Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,003
Points
154
Despite much criticism and analysis, the Bigfoot Patterson film still seems to defy all scepticism. Does anyone out there think it is a real Bigfoot, especially with the analysis provided by the likes of Grover Krantz who believe it to be an unknown biped.
Unfortunately, enigmas such as Bigfoot and Nessie are often judged by the 'best' evidence they have produced, i.e. photographs. Just look what happened with Nessie with the Surgeon's photograph.Anyway, if the Patterson film isn't real, it has to be admired as a well executed hoax that no-one has ever equalled. let's face it, the alien autopsy was pretty normal really...but the Patterson film just looks genuine. Or do others disagree and why ?
I am inclined to agree. Nobody sells an ape suit that large, or with tits, especially back in the day, and it's hard to manage the gait unless you've had a very specific hip injury. So we'd be looking for a person with gigantism who has advanced costuming skills, a fetish for apes with tits, and has injured their hip, and wants to spend their evenings camping in the remote wilderness of Northern California to perform eco-terrorism in 1967. Does that sound very likely? I guess we would be looking for one of Robert Crumb's ex-girlfriends? Or we can get real and admit it is likely to be legitimate.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
Philip Morris on the costume...

Two weeks after sending out the costume, Morris got another phone call from Patterson. "He asked me to send him some extra fur and asked how to hide the zipper in the back and how to make the person in the costume look larger," Morris said. "I told him to brush the fur over the zipper and use hair spray to hold it, and then get some football shoulder pads and sticks for the arms to give the illusion of being taller, and use stuffing to get more bulk."
He recognised his costume straight away but kept quiet..

"As a costume and special-effects producer, I have an ethical code I have to uphold," Morris said. "I couldn't go out telling secrets and expect magicians to trust me with their props. That is why I didn't say anything. Plus I thought he would come clean in a few weeks."

Patterson never admitted it was a hoax, but after his death in the 1980s Morris decided it was OK to tell people it was his suit in the film.

"Most people believe me, but there are people that are very hostile to me when I tell them it is a hoax," Morris said. "It is like telling them Santa Claus doesn't exist. They grew up believing it was true and do not want to admit to themselves it's fake."
https://www.mlive.com/entertainment/kalamazoo/2008/11/bigfoot_hoax.html
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,394
Points
164
Location
generally on the fringes
Again, not sure if this is well known - just in case though...
You would think Morris would have some photos of someone in the sort of suits he made in those days. Or might even have the suits? Or other people would have the suits and photos that match. I mean that would be the way to convince people it was your artistry. Thing is, it would be good to convince people it was your suit when you run a suit-selling business, even in the 21st century.

And you'd think it'd be very easy for him (well he's dead now, so not so easy) to recreate a Patty suit and make a little film. But I don't see that sort of thing anywhere on the internet? I'm assuming that dreadful thing at the end of the video isn't actually supposed to be a recreation?? If anything it's enough to make you believe in Patty even more! (edit - ah I see that is actually from 'X creatures - bigfoot and yeti' which is also on youtube, so maybe not supposed to be super convincing, it's made by Optic Nerve studios so not Morris... I don't know why it's on that other video then?). And another thing if you search 'mega monsters morris costumes and bigfoot clip' there's a video of Morris again getting a studio to make a suit that looks absolutely nothing like the original film, just a big scary sasquatch costume. Why not make one that looks like it? Why wouldn't you do that? ?

Also it's interesting that in one of those videos you posted, he specifically demonstrates four-way stretch material that he says was used in the costume. But Bill Munns says that wasn't available at the time. It's rather like back-engineering your argument to fit. It seems like an odd thing to say unless you are well aware of the objections people have about the suit?

I'm not so sure about his explanation of the breasts either. He says in the video that Gimlin wanted them added because (something to do with local mythological creatures all being female). But on
this video he says it was Gimlin that made the changes... makes you wonder why Gimlin didn't just make the suit in the first place if he was a good sewer hehe

There were other costume makers who were rumoured to be responsible too. I don't know. It's good publicity though to say the suit was yours. But a bit of visual support for that would be more convincing. I'm not convinced I'm afraid. (And therefore think the whole business has no bearing on how genuine the original footage / creature is).
 
