The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

[EnolaGaia]

This is my point. There are a number of possibilities on the table.
...

Agreed ... The ambiguities are plentiful enough to provide room for inserting most any interpretation into the incident.

Your references to Gimlin's complicity shift the focus from the sighting itself to the context of the sighting (most particularly, what was going on with their October 1967 mini-expedition in the first place). With respect to this context-rather-than-sighting theme, there are some points that have always bugged me ...

My first contextual sticking point concerns the October 1967 trip overall. It's pretty clear Patterson wanted to be equipped to obtain and bring back some tangible record of whatever they might encounter. Patterson rented a decent 16mm camera, and they'd brought plaster to make footprint casts. These basic facts are consistent with both (a) an open-ended search for Bigfoot and / or evidence of its existence and (b) a mini-project to create new material for the re-enactment film Patterson had been promoting and working on for some time.

One can argue for either (a) or (b) until blue in the face. The key issue here is what Patterson's actual intentions were. My biggest problem with accepting option (a) is figuring out why Patterson would have believed he and Gimlin stood enough of a chance of finding something to undertake the venture. Patterson was persistently strapped for money, and the October 1967 trip involved considerable (relative) expense for him. Patterson's familiarity with Bigfoot incidents and the people involved was sufficient to help him target the area for searching. It should also have been sufficient to give him pause with respect to his chances of encountering anything.

 

[EnolaGaia]

My second contextual sticking point concerns a seemingly minor issue that my mind snags upon every time I read about the mini-expedition. Gimlin was an experienced rider, and he owned multiple ride-able horses. However, Gimlin's horses were purportedly all relatively young and potentially skittish (e.g., susceptible to bucking if startled). Patterson went to the trouble of borrowing an older horse from a 3rd party for Gimlin to ride. Why would this have been so important unless Patterson expected to encounter something? Was he strangely confident about an encounter, or was he oddly obsessive about backcountry safety?

 

[EnolaGaia]

My third contextual sticking point concerns the day of the sighting / filming (assuming it was in fact the date they would claim). The guys had brought two means for demonstrating whatever they might find - the camera and the plaster. When they set out that day, they only bothered to bring one - the camera, with at least one extra spool of film. Why weren't they carrying any plaster? Even if they'd brought the plaster to their campsite in a large bag (container, whatever ... ), they could have transferred a smaller amount to carry along with them.

This bothers me because after the filming encounter they returned to the campsite (circa 3 miles distant), got the plaster, and returned to the filming location to examine tracks and make two casts. The failure to bring any plaster meant P & G would have to leave the scene for some time (certainly an hour or more), which would have been convenient if it were a hoax, Gimlin wasn't in on it, and there were one or more other conspirators who needed to evacuate in their absence. This digression back to the campsite (plus the time needed to recover Patterson's horses before, then examine / cast the tracks afterward) is the biggest reason I've never been able to convince myself they could have done all they claimed to have done and still made it 50-some miles away to the Willow Creek store circa 5 hours after the time of the sighting.

It also bothers me because it insinuates Patterson was more confident of seeing something to film than finding something to cast, even though Bigfoot tracks (and casts thereof) were already a significant aspect of sasquatch research.

 

[David Plankton]

Gimlin was an experienced rider, and he owned multiple ride-able horses. However, Gimlin's horses were purportedly all relatively young and potentially skittish (e.g., susceptible to bucking if startled). Patterson went to the trouble of borrowing an older horse from a 3rd party for Gimlin to ride. Why would this have been so important unless Patterson expected to encounter something? Was he strangely confident about an encounter, or was he oddly obsessive about backcountry safety?

I don't think this sounds too strange.
If Gimlin went along with this (the use of a borrowed horse), wouldn't it suggest that he thought it was a good idea to do so? If two 'experienced horsemen' agree on a plan of action, then what's the mystery? If you were going riding in a wilderness area you would chose a more reliable older horse over a 'young and skittish' one every time, no? And as to going to the 'trouble' of borrowing one, I don't think that people with such experience of riding horses would find it too difficult to source a new mount.

