Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
24,734
Likes
29,375
Points
284
..not only denied involvement but actively said that the suit was probably beyond even his capabilities at the time.
Chambers has always denied involvement yes .. other F/X artists/prop builders have suggested that to get realistic movement out of a fake bigfoot costume would require marbles inside bags sewn inside the costume to create a natural 'fleshy' looking roll if it was faked. It's conceivable but unlikely IMO (due to contemporary F/X artists not doing that yet at the time the footage was filmed) but that could be the explanation for the rolling flesh look of 'Patty' in the footage. Or she's a real Sasquatch.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,446
Likes
7,141
Points
294
I’m still keeping an open mind on this but the more I read, the more niggling doubts I have.

1563114339230.jpeg

This is Chambers working on a cast of Richard ‘Jaws’ Kiel creating a Bigfoot model.

The Burbank Bigfoot was a 900-pound, seven-foot-four-inch Bigfoot model created by Chambers and his crew in the makeup artist's Burbank garage. According to makeup artists Tom Burman and Werner Keppler, the body was an alginate life casting of the actor Richard Kiel, best known for his role as "Jaws" in two James Bond films. Chambers worked on the face to create an "apeman" look and ultimately the whole body was cast in plaster. The plaster body was meticulously painted by Chambers and then covered in three pounds of human hair, the hair alone requiring a week of work. "Body hairs were placed on the figure a few at a time, and blended with various colors to match the patterns found on gorillas, monkeys, and humans. After the hair was set in place, Chambers and his men cut and trimmed it carefully, to give the entire hair covering an even natural look," according to an article in Hollywood Studio Magazine ("'Bigfoot' Born in Burbank?," June, 1970). Werner Keppler clearly recalls the laborious fabrication process and the way that the huge plaster body was hoisted out of the studio-garage by rented crane.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html
It is said the intended use for this was as an exhibit as a fairground attraction.

Cryptomundo has an interesting article with comments from those who’ve worked in the special effects industry saying the footage is genuine and a man in a suit in turn.

https://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/burbank-bigfoot/

Chambers worked on Lost in Space. A show that reused hairy monster costumes on a regular basis. The novelty was the addition of a new mask to create a new monster for new episodes. There’s a breakdown of those suit appearances here...

Having determined that Chambers worked on Lost in Space (although uncredited), and that costume modification was a common practice at that time, I wanted to find out which Lost in Space episode included a hairy monster in the vegetable garden. Again, Flint Mitchell came to my aid. "The episode you want (a hairy beast attacks the Robinson's garden) is from 'The Space Croppers.' Actually, the beast was a werewolf, and he was in human form when he stole from their garden," Mitchell e-mailed me.
"The Space Croppers" first aired on March 30, 1966 and was the sixth show of the second year of Lost in Space. [Lost in SpaceEpisode Guide; Sf-Lovers Archives, Rutgers University.]
The Space Croppers Werewolf is featured in the first few minutes here...


While this is still a pretty crude costume, we can put a few things together.
Chambers had created at least one Bigfoot.
Whether it was Chambers or another FX guy repurposing a costume, a lot of monster making work was being done in Hollywood.
Chambers studied apes extensively and created the (Planet of the) Apes.
Patterson was involved in making a Bigfoot docudrama movie. He was short of cash for his project and constantly in search of further funding.

There’s too much here for me to take on board the ASTONISHING coincidence that this guy just happened to get a few frames of a movie showing a Bigfoot.
 
Last edited:

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
A really, really interesting comment on the Cryptomundo link:

I was in special effects for 25 years and I don’t know of a single professional effects artist that thinks it’s real. Every time I see it I see more problems and signs of it being a suit. As recently as a couple of months ago I watched a GIF animation of the still frames and caught a major problem with it, the waist is stiff and actually sockets around the lower half. I was surprised because it’s kind of a rookie mistake and I never looked for it before. Generally on a suit of this type you’d do it in one piece or have it attach between the legs like some spandex outfits do. The suit was built shirt and pants style and fairly stiff so the top rotates seperate of the bottom. It’s really clear when it’s arm swings forward. Another major problem is flat white feet. It’s hard to make cosmetic soles that look right and don’t fall apart so a lot of older suits basically were built around shoes and little was done with the soles.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,380
Points
294
A really, really interesting comment on the Cryptomundo link:
I was in special effects for 25 years and I don’t know of a single professional effects artist that thinks it’s real.
I can think of one and I've never been anywhere near Hollywood. I think this first line is a bit of an exaggeration but as it's a completely anonymous quote we'll never know who said this. It's like using a post on this thread as 'evidence'.

