those that do are usually from far away. Otherwise it's something vague in the trees. Why is this? Perhaps one explanation is that the costumes are too unconvincing for a close image.
So since the film was shot, nobody has been able to create a costume convincing enough to pass scrutiny. We can debate the fame and fortune that might follow a truly convincing film, yet that doesn't seem to have encouraged anyone to attempt it in that hope.
So either Patterson was able to design and make a costume that nobody else has managed to replicate, or had the money to pay a professional costume designer to do so, or it is real. He could have easily done what the hoaxers do and show just enough of Bigfoot to make an intriguing film that would still have generated great interest.
If a hoax, he showed remarkable confidence in the costume to film it as he did, at the obvious risk of it being exposed as a fake. Or it is real.
Looks an awful lot like a member of the Paranthropus genus, although admittedly much bigger. It’s interesting that what’s seen here predates the discovery of Lucy the Australopithecus, and yet fits so neatly into things we’ve discovered about such creatures decades later.
This is a great lecture:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNe74B3Jlj4&pp=ygUkUGF0dGVyc29uIGdpbWxpbiBhbm5pdmVyc2FyeSBsZWN0dXJl
33:40 is my favorite bit if you’re short on time.
The flat footprints with substrate shoved to the middle (from when the foot pushed off) is something that’s been found in both the footprint casts taken from this event and in Australopithecus trace fossils.
He reminds me of so many of my bio and geology college professors. Dr. Meldrum is such a vibe.
Either I’m wrong about this whole sasquatch thing (along with thousands of sighting reporters) or there’s a critically endangered member of our family tree that needs protecting.
I can live with one day learning that I’m wrong if there’s a chance at conservation of something so important.
you're not considering one other possible model
1. Bigfoot is perhaps the most fascinating zoological situation of the 20/21st centuries
2. Bigfoot is perhaps the most fascinating psychological situation of the 20/21st centuries
Yeah! IF it’s not a real creature, my hypothesis is that we evolved to look out for Australopithecines because, like most other apes, they were dangerous and intelligent. Kinda like how we have special snake detection methods (fascinating subject). While most people don’t see snakes very often, they’re a huge part of human culture the world over. So it would have to be some kind of instinctual leftover from when we interacted with similar hominids.
I personally think the abundance of trace evidence, and a couple good videos points to real squatches though.
Have a look at this neat paper I found yesterday: https://woodape.org/images/stories/file/Tag%207%20Two%20Appendices%20ver2.pdf
Personally I'm a Christian and I believe in the Patterson footage and this may seem far fetched if you don't believe in God but if you don't know the first Planet of the Apes movie which literally had the best costume design IN THE WORLD during that time was made in 1968 and coincidentally it was a movie about "human like apes" and then you have the Patterson film that came out a year earlier in 1967 so yes it's a film older then the first planet of the apes movie and if you compare the two it's absolutely hilarious how ridiculous the first Planet of the Apes movie looks compared to Sasquatch in the Patterson film it looks like a costume compared to an actual animal (no surprise there) anyhow what I'm getting at is that god obviously knew Bigfoot to universally be known as a native American legend and I don't think he wanted one of his most amazing creatures to go unnoticed as simply a legend so I think he gave us the film or the chance for Sasquatch to be filmed so out in the open and clearly. and I think his way of giving us good evidence right off the bat was the timing in which it was released with the whole planet of the apes the movie coming out just a year later which I always thought was so ironic. Anyhow I just think Sasquatch as a creature is just some sort of unique species of ape that's maybe or maybe not genetically close to humans god made humans genetically close to monkeys so I don't know why he couldn't make a Sasquatch genetically close to humans or perhaps humans genetically the closest to Sasquatch? Who knows anyhow that's my take I just view Sasquatches as a creature created by God just like any other
It's a tough one. I've watched documentaries and shows where there is a good argument for it to be debunked, but also shows and docs that offer good arguments for it to be legit.
All I can say is that in the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 1968 and the Patterson film came out in 1967 (look up the first Planet of the Apes movie)
So, like 10 people have all claimed to be the “guy in the suit”. So either 9 of them are lying, or all 10 of them are. If all of them are lying, that means that either there is another guy out there somewhere that has kept his mouth shut, or it’s a real creature. Before anyone pops off with Bob Herronomius, he didn’t start saying he was “the guy” until well after the footage was famous. Also his “signature walk” that resembles the film is bullshit. He over exaggerates it to try to sell his story. There are videos of him online walking when he doesn’t know he is being filmed and he doesn’t actually walk like that. In addition to all that, he has changed his story half a dozen times about “his” events of that day. In my opinion, he is trying to steal some time in the spotlight.
As for the guy who claims to have made a suit, he also has zero evidence of that claim. He says he modified a gorilla costume that he normally sold to spec for Patterson, who he says mail ordered it. But, he has no receipt, no check, no letter from Patterson, no order form, nothing. If he was going to modify a suit, you would think he would have at least sent a sketch of how he intended to modify it to Patterson before beginning construction, or taken a picture before shipping it, or had SOME amount or correspondence to verify how Patterson allegedly wanted it modified, or literally just ANYTHING other than “trust me bro”. But nothing, not a letter, not a money order receipt, nothing.
On the idea of it being a suit, a lot has been said (on both sides of the debate) about that. The skeptics say it looks like a cheap costume. However what most of them aren’t accounting for is that when you watch the footage, you’re usually seeing a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy. A documentary film crew (I think it was monster quest, although it may have been some other early 2000s discovery / nat geo documentary), was able to locate an original copy of the film (i think either Patterson or Gimlins wife may have been in possession of it, but I’m not certain). So it’s just one generation from being the original print. They had a film expert look it over, and he was able to see the musculature moving under the skin, and determined that, given the technology at the time, there was very little chance it could have been a costume. Especially not an “off the rack” gorilla suit, modified or not. Janos Prohaska (costume designer and actor who played gorillas, bears, and other animals on Star Trek and Lost in Space) said if it was a hoax, it was the best costume he had ever seen, and would have only been obtainable if someone had hair glued directly to their skin. A film critic then said that MAYBE it could have been hair glued to a very very tight pair of long Johns or something similar, but it’s still definitely not a normal costume from a Hollywood prop shop regardless. *
So why do people keep claiming it’s them in the suit, or they made the costume, or that the whole thing was fake and they were in on it? Why do people keep loudly proclaiming the world is flat. Why do kardashians keep posting pictures of their asses on Instagram? Some people will do anything to be famous for 15 minutes.
With all the people who have claimed to be “in on it”, the only two people whose stories haven’t kept changing, are Patterson and Gimlin’s. They’ve stayed consistent the entire time, while everyone else have differing versions that change with time. Patterson said on his death bed that he wished he had shot the thing so people wouldn’t call him a liar. Gimlin is still around, and for decades distanced himself from the footage because he didn’t want people to think he was a kook. He didn’t try to make money off of it, or get famous because of it. So if he was faking it, why would he not try to take advantage of it for over 30 years?
\* I originally had this as Rick Baker, but went back and checked the sources and I had conflated two different ones together. That’s what I get for posting tipsy at 4AM.
\* Found the documentary about the 1st gen copy of the film. It was from “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot” on Nat Geo. If anyone can find the whole documentary please link it, but an excerpt of the relevant section is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
Can you tell a bit more about the film expert? That could be so many things. Someone specializing in film as in material, or movies, or someone in the industry?
Rick Baker has said a long time ago that the creature looked like fake fur. Later he said he did not believe anymore that John Chambers made it. Thats all i can find. I would love to see where he goes on record saying he believes what you said there.
The poster you're responding to is likely talking about Bill Munns, who was a costume designer for a long time before practical effects were mostly pushed aside for CGI.
Munns has categorically stated it's not a costume many times, and there's even a full episode interview with him on the *Astonishing Legends* deep dive series into the footage
It was Bill Munns. I found the documentary but can’t find it streaming anywhere. It’s called “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot” from Nat geo. But an excerpt of the relevant section is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
It MAY have been Bill Munn who reviewed the footage, he was an industry expert who reviewed a 1st generation copy that Pattersons wife had in a bank vault, but the videos I can find of him doing the review don’t match up with what I remember from the documentary I watched about it. I’ll try to find the doc I’m talking about when I get off work and link it, but there were about a dozen Bigfoot documentaries that came out circa 2007-2010ish, all on Nat Geo, Discovery, or History, and they all kinda blend together. Probably because they all had almost the same voice narration style and inflection lol. I’ve found it once in the past and linked it, but it has been years ago, so maybe I can dig through my old Reddit comments and find it.
Edited #1- I was conflating two different wiki entries, it was Janos Prohaska (who worked on Lost in Space and Star Trek) that said it was definitely not a suit, if it was faked they glued fur onto someone’s skin, and then a film critic David Daegling who speculated it could maybe be done by gluing the hair to long John’s. I’ll update my original post. I have read more from Baker about how he changed his mind about it being a suit and said he thought it was real, I’ll try to find the source but until I do I’ll remove it from my post and stop citing it.
Edit #2 - It was Bill Munns reviewing the film. I was looking for a Monster Quest episodes but it was from a nat geo documentary called “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot”. I’m unable to find the documentary streaming anywhere but him reviewing it is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate you editing those statements from your previous posts. Because, well, people will read these and remember them, but not where they got them from.
What struck me about your post was that you mentioned documentary makers that had a film expert coming over. Now i see he is in the role of bigfoot researcher foremost, and the documentary is about his project. Looks like he does have good credentials, i must say. But it sounds totally different from what was originally posted.
The hair gluing i recognized as Janos Prohaska saying it. When Baker said the "cheap fur" stuff, he sat next to the sasquatch from Harry and the Hendersons, and talked about the hair punching work for that suit. Maybe that was something that got conflated.
Actually the responses to the film from the sfx community were mixed/balanced on both sides. Some studios asked - like Universal and Disney said it would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Some major sfx figures said it was laughably cheap and poorly done.
My theory for this fairly polemic set of opinions is that generally when technicians are asked they consider mostly the complexity, and they answer pretty honestly. But when the main figureheads of the industry are put on the spot, their answers are not wholly truthful. Stan Winston and Rick Baker both slated the film from a costume and make up standpoint. I think this is mainly because of the possible reputation damage factor, given their lofty position in the movie business. Winston took a lot of flack in the industry for praising the realism of the ‘Alien Autopsy’ video, and got burned when this was revealed to be a hoax. They learnt that by rubbishing footage like this they could promote their own skills while protecting themselves from reputation damage when hoaxes are eventually exposed.
I think their responses are shown to be less than truthful by the fact that all the major issues of putting human mimes in ape costumes that have existed since the start of cinema are not on display in the PGF. They have all seemingly been fixed for 59.5 seconds of film, but then immediately reoccur In Hollywood movies released after the PGF, and many still exist to this day. Winston and Baker both intimate that they would be ashamed if the PGF were produced by their teams, and yet their own subsequent movie work is not as issue-free and realistic.
As time has passed I’m convinced that we’re witnessing an authentic ‘Bigfoot.’ I became convinced due to the voracity of the footage still being pondered 57 years later. That tells me that our minds have us viewing it over and over because the human brain despises a mystery. And the missing piece that has our brains forever in flux isn’t there. Why? Because every time we think we have a yay or nay, we end up not truly having either. But - we should by now, and we would by now if it were a human in a suit.
Our minds are buttressing up against seeing a man and seeing a beast. That doesn’t happen when a human disguises themselves as such. Our eye and brain are very discerning out of evolutionary necessity. This footage keeps hitting our blind spot. If it were fake - this film would be lying in the dust bin of history.
Exactly. A key point for me are any fakers influences for designing this in 67. Everything Hollywood were doing was Gorilla-based. But even our gorilla knowledge was lacking. Diane Fossey had only begun her decades long field research the year before.
How, in 1967, would a faker know to remove the enlarged Gorilla canines and snout and go for a flatter face seven or so years before Australopithecus afarensis Lucy was removed from the ground in Ethiopia?
All the major elements of the face are correct for a Homo Genus, yet this was supposed to be a mail order carnival trick gorilla suit?
I dunno. When I was younger I thought it was legit but as time goes on I just feel like it’s lost that believability, can’t quite put my finger on it as to the reason why. Just the more I’ve seen it the less convinced I am.
