32 Responses to “More on Long Island Bigfoot Photo”

1. dbard responds: September 14th, 2006 at 12:12 pm

   Looks like Patty has been dieting…

2. planettom responds: September 14th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

   Nice artwork Cameron. Can’t wait to see it after the facial trim. Good job!

   Though I do agree with others, that “Patty” looks a little thinner. Then again, it is a view from the side, so I can’t tell how broad the shoulders are on this representation.

   Good job nonetheless.

3. twblack responds: September 14th, 2006 at 1:27 pm

   Not Bad.

4. sasdave responds: September 14th, 2006 at 1:55 pm

   Good try; but, her legs are too short, too skinny, face looks like a dog, shape of skull incorrect, the famous Patterson postcard I have shows her breasts. I seem to be a bearer of bad news… sorry. When you’ve seen one its hard to forget.

5. captainadam_21 responds: September 14th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

   As I recall, I commented yesterday how that picture looked like the Patterson film. Captainadam is correct again!

6. jasonencounter responds: September 14th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

   hey, guys - ease up. This is great art. We’re not outing a hoaxer.

7. Dan Spencer responds: September 14th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

   Good stuff, I want one for my frontyard. What material did the artist use for the hair? I’m also interested to see the artist’s interpretation of bigfoot’s face.

8. Hawgzilla responds: September 14th, 2006 at 4:03 pm

   Though Mr. Gainer’s attempt is WAY better than I could even hope to do, I feel it does fall a bit short.

   In looking at “Patty” and Mr. Gainer’s recreation side by side, I get the impression that “Patty” is significantly heavier and more muscular then the sculpture.

   Also, there is something about the way “Patty’s” hair/fur shines/reflects light and shadows yet still allows realitively clear muscle definition/flexion to be evident…it’s hard to explain in words but the impression that these qualities make in my mind is what leads me to believe that “Patty” is real.

   To me that quality of how well the light, shadow and muscle flexion interact with each other seems to be very difficult to recreate in a non-living creature.

   I will say however that Mr. Gainer’s attempt is light years ahead of what the BBC put out in 1998 when they supposedly “proved” “Patty” was a fake with a suit they assembled with “state-of-the-art” materials of the day.

9. planettom responds: September 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pm

   jasonencounter: I completely agree. I was trying to get across the same message yesterday. This is art, and it is Cameron Gainer’s interpretation, and I think he did a fine job.

10. kittenz responds: September 14th, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    I recall watching a program during which the Patterson film was revealed as a hoax. It even named names and had video of the guy who wore the suit.

    So has that been disproven? I mean, were the “hoaxers” actually lying about perpetrating a hoax after all?

11. bambookid responds: September 14th, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    kittenz…

    The Patterson film has never been shown to be a hoax. No suit has ever surfaced. All there has been (to my knowledge) is a few people stating it is such. The BBC tried to create a suit and failed horribly. Look at some of the analysis of the film (easy to Google), and notice muscle (and bone) movement under the skin. As Hawgzilla stated… this is very hard to fake… Especially at the time the movie was made.

12. madman responds: September 14th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    A bigfoot of this size couldn’t compete in the NBA!

13. greenteaaddict responds: September 14th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    Not tall enough, and the face is too shiny to seem real, but good job nontheless.

14. Unknown Primate responds: September 14th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    Doesn’t look exactly like “Patty”, but still is very cool. I do a little artwork myself, and can definitely appreciate how much time & patience the artist has put into his hairy creation. Needs “bulked up”, but I still dig it.

    Take ‘er easy gang…

    The Yoopy

15. sasquatch responds: September 15th, 2006 at 12:02 am

    See I told you; It was definitely a physical object with real light on it from the same source as it’s surroundings. I dabble in stop motion animation and can usually tell when somethings a physical object in real light as opposed to a CGI or photoshopped electronically lit fake.

16. longrifle48 responds: September 15th, 2006 at 5:52 am

    Geez now you’re all experts on sculptures? Give the guy a break, he did a good job, and lots better than many of you could have done!

17. kittenz responds: September 15th, 2006 at 8:51 am

    bambookid:

    I HAVE googled it, and (among many other articles) discovered this one.

