Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
992
Likes
1,240
Points
134
I'd say that they are intentional, and that they were made for the Ostman(?) Segment which Patterson would have been very likely to include in his aborted film.
That is most likely. In his book (which preceded the PGF), Patterson advertised membership to a "Bigfoot Club". Patrons were meant to receive 2 LPs containing interviews with Bigfoot witnesses, including the female Ostman sighting.

It is possible that that is where the idea came from. Also, it doesn't appear that these records ever were produced and shipped to the paying customers.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
Good point ... It hadn't occurred to me Patterson may have been intending to include the Ostman story in his film's script.

Speaking of which ... How much (if anything) do we know of the planned film's script or storyboard?
Nothing that I'm aware of. All I can recall is the still with Bob Gimlin as an Indian.

By chance the other day I spoke to someone and he asked me if I'd seen a few sequences from the second reel, the casting segment. I told him I'd never seen it to which he replied that he'd have a look to see if he could fish it out.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
That is most likely. In his book (which preceded the PGF), Patterson advertised membership to a "Bigfoot Club". Patrons were meant to receive 2 LPs containing interviews with Bigfoot witnesses, including the female Ostman sighting.

It is possible that that is where the idea came from. Also, it doesn't appear that these records ever were produced and shipped to the paying customers.
I'm not that surprised to hear the Bigfoot Club never got their records.

There's also the drawing he did of the female bigfoot, a year or so before the film was supposed to have been shot. I thought it was of the Ostman encounter but someone corrected me and said it was another guy's sighting.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
Good point ... It hadn't occurred to me Patterson may have been intending to include the Ostman story in his film's script.

Speaking of which ... How much (if anything) do we know of the planned film's script or storyboard?
Just to add, if there ever was a storyboard or script details it sounds likely that if either did contain a reference to a female bigfoot segment it might well be better for P, G, and DeAtley if it didn't surface.
 

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Staff member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
10,288
Likes
10,761
Points
284
Location
An Eochair
By chance the other day I spoke to someone and he asked me if I'd seen a few sequences from the second reel, the casting segment. I told him I'd never seen it to which he replied that he'd have a look to see if he could fish it out.
That would be great!
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,171
Likes
6,811
Points
294
Really enjoying the Astonishing Legends Podcast - they do their homework, don't always agree but they really do their homework.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,171
Likes
6,811
Points
294
(Assuming Patty was a person in a suit / costume ... )

I'm not sure the suit was intended to reflect a female. The female attribution is most commonly associated with what appear to be breasts. Others have commented that the presumed suit is too large for the person inside, causing the apparent folding or 'baggy-ness' in the shoulders, torso, and hip areas.

In other words, the female attribution may be a side-effect of a baggy suit, rather than an intended feature.
Very lucky side effect that it happened to turn into female boobs!
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,171
Likes
6,811
Points
294
Well, I listened up to Part 2 and I am very disappointed. The bias this time is overwhelming. Anything that points to a hoax is being glazed over, particularly Patterson's dodgy dealings. And the general thrust of the argument is that "because it's on an analog film, it must be real".

That's "wanting to belief", but not serious research..
It's serious research in its way as it explores all the people involved as well the technology involved as well - better than anything else I've heard.

Not saying it's right but you can't argue that they don't put the hours in.

Also, people are not that simple - hoaxers, murky pasts? Most of us have something we are not particularly proud of - doesn't mean we are all liars or don't find something weird,

Open mind anyone?


edit: Also how many podcasts, shows or magazines are going this in depth?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,468
Likes
4,220
Points
234
There's also the drawing he did of the female bigfoot, a year or so before the film was supposed to have been shot. I thought it was of the Ostman encounter but someone corrected me and said it was another guy's sighting.
Probably based on William Roe's drawing - Patterson was well aware of both accounts.
7560429_orig.jpg
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,053
Likes
440
Points
89
I strongly suspect that the footage is real. I've spent most of my adult life doing figure drawing and the muscles and their attachments, flexion, etc. seen in the film make me believe it is real. It would pass for an excellent special effect today. If it's a hoax, it's a work of genius.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,468
Likes
4,220
Points
234
It would pass for an excellent special effect today. If it's a hoax, it's a work of genius.
I think that's the conclusion most of us have drawn. I still don't know if it's real or not, despite all of the research I've undertaken - I must have seen it at least 300 times now. Those who know for sure are thin on the ground these days.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
961
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
So there is a new stabilized version of the film just released.
To me, it adds information that can lead to misinterpretation. I don't know that you can squeeze any more info out of this footage without extending past the original data. But I don't know what the enhancements may have done.

Possibly the most interesting aspect is how two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit. This is what is truly amazing.
 

feinman

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,053
Likes
440
Points
89
Very cool. When she turn and looks in the direction of filming, you can see the vastus lateralis and iliotibial band in her right leg tensing and you can see the attachment points. Pretty amazing. I can't see how that is a suit.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,544
Points
294
So there is a new stabilized version of the film just released.