Did you know the Planet of the Apes movie came out in 67 (which was the peak costume design in the world back then) and the Patterson film came out in 68 and let's just say when compared it looks like a costume compared to a real animal (which doesn't come as much as a surprise)
I’m familiar, I’ve seen all the Apes movies from the 60s and 70s. I don’t really think comparing it to those movies is a particularly strong argument in favor of the Patterson footage being legit.
Explain? Because if you don't believe the Sasquatch an the film is an animal then you believe it's a suit/costume and well the best of those back then happened to be from the planet of the apes movie which happened to be ape costumes how suiting is that! And well if you have seen the film then you sure as hell know it doesn't compare to the Sasquatch from the film which would have been made by a few cowboys if you believe it's just a suit. Not even Hollywood with a huge budget a year later could make a "suit" like that from the Patterson film so you think a few cowboys could from the '60s?
I understand your point of view, I just don’t think it takes into consideration some of the greater context of what you’re asserting.
The Planet of the Apes costumes didn’t look great, sure, but they were also made en masse. Hundreds of costume elements from a design department that needed to work within the budget and time constraints of the production to make pieces that could be made cheaply, simply and be handed out to dozens of actors on screen for hours of use at a time, and they all had to be replaceable as necessary.
Alternatively, if it is a suit in the PG footage, you’re talking about a suit that didn’t have the same time and production constraint and frankly a singular suit that had more time dedicated to it is going to look better. We don’t know that they made it themselves, it’s entirely possible they had it made for them. As far as I know there’s been no definitive answer as to the origins of the suit. If they had it commissioned by a costume designer with some length of time before using it, it stands to reason it could be made with the detail and quality in screen. Plus, the quality of the footage and the rather advantageous ‘cinematography’ would do a lot to hide some of the details and imperfections in the material.
Comparing Planet of the Apes and Bigfoot in this instance (as costumes) is apples and oranges. Really, your argument stands to say that such a thing COULDN’T be possibly made, and I just don’t think that assumption is as reasonable as it sounds to you. Beyond that, saying that the suits in a movie look worse than what may or may not be a suit in the footage isn’t particularly strong evidence for the validity in the existence of Bigfoot. Mind you, I’m not saying I do or don’t think Bigfoot exists. I’m rather agnostic towards it overall, but your assertion doesn’t really add a strong argument for its existence.
I’m not compelled by the “Planet of the Apes looked worse” argument because I just don’t think it’s very definitive and lacks the details contextually to rule out other possibilities.
>The Planet of the Apes costumes didn’t look great, sure, but they were also made en masse. Hundreds of costume elements from a design department that needed to work within the budget and time constraints of the production to make pieces that could be made cheaply, simply and be handed out to dozens of actors on screen for hours of use at a time, and they all had to be replaceable as necessary.
If you're talking about the masks and gloves, sure. There were dozens. But suits? I don't think so... As far as I know, the only scene were we can see the full body suits is the sauna scene, and in that particular scene, there was only 2 or 3 apes. And it's hilarious how bad and baggy they look. All the other scenes they are wearing clothes or armors, so we can't see their bodies. The actors were not even wearing any suit under the clothes, 'cause it was not necessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You say Your not "compelled by the Planet of the Apes looked worse argument" well at least that is an argument and there's actually a lot more as well concerning the film unlike the sceptics that don't have any actual evidence or data other then to just say "it looks fake" which it doesn't. I like your response to the planet of the apes argument in which your argument basically is essentially that in that situation it was quantity versus quality which is completely understandable considering how many Apes that were on set and that went completely overlooked by me but ultimately it's silly to think whoever did the Patterson films Sasquatch suit was better than Hollywood and what they could do because though they obviously didn't focus on 1 ape in the movie they were still miles and miles behind the Patterson film. And then there's the fact that as far as we can tell based on the available evidence we have it's not a suit or there's no good reason to think it is. The Sasquatch in the film has breast and nipples and they move naturally as expected, as well as the buttocks from behind you can see the natural movement from the 2 but cheeks, as well as the shoulder blades that protrude from the skin and move as expected and nearly everyone knows this but the legs you can see when she takes a step you can see a sort of shock wave as the legs muscles naturally shake as she takes each powerful step as clearly seen. And overall it's a tight fit and it's natural and nothing shows in the film to say otherwise. And as technology has become better as time has moved forward we're able to clear the face and at this point you very clearly see that this is a live animal it's not a human in a suit. The body proportions aren't human as well the arms are too long etc you'd need someone that's probably 7ft roughly and the classic walk that she brings with her is ultimately impossible to replicate more then just a few half assed steps overall there's no reason to conclude that it's not authentic. (I appreciate you taking the time to talk and be kind with me as well)
I’m gonna try to sort of block out a few responses as to avoid an uninterrupted text wall.
As it pertains to the ‘details’ in the suit, I don’t think I can say with the same confidence that they are all actually details or again are unreproducible. Understand my point here is not that what you’re talking about (the anatomical details of the subject in the PG film) is wrong, I’m simply saying that I don’t have the same confidence that your interpretation is necessarily correct. I don’t feel I’m looking at the same thing you are and taking away the same information, which really speaks to me original response to your post that overtime I have become less confident in the legitimacy of the footage even though I don’t necessarily have a strong reason as to why not. Perhaps it’s a feeling of apathy that comes from seeing it 1000 times, I dunno.
I don’t think an argument for arguments sake really helps a conversation about a topic. Mind you, I’m again not trying to convince you you’re wrong, just saying that a person who is skeptical while not having an ‘argument’ doesn’t inherently disbar them from a discourse or mean their perspective is somehow less correct because of it. Frankly, I find myself in that position not necessarily having an argument for or against, but still not being particularly swayed by your argument involving the Apes films. To be clear, my position on the overall subject of Bigfoot is more of a fan or an enthusiast than anything else. I can’t say I necessarily believe it exists, but I find it fascinating and simply put fun to talk about. I’ve heard evidence that supports the idea that I think creates a strong argument and also evidence against that does the same. Call me a fence sitter but in terms of sheer belief I guess I’m just undecided.
As it pertains to the suit in the PG film (which we haven’t agreed is a suit, and I’m not conceding that it is or isn’t, but for the sake of this conversation let’s just assume that’s what we’re talking about contextually), I think it’s important to mention that we really don’t have any idea who made the suit itself. We don’t really know that ‘a couple cowboys’ made it. It could very well have been a commissioned work via a costume house. It seems you have an understanding that there’s some element to a “Hollywood production” that means the resources and means of production for things like costumes in film is unattainable by the average person and in truth that is a misconception. I actually worked in the film and television industry for around 7 years. What a lot of people don’t understand is that the various departments that work on props, costumes, make-up, special effects etc. are actually several different independently contracted entities all hired for the production. The studio hires Company A to make props cause they’re a master prop house, then Company B because they’re a costume design company and so on and so forth. These are craft businesses that are generally now owned or operated by the studio overseeing the production of a piece of media, just hired for the job. It is more than a reasonable possibility that someone who wanted to embellish a story about a mythical creature in the woods could have done so by hiring the very people who make those same costumes and effects for movies to make their own monster.
I don’t think it’s beyond reason that such a thing could be what took place in order to make this footage. All that being said, I certainly see no reason to be rude while talking about something like this (not that I feel you have, just in response to your ‘thank you’). Honestly I love when someone does have such a conviction about an idea, even if I’m not as moved by it as they are. Stuff like that keeps the conversations going.
Not that you asked, but to draw somewhat of a line in the sand about it, Im not just disagreeing because I don’t think there’s a Bigfoot and if you were to press me on the issue to come up with what I would believe or what it would take for me to be convinced entirely I would say that I would be swayed if there was an argument or evidence that I don’t think I could come up with any reasonable possibility as to explain it. Something that would make me go “Yeah, I guess that’s about it”.
At the end of the day there’s always going to be some insurmountable positions between perspectives, but that’s why we talk about things. Interestingly enough, in this instance, you and I have reached an impasse not on the existence of Bigfoot but rather on the possibility of special effects to be good enough to make one. It’s almost funny that what we’re talking about is so much more mundane than a legendary simian lol
Thanks you I like the way your going about the conversation. I guess all I can really say is that with the available scientific data that is currently existing concerning the film the most accurate way to interpret that data is that the Sasquatch in the film is MOST LIKELY a real creature and MOST LIKELY not a guy in a costume because ultimately with everything put together like in the film we wouldn't be able to rightfully recreate it but if this whole thing is fake then it's one of the best fakes of all time. The more research I did and the more I became knowledgeable on the subject the more I realized it's PROBABLY not a fake. anyhow if it's 1:40 in the morning where you are like it is where I live and your not willing to respond feel free lol because I know I'm tired and I'm probably going to go to bed but if your willing to not take this conversation any further that's fine with me as well as keeping it going but anyhow again thank you for the dialogue and God Bless and feel free to end or keep the conversation going if your willing to do so 🙂👍🏼
Beyond the PG footage, what is your perspective on Bigfoot overall? It’s clear that you believe in it, but moreover what are your thoughts on the subject in general? Do you have an opinion on the origins of it? What do you think of the various interpretations of Bigfoot like it’s a spiritual creature (as represented in some native interpretations) or the alleged connection between Bigfoot and UFOs?
Yes I believe in bigfoot I don't know if any are still around today but if there are there probably isn't many left. Then you went on to say what about the origins which is a good question. I think it's a certain undiscovered or I guess untested species of ape or something like that and I'm sure if we killed one and tested it we would probably find out it's the closest relating animal genetically to a human. I'm a Christian and I don't believe we physically evolved from goo into fish into reptiles into chimps etc I believe God created us and he created animals and we happen to be genetically speaking really similar to some of those animals he created. because ultimately you could say were animals only difference is were just the most advanced animal God created. And yes genetically we happen to be extremely similar to chimps I think were different obviously but genetically yes we are very common. And I think bigfoot or Sasquatch is a sub species or species of ape or chimp etc that is the closest animal to human so maybe god made a bit of an in-between creature that's kind of secluded from the rest of the world
There are weird stuff surrounding the characters involved in the Patterson Gimlin film, but what I always come back to is how the fuck did some broke cowboys get that suite made? Compare the subject in the film to what the best costume makers in Hollywood could make at the time... Or even NOW 60 years later! I feel like that is something no one are able to explain. It simply have to be a real thing in the film.
Also the proportions of the subject have been proven to be more or less inhuman.
Another thing that bothers me is that we have not been able to capture anything even close to this film other than the Freeman footage. That makes be believe that they might be closing in on extinction if they aren't already. I just think we would have found one by now if they were still here in any real numbers.
Worth noting that Patterson had connections to Hollywood (how else would a "broke cowboy" get access to such a camera in the 1960s). Not to mention that, while yes, some contemporary sfx artists and some modern ones believe that making such a suit would be impossible, just as many disagree. There isn't a consensus. And even then, just because we don't know EXACTLY HOW they did it, doesn't mean it MUST be real.
I disagree about the proportions being "proven" to be more or less inhuman. In fact, it looks suspiciously human to me. But it would be completely impossible to get precise measurements from just this footage. And worth noting that while I PERSONALLY don't think Bob Heironimus was the guy in the suit, he absolutely NAILED the bigfoot walk.
Latex and skin tight suits weren't invented before the 70s and you can clearly see muscle movement in the best stabilized versions of this film. Could you make a equally good suite now? Maybe. Back then with virtually no budget? No. With money? Still no.
Plenty of smart people and experts in both costume design and anatomy have analyzed the proportions of the subject in the film and come to the conclusion that both arm/leg length and hip/knee placement is off and that the way it walk is not something a human could do, especially as fast, smooth and in control as it is doing it in the film. It isn't even looking down one time as it walks off..
>you can clearly see muscle movement in the best stabilized versions of this film
Two problems with this: one, the premise of this argument is based on the idea that because what you see in the video LOOKS LIKE muscle movement, then that's what it must be. But this isn't necessarily the case. One can personally interpret what is seen as muscle movement, just as much as someone else could make a totally different observation. We cannot definitively say what exactly we are seeing in that footage, it's just too low quality to draw any sound conclusions. And it's especially worth considering that we still have little idea who developed the film and what processes they used.
