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

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

From here:

link

"What I always refer to in this frame is the fact that the cranium is far too small to fit a normal human head into, which would have been the case of a man wearing a suit. A man in a suit cannot have a smaller head inside the suit than when he has it off
Click to expand...
 
Ah.




For many decades, the problem of attempting to accurately depict the distinctive profile of an ape (or similarly, a hominid, etc) has proved to be quite vexing for theatrical and cinematic make-up effect artists. The difficulty is in the radically different geometry of human heads and ape heads, for one thing humans have vertical foreheads, and apes have sloping foreheads. (See diagram.) This is why apes (and similar creatures) are depicted with vertical foreheads, when they are portrayed by human actors.

The apes in the original "Planet of the Apes" film
The hominids in "2001: A Space Odyssey"
The sasquatch in "Harry and The Hendersons"
The Bionic Bigfoot in "The Six Million Dollar Man" tv series
Chewbacca from "Star Wars"

All these examples were depicted with vertical foreheads.

The only way around the vertical-forehead problem is to construct (not a hat, but) a vastly-oversized "snout" mask for the actor, usually with jaws that can be mechanically operated, to bear the fangs, or simulate roaring or eating, etc. Even with such a mask, the actor inside it would usually be required to tilt his head slightly back, in a "stargazing" or "nosebleed" posture, in order to give the mask's forehead a convincing slope. Such rigs were ungainly and difficult to operate, and of course the "ape" head would be cartoonishly, disproportionately enormous compared to the body (but in the black and white slapstick comedies of yesteryear such an exaggerated grotesque effect was acceptable, perhaps even desirable as it only served to increase the comic effect.)

link to diagram
 
Anonymous said:
Did I forget to mention that Greg Long refused on three occasions (once on US radio) to answer my question about whether or not he had paid or promised to pay Bob Heironimus for his story?

Speaks volumes.



Seriously though - I would be suprised if FT would publish my article, since the first thing Korff & Long would do is threaten to sue (they do this a lot).

Long threatened to sue me in March 2004 for breach of copyright, when I posted a photo that was in his book to an Internet forum - he shut up after I pointed out to him that he didn't own the copyright on the photo in the first place :)

What a bunch of prize idiots.
Click to expand...


The word "idiot" might be a bit harsh.

Or not.

http://kalisanidiot.blogspot.com/
 
dreeness said:
Ah.




For many decades, the problem of attempting to accurately depict the distinctive profile of an ape (or similarly, a hominid, etc) has proved to be quite vexing for theatrical and cinematic make-up effect artists. The difficulty is in the radically different geometry of human heads and ape heads, for one thing humans have vertical foreheads, and apes have sloping foreheads. (See diagram.) This is why apes (and similar creatures) are depicted with vertical foreheads, when they are portrayed by human actors.

The apes in the original "Planet of the Apes" film
The hominids in "2001: A Space Odyssey"
The sasquatch in "Harry and The Hendersons"
The Bionic Bigfoot in "The Six Million Dollar Man" tv series
Chewbacca from "Star Wars"

All these examples were depicted with vertical foreheads.

The only way around the vertical-forehead problem is to construct (not a hat, but) a vastly-oversized "snout" mask for the actor, usually with jaws that can be mechanically operated, to bear the fangs, or simulate roaring or eating, etc. Even with such a mask, the actor inside it would usually be required to tilt his head slightly back, in a "stargazing" or "nosebleed" posture, in order to give the mask's forehead a convincing slope. Such rigs were ungainly and difficult to operate, and of course the "ape" head would be cartoonishly, disproportionately enormous compared to the body (but in the black and white slapstick comedies of yesteryear such an exaggerated grotesque effect was acceptable, perhaps even desirable as it only served to increase the comic effect.)

link to diagram
Click to expand...
dreeness said:
Ah.


Chewy always struck me more as a dog than and ape though so that invalidates your post ;)
Click to expand...
 
dannycheveaux1 said:
Apologies if this has already been posted - another stabalised version of the Gimlin film
http://imgur.com/YyEqJsk
Click to expand...

It does have a "bloke out for a constitutional" look to it. Apart from the whole Bigfoot appearance, that is. The backward glance even has a "what are you staring at?" questioning air, as if this is the most ordinary thing in the world.
 