Last edited:

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I wouldn't be as convinced at all. Modern camera techniques and the easy understanding of a level of effects make-up would make me very suspicious of a modern film with the look. But knowing filmwork and film and effects history, the time it was made and the capabilities of film make me think that if it is a fake,, its an amazingly impressive one for that time, using a sophistication of technique not seen in film until years later
The PGF is pointless as evidence all these years later. At the time, it was a call to get out there and look for it. People did. If it was genuine, we would have found more and better evidence of it. Now, every day that goes by without clear traces of a real animal means that Bigfoot is more implausible. And, as has been said, you can not squeeze any additional information out of that film. People who try are making stuff up. So, another film wouldn't be solid, more footprints are worthless. Only body parts or interesting DNA would boost this signal.
 

MrRING

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
5,244
Reaction score
1,560
Points
234
If it was genuine, we would have found more and better evidence of it. Now, every day that goes by without clear traces of a real animal means that Bigfoot is more implausible.
Yet cryptozoology does continue to find new species, some fairly big...
 
Last edited:

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Yet cryptozoology does continue to find new species...
Whoa, nope. Cryptozoology is not a recognized field of zoology and those who call themselves cryptozoologists are not the ones finding new species. Scientists are mostly finding new species via DNA or detailed work on existing specimens.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
30,410
Reaction score
36,956
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
Whoa, nope. Cryptozoology is not a recognized field of zoology and those who call themselves cryptozoologists are not the ones finding new species. Scientists are mostly finding new species via DNA or detailed work on existing specimens.
I think you're drawing rather hard and fast (fast and loose?) distinctions between cryptozoologists and non-cryptozoologists. There are--or certainly were--many established/credentialed scientists who believe in the validity (or potential validity) of the field (if not in the rigour with which many sloppy amateurs investigate it), but the odium that high-profile frauds have dumped on the community means that use of the appellation would bring only detriment to their academic or professional reputations. So-called 'Ripperology' has much the same relationship to academic history. Besides, contemporary job descriptions are no more reliable a guide to what a person really 'is' than simply looking at what they actually 'do' (he doesn't call himself a murderer, but there are several bodies in his basement...).

If we take, therefore, cryptozoology as a methodology or a possible approach within the wider subject of zoology, we find that a number of (actual) 'scientists' (such as a distinction is helpful) have successfully employed that approach without assuming the moniker.

What is that 'approach'? Here's one sketch that plausibly suggests 'targeted discovery':

Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.17.38.png

Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.17.52.png


And the successes of such an approach?

Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.03.11.png
Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.03.25.png
Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.03.36.png
Screenshot 2020-09-02 at 23.04.14.png


Source (which I have not read in its entirety):
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id...qYKHa4gCiMQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I think you're drawing rather hard and fast (fast and loose?) distinctions between cryptozoologists and non-cryptozoologists. There are--or certainly were--many established/credentialed scientists who believe in the validity (or potential validity) of the field (if not in the rigour with which many sloppy amateurs investigate it), but the odium that high-profile frauds have dumped on the community means that use of the appellation would bring only detriment to their academic or professional reputations. So-called 'Ripperology' has much the same relationship to academic history. Besides, contemporary job descriptions are no more reliable a guide to what a person really 'is' than simply looking at what they actually 'do' (he doesn't call himself a murderer, but there are several bodies in his basement...).

If we take, therefore, cryptozoology as a methodology or a possible approach within the wider subject of zoology, we find that a number of (actual) 'scientists' (such as a distinction is helpful) have successfully employed that approach without assuming the moniker.

What is that 'approach'? Here's one sketch that plausibly suggests 'targeted discovery':

View attachment 29427
View attachment 29428

And the successes of such an approach?

View attachment 29423View attachment 29424View attachment 29425View attachment 29426

Source (which I have not read in its entirety):
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id...qYKHa4gCiMQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Oh, I have read that book in its entirety, but I'll keep my personal opinions on it to myself.

One could argue that this process described as cryptozoological was always inherent in zoological discovery and so it's not something unique that needs to be called out.

It also has become very much less useful than when it was originally envisioned. At that time, it was backwards-applied to a time when finding of new species was done by explorers, not scientists. And, weirdly, Heuvelmans compared it to the science of palaeontology. The world is not so unexplored today. Modern cryptozoology as it exists is nothing like Heuvelmans envisioned. We are not finding new species that resemble established cryptids. Often new species discovered are closely related to existing species, not the big new targets that mostly people think of. The cryptid lable is applied very loosely as "any previously unknown animal" including to animals that were not ethnoknown - megamouth shark, for example. The ISC path to recognize and legimize the field as a subfield of zoology was not successful. I think there are several good reasons for that. It's not that the method isn't useful, it's that it was already in use and does not require a subdiscipline.