    I am not trying to “debunk” anything, I just want to know the truth. Even if the Patterson film was a hoax, there are a lot of credible witnesses and a lot of credible sightings. I just don’t want to base my belief on a piece of evidence that is a false, because to me, putting faith in false evidence makes it harder to justify belief in true evidence.

18. simian1 responds: September 15th, 2006 at 10:22 am

    bambookid

    There have been many attempts to discredit Patterson and Gimlin thru ad hominem attacks and outright lies, but the film itself has never been discredited, and has survived forensic analysis, to date.

    Foresnic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real

    and

    The North American Science Institute (NASI) Report

    The North American Science Institute (NASI) Report, Towards a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon, prepared by Mr. Jeff Glickman a forensic examiner, was released in June, 1998. The main report findings applicable to the Patterson/Gimlin may be summarized as follows:

    * Measurements of the creature: Height: 7-feet, 3.5-inches; Waist: 81.3-inches; Chest: 83-inches; Weight: 1,957 pounds; Length of arms: 43-inches; Length of legs: 40-inches.

    * The length of the creature’s arms is virtually beyond human standards, possibly occurring in one out of 52.5 million people.

    * The length of the creature’s legs is unusual by human standards, possibly occurring in one out of 1,000 people.

    * Nothing was found indicating the creature was a man in a costume (i.e., no seam or interfaces).

    * Hand movement indicates flexible hands. This condition implies that the arm would have to support flexion in the hands. An artificial arm with hand movement ability was probably beyond the technology available in 1967.

    * The Russian finding on the similarity between the foot casts and the creature’s foot was confirmed.

    * Preliminary findings indicate that a human being could not duplicate the forward motion part of the creature’s walking pattern.

    * Rippling of the creature’s flesh or fat on its right side was observed indicating that a costume is highly improbable.

    * The creature’s feet undergo flexion like a real foot. This finding eliminates the possibility of fabricated solid foot apparatus. It also implies that the leg would have to support flexion in the foot. An artificial leg with foot movement ability was probably beyond the technology available in 1967.

    * The appearance and sophistication of the creature’s musculature are beyond costumes used in the entertainment industry.

    * Non-uniformity in hair texture, length, and coloration is inconsistent with sophisticated costumes used in the entertainment industry.

    Mr. Glickman closes his scientific findings with the following statement: “Despite three years of rigorous examination by the author, the Patterson-Gimlin film cannot be demonstrated to be a forgery at this time.”

    Glickman’s estimates of the creature’s height and weight caused a lot of controversy. Dr. Grover Krantz has since established that the creature’s standing height (fully erect) did not exceed 6-feet, 6-inches. Another scientist has established that the creature’s weight was 820 pounds. These findings call into question other physical measurements (chest, waist, arms, legs) established by Glickman.

19. planettom responds: September 15th, 2006 at 11:49 am

    kittenz: I respect your opinion, and I am glad that you also aknowledge the fact that there are credible witnesses with credible sightings. The PG film is highly debated. I would suggest however, that when you read articles such as the one you pointed out above, that you also look into the credibility of the author that wrote the article. Try Googling his name, and look into his background, then make your decision about that article. I would not suggest basing your opinion about the PG film, on that article alone. There is a ton of literature out there.

    Have a great weekend everyone!

20. calash responds: September 15th, 2006 at 11:59 am

    kittenz

    I remember years ago when I first saw the Patterson footage. My reaction then was that it was a fake. But now after seeing the film over and over I just don’t know. I have been reading many of the sighting reports from all over the country and covering many years. The ring of truth is there in many of them. It is maddening however that some real undisputable evidence will not seem to come up. There are changes in our world though that have the potential to nail this whole thing down. Camera phones and small digital cameras are becoming common place. Remember before the1970’s and 80”s there was very few movies of tornados. When inexpensive video cameras came on the seen all this changed.

    Maybe this is not the proper place to go off on this tangent. I believe that there are more reasons that if BF is real the proof will be there sooner rather than later.

    P.S. On the sculpture or model

    This is art and intended as a tribute to a piece of folklore. It should be appreciated for the work it took to make it and for what it is.

