I just want to state for the record that I am totally convinced that bigfoot exists. I also think that the PG film is of a man in a suit. The exaggerated arm swing is due to trying to make the forearms longer. The way the hair lays and it’s direction seem unkept. The secret to keeping a hair suit looking natural is brush, brush and brush. It gives one an immense respect for how nature does it. Look again at how the rear 3/4 of the thigh intersects the buttocks. I could swear that in one of the early frames you can see the hair fabric buckling just next to the buttocks. Speaking of the buttocks, does it leave anyone else with the impression of a diaper full of goodness, rather than a massive muscle that should be working quite a bit. I also get the impression from this film that the creature has caucasian coloration of the face. Has this been reported often? The face also closely resembles a sketch that Patterson did of a Bigfoot for a book or pamphlet he published before getting this footage. That sketch of bigfoot was also light skinned. The white foot issue doesn’t bother me. That could be dust on a rubber foot as easily as it could be dust on a real foot.

On the Burbank Bigfoot front, the figure in the photos is NOT the Minnesota Iceman. That figure had an arm over it’s head that had a compound fracture where the arm was almost severed mid forearm. Not unlike a plaster arm that broke in shipping. Just trying to draw some fabrication parallels between the pictured construct and the images of the iceman I saw years ago in a book.

I would give my right arm to see footage of a real hairy hominid, the only problem is I don’t think the PG creature is one. IMHO.

As to this: “…the waist is stiff and actually sockets around the lower half. I was surprised because it’s kind of a rookie mistake and I never looked for it before. Generally on a suit of this type you’d do it in one piece or have it attach between the legs like some spandex outfits do. The suit was built shirt and pants style and fairly stiff so the top rotates seperate of the bottom. It’s really clear when it’s arm swings forward.”

The “rookie mistake” here is presuming Bigfoot should walk like a human! The peculiar gait is exactly what has brought primatologists, anatomists and anthropologists into the this-is-the-real-thing camp.

“Another major problem is flat white feet.”

Another “rookie mistake.” The flat, archless soles of Bigfoot’s feet have been shown to be a distinct anatomical advantage for moving quickly over rough terrain.

And another thing: special-e professionals are some of the biggest cynics out there. They’d have to find Bigfoot raiding their pantry to give any credence to it. A film will never do it for them. Or for us, probably.

Remember, that film has withstood four DECADES of “look, this is fake.” It has never been debunked. Based on the reaction I’ve seen to the Oregon “Bigfoot” shot on this site, we sure ain’t gonna be the ones to debunk Patterson. Somebody needs to explain what that is. It isn’t a man in an ape suit. If it is, it would have been exactly duplicated — the ultimate “I told you so” — before most of us logging in here (not me!) were born.

I don’t trust those “in the industry.” Reason? Look at a lot of the comments on the Oregon “Bigfoot” here. Too many people nowadays spend too much time on computers and not enough outside. Whatever the Oregon “cryptid” is, it isn’t a deer and it isn’t a bear. I’ve seen more than enough of those, up close and personal in the woods, and taken enough photos to know. That leaves: human, horse and sasquatch. Sorry, only choices available. Just look at the pic; don’t mess with it on Photoshop!

The Patterson film proves one thing. We, each of us, would have to see one of these, alive and in our faces, to believe it. Or see tracks (like my wife and I did in the California Siskiyou in the spring of 1986).

Or really look at the Patterson film.

Matt

Hope some of thoses keeping his name in this have nothing to hide when they pass. Or they can ‘rest’ assured there lives will be spread everywher for all to see anyway

You bring up a couple of interesting points, and I’ll be sure not to brand you a heretic, but I think you are drawing some conclusions with your ideas that aren’t necessarily the only explanation for what you see and hear.

First, in regards to no professional effects artist that you know thinking it could be real - not really a surprise. To begin with, most special effects artists, like most people, are not going to give credence to the possibility of the existence of bigfoot in the first place. I’m sure a number of those artists also feel out of a sense of personal and professional pride that someone they know in the industry could accomplish that. You should ask them to try. No one yet has constructed a costume convincing enough to provide a compelling reenactment of the PG film.

Second, although I can tell that the way the torso rotates or the feet look is almost an indication to you of a hoax, I think it is not outside the realm of possibility for an unstudied creature. Perhaps part of the reason they are able to move so quickly and yet silently through their environment has to do with these anatomical differences.

Third, in stating that ’scientist even can be fooled, but those in the business rarely are” you are ignoring something important. Scientists are very much “in the business” of contemplating animal morphology. And, are there a lot of effects professionals “in the business” of hoaxing bigfoot, and therefore they would know?