Since attempts at professionalism failed, the field has been entirely usurped by amateur monster hunting, save for a few scientists who associate with it (although it is notable that Bindernagle and Meldrum have argued that the study of Bigfoot should not be considered cryptozoology as it detracts from the seriousness - to your point of the rampant fraud that has ruined the reputation).

So I stand by my position that cryptozoology is not useful to zoology. Zoology is just fine without it. (As an aside, however, cryptozoology as a field of study could be - and possibly is being - redefined by popular culture. I encourage that.)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
30,410
Reaction score
36,956
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
And, weirdly, Heuvelmans compared it to the science of palaeontology.
To pick up on this sidenote:

There are certainly parallels between cryptozoology and early geology and palaeontology.

Buckland's Reliquae Diluvianae (1823) and his Bridgewater Treatise (1836), based originally on his studies of the Kirkdale Cave, were motivated by an urge to evaluate Biblical claims of a (single) great deluge, while Chambers' Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) began with the account in Genesis and ended up with a transmutation of species that the fossil record and its numerous extinctions demanded.

What the cryptozoologists today might dub 'ethnoknown' was then 'Biblioknown': those gentlemen of science took scripture as their starting point and went out to find the evidence to meet the descriptions. What made it so revolutionary was that when they found the 'vestiges' pointing elsewhere, they loyally followed the trail and managed to take society along with them into the waters of 'Deep Time' and evolution where we all now swim.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
2,029
Points
159
To pick up on this sidenote:

There are certainly parallels between cryptozoology and early geology and palaeontology.

Buckland's Reliquae Diluvianae (1823) and his Bridgewater Treatise (1836), based originally on his studies of the Kirkdale Cave, were motivated by an urge to evaluate Biblical claims of a (single) great deluge, while Chambers' Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) began with the account in Genesis and ended up with a transmutation of species that the fossil record and its numerous extinctions demanded.

What the cryptozoologists today might dub 'ethnoknown' was then 'Biblioknown': those gentlemen of science took scripture as their starting point and went out to find the evidence to meet the descriptions. What made it so revolutionary was that when they found the 'vestiges' pointing elsewhere, they loyally followed the trail and managed to take society along with them into the waters of 'Deep Time' and evolution where we all now swim.
The history of the study of evolution before Darwin is an interesting subject. By Darwin's time, of course, a theory to explain evolution had become necessary, yet some Christians still talk as though acceptance of evolution began with him.

For my part, I love reading about cryptozoology, but I certainly don't consider it a science. It's more a subject. A cryptozoologist may or may not have an academic background, but may simply be someone who searches for or writes books about rumoured but undiscovered fauna. That's fine, I think. It doesn't need to be a science to be of value. As has been said, zoology has always employed similar methods, without those pursuing such methods describing themselves as cryptozoologists.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
There were other costume makers who were rumoured to be responsible too. I don't know. It's good publicity though to say the suit was yours. But a bit of visual support for that would be more convincing. I'm not convinced I'm afraid. (And therefore think the whole business has no bearing on how genuine the original footage / creature is).
I’ve seen a few posts discrediting Morris as a marketing-driven opportunist while at the same time ignoring Patterson’s dubious record of low funds tied to a desperate need to continually milk and promote the existence of Bigfoot.

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 Canyonincident) 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.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.

Prior to the October 1967 filming, Patterson apparently visited Los Angeles on these occasions:

  • Roger drove to Hollywood in 1964 and visited rockabilly songwriter and guitarist Jerry Lee Merritt, a Yakimanative who was living there in Hollywood then.[25][26] He was trying to sell his hoop-toy invention.[27][28]
  • In 1966 he visited Merritt again while he was still trying to sell his hoop-toy invention.[29]
Merritt soon moved back to Yakima and became Patterson's neighbor, and later his collaborator on his Bigfoot documentary.[30]

  • Later in 1966 he and Merritt drove down there for several purposes. Patterson visited cowboy film star Roy Rogers for help.[31] He tried to sell his ponies-and-wagon to Disneyland or Knott's Berry Farm.[32]
  • 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.[33] They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot".[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