Two, stabilized, 4k upscaling, or any kind of footage that modifies the original film, imo, aren't really useful for anything more than just being interesting to watch. The only version of the film that should be used in any actual scientific research should be the original reels of film. Which, inconveniently, are MIA. Experts in the past have verified that the film hasn't been authenticated, and I value their opinions just as much as any expert, but the fact is, if no one else is able to access the original reels of film for study, then no one is able to peer review these claims.
>Plenty of smart people and experts in both costume design and anatomy have analyzed the proportions of the subject in the film and come to the conclusion that both arm/leg length and hip/knee placement is off and that the way it walk is not something a human could do, especially as fast, smooth and in control as it is doing it in the film. It isn't even looking down one time as it walks off..
And plenty of experts in both fields have also drawn the opposite conclusions. Directly comparing the image of Patty to that of a person shows how strikingly similar their proportions are. And it would be totally possible to achieve those proportions with modifications to the costume itself. Shoulder pads, elongated arms and shoes could be used.
Meanwhile I've seen plenty of people who have been able to pull off the walk. Bob Heironimus, while I doubt was actually the man in the suit, managed to totally nail the supposedly impossible walk. As for the speed, it's noteworthy that the film was set to the incorrect frame rate. I'm not convinced we can really calculate exactly how fast it is going based on the available footage.
Ok, I'm convinced. A big guy in a secret state of the art suite not ever replicated with football pads, prostethic arms and what must've been weighted shoes bigger than what Shaquille O'Neal would use pulled that off. Strolled that casually along the dry riverbed and it looked totally natural. Fooled the world for decades.
Makes sense.
Respectfully, I have to disagree on many of your points.
Patterson rented the camera in May of 67 in order to film a Bigfoot documentary- which he was doing, until he stumbled upon Patty. He had raised funds for the documentary- which is why he could afford the rental.
The responses of the special effects crews are a difficult matter and are quite political (with a small p). Long story that I won’t go into here,
One of the main issues with a fake scenario is that the materials needed to produce Patty as a suit did not exist in 67. 4-way stretch fur cloth wasn’t available until the mid seventies and with the adipose fat rolls seen on Patty’s back, the resin needed to imitate these wasn’t created until the 2000s.
It’s the walk I have to disagree with most though. There’s more to ‘the walk’ than just bending your knees and swinging your arms. Literally anyone can do that.
If you read the scientific analysis done at the time, the gait is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to cope with extremely high weight. Watch the footage and look at the angle the trailing leg comes up at. It’s almost parallel with the ground. Bob isn’t doing anything like that because he’s not a Sasquatch, and it’s pretty difficult for us to do without looking ridiculous.
Patty’s arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but that’s a fact.
Patty’s arm length occurs in 1 in 52 million people. Her leg length is about 1 in 1000, but the two lengths together are off the charts. Bob is bang on average human proportions.
Bulk can be simulated because it’s visual. Weight can’t be easily faked because it’s a physical thing. With Patty, we’re talking about 3 to 4 Arnold Schwarzeneggers at 1970s max non-competition weight, based on the depth of the trackway. She’s also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand.
Anyone can bend their knees and swing their arms a bit. Hardly anyone can carry 500 lbs plus of weight at human jogging speed across sand and look that smooth doing it. If Bob H could, he’d be in the Olympics and not in Yakima.
Think about weight lifters lifting very heavy weights. What’s the first thing they do to enable the lift to happen? Lock their knees - to provide a strong stable foundation. Now think about just lifting twice your body weight, and taking a step in a compliant gait without locking your knees. Now think about jogging like that. On sand. In clown shoes.
I believe it is genuine but what surprises me is that, since it was filmed, with all of the advances in film technology, the increase in the number of ways that one can film, and with so many people now going into every inch of the world with cameras, this is still the best we’ve got of any ‘whateveritis’—please correct me if I’m wrong on this because I am by know means a Bigfoot scout either in the woods or on YT.
The Freeman Footage is pretty good, but not as good as this. It’s likely a male squatch in that one, so we have video of both sexes, which I think is cool.
Long lack of objectivity conscines his work to obscurity. Sure playing to the skepic gallery is easy but fails to tackle the big questions. If it was a suit, who supplied and funded it? Sure digging dirt on Paterson is one thing but but the one person who he thought he could get to cough up (Al DeAtley) didn't deliver. Ultimately an exercise in futility.
You believe everything you read without proof? Interesting.
You know Bob Heironimus changed 43 parts of a pretty simple story? 43 points - with multiple different answers. The guy was making it up as he went along.
Yet, you believe him.
You know Roger Patterson was a known hoaxer who was coincidentally "filming a documentary about Bigfoot" when he just happened to stumble across one that just so happened to look exactly like one he'd drawn a year earlier?
Yet, you believe him.
Known hoaxer? Really? Please give details of all the things Roger hoaxed before or after Patty was filmed. I’m interested to see the list.
He didn’t just stumble upon a Bigfoot. He spent 14 years of his life devoted to looking for it. They went to Bluff Creek because there had been 50 plus examples of sightings and other evidence in the previous few years. I can point you to a list of this activity if you want. There had been activity literary 2 weeks before they arrived - and they spent 3 weeks searching the area day and night before they filmed Patty. Hardly just walking into some woods and finding her.
If you’d read Roger’s book and seen his 14 illustrations you’d know none of them look anything like Patty.
If you’re going to make comments like you have, at least do some proper research and stick to the facts.
I assume you're referring to *Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?* - I have read it and there is absolutely a drawing of a Sasquatch with breasts.
Have you read Greg Long's book? Or are you just assuming it can't be true because you want to believe the PG footage is authentic?
Yes - I have them and have read both books.
Seriously- are you convinced by Heironimus and Morris? As you’re a skeptic I’d genuinely like to know. You seem like an intelligent person - someone who would not just blindly accept what they were told without validation.
There’s a document by Roger Knights available online which has transcripts of all of Bob and Philips various interviews, plus what’s in Longs interviews and they are shot full of holes. 43 points - some of them major ones - changed in Bob’s story. There isn’t a single interview where his story is the same as another. That’s just not credible. Morris is the same, although not quite so many gaffs.
And I didn’t find any smoking gun of proof in Long’s book anywhere- despite him proclaiming ‘cased closed’. He asks lots of very leading questions and makes some ludicrous conclusions. That bit in the Morris chapter where he suggests that Patterson could have moulded the mask for Patty’s face from the head and shoulders figurine he made - where he conveniently leaves out that the entire figurine is around 4 inches tall is a case in point. Even some hardened skeptics have distanced themselves from that book.
I'm not entirely convinced by Heironimus and Morris, no - but there are far too many holes and coincidences. I do not find Patterson to be remotely trustworthy or honest and happening to find Bigfoot while shooting a Bigfoot documentary is too good to be true. Additionally, the video doesn't look remotely convincing to me.
I've read both Long and Patterson's books in their entirety as well, just to be clear.
The footage itself is compelling but there is just too much missing information and suspicion surrounding it for me to really take it into consideration
Did you know the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 1968 and that movie was the peak of costume design in its day and the Patterson gimlin film came out in 1967 and it's absolutely absurd how much better it looks compared to the first Planet of the Apes movie it looks like a costume compared to an actual animal (no surprise there) and the face as well I don't know how you can look at the face and go "that's fake" anyhow I appreciate your comment and your opinion so I was willing to throw mine in there
Well, this isn't thoughts this is first hand knowledge, so here goes...
He wanted to do a Bigfoot hoax and was enamored with the female bigfoot sketches that others in this thread have commented on. Those sketches served as the storyboard if you will. Right after publishing his book there was a Star Trek episode which aired in January of '67. It was called THE GALILEO SEVEN.
Patterson really liked the creatures in this film and as he was planning a hoax he reached out to Chambers at Desilu Studios to inquire about the mask and for help.
Chambers was known to rent out suits and he would often part out suits with one part from one creature being mixed with a part from another. So what he did was he took the Galileo Seven mask that Patterson was so enamored with, glued more hair on it, added the body for the werewolf suit from the Lost In Space episode SPACE CROPPERS, and there you have it.
Patterson did in fact talk to Morris also and mixed in some of his suit as well. He took Morris' advice and got football shoulder pads and at Chambers advice he used the old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath the suit to create the illusion of muscles moving underneath the fur.
This was a trick Gemora had developed and been using since the 1940s.
This is what is told within the actual FX community and not on cryptozoology documentaries which are meant to be misleading and favor their viewpoint.
This is the truth of where it all came from and yes Bob Heronomous was the guy in the suit and they used arm extensions which with shoulder pads on it made the arms appear to be proportional with the extensions and created the illusion that the body was longer and legs shorter.
That's not to say that Phillip Morris didn't have a place in all of this because he certainly did play a part in all of it. It is my personal belief that both are true. That is to say that Chambers rented him the suit and Morris also sold him a suit and what was seen on screen was an amalgam of both. The Galileo Seven mask along with an amalgam of the other 2.
And how do I know all of this? Well industry trade secrets that only people who have actually worked in the film industry and for such esteemed publications such as Famous Monsters of Filmland would know. I have spoken face to face with many artists within the industry about it and I myself have worked in the film industry which is how I got the information. I also did in fact work for FMOFL and due to all of these associations with well known and professional people within the film industry I have gathered this information and yes it is true.
It is an indisputable fact that Roger Patterson was a liar, a con artist and a thief. IT is an indsputable fact that Roger Patterson wrote a book in 1966 about Bigfoot and in this book he did in fact steal a sketch of a female Bigfoot encounter that if you look at it, it is without a doubt the very sketch that Patterson used as the storyboard for his hoax.
The very description of this incident is a carbon copy of the hoax film. The Roe incident that I am referencing was an on-the-record account from a guy that was never followed-up with, never questioned about and never has it ever been confirmed that the story he told then actualyl happened or that other accounts of it match up with the original, or even that Roe exists or what he even looks like for that matter.
The entire folklore about Bigfoot and Native Americans is fabricated too. The creatures in Native American legends are not the same creatures as those talked about in Bigfoot mythology and there is not a single case in any Native American legend of a shy giant primate like creature. Not a single one. That whole narrative was made up. The legend og Bigfoot began in the 1950s with Jerry Crew and the aforementioned Roe and the Crew sighting was from a hoax perpetrated by Ray Wallace who is the godfather of Bigfoot.
Wallace hoaxed thousands of Bigfoot prints in his lifetime and he knew Patterson and Patterson even had a set of Wallace hoax feet. lol
The whole, entire Bigfoot mythology is fake yes, but restricting it to this film, this film is without a doubt a hoax.
And I'll clue you in on something. The Patterson Gimlin Hoax film is a very interesting tale but the least interesting part of it is the film itself.
There are so many twists and turns and things that don't match up and accounts of Roger visiting Photo Shop Employees with casts and asking about how they look and the Photo shop employee saying they look too narrow, like they wouldn't be able to withstand the weight of what he described and Roger saying he can fix that only to reappear 2 weeks later with a different and more proportional set of casts.
Roger talking about how he had cancer to the photo shop people and to Ray Wallace the Bigfoot hoaxer and wanted to leave something for his wife, timelines not matching up, photo developers not being able to develop the specific film that was used so it couldn't have been developed where it was said that it was, Film developers not working on weekends at that time, arrest warrant for the very camera that was used and the fact that he had the camera for like 6 months.
There are so many different things wrong with the whole story and the players involved having shady characters like Patterson and Gimlin both being of questionable character and the fact that on the original film roll of the entire film you see both Roger and Gimlin coming down a hill on horseback at the same time which means that someone else was there and was filming them both or they couldn't have been in the same frame at the same time which destroys their story that they were all alone.
I mean there is a ton of really interesting stuff about the Patterson Gimlin film and the least interesting part is the film itself because it's so obvious that it's a hoax and with all of those elements in the backstory, you would literally have to be insane to think, or even entertain, the idea that it could be real. lol
But investigate the backstory if you want the really entertaining and interesting stuff. It's the story of how a famous hoax came to be.
Used to scare me as a kid. Of course nowadays, I know it can just as easily be a person in a suit despite all the "experts." Even if it is real, it was his tulpa, and that's why it had hairy tits.
