Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
455
Likes
848
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Funny story: When I was helping to organize the JREF’s Amazing Meeting, Bill Munns requested a speaker spot. He wanted over an hour to talk about the film. Even the keynote doesn’t get that kind of time. I could not have imagined how that would have gone over but “not well” would be an understatement.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
455
Likes
848
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
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/
I used to listen to this podcast regularly and got some useful info and overviews. But some episodes are just ridiculously credulous and wrong. I no longer could stand Forrest’s animosity towards more critical takes. I lost interest when they got so drawn out.
 

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
4,540
Likes
5,533
Points
209
Interesting question. Female gorillas don't seem to have breasts like human females.
The thing in the film does.
The thing in the film doesn't have breasts like human females. Human breasts obey the laws of gravity.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,108
Likes
6,613
Points
294
I used to listen to this podcast regularly and got some useful info and overviews. But some episodes are just ridiculously credulous and wrong. I no longer could stand Forrest’s animosity towards more critical takes. I lost interest when they got so drawn out.
Fair point but I've only really had issues with the Sallie house episodes, most episodes are still excellent when you compare them to other podcasts.

Also, you've got to give Forrest his due though he always replies to questions about their findings.

I lost a bit of respect for the podcast after the haunted Sallie house run as they completely glossed over how much of a money making scheme the place actually is. It's basically the Everest of haunted houses with the owners trying to fit every man and his dog in there on ghost hunting nights.

The Bill Munns interview though is worth it as Plankton point out. This guy knows more about the subject of the film than anyone else I read or heard.
 
Last edited:

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,372
Likes
4,014
Points
234
Really? ...You can read about the recollections of Philip Morris here:
https://dangerousminds.net/comments..._still_believes_the_1967_bigfoot_film_footage

But this is about all you need to know:
To quote myself:
Philip Morris, a North Carolina costumier, claimed to have sold Patterson the suit in 1967, suggesting the actor inside wear American Football shoulder pads beneath. He could not, however, provide any evidence to substantiate this claim, and in fact when challenged to recreate the suit (and the footage) for National Geographic he fell somewhat short, and has subsequently become quiet on the whole issue.
Nat Geog offered him a shedload of cash and any technical assistance he wanted, but he couldn't do it. Also - I know we come back to it frequently - both Chambers and Nikita Lavinsky, the Russian sculptor who specialised in anatomy repeatedly stated that any such suit would be (for the time) absolutely cutting-edge, would stretch their respective abilities to the limit, and would cost a fortune. In addition, it would be impossible to don alone, which adds whole other elements to the story.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
Nikita Lavinsky, the Russian sculptor who specialised in anatomy repeatedly stated that any such suit would be (for the time) absolutely cutting-edge, would stretch their respective abilities to the limit, and would cost a fortune. In addition, it would be impossible to don alone, which adds whole other elements to the story.
Yeah, but for every expert in the affirmative you can find an expert in the negative. And I don't think Russia in the 1960s was on the cutting edge of costume technology.

But just what makes this suit so "cutting edge" anyway? That square eye cut out I pointed to earlier, the crude teeth and mouth, or the utter lack of ears?

Not to mention the white, latex looking soles of the feet. That's cutting edge?

Sorry, I love a good mystery as much as the next Fortean, but I can't see anything else here but a guy in a very dodgy suit.

Besides, we know that Patterson wanted to make a Bigfoot movie, that he ordered a Gorilla suit to achieve that, that he had wooden "big feet" made up to make tracks, that he sold memberships to a non-existent "Bigfoot Club", the he had made drawings of a female Bigfoot, that he had paid for a "Bigfoot" song to be written and recorded. All before the PGF was shot.

And that he was broke and needed something to raise more funds for the project.

And then, Patty just happens to casually stroll across his path. Never happened before, never happened again, not with all the video recorders and mobile phone and trail cameras out there. It just so happens that the one guy who is trying to film a fake Bigfoot happens to film a "real" one. And just at the right time too.