Note this is not a couple of guys with a camera who stumbled randomly across a mysterious creature. They’d already invested time and money trying to get a Bigfoot project off the ground. Given this, for Bigfoot to appear in front of them when they needed footage for their project stretches credulity to an impossible degree.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,394
Points
164
Location
generally on the fringes
Ah but AB, I'm ignoring Patterson because the video was specifically Morris speaking and claiming it was his suit :) My point was I didn't find it very convincing that it was his suit. I'm not claiming it was or wasn't someone else's suit! If he's fibbing, it provides no evidence as to the argument whether it's a suit or a creature, it's only a red herring then. Providing the suit or a photo would be very good evidence. Better than no physical evidence.
Btw, what might you think of this - according to Morris in that video, Patterson had no money, and had ran off with the suit and the camera without paying for them? Is that right or wrong do you think? (you say he'd invested time and money, in your post).
 
Last edited:

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
I certainly don’t think he had an infinite supply of money to fund his project. Don’t you find the whole thing a tad coincidental?
 

DougalLongfoot

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
570
Reaction score
158
Points
74
Note this is not a couple of guys with a camera who stumbled randomly across a mysterious creature. They’d already invested time and money trying to get a Bigfoot project off the ground. Given this, for Bigfoot to appear in front of them when they needed footage for their project stretches credulity to an impossible degree.
Why is it stretching credulity for two people who went out looking for Bigfoot to find Bigfoot?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
18,700
Reaction score
25,021
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Btw, what might you think of this - according to Morris in that video, Patterson had no money, and had ran off with the suit and the camera without paying for them? Is that right or wrong do you think? (you say he'd invested time and money, in your post).
As far as the camera is concerned ...

Patterson had rented the 16mm camera he used. He'd rented it in mid-May - circa 5 months prior to the October trip and filming.

He'd failed to make / renew the camera rental payments, and an arrest warrant was issued for grand larceny on October 17 (3 days before the alleged filming date). He appeared in court to answer the charges on November 28, and the legal proceedings relating to the matter dragged on for more than a year thereafter.
 

Aether Blue

Fresh Blood
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
37
Points
13
For years, people tried to make videos of live giant squid in their native habitat. For years, they failed to find their quarry. Eventually. someone succeeded.

I'm not sure what's suspicious about people encountering something that looks like an alleged cryptid in its native environment, Now, if the cryptid knocked on someone's door in a big city, that's another story.

Searching for things that are rare or elusive is not always a straightforward task. Some people fail to find gold in promising strata using the latest tools and geological knowledge. Others pull up wild onions on a whim, and find gold (as is recorded to have happened in southern California).

IMHO, the lack of bigfoot roadkill seems to weigh against the possibility that such things exist. However, it seems unfair to hold the very existence of the film as evidence against its own legitimacy.

If it's a fake, then surely there must be clues to that effect contained within the footage.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,584
Reaction score
9,686
Points
294
People still see, hear and smell cryptid-type experiences, and at the time of experiencing them most of these people are not psychotic or on psychoactive drugs. Mis-identification will rule out most but not all particularly when there is more than one witness.


What I'd really like for a change is for the skeptic community to actually get off their collective arses and go and examine what is going on.


Whether you like it or not people are having these experiences. It isn't some form of psychosis so at least examine it.
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
514
Reaction score
1,489
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Why is it stretching credulity for two people who went out looking for Bigfoot to find Bigfoot?
Credulity is a characteristic of the person considering the evidence. It is not a characteristic of the evidence itself.

One person may think, "What a convenient coincidence: they believed in Bigfoot, they went looking for one, they found one. Who woulda thunk it?"

Another person may think, "The most likely person to find evidence of a rare and elusive creature is someone who is actively looking for it. It was a successful search."

Neither perspective sheds any light on the nature or quality of the evidence.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
One person may think, "What a convenient coincidence: they believed in Bigfoot, they went looking for one, they found one. Who woulda thunk it?"

Neither perspective sheds any light on the nature or quality of the evidence.
Although it’s not as simple as they believed in Bigfoot. Patterson was active in making a movie about Bigfoot, had sourced investment and needed some footage of a Bigfoot to keep his idea going.

If I was to source investment in a reconstruction of this event, it’d be a pretty poor attempt if I returned without some footage of something other than a bunch of cowboys on horses.
 
Last edited:

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
For years, people tried to make videos of live giant squid in their native habitat. For years, they failed to find their quarry. Eventually. someone succeeded.

