Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
Despite much criticism and analysis, the Bigfoot Patterson film still seems to defy all scepticism. Does anyone out there think it is a real Bigfoot, especially with the analysis provided by the likes of Grover Krantz who believe it to be an unknown biped.
Unfortunately, enigmas such as Bigfoot and Nessie are often judged by the 'best' evidence they have produced, i.e. photographs. Just look what happened with Nessie with the Surgeon's photograph.
Anyway, if the Patterson film isn't real, it has to be admired as a well executed hoax that no-one has ever equalled. let's face it, the alien autopsy was pretty normal really...but the Patterson film just looks genuine. Or do others disagree and why ?
 

naitaka

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
432
Likes
17
Points
49
#2
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."

After listening to the debates for 30 years, I still can't decide if it's real or not, although I lean toward scepticism. The main objections seem to be:

1) The mix of gender characteristics - female breasts, but male gait and sagittal crest.

2) Inconsistency between the size of the figure and the size of the footprints found at the scene. The prints would seem to belong to a much larger animal.

3) The casual glance over the shoulder. A wild animal suddenly seeing a human would either flee, stare in curiosity, or make a threat display. The nonchalant attitude seems uncharacteristic for a creature that is supposed to be very reclusive and wary of humans.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that, if it is a hoax, it is a very good one. It is a lot harder to fake a moving animal that is fully in view than it is to make a 'surgeon's photograph' of a lake monster. But as Arthur C. Clarke said in his TV series Mysterious World, "As I think we showed at the beginning of 2001, skilled mimes can make completely convincing ape-men."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#3
I've seen this video quite a few times and where I accept that it hasn't been refuted yet, I can't help but think that the whole nonchalant expression with which the yeti moves and looks round, it just seems fake to me. It still looks like a man dressed up, but then again there was that ape in a zoo somewhere that walked upright so I give up!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
I can remember the Patterson film when it fist came out.I was 13 and I thought Bigfoot's existence had finally been proven.What a joke!No one will ever come up with anything conclusive about this thing,but it is interesting to see the various groups go at it over the pros and cons.I've always been inclined to think it's real,but it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it were finally conclusively proven to be a hoax.

But that means they'd actually have to find the guy that was in the suit,and not the phony who claimed to be here two or three years ago.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#5
Did any of you guys hear about the scientist that was filming something in the wild with a night vision camera and when he looked at what he recorded the next moring it clearly showed big foot? The scientist quickly destroyed the film in fear of being ridiculed by his collegues :( This is another case of how these scientists who claim to be world leaders in certain fields hold back the world with theyre ignorance and narrow mindness. Arent scientists suppost to be open minded?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
As far as I know it is nothing but an unsubstantiated rumour. And if the scientist feared ridicule, he could just have kept it in his private collection, no reason to destroy it.

But I would guess you could probably find out something about Bigfoot and such by putting up small automated cameras for a few months.
 

Ioethe

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
106
Likes
2
Points
49
#7
(apologies if I'm thinking of the wrong film here)

Look at the soles of the feet in the video (you can see them very briefly). They look like the soles of shoes, rather than the pads of bare feet. I think it's a guy in a suit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#8
I think the latest rumour about Bigfoot (i.e. infra-red film and saving of reputation) is complete bollocks.Let me get this straight; The guy FILMS a bigfoot and then destroys the film as he fears people may ridicule him and he'd lose his reputation. You get proof of one of the most famous cryptozoological creatures and you get scared people may not believe you?
Yeah right!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
I once had some film of a Yeti riding the Loch Ness monster on the White House lawn but I destroyed it because I felt people might ridicule me.........:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#10
I doubt that story is true myself,but I could see where he might think it would turn into another unprovable fiasco like the Patterson film.Doubt about it pretty much turned Bob Gimlin into a recluse.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#12
I thought Dimitri Bayanovs book about the American Sasquatch provided a good case for the Patterson film. i don't think the soles of the feet look at all like shoes though...i think if it was so obviously a man in a suit then such a case could easily be reconstructed. The thing still looks bulky...although filming it at BLUFF CREEK just sounds too much like a joke. it would be sad if it was a joke...something IS out there, but I think it is time the Patterson film controversy was cleared up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#13
It's a nice sentiment,but I very much doubt it ever will be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.I've had that wish since 1967.
 

Ioethe

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
106
Likes
2
Points
49
#14
NEIL said:
...i think if it was so obviously a man in a suit then such a case could easily be reconstructed. The thing still looks bulky...
Don't want to sound like I'm having a go or anything - I'm curious on what you base that? Yes the film shows something fairly inhuman - but have you seen some of the puppets Jim Henson studios were turning out for the Dark Crystal only a couple of years later?