As recently as a couple of months ago I watched a GIF animation of the still frames and caught a major problem with it,
No point in trying to study the film when you have high quality GIFs to watch.


This is Chambers working on a cast of Richard ‘Jaws’ Kiel creating a Bigfoot model.
Now you come to mention it, I'm sure I can make out Patty wearing braces in a few of the frames.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
630
Likes
678
Points
124
No point in trying to study the film when you have high quality GIFs to watch.
Indeed. In fact one of the things that sticks in my mind from the Astonishing Legends podcast, is Bill Munns pointing out that people online are scrutinising digitised images that are full of artefacts (the 'gun flash' for example), and the videos online don't even have the same frame rate as the actual film. He himself scanned each frame of the film - a huge amount of work and data (albeit yes the 'original copies' of the film, as the film itself has disappeared).

Really, I recommend those podcasts. There's also lots of information about sasquatch suits.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,380
Points
294
He himself scanned each frame of the film - a huge amount of work and data (albeit yes the 'original copies' of the film, as the film itself has disappeared).
And he stated that it was important to know which copy you were studying as they each have subtle differences.


There’s too much here for me to take on board the ASTONISHING coincidence that this guy just happened to get a few frames of a movie showing a Bigfoot.
There are probably more, but let's look at two possible scenarios...

1 Rick Baker is on the record as saying that John Chambers made the suit.
2 Philip Morris claimed he made the suit.

(I personally think the whole Chambers sub-plot is just a rumour but let's go with it for now.)

Somebody in one of the above scenarios is wrong. I hesitate to say 'lying' but the implication is there; for now I'll be charitable and say either Baker or Morris are/were mistaken.
The fact that one party must be incorrect in their assumptions goes to show that there are people trying to jump on the bandwagon and claim this as their own work.


Where does it lie? Is it a really bad suit (as some claim) by Morris, which by chance when filmed looked incredibly realistic? Or is it a really impressive cutting-edge design (as others claim) by Chambers, which, when he saw it on film he thought looked so bad he denied all knowledge for the rest of his life?
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
Is it a really bad suit (as some claim)
Yes.

which by chance when filmed looked incredibly realistic?
Well, does it? It shows a "creature" with dark palms, white soles, furry boobs, a rectangular cut-out for eyes behind which someone with caucasian skin can be clearly seen. And the buttocks look there's a giant nappy beneath the fur.

Unless, of course, that is what a "real" Bigfoot looks like. Which we don't know. And until we know what a "real" Bigfoot looks like, any claims that this looks "realistic" are absurd.

Sure, it has fooled a lot of people,. But so did the Adamski UFO photos and the "Doctor's Photo" of Nessie.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
630
Likes
678
Points
124
The thing is, some people say that the proportions of the figure aren't like a person in a suit's. That the elbow is in the wrong place. That the head wouldn't fit a person's head inside it. That the muscles can be seen moving in the legs (meaning the person inside would have to have really muscley legs.. and yet the suit is skin tight... and they didn't have spandex in those days... and this person has apparently put the suit on in the back end of beyond, not been carefully sewn into it by a team of technicians).

And you say "can be clearly seen" - but I think that's overegging it really. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion 40+ years on :) although of course, people always want to believe in weirdness. That's why we're all here.

Edit - Also, have you seen this video which was linked to on the general sasquatch thread?
It's of someone in a terrible bear suit.
Oh no, actually it's an actual bear. But you could think it was a terrible bear suit, quite easily?

This is never going to get resolved to my satisfaction, I don't think. I don't see how it can be. It's certainly a lot easier to decide bigfoots just don't exist, job done.
 
Last edited:

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,877
Likes
1,232
Points
184
Location
Indiana
I don't think they would use white soled shoes but could have easily forgot to dye the very bottom of the feet used in the costume.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,446
Likes
7,141
Points
294
A light-coloured mud on the creek would make both the soles of bare feet and the soles of sports shoes appear white. To be fair.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,446
Likes
7,141
Points
294
Also, we have to look at the possibility that the footage we’ve seen, giving the creature weight and a ponderous gait, may not be the actual film speed.

