• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
A very interesting report on this film, with the author using precise measurements, from 2017. He claims that "the suggestion that this is merely an average man(70 inches tall) in a fur suit is untenable".

THE PATTERSON/GIMLIN FILM – SOME NOTEWORTHY INSIGHTS
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/brief-communications/Murphy_PGFilmInsights.pdf
The full frame stills are very interesting.

Frame 61 helps explain why Patty was not too alarmed by P&G; I knew she was pretty far away despite how zoomed in stills and clips are, but I did not realize how steep that embankment on the creek is.

Chris Murphy has done some amazing research, and his book shows this...
 
Another interesting take.
I did not love the narrator, but Meldrum's toe flex analysis to a solid debunking of the claims in Long's novel, he covered a lot in a short amount of time.

Great version of Patterson's trackway footage too; you can see how the toes are spread differently in each footprint...
 
i
Look. There’s clearly a nap in the fabric creating a clear light differentiation across the shoulders at the back. This would happen if someone was mirroring a fold of fabric across a seam in a costume as opposed to a natural fur occuring across the body.
View attachment 81518
Plus. The casts in a dry creek river bed and many of these Bigfoot don’t display splayed toes in their tracks like you’d expect from an animal that never wore shoes.
Have you actually looked any of the tracks? If so, then you know that they all are different and many display spread toes.

Of course you know that Dr Jeff Meldrum has pointed out how you can see Patty's feet flex in the film, and her toes spread out, as she takes a step, right?

The trackway part of the PGF film shows several very different foot/toe postures.

This cast Patterson is holding shows separate toes, with that ridge where they bend together and dig into the ground clearly visible just below the toes...
1736052080242.png
 
Agree with you as regards the noise so many Bigfooters make, even in the better documentaries such as Small Town Monsters produce. They rock up in 4x4s, chatter, light fires, knock on trees, shine torches... Very few of them seem prepared to hike in on foot or by horse as Patterson and Gimlin did and if there are Bigfoot-type creatures they will have heard and smelt these humans long before they had unpacked their thermal imaging cameras

Personally I find myself flip-flopping between excited believer and mildly skeptical on this one, although it amuses me how often the footage is dismissed as hoax by skeptics (eg Metabunk) without proving how it was hoaxed.
What he said...
 
The location of the Patterson-Gimlin film is not so remote, at least anymore, it's close to a maintained dirt road:
https://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_22.html
"From the parking area at the berm the film site is a short 30-45 minute walk. It is suitable and safe for families and children but not recommended for people who people who have bad knees or trouble walking. We have had 400lb people hike down and back fine, as well as people in their 80s. The greatest risk is slipping and rolling your ankle. "

Driving and hiking to the location (they reach the spot at around 16 minutes into the video)
The loudness of Bluff Creek itself, in this and other videos like this one, is striking.

It's another reason why Patterson and Gimlin were able to sneak up on Patty...
 
In the same vein, here is a 1967 interview with the two men:

"Todd from The Sasquatch Archives posted this interview but the audio was so bad I cleaned it up and reposted it. Todd posts some cool archive content. Check out his channel here / thesasquatcharchives On October 26, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were interviewed on radio by Jack Webster in Vancouver, following the showing of the Patterson-Gimlin film at the University of British Columbia that same evening. Fortunately, John Green had a copy of the interview in his cassette tape collection. He graciously permitted me to make a copy of the recording and all of his other cassette recordings as well. These will later be added to this channel.Until now, and after a long 53 years, the interview had not been made public."


About the interviewer:

"Webster was an old school newsman who didn't put up with anyone who he sussed out as a liar or a fake. He won many awards for journalism and was considered a totally solid reporter by any standard. Webster had a style of interviewing, shotgun style, repeating the same question, slightly changed coming from different angles, that would confuse the person being interviewed and illuminate any comments that appeared to be untruths. This interview took place in BC a week or so after the encounter was filmed so the recall of the event should have been as clear as possible given the unbelievable circumstance of the events. Wikipedia has a good bio on Jack Webster reporter (Glasgow - Vancouver)."

[from the comments]
Required Listening.

Patterson and Gimlin describe what happened, just days after they filmed Patty; what they were doing and why...
 
I liked this talk by Jeff Meldrum a lot. He talks about how anthropological theory around the time of the film could not have allowed for relict hominids. But actually things have changed since then. And he talks about foot casts and how they have a feature (across continents) which we do not have and which would be likely and which fit in with how the foot of the PGF creature moves.
Dr Meldrum videos are Required Viewing...
 
