Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

MrRING

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
5,021
Likes
1,171
Points
234
And yet despite all this... A suit that has confounded experts for fifty years, bought on 'insufficient funding'. That a lack of diligence in planning, coordination and filming led to a hoax so grand must have been the greatest stroke of luck ever.
That to me is a major factor in making it hard to believe it's a hoax. Elsewhere on this thread I opine about how state of the art creature suits and makeup just weren't that good, based on what was being made at the time. If they were using a suit made for a low-budget production, they would have likely only rented something that already existed from an established company rather than sink a ton of money they didn't have on a suit that was cutting edge perfection enough that we are still talking about it 50 years later. I'm reminded of the b-movie magnificence of Robot Monster, where the creature was the body of an ape costume, and the head was a modified diving helmet with antennae, in terms of low-budget film solutions.

Patty's hairy breasts is also confusing from the pov of making a suit. Why bother with such a detail that might make the film more controversial and harder to get shown on national TV, if the goal was hoax? Or, if it was intended to be shown in theatres, why create hairy breasts in an era where censorship battles were still underway about what could or could not be shown in film theatres?
 

blessmycottonsocks

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
3,102
Likes
4,440
Points
154
Location
Wessex and Mercia
See the post from Wombat above. It shows a sketch Patterson made a year before the film, of what he thought a female Bigfoot would look like - complete with saggy, hairy breasts.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
See the post from Wombat above. It shows a sketch Patterson made a year before the film, of what he thought a female Bigfoot would look like - complete with saggy, hairy breasts.
It shows a sketch, there are no links to say where it’s from or any context.
Could be Patterson’s illustration of the Ostman encounter?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
So it’s his drawing he did after interviewing Ostman, he had been researching Bigfoot for some years, not just some cowboy with a camera. If you happen to see a Sasquatch there’s a 50-50 chance it’ll have breasts
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
If they were using a suit made for a low-budget production, they would have likely only rented something that already existed from an established company rather than sink a ton of money they didn't have on a suit that was cutting edge perfection enough that we are still talking about it 50 years later.
Exactly. Were they broke or did they have funds that Disney or MGM couldn't match?

One thing has always bothered me about this film and thats the fold of 'skin' seen in this still which I've pointed out with an arrow. If you take off your shirt and look in the mirror you'll see something quite similar on your own body, not what you'd imagine on a costume. OK, could be some kind of artefact, who knows?
4th.jpg
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,550
Likes
7,295
Points
294
As you’d guess, the imdb info on the Patterson film is brief. But on the one hand, it says it was an 8mm movie yet the technical details claim 16mm stock.

Trivia

Shot with a 16mm Cine Kodak K100 with a mobilgrip handle. 952 frames of bigfoot were shot, amounting to approximately 39.7 seconds (at 24 frames per second). It was strongly rumored that special makeup effects wizard John Chambers created a suit that was used in this film, as part of an elaborate hoax. Both the filmmakers and Chambers himself have denied this accusation.


The mention of John Chambers is really interesting as he was the make-up guy on Planet of the Apes and apparently was a fixture at the zoo where he continually sketched apes.

So what did the special effects guys make of this? This interesting article is the detective work questioning key special effects wizards. While there are few experts on Sasquatch, there are plenty of great FX guys out there.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

I next heard about Chambers making the Patterson Bigfoot Suit in 1995, from effects makeup artist Dave Kindlon. Dave was working with his wife Colleen on an animatronic cat for Disney's remake of That Darn Cat at the time.
Dave had first learned of Chambers' alleged involvement in the fabrication of the Patterson suit from his friend makeup artist Howard Berger in 1983/84. Kindlon and Berger, now head of KNB Effects Group, were roommates at the time. Berger came home one day from working on Harry and the Hendersonsat Rick Baker's studio and said to Dave that Rick Baker told him and some other crew members that John Chambers made the Patterson film suit.
Academy Award® winning Hollywood makeup artist Rick Baker is the makeup master who created the apes in King Kong (1976 remake), Greystoke, and Gorillas in the Mist--he has certainly designed more ape suits than any other makeup artist. If anyone is qualified to discuss ape/Bigfoot suits, it is he. In addition, Baker has studied ape movement in zoos all over the United States.
Dave Kindlon was himself a member of Rick Baker's makeup team in 1987 when he heard about the Chambers-Patterson Film connection directly from Baker. Kindlon recalls:

