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

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

I see what you mean, but it could still be a bulky suit with the wearer stooping forward. I thought it was in colour, though?
 
Having seen that enhanced footage a while back I am reminded that, without the shaking, it looks even more like a man in a suit.

-
 
I honestly have no idea how anyone can say that.

Have you considered the muscle flexis?

Hang on, let me find you a link.

Hang on!!!

Well, instead of giving you a direct link to some "evidence" here is the link to the main Pattie footage forum. Please have a look around, it is very in depth.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=35
 
janette246~ said:
I've seen this video quite a few times and where I accept that it hasn't been refuted yet, I can't help but think that the whole nonchalant expression with which the yeti moves and looks round, it just seems fake to me. It still looks like a man dressed up, but then again there was that ape in a zoo somewhere that walked upright so I give up!
Click to expand...

Well, you have to remember that when we see it look around is not the first time it has seen the humans. Both of them said that the creature was much closer and had already seen them before they even got a chance to get the camera out.

In the video when it looks around is supposed to be when G pulls his rifle out, as though it was looking to see what he was doing and if he was going to anything which may cause it danger.

Also, she appears to look around when P has stopped running towards it, so maybe it looked in wonder of why this man had suddenly stopped and why the noise he was making has stopped.


P.s. Yeti is a different animal. Maybe of the same family.
 
tang-malow said:
were all forgetting something here, just because it looks like a man in a suit doesnt mean that it is a man in a suit.
Click to expand...

Which it doesn't.
 
I know that plenty of people have tried to recreate this with a man in a suit. To my mind the ones I have seen (including the one featured in FT) look nothing like it. What I would like to see is someone recreate it with a known ape, especially a gorilla or chimp. It would be interesting to see how the light plays on fur and how muscles move under skin etc compared to the P-G film, using similar camera and film stock. Has anyone seen something that might fit the bill?
 
I've wanted to dismiss the Patterson film for years and I still can't quite bring myself to do it. Yes, it may well be a man in an extremely clever, well-thought out suit. But, at the very least, that leaves us with an amateur back in the 1960s who somehow constructed a costume that still cannot be convincingly replicated today, even by special effects professionals.

On the other hand, you have a legitimate outside chance that this film depicts a real cryptid. No, it doesn't make a bit of sense - but there it is.

As Stanton Friedman is wont to say, I'll keep this one in my "grey" basket.

S
 
Re: Funny new bigfoot clip

gncxx said:
That's just a man walking about. Maybe a better quality version would be more mysterious.
Click to expand...

No, it's cgi, that's a cgi Chewbacca.
 
Re: Funny new bigfoot clip

peterbernard2O9 said:
gncxx said:
That's just a man walking about. Maybe a better quality version would be more mysterious.
Click to expand...

No, it's cgi, that's a cgi Chewbacca.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of a big Morph from the Tony Hart show.
 
Re: Funny new bigfoot clip

gncxx said:
peterbernard2O9 said:
gncxx said:
That's just a man walking about. Maybe a better quality version would be more mysterious.
Click to expand...

No, it's cgi, that's a cgi Chewbacca.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of a big Morph from the Tony Hart show.
Click to expand...

I don't think we get that show over here. Look-- Bigfoot 2: Electric Boogaloo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr4CccFTdIE
Bigfoot gets beaned-- he takes one for the team (those are baseball references). Well at least we know the P-G film wasn't cgi.
 
Kondoru said:
Yesterday was the anniversay of the Patterson-Gimlin flim.
Click to expand...

Really? That's a coincidence - a friend of mine lent me - and I watched it - an old Nat Geo documentary on it on Saturday. This doc was about as comprehensive a study as you could wish for, using all sorts of modern technology and using the original footage, and they couldn't prove any kind of hoax going on. Compelling viewing.
 
Patterson-Gimlin film is IMO frustratingly inconclusive, and very probably always will be. There are people who, in respect of this film, have profoundly studied anatomy / gait / the making of creature suits / cinematography / the complex background of the film's making; and people who have just gone with their "gut reaction" to what they see in viewings of the film; and those in between those two extremes. Among those of all aforesaid "persuasions" re the film -- some are firmly convinced that whatever the film shows, it is not a human in a suit; some are equally firmly convinced that it IS a human in a suit; some are on the fence.

