Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

titch

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,084
Likes
3,244
Points
159
I find it amazing the detail or lack of it that people can see to convince themselves it's real or a fake, even with the clearest, stabilised footage, it's so blurry and lacking in detail all I can make out is that it's either a real Bigfoot or a man in a gorilla outfit,
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
398
Likes
1,087
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
This is far from my area of expertise. However, I've just spent some time watching and rewatching various versions of this film: enhanced, annotated, etc.

i remember seeing this film back in the 1970s and thinking then how obvious it was that it was a man in a suit.

Now, much older, I'm thinking that, knowing how people thought in the 1960s (think 60s B movies, science fiction, horror, etc.) it would have bee pretty surprising for a hoaxer to set out to make a film of Bigfoot striding confidently and purposefully, arms swinging, out in the open, and walking generally away from the camera, unafraid, unthreatening, and incurious.

Given the preconceptions of the time, or even today, I would have expected a hoaxer to have gone one of two ways:

1) Something dark and mysterious glimpsed between the trees, and probably moving in a conspicuously un-human way, or

2) Something more dramatic approaching the camera or even chasing the camera man: a fleeting glimpse of a "hideous apelike head", etc. etc.

I can't help but interpret that turn of the head as a man responding to his friend or associate.

It would have been easy to make a suit that looked like real fur. They could have used... real fur. It would have been easy to change the proportions of the arms, but perhaps less so the legs.
 

Lizard King

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
258
Likes
612
Points
93
I have been fascinated by this, since I saw it as a kid. I just believed it to be real.Planet of the Apes was filmed around this time{this has been pointed out many times} and with a decent budget.The costumes were not as good as this.The test shots for the film were awful because they did not have the budget to make descent costumes.Once they got the funding the costumes improved. I don't think a couple of cowboys would have filmed it so clearly, I agree they would have maybe filmed it in the woods or partially obscured. Also why make it walk like a human? Why not do that thing that all humans do when impersonating an ape?
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
By now I am convinced that people see whatever they want to see in this fillum.

And for the life of me, I can't see anything else but a cheap and nasty costume. Case closed as far as I am concerned.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
I watched that 'enhanced' video above...and I'm still thinking man in a costume also.
The white face rectangle and the white feet bottoms both bother me. I'm no animal expert but when I watch the film
it looks like a big man in a costume when he walks.
But for those who know this case...why does the film end? Why didn't Patterson follow for a little while until it was way out of range? Didn't they have horses? It seems like these paranormal films are always shorter than the should be.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
456
Likes
850
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
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.
He did have a lot to say; he always does. 2 hours on the PGF is not on the agenda for ANY conference. People paying to go to that conference were not there to shred people.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,938
Likes
25,932
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Have any/many researchers pursued the angle that Patterson orchestrated the hoax with a third, unknown party, and Gimlin was there unbeknownst to him, to provide a more reliable witness?

I haven't gone into it, but there's supposed to be a good number of people who knew Roger Patterson contemporaneously and thought him to be a conman/huckster, plus there's the pre-encounter agreement, at Patterson's insistence, not to shoot the creature if they saw it. Quite an important ground rule to have down if you know your friend is going to turn up in a hairy suit.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,938
Likes
25,932
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Have any/many researchers pursued the angle that Patterson orchestrated the hoax with a third, unknown party, and Gimlin was there unbeknownst to him, to provide a more reliable witness?

I haven't gone into it, but there's supposed to be a good number of people who knew Roger Patterson contemporaneously and thought him to be a conman/huckster, plus there's the pre-encounter agreement, at Patterson's insistence not to shoot the creature if they saw it. Quite an important ground rule to have down if you know your friend is going to turn up in a hairy suit.
See here:

Screenshot 2019-07-09 at 10.42.27.png
Screenshot 2019-07-09 at 10.41.43.png Screenshot 2019-07-09 at 10.41.52.png
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,477
Likes
14,057
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Have any/many researchers pursued the angle that Patterson orchestrated the hoax with a third, unknown party, and Gimlin was there unbeknownst to him, to provide a more reliable witness?
Yes ... This possibility has been mentioned earlier in this thread, and some of the more skeptical researchers / writers have focused on the notion the incident made more sense in the context of the film project than as a real sighting Patterson happened to stumble into.