I don’t to rehash all the evidence we’ve raked over here so I’ll be brief.
The previous historic record of large primates in North America is very, very thin…
View attachment 72926
Patterson was desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie for which he had previously done a concept illustration depicting a female Bigfoot with an oddly human breast shape.

Logging activity in the area revealed large footprints that raised Patterson’s interest were themselves revealed to be faked.

For me, the costume shows clear joins across the waist, which seems to rotate almost independently of the lower half. Here seems to be a visible difference of the nap of the fabric on the back. This would indicate the fibres aren’t stitched together with a natural symmetry in mind.

AI stabilisation shows a more human walk.

And for those who make a lot of rippling muscle detail, this thing doesn’t have an ass. (I’m not about being put on a watchlist for a search history of monkey’s bottoms) And see what I mean about the nap of the fabric on the shoulders? The waist seam join overlap also visible here.

View attachment 72927
I’m in among the unconvinced lot, I’m afraid.
Everything you have written is demonstrably incorrect...
 
Everything you have written is demonstrably incorrect...
Really?

The first point is correct although future finds may change things.

The second is correct, Patterson's drawings are reproduced up forum.

The third is correct.

The other points are @Analogue Boy s views on the validity of the costume and gait and really what most of the debate is about.
 
Really?

The first point is correct although future finds may change things.

The second is correct, Patterson's drawings are reproduced up forum.

The third is correct.

The other points are @Analogue Boy s views on the validity of the costume and gait and really what most of the debate is about.
First point in incorrect - Patterson was not desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie. Is this from Long's novel? Disregard anything Long writes or says.

Second point incorrect - His drawings had nothing to do with a film; Patterson wrote books about Sasquatch. This drawing is from one of his books, and is based on a drawing by Mort Kunstler. Again - it has nothing to do with the PGF.

Notice that the images posted by Analogue Tracy even state that they depict the Roe's descriptions, not a Patterson fantasy.

The idea of Patterson's film was to recount - not recreate - Sasquatch stories. Note that the PGF does not recreate any aspect of the Roe story.

Third point very incorrect. Please. Have you seen the Crew cast compared to the Wallace stompers? Very, very, incorrect.

No ass? Please. Two very muscular glutes are staring you in the face, and in motion they are perfect. Analogue Tracy needs to spend some time with Dr Meldrum.

Just a side note - I used to play here a few years ago, but my computer crashed shortly after I found this forum thru FT. By a FT worthy coincidence, I stumbled upon this site again just as my partner went in for hip surgery late last year, so I decided to start in the present and read my way backwards until I caught up with myself.

So I am not checking/responding to alerts, unless I scroll upon them as I did this one, as I'd never actually get to read all this fascinating old stuff if I did.

So it is not that I am shying away from my comments, or ignoring anyone...
 
First point in incorrect - Patterson was not desperately trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot movie. Is this from Long's novel? Disregard anything Long writes or says.

Second point incorrect - His drawings had nothing to do with a film; Patterson wrote books about Sasquatch. This drawing is from one of his books, and is based on a drawing by Mort Kunstler. Again - it has nothing to do with the PGF.

Notice that the images posted by Analogue Tracy even state that they depict the Roe's descriptions, not a Patterson fantasy.

The idea of Patterson's film was to recount - not recreate - Sasquatch stories. Note that the PGF does not recreate any aspect of the Roe story.

Third point very incorrect. Please. Have you seen the Crew cast compared to the Wallace stompers? Very, very, incorrect.

No ass? Please. Two very muscular glutes are staring you in the face, and in motion they are perfect. Analogue Tracy needs to spend some time with Dr Meldrum.

Just a side note - I used to play here a few years ago, but my computer crashed shortly after I found this forum thru FT. By a FT worthy coincidence, I stumbled upon this site again just as my partner went in for hip surgery late last year, so I decided to start in the present and read my way backwards until I caught up with myself.

So I am not checking/responding to alerts, unless I scroll upon them as I did this one, as I'd never actually get to read all this fascinating old stuff if I did.

So it is not that I am shying away from my comments, or ignoring anyone...
Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuaded

Are any of Patterson's books still in print or available on t'internet?
 
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
Fun to see this again, but it does not really match Stu Neville's apparently description of this episode in his Patty At 50 piece.

Different version, or romanticized memory?
 
Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuaded

Are any of Patterson's books still in print or available on t'internet?
Originals of Patterson's show up for sale from time to time, but usually kinda pricey.

