• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

hopkarma said:
Yes, I have read the bag of marbles idea before; this crap costume keeps getting more and more elaborate, don't it? They were not on a soundstage with a makeup and costume crew
Click to expand...

Not to be rude but they didn't need a make up crew, just one costume builder in a shed/work shop with enough time beforehand. A soundstage wouldn't be needed to make a special F/X suit or to film one. Also, if I was making a fraud big foot film, I'd want as few artists as possible to help keep it secret so as a director, I'd limit it to one artist.

Perhaps Patterson over estimated the quality of the end result footage when he (or the artist/artists) created the suit ? .. or it isn't a suit.
 
Last edited:
David Plankton said:
Maybe the answer has been staring us in the face all along - the reason the suit looks so authentic is that they made it from an actual Sasquatch pelt!
Click to expand...
LOL .. naah .. it could be a real Sasquatch (no sarcasm intended). It's a bloody good suit if it isn't a real Sasquatch so I have got some sympathy for the true believers.
 
hopkarma said:
No mention in the above article that "some of the boys in the band said they had seen the bigfoot suit when they had visited the Patterson ranch". Do have a source for this?
Click to expand...

My own personal conversations with members of the band.
 
For comparison/entertainment purposes:

"The Philadelphia Zoo has a clean freak on its hands – well, not on its hands, actually.

Louis, 18, 500lbs., 6' tall, a male gorilla who has been at the zoo since July 2004, is keeping his hands clean by choosing to walk around on two legs, according to an Associated Press report:

When Louis has his hands full of tomatoes or other snacks, he walks upright like a human to keep food and hands clean, rather than the typical gorilla stance of leaning forward on his knuckles."

http://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-zoo-gorilla-prefers-walk-around-human/

The relevant footage starts about 44 seconds in:


maximus otter

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
For comparison/entertainment purposes:

"The Philadelphia Zoo has a clean freak on its hands – well, not on its hands, actually.

Louis, 18, 500lbs., 6' tall, a male gorilla who has been at the zoo since July 2004, is keeping his hands clean by choosing to walk around on two legs, according to an Associated Press report:

When Louis has his hands full of tomatoes or other snacks, he walks upright like a human to keep food and hands clean, rather than the typical gorilla stance of leaning forward on his knuckles."

http://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-zoo-gorilla-prefers-walk-around-human/

The relevant footage starts about 44 seconds in:


maximus otter

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Ya beat me to it. There is even a "look back" at the end...
 
After much reading, it seems many commenting here base their opinions on the utter nonsense that Long has in his book. He is very creative, I'll give you that. But his assumptions/methodology/fabrication of things he has no idea about are staggering. Anyone who believes that Long had been "interested in Pacific Northwest mysteries for 25 years", yet he only "dimly remembered seeing Patterson's film somewhere" by 1995 is not bothering to pay attention to the simplest of details. Long discredits himself by his own words, and anything Long says about who did what when must be ignored...
 
If the PG film came out today I doubt anyone woukd take any notice of it. Asfond of it as I am, it's a lousy film, of a man in a crude suit. But it's been round a long time, and originated from a time when fake footage was far kess common than today. In my opinion all it has going fo it us nostalgia and a desire to believe.
 
So this Ape Costume everyone claims was worn in the PG Film this is the one that's claimed as being bought in a local costume shop, was never bought or seen by anyone else, and vanished shortly afterwards, and that has somehow managed to fool trained zoologists and be better than Hollywood costume professionals could manage at the time.
Has anyone checked this costume shop wasn't run by a guy in a Fez or was down an alley but mysteriously couldn't be found later?
 
Just curious....but does anyone know of any other 'Bigfoot' film in the public domain that seems genuine and accounted for by how it was obtained, etc...? Or is all of it suspect and hoaxed..?
 
dr wu said:
Just curious....but does anyone know of any other 'Bigfoot' film in the public domain that seems genuine and accounted for by how it was obtained, etc...? Or is all of it suspect and hoaxed..?
Click to expand...

I know of no cryptid film of any kind without a dodgy backstory. Except the 1970's Doyle fox/thylacine film, that did seem to be a genuine mistake. A mistake I shared for a while a few years back.
 
oldrover said:
I know of no cryptid film of any kind without a dodgy backstory. Except the 1970's Doyle fox/thylacine film, that did seem to be a genuine mistake. A mistake I shared for a while a few years back.
Click to expand...
Thanks.....I know there have been a few stills and a video or two that have been on the net and I was wondering if any of them had any authenticity. And so it goes that after all this time no one can authenticate any of the 'Bigfoot' claims.
 
oldrover said:
Absolutely. A few less than accurate assertions have crept into these examinations over the years too. My favourite being one 'expert' who stated (quite without any relevance by the way) that four way stretch material didn't exist in the 60's. He'd not heard of Spandex or even latex then.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that objectively the footage is very unclear, and in no way remarkable. As for the entire 'it's too good for 1960's special effects', well...