I haven't gone into it, but there's supposed to be a good number of people who knew Roger Patterson contemporaneously and thought him to be a conman/huckster, plus there's the pre-encounter agreement, at Patterson's insistence not to shoot the creature if they saw it. Quite an important ground rule to have down if you know your friend is going to turn up in a hairy suit.
Yes ... The question of how much Gimlin knew about Patterson's actual plan on that fateful trip has come up before. The bit about deciding in advance not to use the rifle(s) has also been cited.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,477
Likes
14,057
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
How much Gimlin knew of Patterson's plans is something only Gimlin can reveal. The most obvious role Gimlin played in the trip was chauffeur and fellow rider. Patterson needed Gimlin's truck to haul their horses and other gear to California. This alone gives Gimlin a basis for plausible deniability.

The question, of course, is whether Gimlin knew at the time there was something needing to be denied (if indeed there was something to deny).

Sometimes I think Patterson's death circa 5 years after the incident eliminated any pressure on Gimlin to state anything for the record (one way or the other). If Patterson had lived longer, I'm not sure Gimlin would have been able to remain relatively mute on the subject for another 30-some years.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,372
Likes
4,014
Points
234
Ultimately there are four possibilities:

  • It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were complicit (so Gimlin is lying.)
  • It was a hoax, which Patterson arranged, and Gimlin was duped.
  • It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were duped.
  • Or.. it wasn’t a hoax at all, and they filmed a genuine entity, the nature of which we don't know.
To expand (yes, I've ripped the article again :) )

Was Gimlin complicit? If he was, then it’s perfectly possible that there were multiple takes of a man in a suit, with all day to get it right, the only risk being someone else catching them at it (or indeed a real, short-sighted randy male bigfoot..) There could have been other people there, even, besides the three (Patterson, Gimlin, and whoever was in the costume: there are those who have claimed it was them, such as Bob Heironimus.)

..or, if Gimlin wasn’t complicit, it would have involved a lot of set up, an actor in a (presumably) hot, uncomfortable suit sitting around for hours with or without assistance (a suit at least good enough to be convincing to the naked eye of an experienced woodsman, so probably intricate to get into and nigh-impossible to get into alone), located in a very remote area, just waiting for Patterson and Gimlin to come ambling round the corner and with no trace of anybody else, if indeed anyone else was there. Not impossible, but a one-take deal. It has been suggested that Patterson’s insistence that if they encountered one they must not shoot it has been cited as evidence that he didn’t want Gimlin accidentally and unknowingly injuring an actor.

..or, maybe neither were complicit, and both were pranked by a third party – but see above for the logistical likelihood of that with the added lack of guarantee they’d even go anywhere near there (see also long lines of prints found in snow miles from where anyone could be sure to see them before they melted – time-critical hoaxing relies entirely on reaction from an innocent party otherwise it’s utterly pointless.)

..or, it shows a female bigfoot walking away from the camera.
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,108
Likes
6,613
Points
294
For me it's really simple - was anyone able to produce such a costume in the 1960's?

Also, (I must have forgotten this), but who was the actor in the suit? You had Patterson and Gimlin so who was the other dude in the monkey suit?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,477
Likes
14,057
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Also, (I must have forgotten this), but who was the actor in the suit? You had Patterson and Gimlin so who was the other dude in the monkey suit?
Bob Heironimus claimed he'd been the person wearing the suit. He was in the area at the time, because Patterson borrowed or planned to borrow a horse from him for Gimlin to ride.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
Ultimately there are four possibilities:

  • It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were complicit (so Gimlin is lying.)
  • It was a hoax, which Patterson arranged, and Gimlin was duped.
  • It was a hoax, and both Patterson and Gimlin were duped.
  • Or.. it wasn’t a hoax at all, and they filmed a genuine entity, the nature of which we don't know.
For me, it's the first option. Gimlin had been stiffed by Paterson and DeAtley out the money he was promised. And he waited for years after Patterson had passed away to start talking again. So the means, motivation and the opportunity were all there.