I agree the walk does look like "bloke out for a constitutional" but to me that gives it an authentic feel. It doesn't look like someone in a suit TRYING to walk like an ape. Also as has been noted many times the cone shaped head (or crest) and the sloping forehead don't look like an ape suit
 
Bigfoot finally caught on tape ..

BigfootCaughtOnTape.jpg
 
A big(foot) BUMP to the old main Patterson/Gimlin thread for interested parties.

It could certainly be a hoax, but I still tend to think it's real, based on available make-ups at the time. And while many people have claimed to be the real hoaxer that did it, all those claims can't be simultaneously true, so if there is a hoaxer, which one did it? And who could have created a suit that good back then?
 
I don't think the suit was that great, to be honest. Like the kind of thing The Three Stooges would tangle with.
 
MrRING said:
... And who could have created a suit that good back then?
Click to expand...

John Chambers of Planet of the Apes and Argo fame and a young Rick Baker of later American Werewolf, Harry and the Hendersons and Greystoke: Legend of Tarzan to name two artists in the same time frame then ...
 
What about Ray Harryhausen?
 
Swifty said:
John Chambers of Planet of the Apes and Argo fame and a young Rick Baker of later American Werewolf, Harry and the Hendersons and Greystoke: Legend of Tarzan to name two artists in the same time frame then ...
Click to expand...

I think they have both, separately, been claimed to be the suitmaker, as well as many others who have claimed to be the mastermind.

The film was shot in 1967, and this example shows what they were able to do with make-up in 1966 in preparation for Planet of the Apes (the footage is the last 2/3rds):

Just for me, the face doesn't look like what they had the ability to do at the time. 10 years later, I think that a costume could easily be made to do what this one does. But the head is well made and much better, subtle in ways unlike usual Hollywood gorilla costumes. But that's just me.

 
MrRING said:
I think they have both, separately, been claimed to be the suitmaker, as well as many others who have claimed to be the mastermind.

The film was shot in 1967, and this example shows what they were able to do with make-up in 1966 in preparation for Planet of the Apes (the footage is the last 2/3rds):

Just for me, the face doesn't look like what they had the ability to do at the time. 10 years later, I think that a costume could easily be made to do what this one does. But the head is well made and much better, subtle in ways unlike usual Hollywood gorilla costumes. But that's just me.

Click to expand...
The Rick Baker rumours started after 1971's John Landis comedy, Schlock .... admittedly, this was made 4 years after the Patterson Gimlin footage though but it shows, to me at least, that Baker would have been capable of fabricating a convincing big foot suit.

http://nightflight.com/banana-monster-is-pure-schlock-john-landiss-first-movie-is-a-dog/
 
Swifty said:
The Rick Baker rumours started after 1971's John Landis comedy, Schlock .... admittedly, this was made 4 years after the Patterson Gimlin footage though but it shows, to me at least, that Baker would have been capable of fabricating a convincing big foot suit.

http://nightflight.com/banana-monster-is-pure-schlock-john-landiss-first-movie-is-a-dog/
Click to expand...

Maybe - but it is 4 years later, and I think the face at least of Patterson's beastie has a different level of makeup application than Baker's Schlock, which is more a variation of the Planet of the Apes kind of appliance complete with the mouth half-circles creating the lower ape face. Patterson's looks more like movie makeup as done in the 80's, with a more complete build-up of facial characteristics with more glued-down textures directly on skin (something like Darkness from Ridley Scott's Legend or even harry and the Hendersons), as opposed to what Baker and the Apes films used.
 
MrRING said:
Maybe - but it is 4 years later, and I think the face at least of Patterson's beastie has a different level of makeup application than Baker's Schlock, which is more a variation of the Planet of the Apes kind of appliance complete with the mouth half-circles creating the lower ape face. Patterson's looks more like movie makeup as done in the 80's, with a more complete build-up of facial characteristics with more glued-down textures directly on skin (something like Darkness from Ridley Scott's Legend or even harry and the Hendersons), as opposed to what Baker and the Apes films used.
Click to expand...

My theories on the Patterson footage being genuine would also include the quality of facial make-up as well as the wide steps the beastie (or human actor) made .. some people have pointed out the long arms in support of this being a genuine capture but they can/could be faked easily enough using cable rod methods although I couldn't honestly tell you when cable rod finger movement was born ...