If I were Patterson and I was trying to fool Gimlin, then I would be more concerned about his reaction to a guy in a suit rather than that of his horse. All it would have taken was for Gimlin to realise and the whole thing would have been over before it started. (And if that were an extremely expensive costume, it would have been an extreme waste of money)

It's been stated that they had a pact not to shoot a Bigfoot should they encounter one. Given that Patterson's words to Gimlin before he started filming were "Cover me", meaning with a rifle, don't you think this is an incredibly risky gambit on his part? Gimlin could have easily killed the figure in the film. It must have taken a lot of persuasion to convince the guy in the suit that everything would be ok.

The guys had brought two means for demonstrating whatever they might find - the camera and the plaster. When they set out that day, they only bothered to bring one - the camera, with at least one extra spool of film. Why weren't they carrying any plaster?

As I understand it, and I'll admit I'm just going off internet sources, they had heard of a place where prints were to be found, the Blue Creek Mountain and were going to take casts there at a later date. So at the time they shot the P+G film, that's all they were doing - shooting film. The fact that they were close enough to camp to retrieve some plaster means to me that they didn't think it was that important to carry it with them. Footprints aren't going to disappear that quickly.

Like you say, you can argue this until you're blue in the face but I think trying to work out what happened behind the camera will be disadvantageous given the time passed, the deaths, the faulty memories and the lies.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Like you say, you can argue this until you're blue in the face but I think trying to work out what happened behind the camera will be disadvantageous given the time passed, the deaths, the faulty memories and the lies.

Agreed ... Unfortunately, this situation leaves us with nothing beyond the film, which has proven itself less than convincing as evidence. The futility of trying to make sense of the P & G incident is one of the reasons I quit paying attention to the sasquatch stuff years ago.

 

[stu neville]

Also agreed. In fact you can argue that the whole question of whether Bigfoot exists is near as dammit irrelevant to the film, in a way. Like Roswell it has become an entity of its own, with its own momentum. Whether or not it portrays a genuine bigfoot is almost incidental to the film, which has become a Fortean entity in its own right.

..So it always goes with these things. If John Keel's ideas are correct, then it is perfectly possible that

1) No population of Bigfeet exists anywhere on earth; AND
2) the film is not a hoax.

Perhaps on a collective unconscious level we want - or even need - for that sort of entity to exist. An archetype representing the wild nature part of man, like the Green man, so we can reflect on our own comfort and civilisation. Like we need aliens to exist so we're not alone, or ghosts to exist so that death may not be the end.

 

[David Plankton]

M K Davis has done a series of rather good, unsensational analyses of the film on youtube,

I do like his videos and there's another guy Thinker Thunker who does similar things regarding computer analysis, but what makes his channel so interesting is the work he's done looking at Patty's gait.

However, they are both very obviously believers in Bigfoot and I think M K Davis in particular starts to see things in the P+G film that maybe aren't there. On such video claimed to be showing nipples on the breast (not as far as I could see, but hey - a suit can have nipples, just like a guy in a mask has eyes) and another focusing on it's arsehole for some reason but I stopped watching that one as it seemed too daft even for me.

Davis went to Bluff Creek in 2008 and put a film of the expedition on youtube. Quite difficult to access, they had to remove fallen trees and navigate a rock slide. Interesting to see what it looks like now (or looked like in 2008). Reviewing the footage seven years later he discovered that he had filmed something previously unnoticed. I'll not spoil it but I wouldn't get your hopes up about it either.

Are there any good video analyses out there coming from a debunker's perspective?

 

[stu neville]

Not so many - a lot of the debunkers take the stance that they won't review it "as it's clearly fake." which is helpful.

Thinker Thunker does say when he finds vids unconvincing. Davis is partisan, but as I said not outrageously so.

 

[Coal]

Not so many - a lot of the debunkers take the stance that they won't review it "as it's clearly fake." which is helpful.