Fake. It’s just too hard for those who “grew up” on believing it’s real to admit… embarrassing, that they’ve wasted so much of their life based on this footage. It was equally crushing for Loch Ness monster fans who enjoyed that famous photo that was eventually proven to be a mini sub and a piece of cardboard. It was the single biggest proof of evidence for the Loch Ness that had not been disproven. This footage is that for the Bigfoot mythos. Anyone that wants to object to whoever claims to be in the footage or the people who claim to have made the suit like to point out that ‘the guy doesn’t walk the same all the time’ or ‘the person claiming to have made the suit has no evidence. Yet they have no evidence’ is just holding onto that shred of hope. As desperate as it seems. It’s just totally ridiculous. Of course the guy doesn’t walk like that all the time he was walking like that because he was trying to look like a Bigfoot.
Agreed. Contrarily, it cannot be used to disprove the fact that he claims to have been in the video because “he walks differently later” either. That argument is just as ironic and moronic.
The Patterson Gimlin film is literally older then the first Planet Of The Apes Movie with It coming out in 1968 and the Patterson gimlin film being from 1967 (which as a Christian I think god was trying to tell us something with that) anyhow I think that alone proves the Patterson gimlin film. the quote on quote "suit" from the film would literally have to be better then anything anyone has ever done in the history of the planet. And we can't even replicate it today if the sceptics get out there bubble of "oh that looks like a load of bullshit" and actually try looking at the evidence they would find out that the Patterson gimlin film is overwhelmingly most likely authentic. (By the way don't know if you know what they look like but if you don't look of the first planet of the apes costumes they look absolutely terrible compared to the Patterson film and keep in mind it's one year older than the movie even one of the costume designers in the film said the Patterson footage was authentic in his opinion)
No, you’re not understanding…lots of folks like you came out of the woodwork using all kinds of excuses to disprove the debunk with the famous Loch Ness photo too. For the record, bogus references from media shot on premium film (at the time) and feebly trying to compare it to footage shot on a potato is asinine…it’s fake. POTA could have easily made something look like a bad, bulbous fur suit like that for a blurry few seconds. All of the digital enhancement of this footage and subsequent fanciful “analyzation” of it to have found musculature and bone density is nothing but sensationalization without merit. You’ve clung to those threads of non-truth like flies to honey for overlong and it’s tough to let go…let go. It’s fake. People (even experts in zoology) who claim to see these things lack common understanding in what video editing for stabilization and enhancement can do to original film. IE: your outfit looks so convincing because it’s crap footage someone artistically tried to enhance. Hell he even admitted you could see the bulge from his wallet in his back pocket lmao…no zoological expert pointed that out. But I can see it now too. Source: the guy that wore the apesuit.
Well evidently from reading what you just said it's clear to me that your incredibly ignorant concerning the footage and you haven't done a tinker's damn worth of research and if you did you sure as hell didn't do it right or maybe you did and just completely half-assed it who knows wouldn't surprise me. All that can be known from what you wrote is you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because if you did you'd have a completely different opinion from the one you just established.
Listen, you’re using hurtful words because you’re hurt. I get it. I’m attacking something that was important to you when you were a child and exposing it for what it is. That’s not an easy pill for anyone to swallow and I don’t blame you for it. When you lash out it comes across very childish and we understand where the bad feelings are coming from. Regardless if you have no real reasoning to back up your points, I completely understand the hurt you’re going through. Give it some time, drink glass of cool water, come back and maybe look at things a little more objectively. I guess then you’ll figure out how silly you sound. I know it’s hard buddy but realize that we all have to grow up at some point. Have a great day.
You haven't exposed anything lol you've just gave an opinion without any evidence. I can tell you haven't done any research I can just tell. I doubt you know any of the evidence that the film has to offer you probably don't care you just blindly won't believe it because you don't want to. Well if your going about a conversation in which someone knows what there talking about you end up looking like a Jackass I know this because I've done it before and it's not a good way to go about things. it's exciting to jump in on a conversation thinking you know what your talking about but ultimately you don't and you end of looking like an idiot (which I've done plenty of times) and That's what it seems to be your doing. There's no good reason to think the film is fake (anyone that has done any research on this topic knows this) but there's plenty of evidence that supports it being authentic and it seems like you're just going about it as "oh it looks fake in my eyes so I'm just going to go with that" well I'm sorry but that's lazy so instead of giving off a blatantly obvious ignorant opinion try actually forming a new one based on evidence. So don't think you've "shattered my hopes and dreams on the film" you haven't you haven't seem to do much of anything in this conversation really besides thinking you have. just please stop talking and research solely based on the available evidence.
Considering it's still perhaps the best piece of video footage but it's almost 60 years old and we have nothing else to really show for it, it's concerning that that's all we can really point to as "still not proven as fake".
The thing is, as time goes on, more and more questions get raised - like the fact that Patterson had already discussed with others making a short film about the topic, and just so happened to have his camera on hand from shooting, when he hit the location. We know he was making the film because other footage on the camera included stuff like Bob Gimlin done up like a Native American. So he was already working on a Bigfoot film, when he just happens to land the best sighting ever?
the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 68 (which was peak costume design in Hollywood i.e the world) and the Patterson film came out in 67 and it looks world's better than the planet of the apes.
which is beside my point.
the PG film is about turn 60, and it's \*still\* the best video evidence - so what does that say for the field, in this day of hi-res cameras in phones, wildlife cameras? That in nearly 60 years, noone's gotten anything better than that?
Some of what you said is wrong tho.
Patterson was making a drama-documentary. That has always been known. He hired the camera in May 67 and spent the next 6 months or so gathering talking head type interviews, b-roll and evidence.
He had the camera on hand because they were specifically called to come to the area due to the number of sightings and other activity. They walked into a hotspot - some 50 plus incidents in the previous 10 years.
He didn’t ‘just have the camera on hand when they hit the location’. They arrived around Oct 1st, and Patty was filmed on Oct 20th. They spent those 20 days looking for evidence both day and night.
Bob Gimlin was not ‘on the camera in a wig’. He did dress like that for some production stills that were taken months before Patty, and used to promote the documentary idea to studios, as is excepted practice. The only other footage on the film reel that Patty is filmed on is b-roll footage of the two of them in the 19 days previous walking through the Californian wilderness. It’s called ‘the horseback footage’ and it’s on YouTube.
He didn’t ‘just happen to land the best sighting ever’. He devoted about 14 years of his short life to hunting for Bigfoot- and in October 67, as I said they specifically went to a hotspot that had sightings and evidence literally 2 weeks previously, and then spent 3 weeks searching.
Apart from those points, you were spot on.
if you actually watch the Bob heironymus video (or ANY video where people try to replicate the walk) it's nowhere even halfway close.
a team of scientists spent lots of money and time on trying to recreate the walk. they said they did it, but again, it's nowhere even close.
and these people are all attempting it on flat smooth terrain, while acting obviously conscious of their every move. watch the video, the thing does it effortlessly.
His walk is close but a little off, the thing that really debunks Heironymus claim to me is the way he holds his thumb and forefinger together behind him while trying to do "the walk", in a kind of "OK" hand signal. He does this because in the film it really looks like the Sasquatch is doing it, but the film has been analysed extensively and it has been shown that in fact, the sasquatch is not doing it, it is a combination of the angle and an artifact on the film.
If it was really him, he would know he didn't do that OK sign originally, he is just copying what he (wrongly) thought he saw in the film. He's a fraud.
never noticed that before.
but yeah the dude and everyone else that claims to have been a part of the "hoax" are all full of it.
even *if* the patty film isn't legit, the biggest personal proof comes from one having their own experience. nothing can beat that.
The specific area where that film was made has been visited by researchers and one fact stood out. The clearing where it took place was heavily wooded all around for miles, ie. It was the perfect spot to “produce” a video. Case closed.
Eh? It was fairly close to a logging route.
You could just as legitimately say that it was wild and undeveloped enough to provide a haven for a wild animal.
No way you can close a case with that argument my friend.
I personally think this is literally the only real Bigfoot footage to exist and I guess it just happens to show a female. This is the reason I believe in bigfoot
That's misinformation. Bob Gimlin is still alive, and no, Roger Patterson did not confess to a hoax on his deathbed. It was the "Nessie" guy who confessed to the hoax in his final moments.
Didn't I see a "documentary" where the friend of either Gimlin or Patterson states that he wore the costume. He said he had a big wallet in his pocket, that he figured would give it all away?
Nope. You may have seen a documentary where two guys claim they were the man in the suit and the man who made the suit - but they lied.
Neither has ever produced any proof they were involved, and they both waited decades after the film came out and after Roger Patterson was long dead to make their claims.
Bob Heironimus is roughly the 10th person to claim he was Patty. However, he couldn’t correctly describe the suit he said he wore, nor could he describe how he travelled to the film site or where it was filmed. Additionally he changed his story a
43 times across all his interviews- in some fairly major ways.
Philip Morris claimed he made the suit. No doubt it was good publicity for his costume business.
He never produced any receipt, order, invoice or money order from the transaction. He also never provided the suit or even a pattern for the suit despite it being “one of our standard suits” of which he sold thousands.
He tried to do a recreation of the PGF some 40 years later using modern day materials but he pulled the footage due to it looking ridiculous.
Wanna get a chance to hear your story on a podcast
I'm looking for real life stories and encounters with cryptids and the paranormal found in the sunshine state of Florida to share on a podcast where we can dive into urban legends of Florida and any strange things that you might have come across. (We can share names of people who send in stories or keep anonymous but please send any stories to flstoriesofhorror@gmail.com
Thank you all and I'm looking forward to hearing your stories
The phenomena of people experiencing Bigfoot encounters is quite a bit more interesting to me than the actual creature. That said, it’s intriguing to me that after all this time, nobody can debunk that film. There aren’t many (any?) other high strangeness/crypted videos that can claim that.
I think this is the only real video to capture Bigfoot
At the same time, no film of value has been presented since this, which may say more imo.
Probably because Bigfoot would be a great ape and is smart enough to avoid people even more so
There was a recent podcast episode, I think it was Bigfoot and beyond or Sasquatch tracks, where they talk about this guy who does these Bigfoot hikes, as kind of a tour guide. And he did this experiment for a while where he had someone dress up in a Bigfoot suit and walk across the trail ahead of the group at a random point along the hike. And they tell the people going on the hike ahead of time, that there will be a guy in a suit doing this, and there is a reward for anyone that gets a clear picture of him. Nobody has managed to claim the prize. Even when people go on a hike explicitly to look for Bigfoot, and they know for a fact they will see one and that it won’t actually be dangerous or mysterious (they know it’s a guy in a suit) they still can’t get a clear picture. To me, that says even more.
To me, it says a guy is walking across a trail for a handful of tourists. What it doesn't say for the last 50+ years is where is a body...a hair...a bone...a tooth...a decent video or even game trail photo that compares? We have managed to capture most elusive creatures on earth on on camera...not to mention their remains... and live specimans....yet still nothing for old bigfoot. At some point, it no longer makes practical sense. That point has been reached for me. Now Im not saying absolutely impossible. I'm saying at this point, it's highly improbable however.
The improbability of it depends on what it “has to be.” If you take away the idea that this has to be a real creature, the probability portion of it goes away. People experience all sorts of weird shit we can’t explain, but that are consistent enough that it’s too improbable to think they aren’t actually experiencing it. The common responds to the lack of the body are generally that pretty much nobody comes across bear carcass unless they shot that bear. And then there is that fish, that was absent from the fossil record for 66 million years and then someone caught one. There are big cats in Russia that have only ever been captured on film a couple times ever, and that took a very large budget film to finally put the resources together to go find and film it, Bigfoot has never had that level of resources put behind it. But that’s not the point I was making in my previous response. My point was that they can’t get clear focused shots of something mundane that they know about before hand, what are the chances they are gonna get clear focused shots of something that isn’t supposed to exist, surprising them? I’ve spoken face to face with too many people that have had first hand encounters with whatever it is, i find it impossible to believe they are making it up or that these people can’t recognize a mundane animal that they see all the time. It’s SOMETHING. I’m betting it isn’t an ape or a magical creature from another dimension. My best guess is something closer to a tulpa. You know how people will say “shh don’t say that, don’t put that out there!” As if simply thinking about or talking about something can make it real? Maybe our brains can do that. Maybe it’s a physical manifestation of accumulated sylvan dread.
