• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Vardoger said:
Didn't a couple of people behind it tell it was fake?
Click to expand...

Some people who claimed to be involved stated that it was faked and that they were involved in the fakery.

It doesn't matter to me if many people claimed they participated in the fakery, IF some aspects of the evidence are examined by experts (chose your appropriate experts in the various fields) are shown to be not faked.

It all depends on one's pre-existing assumptions. These assumptions are seldom examined by the holder, because its much effort and in most cases, that effort does not yield better results in ordinary life.
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
Some people who claimed to be involved stated that it was faked and that they were involved in the fakery.

It doesn't matter to me if many people claimed they participated in the fakery, IF some aspects of the evidence are examined by experts (chose your appropriate experts in the various fields) are shown to be not faked.

It all depends on one's pre-existing assumptions. These assumptions are seldom examined by the holder, because its much effort and in most cases, that effort does not yield better results in ordinary life.
Click to expand...
I want to believe it was real, FWIW. Since it can't be proven in anyway I'll reserve my judgement. We can't be sure until a suit appears and/or the costume artist show evidence he/she made it.

 
Last edited:
Vardoger said:
I want to believe it was real, FWIW. Since it can't be proven in anyway I'll reserve my judgement. We can't be sure until a suit appears and/or the costume artist show evidence he/she made it.
Click to expand...

Agree, kinda sorta. If the creature was real, then no suit or costume artist will ever appear as conclusive evidence. Although I provisionally accept Patty as a true being, I also know that there is not enough evidence in this one instance for me to accept it as conclusive.

My own thoughts about this are influenced by:
- The opinions of primatologists in movement, weight mechanics, and so on
- My own observations of weirdness in the forests which seemed to me to be inexplicable except for either two provisional hypotheses: bigfoot exists or groups of people exist in different parts of North America who fake stuff where it would not easily be found, and fake the stuff in exactly the same way. Note that these are my observations of manipulated objects I have carefully examined in deep forests.
 
I haven't shifted my opinion from the one I stated in the Patty At Fifty article on 360 - I still don't know. As for a recap of some of the pros and cons a lot are distilled into this post earlier in this thread.

I can (if anyone wants) link over to a text-only version of the whole article.
 
If it was a fake I hope the person who did it made a fortune in film Special effects.
 
stu neville said:
I haven't shifted my opinion from the one I stated in the Patty At Fifty article on 360 - I still don't know. As for a recap of some of the pros and cons a lot are distilled into this post earlier in this thread.

I can (if anyone wants) link over to a text-only version of the whole article.
Click to expand...
1% "I don't know", 99% :rofl:
 
After 55 years and tons of opinions written about the original 1967 Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film, I noticed that Wikipedia had a intriguing line that said no one has exactly duplicated the Bigfoot scene shown in the film.

I was surprised that this Bigfoot was called “ Patty “ being a female.
 
charliebrown said:
After 55 years and tons of opinions written about the original 1967 Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film, I noticed that Wikipedia had a intriguing line that said no one has exactly duplicated the Bigfoot scene shown in the film.

I was surprised that this Bigfoot was called “ Patty “ being a female.
Click to expand...
Nope, there have been some attempts but nobody has ever come close to creating an exact replica of this footage
 
charliebrown said:
After 55 years and tons of opinions written about the original 1967 Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film, I noticed that Wikipedia had a intriguing line that said no one has exactly duplicated the Bigfoot scene shown in the film.

I was surprised that this Bigfoot was called “ Patty “ being a female.
Click to expand...
Special effects artist Marc Shostrum and his team sewed bags containing marbles inside strategic places including the buttocks and breasts of one costume (possessed Henrietta) for Evil Dead 2 but they used this trick to simulate the more realistic looking body mass/muscle/fat movement almost twenty years after the 'Patty/Bigfoot' footage was filmed.