    Regards

21. sasdave responds: September 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    Hello all…By the way kittenz after reading the article you mentioned I’d have to say it could be a hoaxed filming. Yet; I have seen one of these grand creatures. It has been a long time since my siting; but, in reality they exist. When one hasn’t seen something like this it is more likely they will take the path of least resistance. The messengers of the unknown and touchy subjects seem to cross more resistance just trying to understand the subject of a siting or strange experiance. As most seem to believe that carrying a camera will prove their siting or experiance. Then once your dead the life of the experiance changes. With all the info from the article you mentioned why is there still no close repro of breastful Patty. There is a reason for the secrecy and the outright push to disprove this and many other subjects. So even if the film is a hoax or the people are a hoax the bigfoot, sasquatch or ground burrower are alive and especially alive rambling around on the island I live to which I don’t mind sharing with them. Respect and love to all of the Great Spirits’ children.

22. Dan Spencer responds: September 16th, 2006 at 12:27 am

    kittenz & simian1

    Thank you both for the comments and articles you provided. You both provided quite a bit of infomation to digest regarding this subject. I appreciate the fact the in the forum we are all able to discuss things & present ideas without it degenerating to the crap I’ve seen on other forums.

23. kittenz responds: September 16th, 2006 at 7:37 am

    I have been an ardent student of cryptozoology for many years, ever since reading and becoming fascinated by Ivan T. Sanderson’s book, Investigating the Unexplained, as a child. I, too, find the Patterson film compelling, and for years I held to it as the best evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. But when not one, but several people come forward to expose it as a hoax, and to describe very plausibly how the hoax was perpetrated, I don’t want to pin my belief to that now very controversial piece of evidence.

    What we need is irrefutable physical evidence, including DNA evidence, that would prove the existence of Sasquatch and its relation to the rest of the apes. I keep an open mind because there is SOMETHING driving these sightings, and many of the sightings are very credible. But an open mind must be tempered with a healthy dose of skepticism.

24. WVBIG_2006 responds: September 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am

    kittenz says “I recall watching a program during which the Patterson film was revealed as a hoax. It even named names and had video of the guy who wore the suit.

    So has that been disproven? I mean, were the “hoaxers” actually lying about perpetrating a hoax after all? This is another example of how much damage has been done to the research of Bigfoot. Many people have heard the same thing because of that one reporter who got Ray Wallace confused with Roger Patterson. There was another pathetic attempt to recreate the Patterson/Gimlin film in 1997 (30 years after the original) on location at Bluff Creek, CA. Even the ones who did the recreation didn’t seem impressed with what they ended up with. I can’t recall the name of the documentary. But it aired on TLC & had an interview with a very interesting character who claims bigfoot has left him large pieces of bark in return for not bothering them.

25. sasdave responds: September 16th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    This subject has been laced with so much of the dose of unhealthy skepticism it stinks more then the sasquatch itself. Most so called experts on the subject have never seen one of these creatures. Those that have usually don’t mention it, no wonder. Re: the dna question use the hair that is found. There is a reason the truth regarding this subject has taken so long to uncover. Eventhough; they are alive and staying away from the unstable little pink monkeys.

26. WVBIG_2006 responds: September 16th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    There is DNA evidence. In conclusive reselts of DNA testing done on scat samples found during investigations of sightings. As I understand it, these tests indicate DNA similar to that of a primate. But not an exact match to any known primate. There can’t be conclusive DNA results until there is a certified, 100%, proven DNA sample from a bigfoot to compare the other samples to. I also understand that these scat samples, which can’t be linked to any known animal, consistently contain a type of tapeworm not found in any other scat samples.

27. Sky King responds: September 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    Thanks for the article, Simian 1.

    Kittenz, you decided after one article not to believe your own eyes? Oh well…

    I hold as a tenet that, article or no article, Patty was utterly impossible to fake in 1967, and remains so to this day.

    Musculature and stride cannot be faked by a mere human being. Now, unless they found a real 1,957-pound, 7′3 1/2″ human female and pasted fur on her…

    In which case I’m DYING to meet her.

    P.S. Kittenz: Check out the herniated muscle on Patty’s right thigh. Do you imagine fakers would have thought of that detail? Impossible.