Rick Baker as a teen 8 to 9 years later creating the cantina bar wolf alien ..

rick baker1.jpg


British F/X make-up artist Stuart Freeborn was also capable of making realistic looking early man 'monkey suits' in '68 for Kubrick's '2001' (albeit non chunky hairy creatures, this could just be down to an actor being used who was chunky in build in the Patterson footage ?), the problem with that is that Freeborn was presumably on the other side of the Atlantic when the Patterson footage was taken in '67 .. Rick Baker wasn't though ... ironically Forteans will note that Kubrick has also been been suggested as the director who filmed the possibly faked moon landings ..

http://netdwellers.com/1001/hosting/users/cinesecrets/StuFreeborn/
 
Last edited:
There is also the way the hair seems to move with the muscles of the back, as opposed to being just a suit pulled over an actor. You’ll notice most Hollywood gorillas have really thick hair that seems to hang like a jacket on the actor, which might be a reason why so many ape suits feature shag carpet hair (so thick to hide the fact) or features curly hair (that curly bulk would mask the jacket quality as well). The Patterson beast has relatively shorter hair that allows the camera to see those muscles moving under the hair, so that is another unusual feature when contemplating what could be done as well as what would likely be done.


Would a faker use make-up technology 20 years ahead of it’s time to pull a prank in such a way to ensure the footage would stand the test of time? Or would they be more likely to rent and modify an existing ape costume with the idea of fooling somebody shooting super 8 footage (a very grainy way to shoot that unfortunately doesn’t allow for capturing fine details), without any real thought that the footage would be such we’d still be debating it in 2017? I think the later, that any proposed faker would have just done something that would have fooled people at the time, but that wouldn’t have captured the imagination for so long.


Super 8 in 1967 + a relatively conventional costume = a prank that would last for a decent amount of time, and seems a reasonable thing for prankers to do.


Super 8 in 1967 + an expensive, beyond state of the art makeup that was never used again = a lot of expense for very little payday, and more to hide, and for what purpose. This scenario seems less likely to me, but I can’t rule it out as being impossible, no more than I can rule out that this video is the real deal.
 
MrRING said:
There is also the way the hair seems to move with the muscles of the back, as opposed to being just a suit pulled over an actor. You’ll notice most Hollywood gorillas have really thick hair that seems to hang like a jacket on the actor, which might be a reason why so many ape suits feature shag carpet hair (so thick to hide the fact) or features curly hair (that curly bulk would mask the jacket quality as well). The Patterson beast has relatively shorter hair that allows the camera to see those muscles moving under the hair, so that is another unusual feature when contemplating what could be done as well as what would likely be done.


Would a faker use make-up technology 20 years ahead of it’s time to pull a prank in such a way to ensure the footage would stand the test of time? Or would they be more likely to rent and modify an existing ape costume with the idea of fooling somebody shooting super 8 footage (a very grainy way to shoot that unfortunately doesn’t allow for capturing fine details), without any real thought that the footage would be such we’d still be debating it in 2017? I think the later, that any proposed faker would have just done something that would have fooled people at the time, but that wouldn’t have captured the imagination for so long.


Super 8 in 1967 + a relatively conventional costume = a prank that would last for a decent amount of time, and seems a reasonable thing for prankers to do.


Super 8 in 1967 + an expensive, beyond state of the art makeup that was never used again = a lot of expense for very little payday, and more to hide, and for what purpose. This scenario seems less likely to me, but I can’t rule it out as being impossible, no more than I can rule out that this video is the real deal.
Click to expand...
My only attack against it (the Patterson footage) being genuine would be that artists like to push themselves, make-up artists enjoy creating illusions and fooling the public .. not in a nasty way anymore than magicians like Paul Daniels obviously never sawed a woman in half for real ...
 
Swifty said:
The Rick Baker rumours started after 1971's John Landis comedy, Schlock .... admittedly, this was made 4 years after the Patterson Gimlin footage though but it shows, to me at least, that Baker would have been capable of fabricating a convincing big foot suit.
Click to expand...
Rick Baker as a teen 8 to 9 years later creating the cantina bar wolf alien
Click to expand...
So if he was a teen in 1976, he would have been around 10 or 11 years old when he made the Patterson bigfoot suit??
 
It's claimed in the video below that the man in the white shirt was 6'5" tall. I don't know how true that is having never seen that particular footage before, but he might be a familiar name to seasoned Bigfoot fans. I am impressed with how the video maker has overlaid the two films almost exactly, to my eyes anyway.

Longer version with narration

Short clip. Take note how the scenery matches up.

This footage will be 50 years old this October.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top