I heard this again while working on Gorillas in the Mist at Rick Baker's [studio]. We had just pulled out the old Harry and the Hendersons r/c [radio controlled] head and were talking about "real" Bigfoot sightings. I mentioned the Patterson film and Rick responded, "You know that's a guy in a suit. John Chambers built that around the time of Planet of the Apes." It was common knowledge in the shop from around the time that they were building the "Harry" suits for Harry and the Hendersons.
In a later conversation with this author, Dave Kindlon explained that he got the impression that Rick Baker had heard the information directly from John Chambers. "Rick told us very matter-of-factly," Kindlon recalls. "It was not the kind of story that he would go out of his way to make up."

...
John Chambers: Monster Maker

The more one knows about John Chambers, the more the rumors/allegations make sense. Chambers was a pioneer in the field of special effects makeup. His work on Planet of the Apes was groundbreaking. And he was an ace monster maker, at one point in his career cranking out two or three monsters weekly for television. His monsters have appeared in The Island of Dr. Moreau, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery ("Pickman's Model"), Lost in Spaceand other productions for film and television. In fact, Chambers had quite a collection of "hair suits." Makeup effects artist Mike McCracken, Jr. (Twilight Zone: The Movie, Congo) remembers visiting Chambers at his house-studio shortly before Chambers' retirement.
"He must have had twenty or thirty different fur suits at his house," McCracken recalls. "John was a master at making monster suits. He had monster suits I'd never even seen. I was blown away. I could easily see him assembling a Bigfoot suit from the suits there."..
 
Last edited:

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
Question for those that believe that it's a real Bigfoot captured on video.
How do you explain the 'white mask' around the eyes and nose and the white soles on the bottom of the feet?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,794
Likes
21,859
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Question for those that believe that it's a real Bigfoot captured on video.
How do you explain the 'white mask' around the eyes and nose and the white soles on the bottom of the feet?
If you look at large apes such as gorillas and chimps, they do have relatively bare areas, such as their nose and eye area, palms of hands and soles of feet. Gorillas have dark skin, whereas chimps have pinkish skin.
The Bigfoot may have the hair distribution of a gorilla, but the skin colouration of a chimp (or human).
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
632
Likes
685
Points
124
Human beings have pale soles don't they? (it's more noticeable on people with darker skin) - so why not a bigfoot?
And chimpanzees have pale lower half of their faces, and darker towards the top - so why not the reverse for a bigfoot?
I don't see that's particularly a problem. Different species have different features. That might just be How They Roll.

PS thank you to David Plankton by the way. I've really been enjoying those Astonishing Legend podcasts this week that you recommended.
 
Last edited:

DrPaulLee

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
1,009
Likes
454
Points
114
Not quite ;)
But it's a bit self limiting. After studying breasts in detail for a short period, I then lose all interest.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
If you look at large apes such as gorillas and chimps, they do have relatively bare areas, such as their nose and eye area, palms of hands and soles of feet. Gorillas have dark skin, whereas chimps have pinkish skin.
The Bigfoot may have the hair distribution of a gorilla, but the skin colouration of a chimp (or human).
I looked up pics of both and they don't look anything in those facial areas like that Bigfoot in the video to me...so it 's either a fake or a genetic difference for 'bigfoots'.
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,907
Likes
1,249
Points
184
Location
Indiana
Human beings have pale soles don't they? (it's more noticeable on people with darker skin) - so why not a bigfoot?
And chimpanzees have pale lower half of their faces, and darker towards the top - so why not the reverse for a bigfoot?
I don't see that's particularly a problem. Different species have different features. That might just be How They Roll.

