65 Responses to “Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Footage: CZ’s Zapruder Film”

1. swnoel responds: April 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

   Never notice the fold of something at the upper part of the thigh… looks like a suit that doesn’t fit right.

   Hate to say it, but something isn’t right.

   Patty …tell me it ain’t so… or is it Bob?

2. DWA responds: April 14th, 2007 at 5:04 pm

   swnoel: you’re seeing things.
   Ever notice how nobody says that about skeptical takes on Bigfoot?

   Here it is, after 40 years: nothing has surfaced to indicate this is a fake.

   Has any other hoax in history gone on this long? Show me one and I’ll explain why.

   This one? I can’t.

3. Mike Smith responds: April 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

   I’m no expert in the subject, but the more I see this footage the more I am convinced that this is a real animal. I have seen many so call Bigfoot videos, some you know right off its fake. Some that I just don’t know. This is one that until the hard proof comes out, I’m going to say that this is the real thing.

4. daledrinnon responds: April 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm

   One of the things that catches people’s attention about Patty is that she has a truly enormous butt. That either impresses them that the film is real, or it looks like a baggy costume to them. Interpretations swing both ways on that basis alone.

   My gut instinct tells me that Patty is really big and really strong–strong enough to break somebody’s back with a swipe of one of those arms. But what I noticed on this viewing in particular was the way that her stride brings her feet foreward and then pulls the body foreward in one fluid motion. That just doesn’t look like a human walk. The hip, knee and ankle joits are all acting differently.

5. DWA responds: April 14th, 2007 at 5:47 pm

   Here’s another fun thing to do while you’re watching the P/G clips. Check out this link:

   http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

   Like most scofftic “deconstructions” of Patterson, this one is easy to shoot full of holes. It’s almost laughable how little this guy knows, or how little he thinks about his own arguments and how easily they can be turned on him.

   Have fun.

6. Ceroill responds: April 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

   daledrinnon, I believe that is what Dr. Meldrum refers to in his term ‘compliant gait’. As shown in one television program it can be imitated by a human, but you need a fair amount of practice to get it right. You would also need a heck of a better costume than any of these shows has been able to produce so far.

7. Pentastar responds: April 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

   One thing that seperates this clip from the majority of other clips is the camera shaking. It starts shakey but the most of the clip is steady. 99% of the hoaxes I have seen has the opposite order.

   I can´t see anything new in these versions.
   What function does bipedal walking have for this creature? If it exists, why did it suddenly start to walk upright? Is there any fossil finds of bipedal apes?
   With the hands free the early humanoids could use them to make their lives easier, does that go for bigfoot as well? Is there a connection between bipedal walking and brain development? If so, is it then possible that bigfoot is sharper than our cousins?

   If Patty is a hoax then I want to know the phone number to the creator of the suit in case I decide to make a movie with a big ape creature in it.

8. dogu4 responds: April 14th, 2007 at 7:20 pm

   One thing really great that this little piece of film has done is create and continue to fuel a huge amount of discussion. Of course not much of it is particularly accurate, but there are a few nuggets worthy of attention. When BF is scientifically determined to be genuine, I suspect people will still argue about the authenticity of PGF.

9. BadState responds: April 14th, 2007 at 7:28 pm

   What’s that light colored object I see in Patty’s left hand near the start of her walk? It disappears when her hand next swings back into view. Is that the “stick” Davis claims he sees? It doesn’t look like a stick to me. More like maybe a stone.

10. joppa responds: April 14th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    The Bonobo chimp is bipedal about 25-50 per cent of the time when on the ground. Numerous ape and humanoid fossils suggest bipedalism.

    After viewing this film hundreds of times, I am still amazed by it. Is it real? When we capture one, I’ll say it’s real. Now it is still an enigma.

11. treeclaw responds: April 14th, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    Well, I am still a skeptic. No matter how many times I review these clips from different angles. Still looks like a human in a monkey suit. I fail to notice any fluid motions others are referring to. In fact I think this thing’s movement are awkward and uncomfortable. It appears the head is unable to turn without the body. The long strides these creatures are known for is not apparent here. Just too many holes in this whole thing.

12. windigo responds: April 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    If it is a hoax then it is the most fantastic fabrication of all time. It has been forty years and all attempts to duplicate it or follow suit with a similar piece of video footage (documented hoaxes) have fallen far short of this benchmark. This, after all the advances in video/media production. This may be the greatest aspect of the film that supports it’s authenticity.