I'm not sure what's suspicious about people encountering something that looks like an alleged cryptid in its native environment, Now, if the cryptid knocked on someone's door in a big city, that's another story.

Searching for things that are rare or elusive is not always a straightforward task. Some people fail to find gold in promising strata using the latest tools and geological knowledge. Others pull up wild onions on a whim, and find gold (as is recorded to have happened in southern California).

IMHO, the lack of bigfoot roadkill seems to weigh against the possibility that such things exist. However, it seems unfair to hold the very existence of the film as evidence against its own legitimacy.

If it's a fake, then surely there must be clues to that effect contained within the footage.
Isn’t the clue that it looks like a man in a suit?
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
People still see, hear and smell cryptid-type experiences, and at the time of experiencing them most of these people are not psychotic or on psychoactive drugs. Mis-identification will rule out most but not all particularly when there is more than one witness.


What I'd really like for a change is for the skeptic community to actually get off their collective arses and go and examine what is going on.


Whether you like it or not people are having these experiences. It isn't some form of psychosis so at least examine it.
Same can be said for ghosts, UFOs, fairies, elves, dogmen, angels, demons, etc. People interpret things in fantastic ways - doesn't mean that the thing they say they experienced is just as they described it. If one is suggesting that the psychology of the sightings be investigated, well, that's not a bad idea, it's been done somewhat. Not sure where that gets us though. I'd sure be interested.

Maybe the Bigfoot community should step up and stop doing youtube videos and actually attempt to collect valid data to examine. It's not the skeptics' responsibility to go in search of something that has little concrete evidence to support it. If there was a pelt and paws creature out there, there would be more solid evidence than janky films and footprints after all this time. It burns me up to hear that "science hasn't investigated Bigfoot". That's BS. Some of the best anthropologists and zoologists examined the evidence in the 60s and 70s and found it lacking. With thousands of people still looking, nothing better has come of it since. As soon as DNA or body parts show up, then people will most certainly get off their arses and examine it. Until then, there is nothing to examine.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
What I'd really like for a change is for the skeptic community to actually get off their collective arses and go and examine what is going on.
I have better things to do and suffer from limited resources to scour the planet, book accommodation, guides and equipment in an attempt to go looking for things that I think don’t exist. And I bet it's the same for you too.
However, if you were to front me £150,000, I may be more agreeable in giving it a go.
 
Last edited:

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
I think you're drawing rather hard and fast (fast and loose?) distinctions between cryptozoologists and non-cryptozoologists. There are--or certainly were--many established/credentialed scientists who believe in the validity (or potential validity) of the field (if not in the rigour with which many sloppy amateurs investigate it), but the odium that high-profile frauds have dumped on the community means that use of the appellation would bring only detriment to their academic or professional reputations. So-called 'Ripperology' has much the same relationship to academic history. Besides, contemporary job descriptions are no more reliable a guide to what a person really 'is' than simply looking at what they actually 'do' (he doesn't call himself a murderer, but there are several bodies in his basement...).

If we take, therefore, cryptozoology as a methodology or a possible approach within the wider subject of zoology, we find that a number of (actual) 'scientists' (such as a distinction is helpful) have successfully employed that approach without assuming the moniker.

What is that 'approach'? Here's one sketch that plausibly suggests 'targeted discovery':

View attachment 29427
View attachment 29428

And the successes of such an approach?

View attachment 29423View attachment 29424View attachment 29425View attachment 29426

Source (which I have not read in its entirety):
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id...qYKHa4gCiMQ6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Dead right.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
Isn’t the clue that it looks like a man in a suit?
But it doesn't. Look at how the forehead slopes away from the browridge. Humans have high foreheads. A human head wouldn't be able to fit into a mask of that shape due to the human forehead shape. It would require a false head way to big with the brow resting on the top of the actor's head. The arms are longer than a humans in comparison with the legs.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,394
Points
164
Location
generally on the fringes
I have better things to do .... to go looking for things that I think don’t exist.
But Analogue Boy, you're here on the Fortean Forums, so surely I am not wrong to assume you have an interest in things that most people think don't exist?

And may I enquire, since you're specifically on the PGF thread, although you think it shows a man in a suit - are you here to pursuade your fellow forteans that we are wasting our time thinking about it? What is it that intrigues you about it, if you categorically believe it's a fake? Or are you interested in anthropologically studying us as people who believe in hoaxes?!