My own "take", from a "gut-reaction" / non-learned perspective, is that the film's subject would seem most likely to be a human in a suit; but I might be wrong...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-R4Bus5Cs
The stabilized version is excellent for those who haven't seen it.
The head turn after the look frames catches my attention as interesting. "She" snaps her head back looking very much like an annoyed female :p It is good acting if its a man in a suit.
 
That is quite an improvement lkb3rd. For me though it just shows a man in a suit more clearly.
 
I can't believe that anyone still thinks it's anything other than a human in an ape suit.
 
Ronson8 said:
I can't believe that anyone still thinks it's anything other than a human in an ape suit.
Click to expand...

Why? What do you make of the extensive analysis that says that it most certainly is not a human in a suit?
 
Having worked extensivly with great apes i can say the thing in the film has the presence of an ape.
 
Sergeant_Pluck said:
Ronson8 said:
I can't believe that anyone still thinks it's anything other than a human in an ape suit.
Click to expand...

Why? What do you make of the extensive analysis that says that it most certainly is not a human in a suit?
Click to expand...


My considered opinion, after extensive analysis of the Patterson film, is that it is obvious that it is a base fraud. This is clearly an ape in a suit.
Or possibly an alien dressed as bigfoot.
 
Well, if that doesn't motivate people to finally come up with proof - nothing ever will:

Bigfoot reality show offers $10M prize

NEW YORK, Oct. 26 (UPI) -- America's Spike TV is teaming up with Lloyd's of London to offer a $10 million prize to reality show participants who can prove Bigfoot exists.

The network announced its new one-hour reality show, "10 Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty," Thursday.

The series will feature "ambitious teams of explorers on a brazen exhibition to unearth real evidence of Bigfoot's existence," producers said in a news release.

The $10 million, underwritten by Lloyd's of London, would be the largest cash prize in television history.

"The teams will be faced with the daunting task of proving to a group of experts that Bigfoot, the hairy ape-like sasquatch, exists with the irrefutable evidence. The winner will be the first team to secure proof -- and win the unprecedented $10 million bounty," a synopsis said. "Each episode will follow the different teams as they ply their extensive research and presumed knowledge of the legendary creature, often battling nature's inhospitable conditions. The series will be shot in various locations throughout the [United States]."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/T ... z2AkyV3Xxm
Click to expand...
 
lordmongrove said:
Having worked extensivly with great apes i can say the thing in the film has the presence of an ape.
Click to expand...

I agree - highly ape-like, but not any ape we know about. Looks 80% ape and 20% human(oid) to me.
 
Zilch5 said:
Well, if that doesn't motivate people to finally come up with proof - nothing ever will:
Click to expand...
Ha ha, great ruse, they know full well that if after all these years the only evidence so far has been a dodgy piece of film of something hairy but otherwise human sized, they're never going to have to pay out.
 
I didn't notice anyone run up to hairy suited one with a tape measure or weighing scales. :)
 
Ronson8 said:
I didn't notice anyone run up to hairy suited one with a tape measure or weighing scales. :)
Click to expand...

Indeed not, but the results of the analysis that I saw estimated the height of the thing as 8ft, and it should be evident to most people that it weighs in excess of 400lb at least. I'm a shade under 6"4' and about 240lb, so I'm not exactly a lightweight either, but that think on the video would eat me for breakfast. Hell, a gorilla stands what, 6ft and weighs about 400lb, so how about a similarly built 8ft creature?

The NatGeo doc was impressive and was about as comprehensive an analysis as you could wish for, a frame-by-frame study of the original source material, and utilising modern kinesiology studies (for gait analysis) and advanced 3D mapping of the terrain etc.

I just feel that a bloke in an apesuit might be able to pull the wool over people's eyes given late 60s technology, but I can't entertain the notion that it's going to stand up well enough to fool 21st Century tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top