13. Rillo777 responds: April 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    I think I know what daledrinnon means when he refers to the strangeness of the stride of the creature in the film. I never learned the technical name for this walk, but seasoned outdoorsmen will employ it occasionally when walking over tough terrain, especially when carrying heavy gear. I’ve used it, especially when climbing hills. It puts all the weight on the legs instead of trying to carry it with the entire body. Consequently, it puts less strain on the upper body and you have better balance overall. The trade-off is that your leg muscles get tired quicker.

14. Lee Murphy responds: April 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    The fossil ape Oreopithecus was determined to be fully bipedal.

15. silvereagle responds: April 14th, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    Since it is spring, it is a perfect time to plant those seeds of doubt. Especially when one’s job is to do so. On the other hand, imagine some highly motivated trickster or even a co-conspirator, in 1967, coming up with the absolutely fool proof plan of fabricating a seemingly genuine full fur suit, with both ample breasts and realistic feet, inventing a compliant gait that apparently had not crossed anybody’s mind prior, and walking up a dry creek bed during hunting season, when hunters with scopes and high powered rifles, are likely in the vicinity. I am afraid that the likelihood of all those premeditated events occurring in 1967, is completely absurd to the extreme. Therefore, there was no plan. It was an accidental capture of genuine film footage of a 4th dimension forest person, while briefly visiting our dangerous dimension.

16. wildmanmarty responds: April 14th, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    One thing I noticed that I hadn’t before, is that the left foot in particular appears to be very flexible in it’s stride….something that would not likely (in my opinion) be easy to accomplish with a stiff, fake foot. Being an artist, I tend to scrutinize detail and if this film is a hoax, the costumer deserves an Academy Award for special effects.

17. Windwalker7 responds: April 14th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    First post here. A few comments.

    That is the first time I saw a close up, side profile of the face. Very realistic.

    Has anyone noticed that the creature/man in suit doesn’t look at the ground as it walks? That would be a hard feat for a man in a suit, trying to simulate a difficult walking manner, all awhile walking up a dried creekbed with rocks, sticks and debri.

    That would be a difficult place to walk, without stumbling, even while looking at the ground and not wearing a suit.

    As stated before, everytime I watch it, i’m more convinced its real.

18. DWA responds: April 14th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    treeclaw: you say

    “I fail to notice any fluid motions others are referring to. In fact I think this “thing”’s movement are awkward and uncomfortable.”

    @@@@That’s because you never saw a man in an ape suit try it. That looks as casual as anyone I’ve ever seen on a city street - in terrain I can tell you would not lend itself to that sort of ease were that a man in a suit.

    “It appears the head is unable to turn without the body.”

    @@@@That’s one of many factors cited by those who consider the film genuine. Apes can’t turn their heads as far to look over their shoulders as we can. That’s because the neck simply isn’t structured to allow it. “No neck” or “head blending right into the shoulders” or their equivalent are cited incessantly in the sas sighting reports I’ve read; the creature’s needing to turn the body to look to the sides or rear is commonly cited as well. The BBC’s execrable effort to “duplicate” the Patterson “costume” (they said they’d done the job…and they couldn’t even get the color right!) puts a major flaw right out front: the “duplication” of the infamous Frame 352 shows the guy in the suit turning his head to look over his shoulder, keeping his back to the camera. Braaaaaaaaaahnk! Human!

    wildmanmarty: I have thought many a time that if this is ever exposed as a hoax, the perpetrator (or at least the guy who did the suit) should get a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy. (And a Lifetime Restraint Medal from the Dalai Lama. How long could you sit on something like this? It’s one of the more convincing arguments against a hoax to me.) What you note about the foot is one of several things proponents of the film have observed in the feet of the subject (toe lifting, something that would be very hard to put into a costume and isn’t in costumes made even today, is clearly observable at one point).

19. showme responds: April 14th, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    I’m still intrigued by this film every time I see it. The only thing that doesn’t seem right to me is the animal’s reaction. Most wild animals run or stand still as stone when they are caught off guard. This one just seems too casual. Remember, even if this animal had seen humans before, it probably hadn’t seen horses in the woods, or people riding on horses. According to Patterson, the horses were making quite a bit of commotion.