Well, another way of reading that is that said 'debunkers' are in fact being a lot more objective from the outset.

Once you're down the rabbit hole of 'wanting to believe', confirmation bias will have you looking at every pixel desperately trying to find confirmation of 'your' truth. It's Holmes' capital mistake of theorising without data.

Much as I'd love it if did turn turn out there was a 'Bigfoot', this film proves nothing at all and never will!

 

[oldrover]

Re the figure when it turns: M K Davis has done a series of rather good, unsensational analyses of the film on youtube, and this one mostly focuses on a single frame, 362, where you see the face. Some interesting observations in there. See what you think.

I'm not seeing an eye. I'm sure M K Davis has forgotten more about photo examination than I'll ever know, but at the end of the day however much he enhances the film interpreting the results seems to come down to personal perception. And as I say, I didn't see what he seems to have done.

I must admit though that I don't think I've seen the face in that much detail before. But to me, it just made it look much more mask like.

 

[stu neville]

No, nor me eye-wise. But his method is thorough. I think the point is (as I've said more than once) that the movie itself is of interest as an example of ambiguity. Even if it is proven fake unequivocally, it will still be as Fortean a piece as a FeeJee Mermaid. The fact that it still divides opinion and defies definitive debunking fifty years on, despite the marches technology and analysis have made, is in itself remarkable.

As I've always said, I 99% believe in Bigfoot's objective reality. I don't however immediately believe that Patty is an actual example of one - but I'll be pleased if after all these years it is. If not, I'll still be fascinated by an amateur film that can keep people guessing for half a century. And that's Forteanism at its very essence.

 

[dreeness .]

Hoax or real, there have to be eyes.

Or at least, eyes would be of enormous benefit, in either case.

 

[oldrover]

No, nor me eye-wise. But his method is thorough. I think the point is (as I've said more than once) that the movie itself is of interest as an example of ambiguity. Even if it is proven fake unequivocally, it will still be as Fortean a piece as a FeeJee Mermaid. The fact that it still divides opinion and defies definitive debunking fifty years on, despite the marches technology and analysis have made, is in itself remarkable.

As I've always said, I 99% believe in Bigfoot's objective reality. I don't however immediately believe that Patty is an actual example of one - but I'll be pleased if after all these years it is. If not, I'll still be fascinated by an amateur film that can keep people guessing for half a century. And that's Forteanism at its very essence.

I agree that it is a classic, it's the most iconic of all the crypto films nothing else even comes close.

I don't believe it shows a bigfoot, but I'm still very fond of it. I think that its enduring appeal though is part nostalgia for me, and part admiration for the talents of the people who made it. I sometimes wonder if today in our much more technological World people forget just how inventive a species we were when we had to do things ourselves, and make things out of actual stuff.

I can't agree though that it hasn't been debunked, I think that it has. Not just because I think the entire bigfoot question isn't really plausible in the first place. Although that doesn't stop it being interesting from a Fortean perspective though. But because of the back story. Aside from the whole business about the film and the funding, we know that Patterson must have been at least addressing the idea of a suit, and that in all probability he had one.

I think a potential way to shed light on this would have been for someone to have asked the people Patterson approached for funding what his response was when they asked what he was going to do about the bigfoot sequences.

 

[Coal]

The fact that it still divides opinion and defies definitive debunking fifty years on, despite the marches technology and analysis have made, is in itself remarkable.

That it can't be proved a fake does not prove it the real thing (it's the old 'argument to ignorance' thing), nor does it narrow the odds at all.

It is (the PG film) a remarkable example of people's desire to believe in something which can't be definitely shown, that I agree, which is interesting in itself.

I was edging towards (and possibly @stuneville you were studiously avoiding it ) the notion that if one is to review something like this, it has to be from the state of mind that is: "We don't know if bigfoot is real or not. Now, what does this film tell us?"

Once you're in a 'believing it's real' state, you cannot objectively review any such evidence, except that which has a clonking unFortean solidity. Sometimes not even then. The reverse is also true, those who deny an existence completely are as dogmatic as those who insist it's real. Neither pole can be, or are objective.