I'm not disputing the existance of Bigfoot or whatever - I just don't know enough about it to judge - but I've seen the film a number of times and honestly thought it was a guy in a suit the first time I saw it. I'm curious as to what makes you feel so much the other way...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
Is this the right place to say that I was born on the exact day the Patterson footage was shot - 20th October 1967.

I thought not.

I'll get my coat.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#17
were all forgetting something here, just because it looks like a man in a suit doesnt mean that it is a man in a suit. If we wanted to we could make fake movies of gorrillas and chimpanzees in suits, just look at the plant of the apes movie but this does not mean there are no such things as gorrillas and chimps. It all boils down to wither or not you want to believe. Personally i think the fact that the bigfoot has breasts shows that its not a fake, i mean who would think of putting boobs on a big foot? i wouldnt
 

whoisquilty

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
78
Likes
0
Points
37
#18
My other question is, in a previous post someone mentioned that a bigfoot with breasts walked like a man. 1) What do you expect? Her to saunter through the woods in sling-back pumps carrying a purse? 2) How do we know how female bigfoots/bigfeet walk? 3) Maybe it's just a male with a glandular problem and he's sensitive about his saggy man-boobs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Bigfoot film.

If us 'readers' of paranormal literature have faith in the so-called experts of this world, i.e. Grover Krantz, Dimitri Bayanov, then we have to believe that the Patterson film is real. It is okay for us to just look at the film and say, "That looks like a man in a suit..." but all the scientific analysis of the film seems to prove otherwise. Has anyone seen the face close up ? It doesn't seem like a monkey suit. First impressions and the thing just looks too bulky and muscular to be a guy in a suit. Gimlin and Patterson must have either been very well informed on 'Bigfoot' at the time or they did indeed film living creature. I haven't seen anything else froma round that time that is able to successfully imitate that creature. Chris Packham tried it recently on THE X-CREATURES and failed miserably. Men in suits just lack the thickness and weight of that thing...I have seen hoaxes on SIGHTINGS etc and straight away you can tell the hoaxes but I can't see how anyone can look at the Patterson film and just scoff at it. All that has been written about it seems to prove it is real: Bayanov's AMERICAS BIGFOOT:FACT NOT FICTION and Grover Krantz BIGFOOT SASQUATCH EVIDENCE. If we can't trust this analysis then we may as well not bother at all.
 

ShadowPrime

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
690
Likes
2
Points
49
#20
One point made in an earlier post that I would like to echo is that just because someone can show how a film/photo/etc MIGHT have been hoaxed, that does not in and of itself invalidate the film/photo etc in question.

I think one of the hurdles faced by those claiming the Patterson footage to be a hoax is the need to identify a source for such a high quality suit, the lasting silence of what must have been a number of co-conspirators, etc. From what I have read, almost everyone agrees that if this IS a hoax, it is a great one, not some simple Halloween costume hastily thrown on a person who runs across a clearing. Given that, someone would have had to invest a considerable amount of time, effort, and probably money, to create the "creature"... and all of that presents a lot of opportunities for exposure. I believe there was a stir some years back when a Hollywood makeup man WAS alleged to have "confessed", but I believe this was discredited.

Obviously, the "burden of proof", if one is interested in such things, rests with those claiming the film is authentic.... but I am not inclined to so easily give a pass to those who seem to feel that because one MIGHT be able to duplicate the Patterson film, that proves the film to be a fraud.

Incidentally, for me, part of the fun of the Patterson film ARE the "odd" touches... the touches that, on a level that has nothing to do with "hard proof", tempts you to either think the footage is real...or to admire the genuine cleverness of the hoaxers...

For example, the much-discussed moment when the "Bigfoot" turns towards the camera... so intriguing...so interesting.. the nonchalance, the easy grace of the move..the tantalizing glimpse, out of good focus, of the creature's face... just beautiful. Whether you take that as proof of fraud or not, you have to grin at the ambiguous beauty of that moment. Similarly, the inclusion of breasts...lets face it, if you were the run of the mill Bigfoot hoaxer, you would play it safe and NEVER go that route (which might tempt you to give the film more credence)..on the other hand, a truly inspired, clever, devilish hoaxer might come up with something that novel... ;) ... so you can't be sure.

For me? I don't know. I just don't. And I doubt I ever will, after all this time. But I still recall the thrill from the first time I saw the footage, and I cannot help but grin to this day when I see it. One way or the other, it is just beautiful....