I'd be interested to learn if they came up with this idea themselves for Evil Dead 2 or if they'd nicked the idea from someone else. The general consensus between professional make up artists and costume builders etc these days is that their craft wasn't evolved enough back in the late 60's to be able to build a fake Bigfoot costume of the quality seen in the Patterson Gimlin footage, only Dick Chambers (who created the ground breaking prosthetic techniques used for Planet of the Apes as well as working for the FBI) would have been able to come anywhere close back then.

I personally know someone who's interviewed Marc Shostrum so I'm tempted to ask him to get back in touch with the artist to ask about how they decided to use the bags of marbles trick and if that had been used before. Of course, that wouldn't alone 'put the baby to bed' on if the famous Patty footage was definitively a costume or not.
 
Patty can go for a male or female, but this Bigfoot supposedly had noticeable breasts,

But I have seen men with noticeable breasts.
 
Over the years opinion was this Bigfoot was 6 and 1/2 to 7 and 1/2 feet.

If this was a hoax, who was in this tall costume ?
 
charliebrown said:
Over the years opinion was this Bigfoot was 6 and 1/2 to 7 and 1/2 feet.

If this was a hoax, who was in this tall costume ?
Click to expand...
you-rang.gif
 
Swifty said:
Special effects artist Marc Shostrum and his team sewed bags containing marbles inside strategic places including the buttocks and breasts of one costume (possessed Henrietta) for Evil Dead 2 but they used this trick to simulate the more realistic looking body mass/muscle/fat movement almost twenty years after the 'Patty/Bigfoot' footage was filmed.

I'd be interested to learn if they came up with this idea themselves for Evil Dead 2 or if they'd nicked the idea from someone else. The general consensus between professional make up artists and costume builders etc these days is that their craft wasn't evolved enough back in the late 60's to be able to build a fake Bigfoot costume of the quality seen in the Patterson Gimlin footage, only Dick Chambers (who created the ground breaking prosthetic techniques used for Planet of the Apes as well as working for the FBI) would have been able to come anywhere close back then.

I personally know someone who's interviewed Marc Shostrum so I'm tempted to ask him to get back in touch with the artist to ask about how they decided to use the bags of marbles trick and if that had been used before. Of course, that wouldn't alone 'put the baby to bed' on if the famous Patty footage was definitively a costume or not.
Click to expand...
What about Stuart Freeborn who made the costumes for 2001? IIRC he (and morton Haack) lost out on an Oscar to John Chambers. I remember that at the time a lot of people thought real chimps had been used.

​

 
Tunn11 said:
What about Stuart Freeborn who made the costumes for 2001? IIRC he (and morton Haack) lost out on an Oscar to John Chambers. I remember that at the time a lot of people thought real chimps had been used.

​

Click to expand...
I think it was Rick Baker who was asked about the F/X suit theory, his opinion was/is that F/X suit technology wasn't advanced enough back then to be able to achieve what we can watch in the Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot footage. Add to that the logistics of pulling it off: An actor wouldn't just be chucked into the back of a truck then walk to the location of the scene in case anyone saw them. The production would need a mobile make up studio to apply a suit of that quality, preferably just out of shot to limit the risk of the suit being torn of branches and rocks. How could they get a mobile make up studio into such rough terrain and out again?. I suppose they could have used a large tent?. How did Patterson and Gimlin get the contact details of the English F/X artist Stuart Freeborn and if they did, how did they afford to pay him?.
 
Swifty said:
I think it was Rick Baker who was asked about the F/X suit theory, his opinion was/is that F/X suit technology wasn't advanced enough back then to be able to achieve what we can watch in the Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot footage. Add to that the logistics of pulling it off: An actor wouldn't just be chucked into the back of a truck then walk to the location of the scene in case anyone saw them. The production would need a mobile make up studio to apply a suit of that quality, preferably just out of shot to limit the risk of the suit being torn of branches and rocks. How could they get a mobile make up studio into such rough terrain and out again?. I suppose they could have used a large tent?. How did Patterson and Gimlin get the contact details of the English F/X artist Stuart Freeborn and if they did, how did they afford to pay him?.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't think the tech then existed to produce that film; and that walk just doesn't look right for someone in a suit. Also, I think if such a suit existed someone would have come forward with it by now. They'd make loads of money for the suit and lots from potential books/TV deals especially given all the crap that presumably does make money that turns up on TV. Folow the money. :)
 
charliebrown said:
After 55 years and tons of opinions written about the original 1967 Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film, I noticed that Wikipedia had a intriguing line that said no one has exactly duplicated the Bigfoot scene shown in the film.