Trouble with these youtube vids is that they're just using nth generation copies of other computer files they've found online. Until the original film turns up (if ever) nothing more can be gathered from it, in my opinion.

Having said that, there is one interesting aspect (to me, anyway) that I found by reading the first comment on youtube. That is the lower leg 'wobble' at the 14:37 mark. I think it looks rather like how an actual animals' leg might behave and not what I would expect from a costume.

Others will probably see this differently of course, because as you say...
two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,468
Likes
4,220
Points
234
Possibly the most interesting aspect is how two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit. This is what is truly amazing.
Eye of the beholder. I've said before, the film itself is as Fortean an artefact as what it purports to show. In a meta-sense it bears comparison to the Turin Shroud in that the cloth and image can stand apart from what it's alleged to be an image of. That a minute of cinefilm can still provoke intense debate 52 years on is quite an achievement. I know there are those that say it has to be fake because Bigfoot doesn't exist, QED, but you'll never convince them of anything, however compelling the evidence. There's a discussion to be had about fake news, but this thread isn't it.

One thing I picked up upon - at about 3:30, you can see the thumb, and it appears to branch a lot further down the palm (also elongated) than in humans, and that's only become a consistently reported trait in recent years. Once again, given that in 1967 nobody could have ever envisaged that this degree of forensic analysis would be possible, not to mention the additional effort such a detail would have entailed, this - along with all of the other hitherto unseen details just makes it more intriguing. Each finer resolution should reveal something that decides the matter, but instead sparks further controversy. It's fascinating.

And no, I still don't know one way or the other.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,928
Likes
23,736
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
So there is a new stabilized version of the film just released.
To me, it adds information that can lead to misinterpretation. I don't know that you can squeeze any more info out of this footage without extending past the original data. But I don't know what the enhancements may have done.

Possibly the most interesting aspect is how two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit. This is what is truly amazing.
That is the best version I have seen so far.
If it is a suit, it's using technology that was way ahead of its time. So... that leaves me scratching my head.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
961
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Any discussion about the PGF is GUARANTEED to become a merry-go-round that goes exactly nowhere. It's quite amazing. We still can't stop talking about it and going in circles. :bf::fence::dhorse:
 

RaM

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
1,400
Likes
2,215
Points
154
Location
NW UK
Real or fake it walks well over rough ground, a human would I think take a bit of care even with heavy boots were
they are putting their feet, tried to see if it had any sign of boots or shoes but cant tell.
Other thing a gorilla suit is not a lot of protection if some red neck with a hunting rifle happens to come across
you and is not in on the plot.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,630
Likes
7,498
Points
294
But let’s not forget...

In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend.[Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes....
...In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie.They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film



 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,544
Points
294
The short answer to that is "Philip Morris*. Google is your friend here.

I can't find a Bigfoot costume on the Morris Costumes website but they do offer this gorilla suit. As you can see, they've made a lot of improvements over the last 50 years.


https://www.morriscostumes.com

Their website is so bad I can't link to the gorilla page but it's easy enough to find.
al130ap.jpg
 

RaM

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
1,400
Likes
2,215
Points
154
Location
NW UK
So the clip is likely a out take from a failed Bigfoot film?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,544
Points
294
It's serious research in its way as it explores all the people involved as well the technology involved as well - better than anything else I've heard.

Not saying it's right but you can't argue that they don't put the hours in.

Also, people are not that simple - hoaxers, murky pasts? Most of us have something we are not particularly proud of - doesn't mean we are all liars or don't find something weird,

Open mind anyone?


edit: Also how many podcasts, shows or magazines are going this in depth?

I would recommend anyone with a passing interest in this to give it a go. It's going to take about 16 hours of your life but goes into a lot of detail. If that's too long then at least check out ep.5, an interview with Bill Munns. I know nothing about him or how he is perceived by other 'experts' but he knows all about film and how it's developed, cameras and special effects costumes. And IMO he has a nice explanation as to why the 'time-line' does stand up.
They do seem to be 'believers' but as one of them points out, he was a sceptic until he started researching it.

https://www.astonishinglegends.com/
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
992
Likes
1,240
Points
134
I can't find a Bigfoot costume on the Morris Costumes website but they do offer this gorilla suit. As you can see, they've made a lot of improvements over the last 50 years.


https://www.morriscostumes.com

Their website is so bad I can't link to the gorilla page but it's easy enough to find.
View attachment 18634
Well yes it's an improvement. This time they remembered that the boobs shouldn't be hairy.
 

Vardoger

Like To Roam The Land
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
5,032
Likes
3,587
Points
259
Location
Scandinavia
Glad they fixed the resolution, but still not convinced. The narrator sounds a bit sensationalist, Wow Pow!
 
Top