Shadow

PS - If I absolutely HAD to bet... HAD to...I might..might..lean a bit towards the film being authentic... mainly because of what I touched on above. There are exceptions, of course - and I am sure many of you could cite a number of them! - but good secrets are hard to keep. Still..who knows? :D

PPS - For all the talk that this is "just a man in an ape suit", has anyone made a really good "fake" of the Patterson film, at the Bluff Creek site, showing how easily it could be done? If so... how much $ was involved, etc? I may certainly have missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing such footage...
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,243
Likes
8,977
Points
284
#21
I have seen a TV prog (C4?) where they did dress someone in a hairy suit and took distant, shaky, blurry film of him, but it was still easy to tell, from the way the 'creature' moved, that it was a fake.

BTW, I am building a flying saucer. It will travel at multiples of lightspeed but be able to stop on a sixpence. It will have cloaking capabilities and be able to alter shape, especially into a black triangle. I plan to fly it over Bonnybridge, Gulf Breeze, and even Warminster, and when it gets reported as a genuine UFO I shall laugh and say No! It was me, ME!

(Er, sorry about that.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
i saw that program, and the funniest thing of all is that they had the nerve to say that theyre bigfoot recreation was identical to the patterson footage. The footage they ended up with looked like some guy going to a halloween party.
Has anyone ever saw the footage taken when patterson went back to bluff creek and recorded himself walking in the exact same position that the bigfoot did and compared the two movies?
I have and i doubt that it was a guy in a suit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#23
If this was a guy in a suit, then why did he look more realistic than most Hollywood films with a man in a suit?
Their budgets could be in no way comparable.
 

minordrag

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
1,088
Likes
21
Points
69
#24
Dear God! I just saw Bigfoot on this thread! He was drinking a beer!

I gotta get outta here!
 

ogopogo3

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,375
Likes
17
Points
69
#25
Fox did a show on famous hoaxes a few years back. They interviewed a friend of Patterson's who admitted nothing. But he was about 6 foot 10, and he walked exactly like the Bigfoot in the Patterson movie, with the strange exaggerated arm movements, and after the Bigfoot film, he found steady work as an actor in Patterson's commercial film work. Hmmmmmm.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
This guy must be pretty wierd if he walks without bending his knees full or bending him feet. He also have flexible wrists as the bigfoot in the paterson film wrists flex way back and way forward. I read on a webpage somewhere that humans dont have enough flexion in theyre wrists to immitate this motion.
Also his neck must be awfully short as the bigfoot in the films jawline is so low its level with its chest and this is why when it turns round it doesnt just turn its head it turns its whole chest.
The program you have watched was probably made by sceptics and could possibly be a lie or an exageration of the truth, just because i have a friend that looks like an ape doesnt mean i never saw bigfoot.
 

ogopogo3

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,375
Likes
17
Points
69
#27
Minor Drag said:
Dear God! I just saw Bigfoot on this thread! He was drinking a beer!

I gotta get outta here!
Don't worry, son. That wasn't a bigfoot. That was a bumble.

Bumbles bounce.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#28
bigfoot

one thing i always wondered about Bigfoot is how come they never found any crap(as in droppings)????
I lived in the countryside for about 10 years when i was younger and you can see shit everywhere and you can recognise who made it but i don't seem to remember anyone finding bigfoot droppings :confused:
 

hachihyaku

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 23, 2001
Messages
183
Likes
2
Points
49
#29
I hated the P&G film for years. It was obviously a guy in a suit, and wasn't even clear.

That was until yesterday, when I found the following site.

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot

These guys bought one of the original copies of 16mm film and have studied it intensely. They have the best scans I have ever seen of this film.

You can't link inside the site, so go about 3/4 of the way down, to where it says "photos/films," from there click on "Patterson film," go in there, and click on anywhere it says "Frame 350." This is the classic "turn & look" frame.

I'm going to try and link it here, but it may not work:

(edit: the above .jpg is HUGE, so you may want to resize it in order to see it better.)

I had NO IDEA this film was this clear.

Pay no attention to the crackpot look of their site, or the fact that they denounce Loren Coleman at every opportunity, or the whacked-out theories of Bigfoot being an alien shape shifter. Just look at the scans from the film, unenhanced.

That's not a person.
 

minordrag

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
1,088
Likes
21
Points
69
#30
Well, there you have it. Any rational, scientificly-minded person can look at that still and instantly recognize it as DerekH, minus the spectacles. That little problem is quickly resolved, however, when one realizes that the film was shot in 1967, before Derek needed glasses. And before he had his breasts removed.

Mystery solved. Case closed!
 
Top