One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps). ... "[161][162] It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".
  • "Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real".[163]
  • John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[164] Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz,[165] contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."[164][166]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Filming_speed
 

kamalktk

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
4,492
Likes
5,419
Points
209
So they think the guy in the suit is wearing white soled shoes? Were they really common decades ago? Even if they were, surely they wouldn't have gone to all that trouble making such a fantastic suit, only to choose WHITE shoes to wear with it! :doh:
Was it filmed after Labor Day? Everyone knows you don't wear white after Labor Day!

/not serious.
/ not wearing white after Labor Day was a thing in America though.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
419
Likes
785
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Edit - Also, have you seen this video which was linked to on the general sasquatch thread?
It's of someone in a terrible bear suit.
Oh no, actually it's an actual bear. But you could think it was a terrible bear suit, quite easily?

This is never going to get resolved to my satisfaction, I don't think. I don't see how it can be. It's certainly a lot easier to decide bigfoots just don't exist, job done.
I WILL NEVER GET SICK OF WATCHING THAT VIDEO. EVER.:hapdan:
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
The thing is, some people say that the proportions of the figure aren't like a person in a suit's.
And some people say the opposite, that line of argument won't get us anywhere.

It's certainly a lot easier to decide bigfoots just don't exist, job done.
I am most definitely NOT saying that, but I am saying that I am convinced that this film is bogus, a hoax, driven by financial needs.

Also, I have seen that bear video. It looks like a bear, I don't really sew how that is relevant here?
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
So they think the guy in the suit is wearing white soled shoes?
No. I am saying the soles of the suit were made from some sort of white material, latex or something of the kind. I wouldn't have a clue if they were shoes or just soles.

But white shoes with white soles were around in 1967 - for example the below Nike running shoe. Remember, Bob Hieronimus was known as a football player, so it is likely he owned sports shoes. (Now, I am not saying he was wearing that exact same shoe). But white shoes were certainly around in 1967.

subtle.jpg

People, 1967 wasn't the dark ages, really.
 
Last edited:

Lizard King

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
229
Likes
550
Points
93
Put the is it a costume/is it not a costume aside fr a second,if you look at how Patty reacts to seeing people. You know that feeling of leaving a pub and there is some dodgy guys walking behind you?you don't run, you put a pace on and have a glance behind you to see if they are speeding up or not. If you run it might provoke a chase.That's what it looks like Patty is doing. I don't like this, there is a threat I'm getting out of here type deal. If it was a hoax in a bad costume, why risk looking back at the camera?and why not sprint off?
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
630
Likes
678
Points
124
And some people say the opposite, that line of argument won't get us anywhere.
Ah well, I would say that is precisely the sort of scientific measurement that could potentially get us somewhere. It's not like arguing whether one can see a zip. If the relative lengths are measurable then the proportions of the arm either are or are not in the bounds of a regular human being. If they are, then so we haven't got anywhere. But if they're not, then the suit idea is looking shakier. It's hard to fake where your elbow is. What I'm trying to say is it's a bit better than the 'he said, she said' level of evidence?

Regarding the bear - come now, surely it isn't doing what most people think bears do, waddling along on its back legs like that?! And it's fur is all saggy and its head looks a different colour to the rest of it? Must be a suit. The head is just rubbish. The reason I'm saying it's relevant is that one could argue that it was a someone in a suit, because it doesn't look like Gentle Ben, does it. And we know what bears look like (or we think we do). So it makes it even harder to argue whether Patty is or is not a real creature, because we don't have any prior ideas of what that creature already looks like. The weird bear is a kind of analogy.

Btw I wasn't putting words into your mouth about the 'non-existent, job done' approach (it was more a general comment).

So if your theory is that it was about the money, do you know how much money they did make from the film? How could one make a lot of money out of such a thing, I'm not very business savvy?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,771
Likes
7,380
Points
294
So if your theory is that it was about the money, do you know how much money they did make from the film?
I forget the details, you might remember Eponastill, but what was in that podcast about Bob Gimlin giving up the rights to his share of the film by selling it for a token amount?
$1? $10?