Chris Murphy has a great book about the PGF, which includes Patterson's "Do Abominable Snowmen Of America Really Exist" that is easy to find on the interwebs.

I've been reading about/watching the PGF for decades, and there is almost zero chance it is a hoax; there are far too many things that prove it is not.

Some of the timing may be a bit hinky, but no one was really digging into such details right away; asking years later who did what when can often lead to less than precise answers.

And let's forget P and G were out in the forest for days at that point. Were they both wearing watches? Were they checking their watches every step of the way? At all? There are so many ways they could have lost a few hours in the accepted timeline.

I just realized something: if RP is lying about the time line that means lots of other things had to happen. I see a new post coming...
 
Always have time to listen to the defenders of Patterson & Gimlin, after all, whilst people have strong opinions and despite the best efforts of TV production crews, no-one has conclusively proven it was a hoax. Personally, I have my doubts, especially around how, when and where the film was processed, but I am willing to be persuaded

Are any of Patterson's books still in print or available on t'internet?
Luddite can't figure out how to make a new post, only reply! So I'll leave it here...

If Patterson and/or Gimlin are lying about when the film was shot (the first public showing is not in question), they would need to have made an earlier, secret, trip out to Bluff Creek.

There are plenty of people that saw them in the closest little town (I think it's Willow Creek) during the time they said they filmed Patty, coming in for supplies and to use the phone. And Bob Titmus went to the film site 10 days later, so we know, or knew, exactly where Patty was filmed.

Again, this is not in question.

So if Patterson made the film earlier, as some claim, he would have gone to the site, with at least one other person, unseen, and make the film, then go back at a later date with Gimlin and just sit out there for a week? And after a week in the forest, come out super charged up and excited (check out that radio interview right after)? And Gimlin saw it too, so he says. If Gimlin is in on the deal, why the two trips? There is no real need to lie about the timeline at all, is there?

This is starting to get very complicated. And then there is the camera that Patterson rented; what did he use on the first trip? Where did he rent that from?
 

Jeff Glickman—Forensic Examination of the Patterson-Gimlin Film​

A LONG intro; it really starts around 11:00.

I like the concept that we can't prove Patty is a Sasquatch, as we don't have one to compare her to; we can prove it is NOT a human in a suit though...
 
Yes.

Philip Morris, the man who claims to have made the suit Patterson used in the film, tried.

Absurd, ridiculous, and a total failure.

I'm pretty sure a few TV show have tried as well.

Nothing is even close...
 
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 ?
A guy named Bob Heironimus claims he wore the suit.

Lots of problems with his claim; just his evolving description of how the costume was constructed alone is enough to ignore anything he says on the subject...
 
@hopkarma Is there are time-line of the events written down anywhere online?
Here is a link to Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal. Site maps and photos; history of the filming, as well as events before and after. A great read, and one you will go back to...https://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/bf_film_journal_ebook_25_feb_2013_s.pdf
 
On what basis do you confidently assert that they are not habitual tool users?

Walking on two legs rather than 4 is a disadvantage in many ways. 4 legged animals are faster and more stable. That's why most large animals, whether predator or prey species, move on 4 legs. A creature would only evolve to walk on two legs if it made a substantial gain elsewhere to offset the disadvantage.

Why would an animal use only use 2 legs? Birds or bats do it to release their upper limbs for flight. Apes and monkeys are capable of walking on two legs and can use their hands for climbing, picking fruit, carrying things, grooming, etc. However, most of the time, they move on 4 legs.

Bears can stand on their back legs either to appear more threatening, or to reach things, or to observe something in the distance, but they habitually move on 4 legs.

Bigfoot, being heavily built and substantially over 6 feet tall is not optimised for climbing (or flight!) and they would only be expected to spend a small amount of time picking fruit, carrying things, or grooming each other, yet they are (nearly?) always reported as walking upright on 2 legs.

So why does Bigfoot walk on 2 legs? The most likely explanation would be habitual tool use.

Tool use is not restricted to humans. Simple tools are used by many creatures, and there are even several that carefully choose stones, and modify sticks, to use them as tools.

My conclusion would be that if Bigfoot is a real flesh and blood bipedal mammal, then it is an habitual user of at least simple tools.
They may very well pick a lot of fruit - Patty's got to eat something.

Or maybe they eat roots, and dig them out with a tool?
 
The Russian researchers said the Alma was not a tool user.

(And yet they lived alongside humans, so they must have been familiar with human habits).
 
Back
Top