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

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

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...
In relation to the 'zipper', large male gorillas have a line that runs along their spine. It's created by muscles and a slightly darker area of fur as can be seen in the is picture.
 

Attachments

  • 9ac336293fe8b4607b30104423f34a3e.jpg
    9ac336293fe8b4607b30104423f34a3e.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 29
lordmongrove said:
In relation to the 'zipper', large male gorillas have a line that runs along their spine. It's created by muscles and a slightly darker area of fur as can be seen in the is picture.
Click to expand...

My god! that is a fake gorilla - I can see not just the zipper, but the ill-fitting costume which gives the animal side-boobs. etc. (I really hope you know I'm being facetious - and I am putting this parenthetical comment for future readers who may take my comment as the literal truth.)
 
stu neville said:
You're not .

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.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stu. I will re-read it. I suspect yiou have kept careful notes on all aspects of Patty and the investigations - and I have not.
 
I don't think it was a suit. In extremely far fetched circumstances, it could have, in theory only, been excellent foam latex appliances punched with Yak hair applied to a 7ft man with deformities who also happened to have some sort of Andy Serkis mixed with contortionist skills as an actor. The only American make up artists I've heard of that could have potentially even tried to pull this off in the time frame the Patty footage was filmed would have been Dick Smith or John Chambers. So we're talking about either of the best make up artists in the world (Chambers worked with the FBI) working with Patterson and Gimlin in an extremely challenging environment. Highly unlikely. I think the footage shows a genuine flesh and blood creature.

Having said that, Lon Chaney's work as a F/X make up artist 30 to 40 years before the Patty footage was astonishing, some of it still to this day although he worked mostly with gelatine and wax which would have quickly melted off any actor in a bigfoot make up at location of the Patty footage.

This make up from Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1974) always reminds me of Patty's face ..

afrankfoot.jpg
 
Last edited:
What you have here from Patty is “ I don’t gave a crap attitude “ that you are looking at me.

This emotion is hard to fake in a monkey suit.

From the film, Patty is broadcasting tons of emotional defiance, thus Patty is a real Bigfoot until proven otherwise.

Her Bigfoot kids must be old by now. ?
 
Endlessly Amazed said:
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.
Click to expand...

'Fake follower' evidence is weighted with the real but very very small likelihood of such a creature existing at all and the many many factors of ten more likely chance of it having been a fake, even if discounting a certain amount of atypical, some might say suspicious, behaviour of the maker.

'Real followers' a priori assume bigfoot is real, so this film is likely to be a real bigfoot. Feels like circular reasoning.
 
Wow! Apart from the very long swinging arms, that does look like the upright human gait.
Love the way the other, quadrupedal gorillas look on aghast!
 
charliebrown said:
What you have here from Patty is “ I don’t gave a crap attitude “ that you are looking at me.

This emotion is hard to fake in a monkey suit.

From the film, Patty is broadcasting tons of emotional defiance, thus Patty is a real Bigfoot until proven otherwise.

Her Bigfoot kids must be old by now. ?
Click to expand...
I agree and there is too much detail in that video to disprove - the movement of those legs showing muscles bulging, and the appearance of breasts - who on earth would think of that if they were going to fake a creature of that size?
Add to that the reaction of the horses - animals always know much more than we do, and they realized it was a large creature they were unsure of.
 
This probably won't be very popular in this thread but .. VFX artists debunk Bigfoot(s) videos:

 
Swifty said:
This probably won't be very popular in this thread but .. VFX artists debunk Bigfoot(s) videos:

Click to expand...
Not at all impressed with their brief take on Patty, not least because they failed to notice 'he' is a 'she'. They also skipped a whole load of analysis re the gait and the feet, claimed 'he' is wearing boots and then pulled out the long discredited claim that it is a 'Planet of the Apes' costume or costume made b the team who worked on that film

But then I'm not surprised, as their work to date appears to have been explaining crude and blatant YouTube hoaxes.

My verdict: 1/10.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Not at all impressed with their brief take on Patty, not least because they failed to notice 'he' is a 'she'. They also skipped a whole load of analysis re the gait and the feet, claimed 'he' is wearing boots and then pulled out the long discredited claim that it is a 'Planet of the Apes' costume or costume made b the team who worked on that film

But then I'm not surprised, as their work to date appears to have been explaining crude and blatant YouTube hoaxes.

My verdict: 1/10.
Click to expand...
They do brush over the Patty footage too lightly IMO. The haven't had the benefit of reading this thread combined with Stu's concise FT article to be fair.
 
Swifty said:
They do brush over the Patty footage too lightly IMO. The haven't had the benefit of reading this thread combined with Stu's concise FT article to be fair.
Click to expand...
Or rather didn't bother.

Type "Patterson-Gimlin" into Google Scholar and you get more than a few results:

Munns, B. and Meldrum, J., 2013. Analysis Integrity of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Image. The Relict Hominoid Inquiry, 2, pp.41-80.