The objective view is "We don't know if the 'thing' exists or not, does this piece of evidence change that?"

 

[oldrover]

The reverse is also true, those who deny an existence completely are as dogmatic as those who insist it's real. Neither pole can be, or are objective.

Yes, the fact that I'm utterly convinced that Sasquatch doesn't exist obviously does colour my perception of the PG film, it can't fail to. And lets be fair, it has to be said that the screaming lack of evidence for bigfoot is a factor in approaching this film because you can't take it in isolation.

 

[stu neville]

That it can't be proved a fake does not prove it the real thing (it's the old 'argument to ignorance' thing), nor does it narrow the odds at all.

Completely agree with that, hence my statement above:

I don't however immediately believe that Patty is an actual example of one - but I'll be pleased if after all these years it is.

It is (the PG film) a remarkable example of people's desire to believe in something which can't be definitely shown, that I agree, which is interesting in itself.

I was edging towards (and possibly @stuneville you were studiously avoiding it )..

Damn! Rumbled!

the notion that if one is to review something like this, it has to be from the state of mind that is: "We don't know if bigfoot is real or not. Now, what does this film tell us?"

Again, I'm *only* 99% sure that it has an objective existence. What I am sure of is that people are seeing something, and many of those people aren't likely to mistake bears etc or be lying. What that something is is another matter altogether.

Once you're in a 'believing it's real' state, you cannot objectively review any such evidence, except that which has a clonking unFortean solidity. Sometimes not even then. The reverse is also true, those who deny an existence completely are as dogmatic as those who insist it's real. Neither pole can be, or are objective.

The objective view is "We don't know if the 'thing' exists or not, does this piece of evidence change that?"

Again, complete agreement. The only thing you can say for sure about Patty is that it's a film that shows a real living thing walking away from the camera (ie not animated or animatronic.) Anything else is purely conjecture.

 

[dreeness .]

Not so many - a lot of the debunkers take the stance that they won't review it "as it's clearly fake." which is helpful.

Or "It doesn't exist, and that's not what it looks like!"

---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

This always looked like mismatched parts of two different costumes costumes to me, the trousers are huge compared to everything above the waist. Did they originally intend it for a really, really tall actor, and then he wasn't going to be available so they had to scale down the top part for a much smaller guy?

 

[dreeness .]

Now here is some science or something.

The face of the thing (whatever it is) in the PG film is not a happy face. Aside from that, it has a sloped forehead, and the lower half of the face is in the form of a "muzzle" or "snout". (Researcher John Kirk did some photographic comparisons a while ago, to determine just how "snouty" the PG thing was. The conclusion was that it has quite a pronounced snout.) Humans tend to have flat faces, apes like chimps and gorillas are snout-faced. But the PG snout has some odd features. For one thing, it is hair-covered. Gorillas and chimps have just a few stray hairs on their snouts. Also, chimps and gorillas have no noses, or hardly any noses, they just have nostrils set in the snouts, gorillas have a bit of a concavity around the nostrils, but that's it. The PG thing has a nose, a very flat nose, more of a "nose-flap" perhaps, but at least it's something. Orangutans have a similar nose-flap, nowhere near as developed as that depicted on the PG thing, but noticeable.
What is the evolutionary purpose of a nose? To protect the nostrils?

(Leaving that aside for the moment)

The year was 1967 (1967!), and prominent scientist Desmond Morris had been pondering a scientific puzzle. Why do human females have such large firm round protruding breasts, compared to other female primates who have nothing like that? He arrived at a hypothesis, one that would eventually involve bipedalism and the missionary position and other things as well. How does a pelvic bone evolved for bipedal locomotion affect the nature of sexual intercourse? How does a bipedal female primate carry a nursing infant while walking?