I figure he just saw an opportunity to recoup some of the money he should have received.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,550
Likes
7,295
Points
294
There are more possibilities.

Another group got wind of the planned movie and decided to make their own Bigfoot for a bit of fun.

Or.... The ‘new’ footage is not merely an enhancement of the original footage but a CG recreation with a new modelled character rotoscoped and animated over the original. Anyone who has seen the Jungle Book would find the animals very convincing.

This was done with Blender.... the excellent free open source 3D software.
 

DrPaulLee

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,009
Likes
454
Points
114
I could go to Wikipedia et al., but I find them untrustworthy, so I'll ask here where there seems to be more knowledge:
Is this all the film that was shot? If so, why? Or was there more, but its been lost?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,477
Likes
14,057
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
I could go to Wikipedia et al., but I find them untrustworthy, so I'll ask here where there seems to be more knowledge:
Is this all the film that was shot? If so, why? Or was there more, but its been lost?
Do you mean all the film shot ...

- of the Patty encounter (Patty's trudging in the woods)?
- on the day of the Patty encounter?
- on that particular trip / expedition?
- under the aegis of Patterson's Bigfoot documentary project?
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
In short, from all I've read and heard, there were two reels. One contains footage of Patterson and Gimlin riding through the forest, and then 59 seconds of "Bigfoot". The original reel is lost, bits and pieces of the other footage have survived. Then there is supposed to be a second reel of stuff they shot in the forest, no signs of a Bigfoot apparently. That is also lost.

Something interesting I just found - the drawing Patterson published in 1966 of a female Bigfoot, complete with breasts. That idea was definitely out there at the time already.
pic3.jpg
 

DrPaulLee

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,009
Likes
454
Points
114
I meant all the footage shot on the day of the alleged encounter.
I know that footage gets lost over the course of time, what I'm thinking is - did they run into the forest and try to follow the creature? And if they did (and if not, they should have!), did they use their camera?

Sorry if these are kindergarten questions.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
960
Likes
1,167
Points
134
I meant all the footage shot on the day of the alleged encounter.
I know that footage gets lost over the course of time, what I'm thinking is - did they run into the forest and try to follow the creature? And if they did (and if not, they should have!), did they use their camera?

Sorry if these are kindergarten questions.
AFAIK the 59 seconds of Patty were the last thing they filmed on the day. Nothing after that. That's of course if you believe their version of events.
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
398
Likes
1,087
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
did they run into the forest and try to follow the creature? And if they did (and if not, they should have!), did they use their camera?

Sorry if these are kindergarten questions.
There are 24 pages of thread, so it's not compulsory to read it all before commenting or asking questions! There is a very detailed summary of the story on Wikipedia. I'm sure it is not 100% reliable, but it reads like a decent overview of the circumstances leading to and following the making of the film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

I normally steer clear of Bigfoot type stories as there is so little evidence to discuss. I consider it unlikely that a 2 metre tall intelligent human/ape like species could exist undetected as a viable population.

That said, I find it surprising that Patterson did not produce more and better footage in a long life involved in Bigfootology if he had access to such a suit. My professional experience of dealing with fraudsters is that they typically get caught because they are greedy, they enjoy the game, and they don't know when to stop. Maybe hoaxers, rather than fraudsters, actually want to get caught so they can show how clever they'd been to fool so many people for so long.

The two facts that add some degree of credibility to the film, for me are therefore:

1) That no attempt has been made to make it act like a non-human/monkey/ape. It walks like a man.

2) That such a carefully crafted suit — a sizeable investment — was only used to make one hoax film.

I don't think 1 and 2 are sufficient to convince me it's genuine, but they are sufficient to make me wonder.
 

DrPaulLee

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,009
Likes
454
Points
114
Thanks! I've had a quick read of the relevant Wiki section and it says,
"Shortly after glancing over its shoulder on film, the creature disappeared behind a grove of trees for 14 seconds, then reappeared in the film's final 15 seconds after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, fading into the trees again and being lost to view at a distance of 265 feet as the reel of film ran out"

I've not seen this before. All I've seen is the section of it walking off, looking over its shoulder and then disappearing into the trees.
 
Top