Munns, B. and Meldrum, J., 2013. Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hominid. The Relict Hominoid Inquiry, 2, pp.1-21.

Murphy, C., THE PATTERSON/GIMLIN FILM–SOME NOTEWORTHY INSIGHTS.

Tian, I.Y., Munns, B. and Meldrum, J., MATHEMATICALLY OPTIMAL RESTORATION AND STABILIZATION OF THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM WITH COMPUTATION FEATURE DETECTION.

Daegling, D.J. and Schmitt, D.O., 1999. Bigfoot's screen test. Skeptical Inquirer, 23(3), pp.20-25.

Meldrum, D.J., 2004. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(1), pp.65-79.

Higgins, A., Evaluating Purported Sasquatch Photographic Evidence.

etc....

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=patterson-gimlin&btnG=

They didn't bother reading any of these either. But hey, they've got a cool web tv show and cracked some gags, so that's okay then.
 
Swifty said:
Another cursory glance approach to the Patty footage, someone called James Felton reckons it was a hoax although at least he acknowledges that playing it at different speeds is a factor ..
Click to expand...
That's just given me the horrible image of Patty speeded up with Benny Hill chasing her.
 
PeteByrdie said:
I can only imagine the effect that must have had. I'm fairly sure it appeared on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, which would have been the first time I would probably have seen it. I'd have had zero critical thinking skills back then, so the PG film would have been definitive proof to my tiny, innocent brain.
Click to expand...
Now available on YouTube:


It includes an interview with Gimlin (or might be Patterson, will need to check) and he makes some interesting comments as regards height and appearance.

In fact, working my way through all these episodes for the first time in many years and I am struck by how many of the famous paranormal witnesses of yesteryear - whose names we still mention on this forum - were interviewed in person and often on location
 
Coal said:
'Fake follower' evidence is weighted with the real but very very small likelihood of such a creature existing at all and the many many factors of ten more likely chance of it having been a fake, even if discounting a certain amount of atypical, some might say suspicious, behaviour of the maker.

'Real followers' a priori assume bigfoot is real, so this film is likely to be a real bigfoot. Feels like circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
There is nothing fantastical about sasquatch existing. Its an ape or a relic hominin not a three headed violet griffon that speaks in tongues.
 
Swifty said:
This probably won't be very popular in this thread but .. VFX artists debunk Bigfoot(s) videos:

Click to expand...

I‘ve watched a handful of their videos on YouTube and have come to the opinion that they are what my dad would have called a couple of “smart arses”. I find their self-important attitude a bit much and subsequently unsubscribed.

I’ve not watched their Patty film as you know straight away that they are going in with the bias to debunk And aren’t going to be open minded. Maybe I should.

I’d be much more inclined to believe what Captain Disillusion thought of Patty.
https://youtube.com/@CaptainDisillusion
 
Paul_Exeter said:
More on the Patty footage and how the latest technology may be moving us closer to an answer:

Click to expand...
Gosh there is so much wrong here, where do I even start? Image "enhancement" adds things to a picture that simply wasn't there before. You get more details, because the software adds more details - it doesn't actually make the original image any clearer.

Moreover, the software is designed to give us humans what we expect to see. The software recognizes the image as that of an ape - and then constructs a better image of an ape. You simply cannot use enhanced images as evidence of anything.

And the most telling part comes at 13:46 - "This is the face of human being". Yup - the face of a human being in a fur covered football helmet.

Sasquatch may exist, but this is a man in an ape suit.
 
Kingsize Wombat said:
Gosh there is so much wrong here, where do I even start? Image "enhancement" adds things to a picture that simply wasn't there before. You get more details, because the software adds more details - it doesn't actually make the original image any clearer.

Moreover, the software is designed to give us humans what we expect to see. The software recognizes the image as that of an ape - and then constructs a better image of an ape. You simply cannot use enhanced images as evidence of anything.

And the most telling part comes at 13:46 - "This is the face of human being". Yup - the face of a human being in a fur covered football helmet.

Sasquatch may exist, but this is a man in an ape suit.
Click to expand...

It looks more - to my untrained eye, that the software is recognising a "human" face and has tried to make the image more "human" it looks all wrong and simultaneously like a mask: the eyes are too deep and look awkwardly placed, the mouth is too big and "off" and messy, as is the nose. The supposed "hairs" look too big and like they have been added by the software. I can't see the teeth he's referring to and the "eyelashes" look more like the suggestion of eyelashes.

My reading- this is the blurred image of a human-like mask, which the software has simultaneously highlighted and confused. I don't even know if this "leaked image" is from the original film or a fake of a frame from it.
 
CFZ interview MK Davis who says he has an additional film and additional stills from the original Bluff Creek film. Allegedly, they were there hunting Bigfoot with a dog, and had already killed one. There's supposedly a bloody pool (there's some sort of pool and there seems to be something black in it - doesn't look very red to me) which had the remains, including pelt of a previously killed animal, which they were using to train the dog to recognise the smell. Intriging, not sure that I'm convinced.

Part two yet to be uploaded/aired.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top