20. DWA responds: April 14th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

    showme: I’ve been hiking and backpacking for 27 years now, and I can tell you that animals don’t always indulge in either freezing or panicked flight. I’ve had animals - on two separate occasions, pairs of bears did it, scant feet away - literally mosey right across my path, knowing full well I was there. These were wild animals deep in the backcountry, not human-acclimated bears on a road or in a campground.

    Oh. Many sas sighting reports say the same thing. The animal, in fact, seems to choose an almost leisurely withdrawal the majority of the time.

21. cryptomunk responds: April 14th, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    I’ve always loved the Patterson-Gimlin film and can’t get enough of watching these postings.

    For me the thing that sticks out in my mind the most are the buttocks. Most large animal’s buttocks shift while moving, muscles tightening and relaxing. Patty’s don’t. I’d expect them to. From my viewing they appear perfectly rigid, like a foam pad over real buttocks.

    Still I daydream of winning the lottery and peppering the area with camera boxes (like the ones that have been used to catch other rare animals even at night). And of course getting to say buttocks several times in posts.

22. sschaper responds: April 15th, 2007 at 12:19 am

    That was the impression I got this time, too. The gluteus maximus is inert, not like real muscle, but maybe a pad over the rear.

    And yet, all of the comments on the amazing feat that the other details of the film show for 1967 being highly unlikely for the state of the art then, seem pretty convincing, too.

    I’m curious if the hands flex or move at all, or if they act like gloves on sticks. The walk seems very human to me, as well. But I’m used to people walking on soft, uneven plowed ground and that isn’t the same stride as walking on sidewalks.

23. Bob Michaels responds: April 15th, 2007 at 1:46 am

    This is a Female Bigfoot, I have never seen an Ape costume with Big Breasts. It’s not a Gorilla, or an Orang, it’s most definitely Giganto. Why would anyone go to the trouble of producing a Big Breasted Ape? A flat chested male specimen would suffice. He’s out there and he will be located in this century along with many new primate species.

24. sasquatch responds: April 15th, 2007 at 2:06 am

    REAL.

25. Cat217 responds: April 15th, 2007 at 2:28 am

    Greetings,

    I remember seeing the still photo’s from this film when I was a little boy. That was the start of my interest in such things.

    I can not say if the film is of a Bigfoot or not, yet after 40 years, the jury is still out and that speaks volumes.

    PEACE!
    =^..^=217

26. Cryptonut responds: April 15th, 2007 at 2:59 am

    To me, there are so many more things that point to a real, unhoaxed, film. Even in this day and age, all the people that have tried to recreate a man in a suit to look like the real thing end up making something that is so obviously fake it’s not even funny. Here we are 40 years later with special effects that were incomprehensible back in 67 and nothing comes close to the PG film. REAL!

    BELIEVE!

27. Lyndon responds: April 15th, 2007 at 4:57 am

    “”"The only thing that doesn’t seem right to me is the animal’s reaction. Most wild animals run or stand still as stone when they are caught off guard. This one just seems too casual.”"”

    And yet there are ample other reports of a bigfoot just calmly moving off without panicking or running. The creature’s reaction in the Patterson film is exactly what has been reported time and time again, both before and since the footage was taken.

    William Roe’s supposed encounter is almost exactly like the Patterson footage. The bigfoot Roe allegedly saw didn’t run or panic either. It just walked rapidly away after being surprised by Roe. It even looked back. In fact, some scoftics accuse the Patterson footage (both in the creature’s appearance and it’s behaviour) to be a carbon copy of the Roe incident. On the other hand, if female bigfoots exist then we would expect Roe’s and Patterson’s encounters to be similar and tally up closely as they would be the same species of animal.

28. tigwip responds: April 15th, 2007 at 6:03 am

    Hello everybody. Long time lurker, first time poster. Be gentle with me!

    I was undecided about the reality of the “creature” in the Gimlin footage for a long time until I read Dr Meldrum’s book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.
    There is, I think, a startling photograph on page 162. It shows a splitscreen image of the location taken a year or so after the original sighting and a Jim Mc Clarin standing in the same measured area as Patty was (Mc Clarin’s wearing a white T-shirt and is a little hard to see on the grainy photo). But the comaprison is clear enough and shows us how TALL and BROAD and POWERFUL Patty looks by comparison to the tall McClarin.

    If the footage is fake, then the hairy suit would have to be unfeasably bulky to afford such fluid movement.
    Now I get goosebumps watching the footage!