I was surprised that this Bigfoot was called “ Patty “ being a female.
Click to expand...
I've moved this post (and resulting conversation) to this, the dedicated Patterson/Gimlin thread. A lot of what you're asking is addressed in here.
 
stu neville said:
I've moved this post (and resulting conversation) to this, the dedicated Patterson/Gimlin thread. A lot of what you're asking is addressed in here.
Click to expand...
I think the best way to recreate that footage as an experiment these days by assuming that it was faked wouldn't be to make it as a suit. I'd find someone who already had an unusual physique who was also very tall, make a body cast of that person with the actor already bending their arms and legs (each limb held in position by wood supports), make a positive replica of the actor's body from the negative mold then sculpt the Bigfoot muscles onto that as a 'break down' technique. Dick Smith pioneered this method. The 'suit' would then instead consist of lots of separate appliance instead of one wetsuit type costume, this would allow greater freedom of movement for the actor, also, the fact that the actor's body was cast with their limbs flexed a bit would prevent visible folds and winkles when they walk.

This casting part of the technique was used by Marc Shostrum and his F/X crew for the Henrietta suit in Evil Dead 2 but that was in the mid 80's, long after the Patty footage was filmed.

The Patty's long arms wouldn't be easy to pull off in a long static shot if the original footage is fake.

The Patty type moving muscle mass problem with the Henrietta one piece suit was solved by attaching bags containing marbles to the actor before the suit was put on ..

atedhen001.jpg


If Patty was faked, the actor would have the added problem of walking across the rough terrain in whatever F/X makeup was used. This would have needed to be rehearsed a few times before being filmed because the actor would need to not stumble or fall over or it would have looked comical.
 
I often find myself pondering on this footage. I think perhaps the most remarkable aspect is that it is now over 50 years on and we have a multitude of either intentionally faked or unintentionally misidentified Bigfoot photos and footage but nothing has come remotely close to Patty. This is despite the fame and wealth any similar, new footage with such depth of detail would bring to the hoaxer. After all, look at the effort some hoaxers put into fake UFO videos, eg

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holy-land-hoax-jerusalem-ufo-not-kosher/

https://www.livescience.com/742-story-alien-autopsy-hoax.html

This leads me to believe that convincingly hoaxing a 7-foot Bigfoot to the standard of the Patty footage is nigh on impossible even today, otherwise we would have seen at least one decent attempt over the intervening years.

My other thought is that Patty looks over her shoulder as if she knows she has been caught on film in the early days of decent, colour cine cameras and it is also as if an intelligence realised its error and has made damned sure that will never happen again.
 
The followers of the "Patty was fake" and the "Patty was real" camps mostly look at different parts of the cumulative evidence - and then interpret differently.

The "Patty was fake" followers:
1 State that film special effects persons could have created a suit.
2 State that someone in film special effects claimed to have done it - but can't provide good documentation.
3 State that if one blows up and copies an image of Patty enough times, the infamous zipper in the costume will appear.
4 State that the previous footprints from the same area were shown to be faked.
5 State that other bigfoot sightings were never proved or were shown to be faked, and therefore Patty was a fake.
6 Ignore triangulating evidence, such as the compliant gait which was impossible for a human being of any size to duplicate in that specific area.
Etc.

The "Patty was real" followers:
1 State that it is untrue that film special effects persons at that time could have created a suit.
2 State that nobody in film special effects who claimed to have done it has demonstrated a convincing suit.
3 State that the costume zipper was shown to be an artifact of the image being replicated multiple times.
4 State that it is irrelevant that the previous footprints from the same area were shown to be faked.
5 State that it is irrelevant that other bigfoot sightings were never proved or were shown to be faked.
6 Accept triangulating evidence, such as the compliant gait which was impossible for a human being of any size to duplicate in that specific area.
Etc.