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CRlz1qPT2u4/hqdefault.jpg

as against

http://www.scifimoviepage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/planet-apes-crop.jpg

Really?
Click to expand...
Really? All those apes wear tunics, armor, uniforms, and just about anything else they can hide inside. I love Planet Of The Apes, but a stiff, plastic, mask against a full, muscular, naked, body? A body with a small head that, if fake, has detailed facial makeup, not a mask? By the way, Spandex was first marketed in 1962. While its uses quickly became apparent, it did not exist before then. So it is not common for much of the '60s. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; but not their own facts. The most inaccurate assertions that have crept into the examination of this film over the years are those of Long; yet his words/"facts seem to be taken as gospel around here. This is just unrealistic. If anyone in this saga was trying to create a docu-drama it is Long, and his novel is nothing more than his overwrought screenplay, complete with every stage direction and acting cue agonizingly detailed...
 
hopkarma said:
... By the way, Spandex was first marketed in 1962. While its uses quickly became apparent, it did not exist before then. So it is not common for much of the '60s. ...
Click to expand...

Spandex was the first synthetic mass-market elastic fabric. Fabrics elasticized with rubber had been in use since the 1830's.

Simple arithmetic dictates that anything introduced in the second or third year of a decade (depending on how one defines things ...) is available for the majority of that decade's years.

In any case, Spandex (and the other trademarked synthetic stretch fabrics) had been on the market for 5 years by the time Patterson set out to make his film.
 
hopkarma said:
Really? All those apes wear tunics, armor, uniforms, and just about anything else they can hide inside. I love Planet Of The Apes, but a stiff, plastic, mask against a full, muscular, naked, body? A body with a small head that, if fake, has detailed facial makeup, not a mask? By the way, Spandex was first marketed in 1962. While its uses quickly became apparent, it did not exist before then. So it is not common for much of the '60s. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; but not their own facts. The most inaccurate assertions that have crept into the examination of this film over the years are those of Long; yet his words/"facts seem to be taken as gospel around here. This is just unrealistic. If anyone in this saga was trying to create a docu-drama it is Long, and his novel is nothing more than his overwrought screenplay, complete with every stage direction and acting cue agonizingly detailed...
Click to expand...

I think EnolaGaia has covered the Spandex point well enough, but just for the sake of clarity my comment was made in reference to the quality of comment produced by the 'experts' wheeled out to pronounce on the film, and not because I can see any evidence of stretching or otherwise in the film.

You mention detail in the face, the only close ups/enhancements I've seen are still only a blur, if you have any that do show detail with any clarity please post them. And yes, I do think the ape masks in the film are vastly superior to the crude effect in the PG film.

For the bulk of this thread I've tried to restrict myself to the backstory rather than the film itself, because while to me it shows a man in a crude suit others see it diffferently. It's wholly subjective which way you take it. And in looking at that backstory I've tried to restrict myself to what Patterson and Gimlin themselves said rather than Long or anyone else, I've reffered to Long's book I'm sure but I've not read it and don't intend to either.
 
hopkarma said:
Really? All those apes wear tunics, armor, uniforms, and just about anything else they can hide inside.
Click to expand...

Except when they were naked in the sauna of course...

bnth%2B(5).gif
 
Just a bit of fun .. Adam The Woo takes you inside the bigfoot museum and gift shop .. I love the "Sasquatch doesn't believe in you either" bumper sticker .. join him .. shall you ? :domo:

 
EnolaGaia said:
Exactly ... One of the most relevant factoids in all this - one that's been conveniently obscured over the decades - is that they went out into the woods to make a documentary about the Sasquatch phenomenon.

How were they going to create a marketable film without illustrating a Sasquatch? And how were they intending to illustrate a Sasquatch without a suit or some sort of model?
Click to expand...
This "factoid" about a "drama documentary" is an invention by Long. His evidence for this claim is ridiculous. I am also amused by the often combined "only John Chambers (why the Baker mentions above? He was a child at the time) could make such a suit in 1967" and "it's a cheap, baggy, suit". The stict debunkers have more critical thinking issues than the true believers do...
 
oldrover said:
Again, absolutely.

And how were they going to recreate the Ostman encounter without a girlsquatch costume.
Click to expand...
And how were they going to recreate every other Sasquatch encounter with only a female costume? And don't tell me the breasts were just velcroed in place...
 
hopkarma said:
And how were they going to recreate every other Sasquatch encounter with only a female costume? And don't tell me the breasts were just velcroed in place...
Click to expand...

I'd assume they were going to use the female costume fir the Ostman encunter scene. You know, the one Patterson had drawn.
 
hopkarma said:
This "factoid" about a "drama documentary" is an invention by Long. His evidence for this claim is ridiculous. I am also amused by the often combined "only John Chambers (why the Baker mentions above? He was a child at the time) could make such a suit in 1967" and "it's a cheap, baggy, suit". The stict debunkers have more critical thinking issues than the true believers do...
Click to expand...

So hiw do you account fir the photograph if Bob Gimlin in costume then?
 
oldrover said:
I'd assume they were going to use the female costume fir the Ostman encunter scene. You know, the one Patterson had drawn.
Click to expand...
If they were doing Osterman, they would first need a large male suit for that scene, the abduction part of the story. Then you would require another, smaller, male, suit; as well as an adult and juvenille female, but these a small, secondary parts to Osterman's tale. Since all the other "scenes" they would be filming in Long's scenario would require a large male, as per most reported sightings and therefore where RP would likely be drawing stories for Long's supposed drama, why would RP have a female suit built first? This notion of some kind of drama is a fantasy of Longs's, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Whenever Gimlin is interviewed/lecturing, he says RP was making a documentary; I think I'll go by his consistent statements over the years rather than the bizarre conclusions Long jumps to when presented with very normal (and yes, decades old, only recently questioned) memories...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top