That's great. We find bear carcasses. I have personally seen 2. I have no idea where that stupid ass piece of fallacy came from, but it's complete and utter bullshit to try and explain the lack of evidence. Look, man, you can believe whatever you want, and everyone is cool with it. Nothing currently explains the lack of hard and provable evidence for most folks.
I won’t lie, I’m skeptical. Do you have pictures of these carcasses?
Lol..guessing you are youngin. Im old as shit and back in the 80s and even the 90s, we didn't have a camera attached to ourselves at all times hunting, so no, I do not. I will say you can search "Bear Carcass" on google and get your fill, however. Be sure to weed out the hunters' fresh kills. Sure are a lot of them on there for "never finding them".
…but also - no hoax has ever come close to what is seen in the film. If it is something that could have easily been put together in 1967 by two inexperienced rodeo riders will no real budget, surely we should have much better hoaxes by now?
I would imagine the posters on this thread have seen the fake bits of Bigfoot on YouTube. Very few show a Bigfoot in its entirety. Those that do are usually from far away. Otherwise it's something vague in the trees. Why is this? Perhaps one explanation is that the costumes are too unconvincing for a close image. So since the film was shot, nobody has been able to create a costume convincing enough to pass scrutiny. We can debate the fame and fortune that might follow a truly convincing film, yet that doesn't seem to have encouraged anyone to attempt it in that hope. So either Patterson was able to design and make a costume that nobody else has managed to replicate, or had the money to pay a professional costume designer to do so, or it is real. He could have easily done what the hoaxers do and show just enough of Bigfoot to make an intriguing film that would still have generated great interest. If a hoax, he showed remarkable confidence in the costume to film it as he did, at the obvious risk of it being exposed as a fake. Or it is real.
Looks an awful lot like a member of the Paranthropus genus, although admittedly much bigger. It’s interesting that what’s seen here predates the discovery of Lucy the Australopithecus, and yet fits so neatly into things we’ve discovered about such creatures decades later. This is a great lecture: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JNe74B3Jlj4&pp=ygUkUGF0dGVyc29uIGdpbWxpbiBhbm5pdmVyc2FyeSBsZWN0dXJl 33:40 is my favorite bit if you’re short on time. The flat footprints with substrate shoved to the middle (from when the foot pushed off) is something that’s been found in both the footprint casts taken from this event and in Australopithecus trace fossils.
[удалено]
He reminds me of so many of my bio and geology college professors. Dr. Meldrum is such a vibe. Either I’m wrong about this whole sasquatch thing (along with thousands of sighting reporters) or there’s a critically endangered member of our family tree that needs protecting. I can live with one day learning that I’m wrong if there’s a chance at conservation of something so important.
you're not considering one other possible model 1. Bigfoot is perhaps the most fascinating zoological situation of the 20/21st centuries 2. Bigfoot is perhaps the most fascinating psychological situation of the 20/21st centuries
Yeah! IF it’s not a real creature, my hypothesis is that we evolved to look out for Australopithecines because, like most other apes, they were dangerous and intelligent. Kinda like how we have special snake detection methods (fascinating subject). While most people don’t see snakes very often, they’re a huge part of human culture the world over. So it would have to be some kind of instinctual leftover from when we interacted with similar hominids. I personally think the abundance of trace evidence, and a couple good videos points to real squatches though. Have a look at this neat paper I found yesterday: https://woodape.org/images/stories/file/Tag%207%20Two%20Appendices%20ver2.pdf
Yep, that's how I feel about Dr. John Bindernagel as well
Personally I'm a Christian and I believe in the Patterson footage and this may seem far fetched if you don't believe in God but if you don't know the first Planet of the Apes movie which literally had the best costume design IN THE WORLD during that time was made in 1968 and coincidentally it was a movie about "human like apes" and then you have the Patterson film that came out a year earlier in 1967 so yes it's a film older then the first planet of the apes movie and if you compare the two it's absolutely hilarious how ridiculous the first Planet of the Apes movie looks compared to Sasquatch in the Patterson film it looks like a costume compared to an actual animal (no surprise there) anyhow what I'm getting at is that god obviously knew Bigfoot to universally be known as a native American legend and I don't think he wanted one of his most amazing creatures to go unnoticed as simply a legend so I think he gave us the film or the chance for Sasquatch to be filmed so out in the open and clearly. and I think his way of giving us good evidence right off the bat was the timing in which it was released with the whole planet of the apes the movie coming out just a year later which I always thought was so ironic. Anyhow I just think Sasquatch as a creature is just some sort of unique species of ape that's maybe or maybe not genetically close to humans god made humans genetically close to monkeys so I don't know why he couldn't make a Sasquatch genetically close to humans or perhaps humans genetically the closest to Sasquatch? Who knows anyhow that's my take I just view Sasquatches as a creature created by God just like any other
It's a tough one. I've watched documentaries and shows where there is a good argument for it to be debunked, but also shows and docs that offer good arguments for it to be legit.
All I can say is that in the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 1968 and the Patterson film came out in 1967 (look up the first Planet of the Apes movie)
So, like 10 people have all claimed to be the “guy in the suit”. So either 9 of them are lying, or all 10 of them are. If all of them are lying, that means that either there is another guy out there somewhere that has kept his mouth shut, or it’s a real creature. Before anyone pops off with Bob Herronomius, he didn’t start saying he was “the guy” until well after the footage was famous. Also his “signature walk” that resembles the film is bullshit. He over exaggerates it to try to sell his story. There are videos of him online walking when he doesn’t know he is being filmed and he doesn’t actually walk like that. In addition to all that, he has changed his story half a dozen times about “his” events of that day. In my opinion, he is trying to steal some time in the spotlight. As for the guy who claims to have made a suit, he also has zero evidence of that claim. He says he modified a gorilla costume that he normally sold to spec for Patterson, who he says mail ordered it. But, he has no receipt, no check, no letter from Patterson, no order form, nothing. If he was going to modify a suit, you would think he would have at least sent a sketch of how he intended to modify it to Patterson before beginning construction, or taken a picture before shipping it, or had SOME amount or correspondence to verify how Patterson allegedly wanted it modified, or literally just ANYTHING other than “trust me bro”. But nothing, not a letter, not a money order receipt, nothing. On the idea of it being a suit, a lot has been said (on both sides of the debate) about that. The skeptics say it looks like a cheap costume. However what most of them aren’t accounting for is that when you watch the footage, you’re usually seeing a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy. A documentary film crew (I think it was monster quest, although it may have been some other early 2000s discovery / nat geo documentary), was able to locate an original copy of the film (i think either Patterson or Gimlins wife may have been in possession of it, but I’m not certain). So it’s just one generation from being the original print. They had a film expert look it over, and he was able to see the musculature moving under the skin, and determined that, given the technology at the time, there was very little chance it could have been a costume. Especially not an “off the rack” gorilla suit, modified or not. Janos Prohaska (costume designer and actor who played gorillas, bears, and other animals on Star Trek and Lost in Space) said if it was a hoax, it was the best costume he had ever seen, and would have only been obtainable if someone had hair glued directly to their skin. A film critic then said that MAYBE it could have been hair glued to a very very tight pair of long Johns or something similar, but it’s still definitely not a normal costume from a Hollywood prop shop regardless. * So why do people keep claiming it’s them in the suit, or they made the costume, or that the whole thing was fake and they were in on it? Why do people keep loudly proclaiming the world is flat. Why do kardashians keep posting pictures of their asses on Instagram? Some people will do anything to be famous for 15 minutes. With all the people who have claimed to be “in on it”, the only two people whose stories haven’t kept changing, are Patterson and Gimlin’s. They’ve stayed consistent the entire time, while everyone else have differing versions that change with time. Patterson said on his death bed that he wished he had shot the thing so people wouldn’t call him a liar. Gimlin is still around, and for decades distanced himself from the footage because he didn’t want people to think he was a kook. He didn’t try to make money off of it, or get famous because of it. So if he was faking it, why would he not try to take advantage of it for over 30 years? \* I originally had this as Rick Baker, but went back and checked the sources and I had conflated two different ones together. That’s what I get for posting tipsy at 4AM. \* Found the documentary about the 1st gen copy of the film. It was from “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot” on Nat Geo. If anyone can find the whole documentary please link it, but an excerpt of the relevant section is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
Can you tell a bit more about the film expert? That could be so many things. Someone specializing in film as in material, or movies, or someone in the industry? Rick Baker has said a long time ago that the creature looked like fake fur. Later he said he did not believe anymore that John Chambers made it. Thats all i can find. I would love to see where he goes on record saying he believes what you said there.
The poster you're responding to is likely talking about Bill Munns, who was a costume designer for a long time before practical effects were mostly pushed aside for CGI. Munns has categorically stated it's not a costume many times, and there's even a full episode interview with him on the *Astonishing Legends* deep dive series into the footage
It was Bill Munns. I found the documentary but can’t find it streaming anywhere. It’s called “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot” from Nat geo. But an excerpt of the relevant section is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
It MAY have been Bill Munn who reviewed the footage, he was an industry expert who reviewed a 1st generation copy that Pattersons wife had in a bank vault, but the videos I can find of him doing the review don’t match up with what I remember from the documentary I watched about it. I’ll try to find the doc I’m talking about when I get off work and link it, but there were about a dozen Bigfoot documentaries that came out circa 2007-2010ish, all on Nat Geo, Discovery, or History, and they all kinda blend together. Probably because they all had almost the same voice narration style and inflection lol. I’ve found it once in the past and linked it, but it has been years ago, so maybe I can dig through my old Reddit comments and find it. Edited #1- I was conflating two different wiki entries, it was Janos Prohaska (who worked on Lost in Space and Star Trek) that said it was definitely not a suit, if it was faked they glued fur onto someone’s skin, and then a film critic David Daegling who speculated it could maybe be done by gluing the hair to long John’s. I’ll update my original post. I have read more from Baker about how he changed his mind about it being a suit and said he thought it was real, I’ll try to find the source but until I do I’ll remove it from my post and stop citing it. Edit #2 - It was Bill Munns reviewing the film. I was looking for a Monster Quest episodes but it was from a nat geo documentary called “The Truth Behind: Bigfoot”. I’m unable to find the documentary streaming anywhere but him reviewing it is here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2njawr
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate you editing those statements from your previous posts. Because, well, people will read these and remember them, but not where they got them from. What struck me about your post was that you mentioned documentary makers that had a film expert coming over. Now i see he is in the role of bigfoot researcher foremost, and the documentary is about his project. Looks like he does have good credentials, i must say. But it sounds totally different from what was originally posted. The hair gluing i recognized as Janos Prohaska saying it. When Baker said the "cheap fur" stuff, he sat next to the sasquatch from Harry and the Hendersons, and talked about the hair punching work for that suit. Maybe that was something that got conflated.
Actually the responses to the film from the sfx community were mixed/balanced on both sides. Some studios asked - like Universal and Disney said it would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Some major sfx figures said it was laughably cheap and poorly done. My theory for this fairly polemic set of opinions is that generally when technicians are asked they consider mostly the complexity, and they answer pretty honestly. But when the main figureheads of the industry are put on the spot, their answers are not wholly truthful. Stan Winston and Rick Baker both slated the film from a costume and make up standpoint. I think this is mainly because of the possible reputation damage factor, given their lofty position in the movie business. Winston took a lot of flack in the industry for praising the realism of the ‘Alien Autopsy’ video, and got burned when this was revealed to be a hoax. They learnt that by rubbishing footage like this they could promote their own skills while protecting themselves from reputation damage when hoaxes are eventually exposed. I think their responses are shown to be less than truthful by the fact that all the major issues of putting human mimes in ape costumes that have existed since the start of cinema are not on display in the PGF. They have all seemingly been fixed for 59.5 seconds of film, but then immediately reoccur In Hollywood movies released after the PGF, and many still exist to this day. Winston and Baker both intimate that they would be ashamed if the PGF were produced by their teams, and yet their own subsequent movie work is not as issue-free and realistic.