Not much, so it didn't seem as if money was his motivation.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
630
Likes
678
Points
124
Ah, I didn't remember that, thanks. Though there was a lot of information! and I was kind of doing other things at the same time. I'll have to have another listen.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,121
Likes
13,443
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
I forget the details, you might remember Eponastill, but what was in that podcast about Bob Gimlin giving up the rights to his share of the film by selling it for a token amount?
$1? $10?
Not much, so it didn't seem as if money was his motivation.
There's a distinction that must be recognized between what Gimlin originally thought he might get out of the project versus how little he signed away his rights for after giving up and essentially blowing it off.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
Ah well, I would say that is precisely the sort of scientific measurement that could potentially get us somewhere. It's not like arguing whether one can see a zip. If the relative lengths are measurable then the proportions of the arm either are or are not in the bounds of a regular human being. If they are, then so we haven't got anywhere. But if they're not, then the suit idea is looking shakier. It's hard to fake where your elbow is. What I'm trying to say is it's a bit better than the 'he said, she said' level of evidence?
Ah well, here the Astonishing Legends Podcast comes to the rescue. They did mention that 10% of the WWII German Luftwaffe members had ratios matching Patty's! That's not to say that she was the result of a secret Nazi experiment, but merely that the Luftwaffe was one of the few organisations to keep a record of such measurements.

So if your theory is that it was about the money, do you know how much money they did make from the film? How could one make a lot of money out of such a thing, I'm not very business savvy?
No idea really, I think the Podcast did go into the amounts, but as someone already pointed out, it's not the success that matters here, but the intention.

As mentioned a number of times, Patterson had already published a Bigfoot book, sold memberships to a Bigfoot club and commissioned a Bigfoot record. All before the PGF.

I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that Patterson tried to monetise the whole Bigfoot thing. Gimlin just wasn't interested, for whatever reason.
 

XEPER_

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
689
Likes
628
Points
99
No. I am saying the soles of the suit were made from some sort of white material, latex or something of the kind. I wouldn't have a clue if they were shoes or just soles.

But white shoes with white soles were around in 1967 - for example the below Nike running shoe. Remember, Bob Hieronimus was known as a football player, so it is likely he owned sports shoes. (Now, I am not saying he was wearing that exact same shoe). But white shoes were certainly around in 1967.

View attachment 18907

People, 1967 wasn't the dark ages, really.
Yeah, but to go to all that hassle, making a stunning suit the likes of which even Holywood couldn't make at the time....and then wear a pair of white trainers with it (or forget, somehow, to dye the soles of the feet dark). DOH!
In saying that, there's a scene in Robin of Sherwood where they all jump over a wall and you can see Ray Winstone is wearing a pair of modern boots, so it's not THAT crazy, but still...
Analogue Boy makes a good point, and one I've seen elsewhere (perhaps in the Astonishing Legends podcast?) about the mud turning the feet light coloured.
But does it matter if the feet were light coloured? How dark should they be?
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
841
Likes
271
Points
69
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.
At minute 1:13 right after she looks at filmer, she turns back into forest and you can see the attachment point and tendon of the biceps femoris tighten at the knee. It's hard for me to imagine how that could be done with a suit.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
630
Likes
678
Points
124
Ah well, here the Astonishing Legends Podcast comes to the rescue. They did mention that 10% of the WWII German Luftwaffe members had ratios matching Patty's!
Ah yes I remember. I don't think that was about the elbow position though, it was about the distance from underarm to underarm, which was estimated by looking at the back of her (not that easy to do, maybe ( and they called it the armscye but I don't think that's the right word?). I'm thinking I should look into the elbow thing specifically, shouldn't I.

So you're saying he made the film because he thought it would sell more of his books? I suppose you could go on a lecture tour and play the video and make some money that way. Tshirts. Signed photos. Keyrings. I don't know. (This is why I have no money and have to go to work for someone else isn't it).
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,446
Likes
7,141
Points
294
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.
Ok. It’s already been said that enhancing footage can introduce new elements so I’d be wary of regarding any new enhanced footage as gospel. As I've previously pointed out, a convincing 3d model could have been rotoscoped and masked here for all we know.
However. Look at the supposed Bigfoot’s back as it walks into the scene.
There is a very clear triangle of darker material on the right shoulder compared to the left. My suspicion - if this is a costume - is that’s where the seam would be running down the spine. The nap of the material is catching the light on the left side in a different way to the flipped material on the right.

Secondly, there is something going on around the waist and buttocks. Action around here is really stiff and with less definition some claim there is on the rest of the body. There doesn’t seem to much in the way of definition or glutes on the arse of this thing at all. What is interesting is that a stiff waistband supporting an artificial lower posterior would create the illusion of a shorter leg length familiar to those who have seen chimpanzees and gorillas and know what to expect from an ape creature.

Watch this footage again and pay attention to a very clear separation and fringe around the waist of this creature. The top is animated but look at its static boxy arse.
 
Last edited:
Top