29. mystery_man responds: April 15th, 2007 at 6:16 am

    Lots of good comments here. There is one thing that I find interesting to speculate about and that is the question of why Bigfoot is so often reported as so calm and relaxed when suddenly confronted by humans. This too me points to an animal that does not feel particularly threatened by man. That is not to say it is acclimatized to man, just that it is obvious from these reports that it is not in any hurry to escape and to me that suggests a lack of fear of us and therefore its elusiveness seems a bit contradictory to this sort of behavior. So what I find myself wondering is that if Bigfoot is so leisurely in its flight from us, or has this lack of fear and panic, then why is it still such an enigma with so little clear photographic or video evidence? I would think that any animal this large that has gone undiscovered all of this time would be a more wary and skittish one, not a creature that merely calmly walks off or shows such lack of a strong effort to get away or any sort of panic. It has been pointed out that other animals can show this sort of leisurly indifference to man, but bear in mind (no pun intended), these are well documanted, known animals with plenty of photos that are clear and conclusive.

30. DWA responds: April 15th, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Lyndon: you point up a common scofftic fallacy: assuming similarity points to copying.

    That link I put up does the very same thing with the Roe and Patterson encounters. Is it possible that Roe gave Patterson a “blueprint”? Sure. (I still wouldn’t have bothered with the breasts. It’s a tough enough row to hoe without them.) Is it just as likely that the two men saw the same kind of animal? One thing it is is a pretty logical conclusion.

    mystery_man: there’s much about the sas that just doesn’t seem to add up. (He’s so big and still unconfirmed, for one thing.) But the leisurely departure bit doesn’t seem a stretch for me.

    1. It’s a forest animal. You’re not going to get much time for a photo, if you even think of your camera when you see something like this. And you won’t get much time for a good shot, if you’re a hunter. And if you are, you are almost certainly happy that it’s not heading toward you. Good riddance.

    2. A sas can cover considerable ground even at a walk.

    3. This kind of behavior may be selected for; it apparently always works. Remember, a sas don’t need to be scared of anything else out there. Even us, as individuals.

    4. They may (like bighorn sheep) have this curiosity about us that they frequently let overrule fear.

    5. And remember, they’re almost certainly higher primates. They may be weighing the need to panic. Panic certainly isn’t an energy-conserving reaction for an animal who presumably needs lots of calories to keep going. That selection thing again.

    I’m not having trouble with that part. But selection certainly needs to work on the sasquatch’s butt.

31. Buzzardeater responds: April 15th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    One thing I have rarely seen mentioned is that Patty is a little old lady. She is generally said to be less than seven feet tall. Bigfoot is usually a little taller than that. The callouses on her feet and her pronounced stoop are, I think, indicative of age. Old people don’t get too excited, why would an old Bigfoot? Also, why would people object that she looks like a man in a suit, like the suit is damning evidence? Why can’t it be a Bigfoot in a fur suit? Furs have been invented for quite a while now, why assume the Bigfoot don’t have the technology? Furs were worn by the Indians for protection when passing through dense brush and are ideally suited to this. Lastly, I think Patty had a rock in her hand that she could have used as a weapon if the intruders had pursued her. There are many reports of thrown rocks attributed to Bigfoot. The rock could also be wielded like a hammer. I have heard of moose found dead of skull fractures and it has always been shrugged off as jousting injuries, suffered during mating season. It could be that the moose ran into someone with a rock in their hand, too, if the rock and the hand were big enough.

32. DWA responds: April 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am

    mystery_man: I’d intended to say this but forgot.

    There aren’t any good pictures, for sure (other than this one). But other than the objective difficulty there’s another factor that being experienced in field biology you may be familiar with.

    The documented animals that we have good photos of were “shot” by experienced phtographers who went out there with that specific shot in mind. If it’s not in a cage, my experience in the woods with a camera tells me, the only chance you have is to be there specifically looking for that animal and putting yourself in position to get that shot. And then being VERY patient.

    Simply put: a grabshooter isn’t going to get the shot. And other than Patterson they’ve all been grabshooters; even the serious ones simply haven’t given themselves as much time in the field to get lucky as Patterson did. (Add to that the animal’s presumed nocturnal bent, and our very incomplete knowledge of its habits. When you have three days to get a shot, those factors complicate things incomprehensibly.)