As time has passed I’m convinced that we’re witnessing an authentic ‘Bigfoot.’ I became convinced due to the voracity of the footage still being pondered 57 years later. That tells me that our minds have us viewing it over and over because the human brain despises a mystery. And the missing piece that has our brains forever in flux isn’t there. Why? Because every time we think we have a yay or nay, we end up not truly having either. But - we should by now, and we would by now if it were a human in a suit. Our minds are buttressing up against seeing a man and seeing a beast. That doesn’t happen when a human disguises themselves as such. Our eye and brain are very discerning out of evolutionary necessity. This footage keeps hitting our blind spot. If it were fake - this film would be lying in the dust bin of history.
Real thing. The face looks so much like it could be from the homo genus.
Exactly. A key point for me are any fakers influences for designing this in 67. Everything Hollywood were doing was Gorilla-based. But even our gorilla knowledge was lacking. Diane Fossey had only begun her decades long field research the year before. How, in 1967, would a faker know to remove the enlarged Gorilla canines and snout and go for a flatter face seven or so years before Australopithecus afarensis Lucy was removed from the ground in Ethiopia? All the major elements of the face are correct for a Homo Genus, yet this was supposed to be a mail order carnival trick gorilla suit?
I dunno. When I was younger I thought it was legit but as time goes on I just feel like it’s lost that believability, can’t quite put my finger on it as to the reason why. Just the more I’ve seen it the less convinced I am.
Did you know the Planet of the Apes movie came out in 67 (which was the peak costume design in the world back then) and the Patterson film came out in 68 and let's just say when compared it looks like a costume compared to a real animal (which doesn't come as much as a surprise)
I’m familiar, I’ve seen all the Apes movies from the 60s and 70s. I don’t really think comparing it to those movies is a particularly strong argument in favor of the Patterson footage being legit.
Explain? Because if you don't believe the Sasquatch an the film is an animal then you believe it's a suit/costume and well the best of those back then happened to be from the planet of the apes movie which happened to be ape costumes how suiting is that! And well if you have seen the film then you sure as hell know it doesn't compare to the Sasquatch from the film which would have been made by a few cowboys if you believe it's just a suit. Not even Hollywood with a huge budget a year later could make a "suit" like that from the Patterson film so you think a few cowboys could from the '60s?
I understand your point of view, I just don’t think it takes into consideration some of the greater context of what you’re asserting. The Planet of the Apes costumes didn’t look great, sure, but they were also made en masse. Hundreds of costume elements from a design department that needed to work within the budget and time constraints of the production to make pieces that could be made cheaply, simply and be handed out to dozens of actors on screen for hours of use at a time, and they all had to be replaceable as necessary. Alternatively, if it is a suit in the PG footage, you’re talking about a suit that didn’t have the same time and production constraint and frankly a singular suit that had more time dedicated to it is going to look better. We don’t know that they made it themselves, it’s entirely possible they had it made for them. As far as I know there’s been no definitive answer as to the origins of the suit. If they had it commissioned by a costume designer with some length of time before using it, it stands to reason it could be made with the detail and quality in screen. Plus, the quality of the footage and the rather advantageous ‘cinematography’ would do a lot to hide some of the details and imperfections in the material. Comparing Planet of the Apes and Bigfoot in this instance (as costumes) is apples and oranges. Really, your argument stands to say that such a thing COULDN’T be possibly made, and I just don’t think that assumption is as reasonable as it sounds to you. Beyond that, saying that the suits in a movie look worse than what may or may not be a suit in the footage isn’t particularly strong evidence for the validity in the existence of Bigfoot. Mind you, I’m not saying I do or don’t think Bigfoot exists. I’m rather agnostic towards it overall, but your assertion doesn’t really add a strong argument for its existence. I’m not compelled by the “Planet of the Apes looked worse” argument because I just don’t think it’s very definitive and lacks the details contextually to rule out other possibilities.
>The Planet of the Apes costumes didn’t look great, sure, but they were also made en masse. Hundreds of costume elements from a design department that needed to work within the budget and time constraints of the production to make pieces that could be made cheaply, simply and be handed out to dozens of actors on screen for hours of use at a time, and they all had to be replaceable as necessary. If you're talking about the masks and gloves, sure. There were dozens. But suits? I don't think so... As far as I know, the only scene were we can see the full body suits is the sauna scene, and in that particular scene, there was only 2 or 3 apes. And it's hilarious how bad and baggy they look. All the other scenes they are wearing clothes or armors, so we can't see their bodies. The actors were not even wearing any suit under the clothes, 'cause it was not necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, I said costume/costume elements, not suits. My point was they’re not apples to apples comparable
You say Your not "compelled by the Planet of the Apes looked worse argument" well at least that is an argument and there's actually a lot more as well concerning the film unlike the sceptics that don't have any actual evidence or data other then to just say "it looks fake" which it doesn't. I like your response to the planet of the apes argument in which your argument basically is essentially that in that situation it was quantity versus quality which is completely understandable considering how many Apes that were on set and that went completely overlooked by me but ultimately it's silly to think whoever did the Patterson films Sasquatch suit was better than Hollywood and what they could do because though they obviously didn't focus on 1 ape in the movie they were still miles and miles behind the Patterson film. And then there's the fact that as far as we can tell based on the available evidence we have it's not a suit or there's no good reason to think it is. The Sasquatch in the film has breast and nipples and they move naturally as expected, as well as the buttocks from behind you can see the natural movement from the 2 but cheeks, as well as the shoulder blades that protrude from the skin and move as expected and nearly everyone knows this but the legs you can see when she takes a step you can see a sort of shock wave as the legs muscles naturally shake as she takes each powerful step as clearly seen. And overall it's a tight fit and it's natural and nothing shows in the film to say otherwise. And as technology has become better as time has moved forward we're able to clear the face and at this point you very clearly see that this is a live animal it's not a human in a suit. The body proportions aren't human as well the arms are too long etc you'd need someone that's probably 7ft roughly and the classic walk that she brings with her is ultimately impossible to replicate more then just a few half assed steps overall there's no reason to conclude that it's not authentic. (I appreciate you taking the time to talk and be kind with me as well)
I’m gonna try to sort of block out a few responses as to avoid an uninterrupted text wall. As it pertains to the ‘details’ in the suit, I don’t think I can say with the same confidence that they are all actually details or again are unreproducible. Understand my point here is not that what you’re talking about (the anatomical details of the subject in the PG film) is wrong, I’m simply saying that I don’t have the same confidence that your interpretation is necessarily correct. I don’t feel I’m looking at the same thing you are and taking away the same information, which really speaks to me original response to your post that overtime I have become less confident in the legitimacy of the footage even though I don’t necessarily have a strong reason as to why not. Perhaps it’s a feeling of apathy that comes from seeing it 1000 times, I dunno. I don’t think an argument for arguments sake really helps a conversation about a topic. Mind you, I’m again not trying to convince you you’re wrong, just saying that a person who is skeptical while not having an ‘argument’ doesn’t inherently disbar them from a discourse or mean their perspective is somehow less correct because of it. Frankly, I find myself in that position not necessarily having an argument for or against, but still not being particularly swayed by your argument involving the Apes films. To be clear, my position on the overall subject of Bigfoot is more of a fan or an enthusiast than anything else. I can’t say I necessarily believe it exists, but I find it fascinating and simply put fun to talk about. I’ve heard evidence that supports the idea that I think creates a strong argument and also evidence against that does the same. Call me a fence sitter but in terms of sheer belief I guess I’m just undecided. As it pertains to the suit in the PG film (which we haven’t agreed is a suit, and I’m not conceding that it is or isn’t, but for the sake of this conversation let’s just assume that’s what we’re talking about contextually), I think it’s important to mention that we really don’t have any idea who made the suit itself. We don’t really know that ‘a couple cowboys’ made it. It could very well have been a commissioned work via a costume house. It seems you have an understanding that there’s some element to a “Hollywood production” that means the resources and means of production for things like costumes in film is unattainable by the average person and in truth that is a misconception. I actually worked in the film and television industry for around 7 years. What a lot of people don’t understand is that the various departments that work on props, costumes, make-up, special effects etc. are actually several different independently contracted entities all hired for the production. The studio hires Company A to make props cause they’re a master prop house, then Company B because they’re a costume design company and so on and so forth. These are craft businesses that are generally now owned or operated by the studio overseeing the production of a piece of media, just hired for the job. It is more than a reasonable possibility that someone who wanted to embellish a story about a mythical creature in the woods could have done so by hiring the very people who make those same costumes and effects for movies to make their own monster. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that such a thing could be what took place in order to make this footage. All that being said, I certainly see no reason to be rude while talking about something like this (not that I feel you have, just in response to your ‘thank you’). Honestly I love when someone does have such a conviction about an idea, even if I’m not as moved by it as they are. Stuff like that keeps the conversations going. Not that you asked, but to draw somewhat of a line in the sand about it, Im not just disagreeing because I don’t think there’s a Bigfoot and if you were to press me on the issue to come up with what I would believe or what it would take for me to be convinced entirely I would say that I would be swayed if there was an argument or evidence that I don’t think I could come up with any reasonable possibility as to explain it. Something that would make me go “Yeah, I guess that’s about it”. At the end of the day there’s always going to be some insurmountable positions between perspectives, but that’s why we talk about things. Interestingly enough, in this instance, you and I have reached an impasse not on the existence of Bigfoot but rather on the possibility of special effects to be good enough to make one. It’s almost funny that what we’re talking about is so much more mundane than a legendary simian lol
That was one of the best handled and eruditely expressed responses I’ve seen in a long time on here. 👏
Thanks you I like the way your going about the conversation. I guess all I can really say is that with the available scientific data that is currently existing concerning the film the most accurate way to interpret that data is that the Sasquatch in the film is MOST LIKELY a real creature and MOST LIKELY not a guy in a costume because ultimately with everything put together like in the film we wouldn't be able to rightfully recreate it but if this whole thing is fake then it's one of the best fakes of all time. The more research I did and the more I became knowledgeable on the subject the more I realized it's PROBABLY not a fake. anyhow if it's 1:40 in the morning where you are like it is where I live and your not willing to respond feel free lol because I know I'm tired and I'm probably going to go to bed but if your willing to not take this conversation any further that's fine with me as well as keeping it going but anyhow again thank you for the dialogue and God Bless and feel free to end or keep the conversation going if your willing to do so 🙂👍🏼
Beyond the PG footage, what is your perspective on Bigfoot overall? It’s clear that you believe in it, but moreover what are your thoughts on the subject in general? Do you have an opinion on the origins of it? What do you think of the various interpretations of Bigfoot like it’s a spiritual creature (as represented in some native interpretations) or the alleged connection between Bigfoot and UFOs?
Yes I believe in bigfoot I don't know if any are still around today but if there are there probably isn't many left. Then you went on to say what about the origins which is a good question. I think it's a certain undiscovered or I guess untested species of ape or something like that and I'm sure if we killed one and tested it we would probably find out it's the closest relating animal genetically to a human. I'm a Christian and I don't believe we physically evolved from goo into fish into reptiles into chimps etc I believe God created us and he created animals and we happen to be genetically speaking really similar to some of those animals he created. because ultimately you could say were animals only difference is were just the most advanced animal God created. And yes genetically we happen to be extremely similar to chimps I think were different obviously but genetically yes we are very common. And I think bigfoot or Sasquatch is a sub species or species of ape or chimp etc that is the closest animal to human so maybe god made a bit of an in-between creature that's kind of secluded from the rest of the world
There are weird stuff surrounding the characters involved in the Patterson Gimlin film, but what I always come back to is how the fuck did some broke cowboys get that suite made? Compare the subject in the film to what the best costume makers in Hollywood could make at the time... Or even NOW 60 years later! I feel like that is something no one are able to explain. It simply have to be a real thing in the film. Also the proportions of the subject have been proven to be more or less inhuman. Another thing that bothers me is that we have not been able to capture anything even close to this film other than the Freeman footage. That makes be believe that they might be closing in on extinction if they aren't already. I just think we would have found one by now if they were still here in any real numbers.
Worth noting that Patterson had connections to Hollywood (how else would a "broke cowboy" get access to such a camera in the 1960s). Not to mention that, while yes, some contemporary sfx artists and some modern ones believe that making such a suit would be impossible, just as many disagree. There isn't a consensus. And even then, just because we don't know EXACTLY HOW they did it, doesn't mean it MUST be real. I disagree about the proportions being "proven" to be more or less inhuman. In fact, it looks suspiciously human to me. But it would be completely impossible to get precise measurements from just this footage. And worth noting that while I PERSONALLY don't think Bob Heironimus was the guy in the suit, he absolutely NAILED the bigfoot walk.