PS thank you to David Plankton by the way. I've really been enjoying those podcasts this week that you recommended.
Yes..but we are indoor and relatively hairless creatures...not an ape on the wild....pale soles doesn't add up for me for a creature in the wild.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
Could the white soles be from rock dust near the river? It looks like there are some light grey rocks near the rivers in those areas. Even a suit would get dirty soles in a short time.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,477
Likes
14,056
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
Could the white soles be from rock dust near the river? It looks like there are some light grey rocks near the rivers in those areas. Even a suit would get dirty soles in a short time.
It might also be dirt / mud residue from the creek bed area through which Patty is walking.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,550
Likes
7,295
Points
294
Bras. We should also be looking at bras.
I don’t want to go too far down this trail but the breasts seem quite perky and not the result of an unfettered bestial life in the wild. If you see what I mean.
I don’t want to turn this thing into ‘Bigtits’. But If we’re analysing what is supposed to be a wild humanoid, we have to judge it on familiar points of reference surely?

I’m not seeing any replies on my earlier post on John Chambers. Is this old and previously discussed information?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
I’m not seeing any replies on my earlier post on John Chambers. Is this old and previously discussed information?
Yes I've heard it before, probably on this thread. The Planet of the Apes was originally meant to be set in a futuristic sci-fi society same as the novel but the make-up effects used up so much of the budget that in the end the apes were living in mud huts in the dessert. Not that I think there is any kind of resemblance to the P+G film, they are obviously people wearing masks.

Could it be some kind of early prototype costume made by Chambers for the film that was shelved? A possibility, but to my knowledge there is no evidence Chambers and Patterson ever met. Without knowing what Mr. Chambers was like as an individual, I couldn't say whether or not he would want to get involved in a hoax when he had a successful Hollywood career.

And if it was something made by him then Philip Morris is/was lying...

Rick Baker and John Chambers are mentioned in relation to this in The Munns Report (Bill Munns - yet another creature suit effects guy)
on this page -
http://themunnsreport.com/

go to PDF downloads, click on 'A True 20th Century Mystery', their involvement starts on page six.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,399
Points
294
Question for those that believe that it's a real Bigfoot captured on video.
How do you explain the 'white mask' around the eyes and nose and the white soles on the bottom of the feet?
I'm not one of those people, I'm firmly in the 'don't know' camp but...

I can see what you mean about a 'white mask' area but I'd argue it wasn't white as in human caucasian skin, more a reflected highlight. I always thought the skin looked black. As for the shape, who knows what the facial hair patterns of an undiscovered primate might look like?

The white soles: I read/heard that this area of the film has become washed out due to the many times it's been copied but can't say for sure if this is true or not.
I don't think that the pale appearance automatically rules it out as authentic; this photo of a bear's foot shows very pale skin.

Screen Shot 2019-07-13 at 05.39.13jpeg.jpg
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
I'm not one of those people, I'm firmly in the 'don't know' camp but...

I can see what you mean about a 'white mask' area but I'd argue it wasn't white as in human caucasian skin, more a reflected highlight. I always thought the skin looked black. As for the shape, who knows what the facial hair patterns of an undiscovered primate might look like
Exactly! :)
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,108
Likes
6,613
Points
294
Yes I've heard it before, probably on this thread. The Planet of the Apes was originally meant to be set in a futuristic sci-fi society same as the novel but the make-up effects used up so much of the budget that in the end the apes were living in mud huts in the dessert. Not that I think there is any kind of resemblance to the P+G film, they are obviously people wearing masks.

Could it be some kind of early prototype costume made by Chambers for the film that was shelved? A possibility, but to my knowledge there is no evidence Chambers and Patterson ever met. Without knowing what Mr. Chambers was like as an individual, I couldn't say whether or not he would want to get involved in a hoax when he had a successful Hollywood career.

And if it was something made by him then Philip Morris is/was lying...

Rick Baker and John Chambers are mentioned in relation to this in The Munns Report (Bill Munns - yet another creature suit effects guy)
on this page -
http://themunnsreport.com/

go to PDF downloads, click on 'A True 20th Century Mystery', their involvement starts on page six.
John Chambers denied being involved

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/sep/07/guardianobituaries.filmnews

http://www.strangemag.com/landischambers.html Landis is probably a bullshitter if you look at Schlock it hardly surprising.

 
Last edited:
Top