I'm genuinely intrigued and in no way trying to provoke :)
 
Last edited:

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
People still see, hear and smell cryptid-type experiences, and at the time of experiencing them most of these people are not psychotic or on psychoactive drugs. Mis-identification will rule out most but not all particularly when there is more than one witness.


What I'd really like for a change is for the skeptic community to actually get off their collective arses and go and examine what is going on.


Whether you like it or not people are having these experiences. It isn't some form of psychosis so at least examine it.
Couldn't have put it better myself. I'd love to see how some of them would deal with the situations and environments i've been in.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
But it doesn't. Look at how the forehead slopes away from the browridge. Humans have high foreheads. A human head wouldn't be able to fit into a mask of that shape due to the human forehead shape. It would require a false head way to big with the brow resting on the top of the actor's head. The arms are longer than a humans in comparison with the legs.
There are threads where other mask heads have been suggested in depth. Masks and armatures underneath the main costume. Foam bulking in or over wetsuits as an underlay underneath the costume. The quality of the footage is so poor it doesn’t really stand up to much analysis anyway. If we say a slow frame rate gives it a weighty gait, the feet look like they have baseball shoes on, the midriff is stiff and suggests a two part costume. In further analysis, the breasts would suggest a female but that would provide a good excuse for it being about 6ft 5 inches (if we look at a reconstruction filmed at the exact location with the same lenses used overlaying the original footage) with a conveniently smaller foot cast should that have been required.
If Patterson requested more fur and suggestions on how to make the costumed figure look taller, sticks extending the arms at the wrists could work and there’s not much gesturing going on... and those hands do look a bit flappy.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
But Analogue Boy, you're here on the Fortean Forums, so surely I am not wrong to assume you have an interest in things that most people think don't exist?

And may I enquire, since you're specifically on the PGF thread, although you think it shows a man in a suit - are you here to pursuade your fellow forteans that we are wasting our time thinking about it? What is it that intrigues you about it, if you categorically believe it's a fake? Or are you interested in anthropologically studying us as people who believe in hoaxes?!

I'm genuinely intrigued and in no way trying to provoke :)
To be honest, I’m a bit surprised at the response and level of blind belief in this thing here. Are you for the idea of a Moon Landing Hoax? Are you wary of Vampire attack? Fearful of what creature a full moon may present? Have you ever posted a viewpoint contrary to such beliefs?

This is a discussion on the film and having looked through the evidence and followed the money, I have to say ‘fake’. That is not to say that somewhere out there such a thing doesn’t exist, I’m just of the opinion a bunch of desperate cowboys actually promoting Bigfoot as their potential moneyspinner got a clip bang on cue. It just doesn’t hold up.

As a Fortean, of course I have an interest but also, as a Fortean, I have an interest in how the human mind can delude itself. I was never fooled by The Cumberland Spaceman. The Surgeon’s Photo looked wrong to me from the outset. Yet people believed in these pictures, held them up as proof and couldn’t get over their original self-imposed visual interpretation and belief they’d conjured around them enough to see them with fresh eyes in a new light.

As Howard Devoto sang...

My mind
It ain't so open
That anything
Could crawl right in
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
There are threads where other mask heads have been suggested in depth. Masks and armatures underneath the main costume. Foam bulking in or over wetsuits as an underlay underneath the costume. The quality of the footage is so poor it doesn’t really stand up to much analysis anyway. If we say a slow frame rate gives it a weighty gait, the feet look like they have baseball shoes on, the midriff is stiff and suggests a two part costume. In further analysis, the breasts would suggest a female but that would provide a good excuse for it being about 6ft 5 inches (if we look at a reconstruction filmed at the exact location with the same lenses used overlaying the original footage) with a conveniently smaller foot cast should that have been required.
If Patterson requested more fur and suggestions on how to make the costumed figure look taller, sticks extending the arms at the wrists could work and there’s not much gesturing going on... and those hands do look a bit flappy.
If arm extentions where used then the lower arms would be too long in comparison with the upper arms and the elbows would be in the wrong place. The soles of the feet look pale gray but so do the bottoms of the feet of of gorillas. The midriff would look stiff due to heavy muscles and the lack of a neck. I've worked closely with all the great apes and this thing reminds me most of a gorilla in its muscularity, bulk and head shape. It is clearly not a gorilla but i don't think it's human. For the record no other bigfoot footage has looked anything like this good. All the others look like someone fannying about in a monkey costume. The P/G footage looks like something else.
 
Top