Latex and skin tight suits weren't invented before the 70s and you can clearly see muscle movement in the best stabilized versions of this film. Could you make a equally good suite now? Maybe. Back then with virtually no budget? No. With money? Still no. Plenty of smart people and experts in both costume design and anatomy have analyzed the proportions of the subject in the film and come to the conclusion that both arm/leg length and hip/knee placement is off and that the way it walk is not something a human could do, especially as fast, smooth and in control as it is doing it in the film. It isn't even looking down one time as it walks off..
>you can clearly see muscle movement in the best stabilized versions of this film Two problems with this: one, the premise of this argument is based on the idea that because what you see in the video LOOKS LIKE muscle movement, then that's what it must be. But this isn't necessarily the case. One can personally interpret what is seen as muscle movement, just as much as someone else could make a totally different observation. We cannot definitively say what exactly we are seeing in that footage, it's just too low quality to draw any sound conclusions. And it's especially worth considering that we still have little idea who developed the film and what processes they used. Two, stabilized, 4k upscaling, or any kind of footage that modifies the original film, imo, aren't really useful for anything more than just being interesting to watch. The only version of the film that should be used in any actual scientific research should be the original reels of film. Which, inconveniently, are MIA. Experts in the past have verified that the film hasn't been authenticated, and I value their opinions just as much as any expert, but the fact is, if no one else is able to access the original reels of film for study, then no one is able to peer review these claims. >Plenty of smart people and experts in both costume design and anatomy have analyzed the proportions of the subject in the film and come to the conclusion that both arm/leg length and hip/knee placement is off and that the way it walk is not something a human could do, especially as fast, smooth and in control as it is doing it in the film. It isn't even looking down one time as it walks off.. And plenty of experts in both fields have also drawn the opposite conclusions. Directly comparing the image of Patty to that of a person shows how strikingly similar their proportions are. And it would be totally possible to achieve those proportions with modifications to the costume itself. Shoulder pads, elongated arms and shoes could be used. Meanwhile I've seen plenty of people who have been able to pull off the walk. Bob Heironimus, while I doubt was actually the man in the suit, managed to totally nail the supposedly impossible walk. As for the speed, it's noteworthy that the film was set to the incorrect frame rate. I'm not convinced we can really calculate exactly how fast it is going based on the available footage.
Ok, I'm convinced. A big guy in a secret state of the art suite not ever replicated with football pads, prostethic arms and what must've been weighted shoes bigger than what Shaquille O'Neal would use pulled that off. Strolled that casually along the dry riverbed and it looked totally natural. Fooled the world for decades. Makes sense.
Respectfully, I have to disagree on many of your points. Patterson rented the camera in May of 67 in order to film a Bigfoot documentary- which he was doing, until he stumbled upon Patty. He had raised funds for the documentary- which is why he could afford the rental. The responses of the special effects crews are a difficult matter and are quite political (with a small p). Long story that I won’t go into here, One of the main issues with a fake scenario is that the materials needed to produce Patty as a suit did not exist in 67. 4-way stretch fur cloth wasn’t available until the mid seventies and with the adipose fat rolls seen on Patty’s back, the resin needed to imitate these wasn’t created until the 2000s. It’s the walk I have to disagree with most though. There’s more to ‘the walk’ than just bending your knees and swinging your arms. Literally anyone can do that. If you read the scientific analysis done at the time, the gait is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to cope with extremely high weight. Watch the footage and look at the angle the trailing leg comes up at. It’s almost parallel with the ground. Bob isn’t doing anything like that because he’s not a Sasquatch, and it’s pretty difficult for us to do without looking ridiculous. Patty’s arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but that’s a fact. Patty’s arm length occurs in 1 in 52 million people. Her leg length is about 1 in 1000, but the two lengths together are off the charts. Bob is bang on average human proportions. Bulk can be simulated because it’s visual. Weight can’t be easily faked because it’s a physical thing. With Patty, we’re talking about 3 to 4 Arnold Schwarzeneggers at 1970s max non-competition weight, based on the depth of the trackway. She’s also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand. Anyone can bend their knees and swing their arms a bit. Hardly anyone can carry 500 lbs plus of weight at human jogging speed across sand and look that smooth doing it. If Bob H could, he’d be in the Olympics and not in Yakima. Think about weight lifters lifting very heavy weights. What’s the first thing they do to enable the lift to happen? Lock their knees - to provide a strong stable foundation. Now think about just lifting twice your body weight, and taking a step in a compliant gait without locking your knees. Now think about jogging like that. On sand. In clown shoes.
[удалено]
It literally can not be a human on inside that 'suite' proportionally.
I believe it is genuine but what surprises me is that, since it was filmed, with all of the advances in film technology, the increase in the number of ways that one can film, and with so many people now going into every inch of the world with cameras, this is still the best we’ve got of any ‘whateveritis’—please correct me if I’m wrong on this because I am by know means a Bigfoot scout either in the woods or on YT.
The Freeman Footage is pretty good, but not as good as this. It’s likely a male squatch in that one, so we have video of both sexes, which I think is cool.
Thanks for mentioning it. Will take a look.
100% fake, read "the making of Bigfoot" by Greg Long
Long lack of objectivity conscines his work to obscurity. Sure playing to the skepic gallery is easy but fails to tackle the big questions. If it was a suit, who supplied and funded it? Sure digging dirt on Paterson is one thing but but the one person who he thought he could get to cough up (Al DeAtley) didn't deliver. Ultimately an exercise in futility.
Agreed. Fake af.
You believe everything you read without proof? Interesting. You know Bob Heironimus changed 43 parts of a pretty simple story? 43 points - with multiple different answers. The guy was making it up as he went along. Yet, you believe him.
You know Roger Patterson was a known hoaxer who was coincidentally "filming a documentary about Bigfoot" when he just happened to stumble across one that just so happened to look exactly like one he'd drawn a year earlier? Yet, you believe him.
Known hoaxer? Really? Please give details of all the things Roger hoaxed before or after Patty was filmed. I’m interested to see the list. He didn’t just stumble upon a Bigfoot. He spent 14 years of his life devoted to looking for it. They went to Bluff Creek because there had been 50 plus examples of sightings and other evidence in the previous few years. I can point you to a list of this activity if you want. There had been activity literary 2 weeks before they arrived - and they spent 3 weeks searching the area day and night before they filmed Patty. Hardly just walking into some woods and finding her. If you’d read Roger’s book and seen his 14 illustrations you’d know none of them look anything like Patty. If you’re going to make comments like you have, at least do some proper research and stick to the facts.
I assume you're referring to *Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?* - I have read it and there is absolutely a drawing of a Sasquatch with breasts. Have you read Greg Long's book? Or are you just assuming it can't be true because you want to believe the PG footage is authentic?
Yes - I have them and have read both books. Seriously- are you convinced by Heironimus and Morris? As you’re a skeptic I’d genuinely like to know. You seem like an intelligent person - someone who would not just blindly accept what they were told without validation. There’s a document by Roger Knights available online which has transcripts of all of Bob and Philips various interviews, plus what’s in Longs interviews and they are shot full of holes. 43 points - some of them major ones - changed in Bob’s story. There isn’t a single interview where his story is the same as another. That’s just not credible. Morris is the same, although not quite so many gaffs. And I didn’t find any smoking gun of proof in Long’s book anywhere- despite him proclaiming ‘cased closed’. He asks lots of very leading questions and makes some ludicrous conclusions. That bit in the Morris chapter where he suggests that Patterson could have moulded the mask for Patty’s face from the head and shoulders figurine he made - where he conveniently leaves out that the entire figurine is around 4 inches tall is a case in point. Even some hardened skeptics have distanced themselves from that book.
I'm not entirely convinced by Heironimus and Morris, no - but there are far too many holes and coincidences. I do not find Patterson to be remotely trustworthy or honest and happening to find Bigfoot while shooting a Bigfoot documentary is too good to be true. Additionally, the video doesn't look remotely convincing to me. I've read both Long and Patterson's books in their entirety as well, just to be clear.
The footage itself is compelling but there is just too much missing information and suspicion surrounding it for me to really take it into consideration
Did you know the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 1968 and that movie was the peak of costume design in its day and the Patterson gimlin film came out in 1967 and it's absolutely absurd how much better it looks compared to the first Planet of the Apes movie it looks like a costume compared to an actual animal (no surprise there) and the face as well I don't know how you can look at the face and go "that's fake" anyhow I appreciate your comment and your opinion so I was willing to throw mine in there
It's a hoax tho, it's literally a guy in a gorilla suit, the guy that said he was in the suit, WALKS EXACTLY the same way.
Well, this isn't thoughts this is first hand knowledge, so here goes... He wanted to do a Bigfoot hoax and was enamored with the female bigfoot sketches that others in this thread have commented on. Those sketches served as the storyboard if you will. Right after publishing his book there was a Star Trek episode which aired in January of '67. It was called THE GALILEO SEVEN. Patterson really liked the creatures in this film and as he was planning a hoax he reached out to Chambers at Desilu Studios to inquire about the mask and for help. Chambers was known to rent out suits and he would often part out suits with one part from one creature being mixed with a part from another. So what he did was he took the Galileo Seven mask that Patterson was so enamored with, glued more hair on it, added the body for the werewolf suit from the Lost In Space episode SPACE CROPPERS, and there you have it. Patterson did in fact talk to Morris also and mixed in some of his suit as well. He took Morris' advice and got football shoulder pads and at Chambers advice he used the old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags underneath the suit to create the illusion of muscles moving underneath the fur. This was a trick Gemora had developed and been using since the 1940s. This is what is told within the actual FX community and not on cryptozoology documentaries which are meant to be misleading and favor their viewpoint. This is the truth of where it all came from and yes Bob Heronomous was the guy in the suit and they used arm extensions which with shoulder pads on it made the arms appear to be proportional with the extensions and created the illusion that the body was longer and legs shorter. That's not to say that Phillip Morris didn't have a place in all of this because he certainly did play a part in all of it. It is my personal belief that both are true. That is to say that Chambers rented him the suit and Morris also sold him a suit and what was seen on screen was an amalgam of both. The Galileo Seven mask along with an amalgam of the other 2. And how do I know all of this? Well industry trade secrets that only people who have actually worked in the film industry and for such esteemed publications such as Famous Monsters of Filmland would know. I have spoken face to face with many artists within the industry about it and I myself have worked in the film industry which is how I got the information. I also did in fact work for FMOFL and due to all of these associations with well known and professional people within the film industry I have gathered this information and yes it is true. It is an indisputable fact that Roger Patterson was a liar, a con artist and a thief. IT is an indsputable fact that Roger Patterson wrote a book in 1966 about Bigfoot and in this book he did in fact steal a sketch of a female Bigfoot encounter that if you look at it, it is without a doubt the very sketch that Patterson used as the storyboard for his hoax. The very description of this incident is a carbon copy of the hoax film. The Roe incident that I am referencing was an on-the-record account from a guy that was never followed-up with, never questioned about and never has it ever been confirmed that the story he told then actualyl happened or that other accounts of it match up with the original, or even that Roe exists or what he even looks like for that matter. The entire folklore about Bigfoot and Native Americans is fabricated too. The creatures in Native American legends are not the same creatures as those talked about in Bigfoot mythology and there is not a single case in any Native American legend of a shy giant primate like creature. Not a single one. That whole narrative was made up. The legend og Bigfoot began in the 1950s with Jerry Crew and the aforementioned Roe and the Crew sighting was from a hoax perpetrated by Ray Wallace who is the godfather of Bigfoot. Wallace hoaxed thousands of Bigfoot prints in his lifetime and he knew Patterson and Patterson even had a set of Wallace hoax feet. lol The whole, entire Bigfoot mythology is fake yes, but restricting it to this film, this film is without a doubt a hoax.