Sure I could believe that. But I don't.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,108
Likes
6,613
Points
294
To quote myself:

Nat Geog offered him a shedload of cash and any technical assistance he wanted, but he couldn't do it. Also - I know we come back to it frequently - both Chambers and Nikita Lavinsky, the Russian sculptor who specialised in anatomy repeatedly stated that any such suit would be (for the time) absolutely cutting-edge, would stretch their respective abilities to the limit, and would cost a fortune. In addition, it would be impossible to don alone, which adds whole other elements to the story.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,108
Likes
6,613
Points
294
Yeah, but for every expert in the affirmative you can find an expert in the negative. And I don't think Russia in the 1960s was on the cutting edge of costume technology.

But just what makes this suit so "cutting edge" anyway? That square eye cut out I pointed to earlier, the crude teeth and mouth, or the utter lack of ears?

Not to mention the white, latex looking soles of the feet. That's cutting edge?

Sorry, I love a good mystery as much as the next Fortean, but I can't see anything else here but a guy in a very dodgy suit.

Besides, we know that Patterson wanted to make a Bigfoot movie, that he ordered a Gorilla suit to achieve that, that he had wooden "big feet" made up to make tracks, that he sold memberships to a non-existent "Bigfoot Club", the he had made drawings of a female Bigfoot, that he had paid for a "Bigfoot" song to be written and recorded. All before the PGF was shot.

And that he was broke and needed something to raise more funds for the project.

And then, Patty just happens to casually stroll across his path. Never happened before, never happened again, not with all the video recorders and mobile phone and trail cameras out there. It just so happens that the one guy who is trying to film a fake Bigfoot happens to film a "real" one. And just at the right time too.

Sure I could believe that. But I don't.
they could not have come up with a suit this good in 1967.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
But just what makes this suit so "cutting edge" anyway? That square eye cut out I pointed to earlier, the crude teeth and mouth, or the utter lack of ears?
This square cut-out is a new one to me. So you think that the eyes and nose belong to the guy wearing the suit and are not a mask-piece? As for teeth, I've only seen them highlighted in noisy, lossy you tube vids. I think they're an artefact. And there are tons of videos (again noisy) that pick out the ears.

That suit isn't even good.
But it is that good. It's the sole reason this film is still being discussed in 2019.

Funny story: When I was helping to organize the JREF’s Amazing Meeting, Bill Munns requested a speaker spot. He wanted over an hour to talk about the film. Even the keynote doesn’t get that kind of time. I could not have imagined how that would have gone over but “not well” would be an understatement.
Maybe he just has an awful lot to say, it's a shame he couldn't be accommodated. I'd have thought the JREF would jump at the chance of ripping him to shreds.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,372
Likes
4,014
Points
234
And I don't think Russia in the 1960s was on the cutting edge of costume technology.
No, but he was one of the most accomplished anatomical sculptors in the world. He knew better than almost anyone how to make a figure look lifelike and how they should appear in motion.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
No, but he was one of the most accomplished anatomical sculptors in the world. He knew better than almost anyone how to make a figure look lifelike and how they should appear in motion.
But it looks like a figure in motion. No one disputes that. It's just a bloke in a suit in motion.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,102
Likes
4,440
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Tend to agree with Wombat here.
I've made the point before that the burqa-like rectangular cut-out for the eyes and the suspiciously white soles of the feet/trainers just look plain wrong.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
If Philip Morris was so good at making special effects costumes for the entertainment industry, then why would he make one with a massive hole for the eyes?
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
If Philip Morris was so good at making special effects costumes for the entertainment industry, then why would he make one with a massive hole for the eyes?
If you read his story you will notice that he says the head was not his but a custom made item. The whole suit was modified according to him.

Also he did not supply the film industry.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
If you read his story you will notice that he says the head was not his but a custom made item.
This one?
Screen Shot 2019-07-08 at 11.23.44.png


It doesn't have a burqa-like letterbox opening for the eyes, and the hair of the beard looks a lot longer than the one in P+G.

Also he did not supply the film industry.
I never said he did, I said 'entertainment industry'.
 
Top