(Leaving that aside for the moment)

Gender dimorphism, and secondary sexual characteristics. Female bipedal primates tend to be physically smaller than males. Also more gracile, with relatively narrower shoulders, prominent breasts, relatively finer facial features, relatively narrower waists and more rounded hips, chantilly lace, a pretty face, a pony-tail hanging down, a wiggle in the walk, a giggle in the talk, etc.

So, where does that leave the alleged "Patty" of the PG footage?
Was she a reasonable representation of a primitive female bipedal primate?

Well... not really.

She had impressive breasts, but that's about all she had going for her. She could have done something with her hair. You know, make an effort. Maybe lay off the snacks once in a while. She seems to have really let herself go.

(Of course, none of this precludes the possibility that there might be some female sasquatches out there who are total knockouts.)

(I've seen some artist sketches depicting sexy female sasquatches, and there's not too much to complain about, really. Think about it. A pretty girl, who just happens to be way too tall, with hairy legs and enormous feet. What's that? That's "Welcome to the Netherlands", pretty much.)

(I know any of you would be all over something like that.)

(Not me, but then again I'm sort of limited when it comes to that sort of thing, what with my heart condition, and the fact that I'm not a degenerate.)

(But don't let me put you off, you should all head right away for the mountains of British Columbia, with backpacks full of gin and condoms.)

 

[stu neville]

..So, where does that leave the alleged "Patty" of the PG footage?
Was she a reasonable representation of a primitive female bipedal primate?

Well... not really.

She had impressive breasts, but that's about all she had going for her. She could have done something with her hair. You know, make an effort. Maybe lay off the snacks once in a while. She seems to have really let herself go.

Interesting to compare with the description given by Albert Ostman from 1924, but related in 1957 (and yes, I know how disputed it is):

Nowadays the old lady could have been anything between 40-70 years old. She was over seven feet tall. She would be about 500-600 pounds...She had very wide hips, and a goose-like walk. She was not built for beauty or speed. Some of those lovable brassieres and uplifts would have been a great improvement on her looks and her figure..

..and also, the much less sensational, and more credible account by William Roe (1955)

My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female...
And yet, its torso was not curved like a female’s. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man’s, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

Roe and Ostman each had their alleged encounters in British Columbia, approx 300 miles apart, Patterson's was around 700 miles to the south. Now, there are two ways of looking at this in the context of Patty, which I'll present neutrally:

1) that the figure in the Patterson film is consistent with these descriptions, so it is reasonable to conclude it depicts a creature of the same kind described by both Roe and Ostman, or

2) that Patterson was bound to have been aware of both of these accounts, having both been published no more than a dozen years before Patty, and each represents the most detailed descriptions of an adult female Bigfoot that were available, and therefore ensured that the suit conformed to these parameters to lend it some credence in the form of consistency.

Each of which immediately lends itself to a conclusion, depending on your viewpoint. At risk of repetition, I don't know what Patty is portraying. My 99% belief in BHMs only opens up the possibility in my own mind that it could depict a female sasquatch. Equally however I am quite willing to accept that Patterson was a chancer par-excellence who managed as much by luck as judgement to produce perfect alleged cryptid footage - detailed enough to lend at least cursory credence and scrutiny if taken on trust, but not sufficiently clear, sharp and triangulated to provide solid evidence. A masterpiece of ambiguity with which you can play the onion game for half a century. As 'rover said, it's the Mona Lisa of Fortean footage.

 

[David Plankton]

M K Davis says he'll be publishing more videos for the 50th anniversary of the PG film.

This one, a couple of days ago. It's slow going but well worth watching for insights into why frame 352, the 'head-turning shot', was manipulated due to copyright reasons. According to him, fingers were added to the right hand and the mouth altered.

 

[David Plankton]

Not so many - a lot of the debunkers take the stance that they won't review it "as it's clearly fake." which is helpful.

Well, another way of reading that is that said 'debunkers' are in fact being a lot more objective from the outset.

Coal, that sounds like the very definition of subjective thought to me. They are basing an opinion on their personal belief that it's a fake.
If they were being objective they would at least look into the matter with an open mind and not dismiss it from the outset. Like Forteans are supposed to.