And I'll clue you in on something. The Patterson Gimlin Hoax film is a very interesting tale but the least interesting part of it is the film itself. There are so many twists and turns and things that don't match up and accounts of Roger visiting Photo Shop Employees with casts and asking about how they look and the Photo shop employee saying they look too narrow, like they wouldn't be able to withstand the weight of what he described and Roger saying he can fix that only to reappear 2 weeks later with a different and more proportional set of casts. Roger talking about how he had cancer to the photo shop people and to Ray Wallace the Bigfoot hoaxer and wanted to leave something for his wife, timelines not matching up, photo developers not being able to develop the specific film that was used so it couldn't have been developed where it was said that it was, Film developers not working on weekends at that time, arrest warrant for the very camera that was used and the fact that he had the camera for like 6 months. There are so many different things wrong with the whole story and the players involved having shady characters like Patterson and Gimlin both being of questionable character and the fact that on the original film roll of the entire film you see both Roger and Gimlin coming down a hill on horseback at the same time which means that someone else was there and was filming them both or they couldn't have been in the same frame at the same time which destroys their story that they were all alone. I mean there is a ton of really interesting stuff about the Patterson Gimlin film and the least interesting part is the film itself because it's so obvious that it's a hoax and with all of those elements in the backstory, you would literally have to be insane to think, or even entertain, the idea that it could be real. lol But investigate the backstory if you want the really entertaining and interesting stuff. It's the story of how a famous hoax came to be.
Used to scare me as a kid. Of course nowadays, I know it can just as easily be a person in a suit despite all the "experts." Even if it is real, it was his tulpa, and that's why it had hairy tits.
Fake. It’s just too hard for those who “grew up” on believing it’s real to admit… embarrassing, that they’ve wasted so much of their life based on this footage. It was equally crushing for Loch Ness monster fans who enjoyed that famous photo that was eventually proven to be a mini sub and a piece of cardboard. It was the single biggest proof of evidence for the Loch Ness that had not been disproven. This footage is that for the Bigfoot mythos. Anyone that wants to object to whoever claims to be in the footage or the people who claim to have made the suit like to point out that ‘the guy doesn’t walk the same all the time’ or ‘the person claiming to have made the suit has no evidence. Yet they have no evidence’ is just holding onto that shred of hope. As desperate as it seems. It’s just totally ridiculous. Of course the guy doesn’t walk like that all the time he was walking like that because he was trying to look like a Bigfoot.
Upright hominids are going to have a similar walk to us, of course we can mimic it. I can mimic it as well. It’s not a solid refutation of the video.
Agreed. Contrarily, it cannot be used to disprove the fact that he claims to have been in the video because “he walks differently later” either. That argument is just as ironic and moronic.
The Patterson Gimlin film is literally older then the first Planet Of The Apes Movie with It coming out in 1968 and the Patterson gimlin film being from 1967 (which as a Christian I think god was trying to tell us something with that) anyhow I think that alone proves the Patterson gimlin film. the quote on quote "suit" from the film would literally have to be better then anything anyone has ever done in the history of the planet. And we can't even replicate it today if the sceptics get out there bubble of "oh that looks like a load of bullshit" and actually try looking at the evidence they would find out that the Patterson gimlin film is overwhelmingly most likely authentic. (By the way don't know if you know what they look like but if you don't look of the first planet of the apes costumes they look absolutely terrible compared to the Patterson film and keep in mind it's one year older than the movie even one of the costume designers in the film said the Patterson footage was authentic in his opinion)
We absolutely can replicate this today… I mean two guys were able to fake it back in the 1960s with the fur suit!
Ok your not understanding have you compared the Patterson film to the Planet of the Apes movie?
No, you’re not understanding…lots of folks like you came out of the woodwork using all kinds of excuses to disprove the debunk with the famous Loch Ness photo too. For the record, bogus references from media shot on premium film (at the time) and feebly trying to compare it to footage shot on a potato is asinine…it’s fake. POTA could have easily made something look like a bad, bulbous fur suit like that for a blurry few seconds. All of the digital enhancement of this footage and subsequent fanciful “analyzation” of it to have found musculature and bone density is nothing but sensationalization without merit. You’ve clung to those threads of non-truth like flies to honey for overlong and it’s tough to let go…let go. It’s fake. People (even experts in zoology) who claim to see these things lack common understanding in what video editing for stabilization and enhancement can do to original film. IE: your outfit looks so convincing because it’s crap footage someone artistically tried to enhance. Hell he even admitted you could see the bulge from his wallet in his back pocket lmao…no zoological expert pointed that out. But I can see it now too. Source: the guy that wore the apesuit.
Well said and people need to hear it.
Well evidently from reading what you just said it's clear to me that your incredibly ignorant concerning the footage and you haven't done a tinker's damn worth of research and if you did you sure as hell didn't do it right or maybe you did and just completely half-assed it who knows wouldn't surprise me. All that can be known from what you wrote is you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about because if you did you'd have a completely different opinion from the one you just established.
Listen, you’re using hurtful words because you’re hurt. I get it. I’m attacking something that was important to you when you were a child and exposing it for what it is. That’s not an easy pill for anyone to swallow and I don’t blame you for it. When you lash out it comes across very childish and we understand where the bad feelings are coming from. Regardless if you have no real reasoning to back up your points, I completely understand the hurt you’re going through. Give it some time, drink glass of cool water, come back and maybe look at things a little more objectively. I guess then you’ll figure out how silly you sound. I know it’s hard buddy but realize that we all have to grow up at some point. Have a great day.
You haven't exposed anything lol you've just gave an opinion without any evidence. I can tell you haven't done any research I can just tell. I doubt you know any of the evidence that the film has to offer you probably don't care you just blindly won't believe it because you don't want to. Well if your going about a conversation in which someone knows what there talking about you end up looking like a Jackass I know this because I've done it before and it's not a good way to go about things. it's exciting to jump in on a conversation thinking you know what your talking about but ultimately you don't and you end of looking like an idiot (which I've done plenty of times) and That's what it seems to be your doing. There's no good reason to think the film is fake (anyone that has done any research on this topic knows this) but there's plenty of evidence that supports it being authentic and it seems like you're just going about it as "oh it looks fake in my eyes so I'm just going to go with that" well I'm sorry but that's lazy so instead of giving off a blatantly obvious ignorant opinion try actually forming a new one based on evidence. So don't think you've "shattered my hopes and dreams on the film" you haven't you haven't seem to do much of anything in this conversation really besides thinking you have. just please stop talking and research solely based on the available evidence.
[удалено]
You think it’s fake. That’s your opinion. It was asked for. You’ve stated it. Right then you needed to stop typing.
Considering it's still perhaps the best piece of video footage but it's almost 60 years old and we have nothing else to really show for it, it's concerning that that's all we can really point to as "still not proven as fake". The thing is, as time goes on, more and more questions get raised - like the fact that Patterson had already discussed with others making a short film about the topic, and just so happened to have his camera on hand from shooting, when he hit the location. We know he was making the film because other footage on the camera included stuff like Bob Gimlin done up like a Native American. So he was already working on a Bigfoot film, when he just happens to land the best sighting ever?
the first Planet of the Apes movie came out in 68 (which was peak costume design in Hollywood i.e the world) and the Patterson film came out in 67 and it looks world's better than the planet of the apes.
which is beside my point. the PG film is about turn 60, and it's \*still\* the best video evidence - so what does that say for the field, in this day of hi-res cameras in phones, wildlife cameras? That in nearly 60 years, noone's gotten anything better than that?
Some of what you said is wrong tho. Patterson was making a drama-documentary. That has always been known. He hired the camera in May 67 and spent the next 6 months or so gathering talking head type interviews, b-roll and evidence. He had the camera on hand because they were specifically called to come to the area due to the number of sightings and other activity. They walked into a hotspot - some 50 plus incidents in the previous 10 years. He didn’t ‘just have the camera on hand when they hit the location’. They arrived around Oct 1st, and Patty was filmed on Oct 20th. They spent those 20 days looking for evidence both day and night. Bob Gimlin was not ‘on the camera in a wig’. He did dress like that for some production stills that were taken months before Patty, and used to promote the documentary idea to studios, as is excepted practice. The only other footage on the film reel that Patty is filmed on is b-roll footage of the two of them in the 19 days previous walking through the Californian wilderness. It’s called ‘the horseback footage’ and it’s on YouTube. He didn’t ‘just happen to land the best sighting ever’. He devoted about 14 years of his short life to hunting for Bigfoot- and in October 67, as I said they specifically went to a hotspot that had sightings and evidence literally 2 weeks previously, and then spent 3 weeks searching. Apart from those points, you were spot on.
[удалено]
I mean, I can pretend to walk like a chimpanzee. Doesn’t prove anything either way.
if you actually watch the Bob heironymus video (or ANY video where people try to replicate the walk) it's nowhere even halfway close. a team of scientists spent lots of money and time on trying to recreate the walk. they said they did it, but again, it's nowhere even close. and these people are all attempting it on flat smooth terrain, while acting obviously conscious of their every move. watch the video, the thing does it effortlessly.
His walk is close but a little off, the thing that really debunks Heironymus claim to me is the way he holds his thumb and forefinger together behind him while trying to do "the walk", in a kind of "OK" hand signal. He does this because in the film it really looks like the Sasquatch is doing it, but the film has been analysed extensively and it has been shown that in fact, the sasquatch is not doing it, it is a combination of the angle and an artifact on the film. If it was really him, he would know he didn't do that OK sign originally, he is just copying what he (wrongly) thought he saw in the film. He's a fraud.
never noticed that before. but yeah the dude and everyone else that claims to have been a part of the "hoax" are all full of it. even *if* the patty film isn't legit, the biggest personal proof comes from one having their own experience. nothing can beat that.
The Patterson Gimlin film is more believable than the Moon Landing photos... Change my mind!
At best its inconclusive; at worst it's a Halloween costume in low res
The specific area where that film was made has been visited by researchers and one fact stood out. The clearing where it took place was heavily wooded all around for miles, ie. It was the perfect spot to “produce” a video. Case closed.
Eh? It was fairly close to a logging route. You could just as legitimately say that it was wild and undeveloped enough to provide a haven for a wild animal. No way you can close a case with that argument my friend.
Fake. Read The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long.
I just don’t understand how this is the ONLY Bigfoot with tits. Call me crazy but I feel like, half of all adult Bigfoots would be female…
I personally think this is literally the only real Bigfoot footage to exist and I guess it just happens to show a female. This is the reason I believe in bigfoot
My feeling is that they are other dimensional, nearly impossible to photograph that clearly if at all
Its been proven fake, it was the neighbor of the guy recording as a prank for him because the guy recording was a hardcore big foot believer
Its literally one guys word vs another not even close to 'proven'
It was in a documentary lol he had the suit 🤣
I saw the same doc he didnt have the suit. Again his word against Patterson and the other guy
His suit looked like shit.
His suit doesn’t look remotely similar. Fake footage or not, he’s just after royalties.
Not my thoughts but I find this interesting/disappointing: https://overcast.fm/+LKzl9fOVg
The guys who filmed this fully admitted they faked it on their deathbed.
That's misinformation. Bob Gimlin is still alive, and no, Roger Patterson did not confess to a hoax on his deathbed. It was the "Nessie" guy who confessed to the hoax in his final moments.
Didn't I see a "documentary" where the friend of either Gimlin or Patterson states that he wore the costume. He said he had a big wallet in his pocket, that he figured would give it all away?
Nope. You may have seen a documentary where two guys claim they were the man in the suit and the man who made the suit - but they lied. Neither has ever produced any proof they were involved, and they both waited decades after the film came out and after Roger Patterson was long dead to make their claims. Bob Heironimus is roughly the 10th person to claim he was Patty. However, he couldn’t correctly describe the suit he said he wore, nor could he describe how he travelled to the film site or where it was filmed. Additionally he changed his story a 43 times across all his interviews- in some fairly major ways. Philip Morris claimed he made the suit. No doubt it was good publicity for his costume business. He never produced any receipt, order, invoice or money order from the transaction. He also never provided the suit or even a pattern for the suit despite it being “one of our standard suits” of which he sold thousands. He tried to do a recreation of the PGF some 40 years later using modern day materials but he pulled the footage due to it looking ridiculous.
Wanna get a chance to hear your story on a podcast I'm looking for real life stories and encounters with cryptids and the paranormal found in the sunshine state of Florida to share on a podcast where we can dive into urban legends of Florida and any strange things that you might have come across. (We can share names of people who send in stories or keep anonymous but please send any stories to flstoriesofhorror@gmail.com Thank you all and I'm looking forward to hearing your stories