28. kittenz responds: September 17th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    I did not “decide after reading one article” not to believe in the Patterson film. I have read and watched everything I can get my hands on. I am not convinced that it is fake. Neither am I convinced that it is real. The reports that it is a hoax ceratinly raise questions about its validity. And people who really want to believe that something such as a film or photo is legitimate can see all kinds of “proof” when they want to see it.

    I just think that the questions that have arisen about the Patterson film mean that it cannot be used as conclusive evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. More evidence - unambiguous evidence - is needed.

    By the way, I believe that the most in-depth program I have seen refuting the Patterson film was an episode of Unsolved History on the Discovery Channel, if I remember correctly.

29. kittenz responds: September 18th, 2006 at 8:06 am

    In the mid-1970’s, in the county where I live in eastern Kentucky, there were sightings of a mysterious creature. It was hairy, huge and walked upright. Most of the sightings came from a remote mountain area known as Ball Fork. It came up onto one lady’s back porch and left huge, muddy footprints. People even got audiotape of the creature making unearthy noises from the woods.

    The area is rugged and dark, even in the daytime, as it is heavily forested. At that time the only road was a narrow dirt road going across the mountain, and there were no residences on the mountain itself; it was property owned by coal mines. Lots of old mine works existed and in some of those, bones were found. As more and more residents encountered the creature, it became known as the Ball Fork Monster.

    People were afraid to go out after night. Coon hunters reported seeing someting huge and bipedal, at least eight feet tall, with eyes that glowed in the dark. The local newspaper urged people to keep their children close to home.

    The sightings became more and more frequent and they grew more detailed. People began reporting the monster from different areas. Some claimed to have had close encounters. Some of the reports came from very credible witnesses. For awhile there was a sort of hysteria about the monster that gripped the area. People were scared to death. Some people went out into the hills hunting for the monster. This went on for several months. I was a teenager at the time and I remember the Ball Fork Monster very well.

    Then a local good ole boy fessed up. He was a good-humored sort who liked to go up in the hills at night and kick back with a case or two. He was one of those happy-go-lucky fellas whom in older days might have been referred to as a town drunk. He thought it would be fun to stir things up a bit (not too much exciting happens here, and even less 30 years ago). There had been a lot of Bigfoot sightings out west that had been reported in the evening news.

    So he made up a monster just for kicks and giggles.

    He had a head from an old werewolf costume. As time went on he made a pair of feet (for making footprints) out of an old pair of mining boots strapped to boards. He put some beef bones and I think maybe a pig skull in an old mine. He went out at night and let out some scary howls and roars, etc. He was actually one of the first people who reported encountering the “Bigfoot-like” creature. He only stopped when he got shot at one night. He figured it had gone far enough.

    The strange thing is, people did not want to believe that the Ball Fork Monster was not real. They did not want to feel that they had been just been duped … especially those who had sworn that they had close encounters and whose descriptions of said encounters were vivid. Finally Blue Eyes (his nickname; I won’t give out the guy’s real name) took his monster paraphenalia in to the local newspaper to prove that he had been the monster. The sightings stopped.

    But even now, some people swear that there must have really been a Ball Fork Monster. Human nature: Stories grow with repeated telling, and we WANT to believe.

    That is one of the reasons that I am skeptical. I saw first hand how easily something that something “mysterious” can be made to seem so real.

    If Bigfoot by whatever name does exist, then sooner or later a body or an undisputable living specimen will turn up.

30. One Eyed Cat responds: September 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pm

    Very good artist, and as it is a more direct side-on view, bulk like shoulders would be less visible. And since this is a sculpture instead of a living animal, the hair would of course not have the same quality.

    If he ever wants to do a more accurate piece, the front needs a bit more development. LOL!

    No malice intended and none given.

31. DARHOP responds: September 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    This is not a bad sculpture. It’s just not a great one either. It would definitely have a guy’s or gal’s heart pumping though if they saw this in the woods at night.

32. stillserchin responds: October 23rd, 2006 at 3:03 am

    We’d all love to have the “original Patty” but this one will do for the time being. I’m sure Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin would appreciate and enjoy this not quite perfect but very good recreation. Thank you Cameron Gainer for putting in the time and effort for taking “Patty” from a celluloid image and giving her tangible shape and form. By the way Loren, wouldn’t she make a nice addition to your museum?

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|