Once you're down the rabbit hole of 'wanting to believe', confirmation bias will have you looking at every pixel desperately trying to find confirmation of 'your' truth.

Just want to clarify my position on this. I have no idea. I can see compelling arguments both for and against this being faked. The top reason I think it could be fake is the entire backstory of them being there, to film a documentary about bigfoot which may have meant they had a costume made.
Against it being a fake? The 'uncanny valley' feeling I get watching, that it can't be a person. I know opinion is split on this.

Both these reasons have a caveat - I can't believe they had a costume so good and neither can I accept there are giant hairy humanoids roaming North America. And there it is in a nutshell, why this film is still going strong.

 

[dreeness .]

The part of this clip that matters is at the very beginning, John Kirk standing beside the cardboard image.

The height of the two is ballpark similar, but the depicted mass --- if "Patty" was real, real flesh and bone and not a costume with some sort of fluffy, mostly-air padding material, the weight would be maybe twice that of a human male of roughly the same height, possibly more.

Both these reasons have a caveat - I can't believe they had a costume so good and neither can I accept there are giant hairy humanoids roaming North America. And there it is in a nutshell, why this film is still going strong.

The costume isn't just "good", it is pointlessly over-imaginative. Almost to the point of being counter-productive, if the intended audience has the expectation of basically an upright-walking gorilla, why screw around with facial hair and a big flat nose? Vanity? Being "clever, too clever"? A classic dark shiny gorilla face would be so much easier, and it would satisfy expectations. Even the museum model of Gigantopithecus blacki has the classic dark shiny face.
And making the costume so emphatically female, what's the point of that?

and neither can I accept there are giant hairy humanoids roaming North America.

Like, why are they barely mentioned in Native American folklore? Wouldn't anyone expect them to be a very big topic?
Chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans are all frequently vicious, why would these things bother to be "elusive"?

Interesting to compare with the description given by Albert Ostman from 1924, but related in 1957 (and yes, I know how disputed it is):

Desmond's ideas remain highly disputed to this day:

https://worldofweirdthings.com/the-evolutionary-mystery-of-human-breasts-51b805efee3d

There is also the related hypothesis that the female face started to become more delicate-featured and neotenous as the missionary position became prevalent. I read about this in Saga magazine about forty years ago, so it's probably pretty solid science. (Or not.)

(Saga was like Fortean Times on acid. With a few buckets of bourbon thrown in for good measure.)

 

[oldrover]

2) that Patterson was bound to have been aware of both of these accounts, having both been published no more than a dozen years before Patty, and each represents the most detailed descriptions of an adult female Bigfoot that were available, and therefore ensured that the suit conformed to these parameters to lend it some credence in the form of consistency.

Here's Patterson's drawing of the Ostman female bigfoot, dates from about a year before the film was taken and features in his book 'Do Abominable of America Really Exist'.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...k9Ny0BzvV4entcTOyxxzCo5ReYVxJONSGlMp2D4rgZ3z0

And here's the book's cover illustration
https://pics.cdn.librarything.com/picsizes/24/4d/244d668cc95cb81617a46705277443641506f41.jpg

Also bear in mind that his film was to contain reconstructions of the then famous bigfoot encounters. Given there weren't too many back in those days it seems certain Ostman's account was to be among them, so he'd have needed a female costume. Which probably also answers this

And making the costume so emphatically female, what's the point of that?

Coal, that sounds like the very definition of subjective thought to me. They are basing an opinion on their personal belief that it's a fake.
If they were being objective they would at least look into the matter with an open mind and not dismiss it from the outset. Like Forteans are supposed to.

I don't think that's possible. If you're considering whether something is a genuine film of something that you're certain exists, as against using it to base an opinion on whether something exists, you're bound to approach it differently. And let's be fair considering the possibility of a population of gigantic primates living in N America without leaving a trace is a very good starting point in considering if the film is a hoax or not.