The main problems with the evidence and reasoning which both camps show are:
Defining the problem parameters: Instead, a demonstration of unwillingness to define the parameters of the incidence: should they look at Patty alone or in conjunction with other sightings? Should they look at triangulating evidence such as the footprints, the stride caught on film, the body dimensions, the fur, etc.?
Defining acceptable evidence before examination of evidence: Instead, a demonstration of unwillingness to accept evidence which brings into doubt their conclusions. I think this is more a problem with the people who think it was faked. Incredible circular logic and post hoc reasoning.

I think Patty was a real animal, not a human in a suit, but I can not and can never be sure of this based on the Patty evidence alone.

The triangulating evidence from Patty alone which makes me think this was a real animal consists of:
  1. The size and shape
  2. The muscle movements
  3. The compliant gait for extremely heavy bipedalism
  4. The footprints and stride from Patty alone
I suspect that I may be the only Fortean who has read all the posts in this thread. The same propositions and refutations are sometimes repeated with no additional evidence.
 
Last edited:
Endlessly Amazed said:
The followers of the "Patty was fake" and the "Patty was real" camps mostly look at different parts of the cumulative evidence - and then interpret differently.

The "Patty was fake" followers:
1 State that film special effects persons could have created a suit.
2 State that someone in film special effects claimed to have done it - but can't provide good documentation.
3 State that if one blows up and copies an image of Patty enough times, the infamous zipper in the costume will appear.
4 State that the previous footprints from the same area were shown to be faked.
5 State that other bigfoot sightings were never proved or were shown to be faked, and therefore Patty was a fake.
6 Ignore triangulating evidence, such as the compliant gait which was impossible for a human being of any size to duplicate in that specific area.
Etc.

The "Patty was real" followers:
1 State that it is untrue that film special effects persons at that time could have created a suit.
2 State that nobody in film special effects who claimed to have done it has demonstrated a convincing suit.
3 State that the costume zipper was shown to be an artifact of the image being replicated multiple times.
4 State that it is irrelevant that the previous footprints from the same area were shown to be faked.
5 State that it is irrelevant that other bigfoot sightings were never proved or were shown to be faked.
6 Accept triangulating evidence, such as the compliant gait which was impossible for a human being of any size to duplicate in that specific area.
Etc.

The main problems with the evidence and reasoning which both camps show are:
Defining the problem parameters: Instead, a demonstration of unwillingness to define the parameters of the incidence: should they look at Patty alone or in conjunction with other sightings? Should they look at triangulating evidence such as the footprints, the stride caught on film, the body dimensions, the fur, etc.?
Defining acceptable evidence before examination of evidence: Instead, a demonstration of unwillingness to accept evidence which brings into doubt their conclusions. I think this is more a problem with the people who think it was faked. Incredible circular logic and post hoc reasoning.

I think Patty was a real animal, not a human in a suit, but I can not and can never be sure of this based on the Patty evidence alone.

The triangulating evidence from Patty alone which makes me think this was a real animal consists of:
  1. The size and shape
  2. The muscle movements
  3. The compliant gait for extremely heavy bipedalism
  4. The footprints and stride from Patty alone
I suspect that I may be the only Fortean who has read all the posts in this thread. The same propositions and refutations are sometimes repeated with no additional evidence.
Click to expand...
Much of the skepticism is aimed at Patterson and Gimlin themselves; their characters, backgrounds, motivations and question marks over the timeline of what happened after their sighting, especially the processing of the film. All arguably relevant but not addressing the creature in the actual film,
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
I suspect that I may be the only Fortean who has read all the posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
You're not .
Paul_Exeter said:
All arguably relevant but not addressing the creature in the actual film,
Click to expand...
Well, once again, my Patty At Fifty piece focuses quite hard on the film and the creature - the ancillary evidence such as stride length and footprints (which is contradictive according to Napier) is also covered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top