 

[oldrover]

And making the costume so emphatically female, what's the point of that?

Why is this surprising anyway? Female Sasquatch would account for half the population, so why not make it female. Aside from which it's not as if female monsters didn't appear as a theme in B pictures of that time. Plus the implied sexual element of the Ostman story may well have appealed to Patterson as it would give his story a bit more of a thrill.

 

[Swifty]

Why is this surprising anyway? Female Sasquatch would account for half the population, so why not make it female. Aside from which it's not as if female monsters didn't appear as a theme in B pictures of that time. Plus the implied sexual element of the Ostman story may well have appealed to Patterson as it would give his story a bit more of a thrill.

I badly want the footage to be real but as I've had some F/X experience, I'm duty bound to try and debunk it .. I'm mainly looking at the muscles and their movement, sophisticated muscle shapes for your atypical 'gorilla' suit of that era but not impossible when you consider the sculpting skills that came hundreds of years before .. the movement, again, isn't difficult to simulate if you place bags of marbles in strategic places under a suit where you want to create the impression of bouncing flesh mass .. Marc Shostrum used this technique for the Ted Raimi Henrietta suit with her sagging body, arse and breasts in Evil Dead 2 so I'm now trying to find the earliest examples of this F/X technique being used .. and as daft as it sounds, as 'she' (Bigfoot) had sagging breast, we would expect them to bounce, move, wiggle etc while she was walking so someone needs to re watch the footage for the breast movement alone. If they don't move at all, I'd call it a probable (although well made) fake suit. I hope I'm wrong.

If this was faked, it was a one shot deal which means you can get away with murder .. moving muscle/flesh mass can easily be created under a suit by sculpting, casting and then creating gelatin 'bumps' that would be glued to an actor using water based spirit gum ... they move organically and have been used since Lon Chaney and Charles Lawson times although, being jelly, they didn't stand up to heat or light so would melt off quite quickly, that might explain the weird melted look of the buttocks of the Patterson filmed Bigfoot ... that's assuming that Patterson and Gimlin were telling the truth that they filmed it.

 

[David Plankton]

If they don't move at all, I'd call it a probable (although well made) fake suit.

In one of the M K Davis videos he claims there is movement - I think - but I can't remember which one now as I've watched loads over the last week or so.
But like I've said before, he sees a lot of things in there that I can't. If you want a closer look at the breasts then search for Incredible details on the Patterson Bigfoot film by M.K.Davis on youtube.

I wont post the vid here as I think he might be starting to clog this thread up.

 

[Swifty]

In one of the M K Davis videos he claims there is movement - I think - but I can't remember which one now as I've watched loads over the last week or so.
But like I've said before, he sees a lot of things in there that I can't. If you want a closer look at the breasts then search for Incredible details on the Patterson Bigfoot film by M.K.Davis on youtube.

I wont post the vid here as I think he might be starting to clog this thread up.

 

[Swifty]

The newest MK Davis opinion vid

 

[David Plankton]

That thumbnail shows a good view of one of the reasons I think this looks real. The crease where the shoulder meets the chest and the bicep below it.

 

[dreeness .]

M K Davis says he'll be publishing more videos for the 50th anniversary of the PG film.

This one, a couple of days ago. It's slow going but well worth watching for insights into why frame 352, the 'head-turning shot', was manipulated due to copyright reasons. According to him, fingers were added to the right hand and the mouth altered.

Dahinden. Apparently he was almost universally despised because he had a vile temper and was essentially an evil little bastard, who would fly off the handle for any reason or no reason at all.

I'm not sure if scrubbing the scratches and smudges from someone else's photograph would change the copyright status of the photograph. But its certainly possible that he just wanted a prettier version that would sell better, and maybe he didn't care about copyright because he figured there was little chance of getting sued.

I think I may have met him once when I was young. My grandmother took me to the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto one year, and in one of the buildings was a display of sasquatch-related things, footprint casts mostly. And there was this weird entity slouching around from table to table, I think it was probably him.