    This is yet another common scofftic fallacy: the presumption that Patterson must have been hoaxing because he went out there with the stated purpose of getting the critter on film. To me, that is precisely why he did get it. He was obsessed with documenting it. And if you say obsession means he’d stop at nothing to hoax…well, obsession means he might be dedicated enough to break another barrier too, don’t it? Sure. It’s only logical.

    If it’s not documented, and if you’re a nut if you saw one….well, then nobody’s looking. But people like Patterson.

    If you want his luck, duplicate his obsession. There it is.

33. mystery_man responds: April 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Yes, DWA, photos can be hard to get. But they are still known animals. I do not think Patterson is a hoax, I just want to make that clear. But I still do find it curious that large animal such as this could be still unconfirmed and yet still be so laid back around humans. I can certainly see the similarities with this behavior and other animals. But all of the animals mentioned are known animals, they have been documented. Even extremely shy and remote creatures such as the Okapi and gorilla are known. Why not Bigfoot? Especially when it shows no real desire to escape human attention according to these reports? This sort of behavior is just not conducive to remaining hidden, I feel. I am not saying Bigfoot doesn’t exist, I just find this aspect of these reports very odd considering the circumnstances.

34. mystery_man responds: April 15th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    So what I mean to say, is selection or not, whether panic makes sense to it or not, it is still an extremely large animal living in North America that has not been documented officially. There are shyer creatures that have and some that live in even more remote areas. The behaviors exhibited by it in this case, with the liesurly curiosity, are not things that make sense to me for such an elusive creature would have. There are lots of good reasons why it shows no fear of humans, but not so many for why it can have this lack of fear and remain an enigma to science.

35. cryptomunk responds: April 15th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Great thread. To the questions about lack of photographic evidence, my thought turns to the possible numbers of the species out there. If sadly their numbers were extremely low and scattered out over a broad area, then the likelihood of seeing one lessens greatly. And if that species was already wary due to centuries of encouters with aboriginal human populations, they would potentially already be trained to stay obscure. Often it seems people tend to think of Bigfoot as having human social tendencies and thus should be easier to find. But if you think of the species as solitary whose roaming range is large and then with small populations remaining, then Bigfoot starts to fall into a pattern of other animals that are extremely rare and thus rarely photographed. Again, i’m thinking camera boxes, infra-red recording UAVs, blah blah blah. i’d love to see these guys found with the hope of seeing them treated more like isolated tribes in the Amazon who are in protected regions away from modern contact than a swarm of scientists catching the last of the species.

36. Windwalker7 responds: April 15th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Did anyone notice that the Bigfoot in the Patterson film looks more realistic(especially facial area) than the Bigfoot in the “Messing with Sasquatch” commercials.

    And the Patty film was done 40 years ago!

    Something to think about

37. swnoel responds: April 15th, 2007 at 11:49 am

    DWA you say…

    “swnoel: you’re seeing things.

    Ever notice how nobody says that about skeptical takes on Bigfoot?

    Here it is, after 40 years: nothing has surfaced to indicate this is a fake.

    Has any other hoax in history gone on this long? Show me one and I’ll explain why.

    This one? I can’t. ”

    I can clearly see a fold or abnormally on the thigh at about hand level, you can’t see this abnormally or you don’t want to, because it is there?

    BadState:
    I too have mentioned about the stone in the hand of Patty… seems like only you and I can see it!
    It would make sense with all the reports of stones being thrown by some unknown person. Maybe the sound of an approaching animal warranted this animal to pick up a stone from the stone and boulder strewed stream bed for protection. Certainly would fit into general primate behavior. Wouldn’t it?

38. dogu4 responds: April 15th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Outside of a windfall of good luck, I suspect the next great opportunity to take a photo of BF, intentionally, will have to wait until we know its habits well enough to predict its appearance. What good will those camera boxes do if where you put ‘em is a place where the critter only visits rarely and only at night?

    The next generation of photo-analysis for landscape will probably utilize the rapidly growing and increasingly accesible technology of holographic image processing. I can image a laser used to scan a really big landscape over a period of time and then using processing power to develope a holographic 3D image as a baseline against which one could identify moving (changed) data, and then look for patterns of behavior that would suggest some predictive strategies.

39. treeclaw responds: April 15th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    DWA:”@@@@That’s one of many factors cited by those who consider the film genuine. Apes can’t turn their heads as far to look over their shoulders as we can. That’s because the neck simply isn’t structured to allow it. “No neck” or “head blending right into the shoulders” or their equivalent are cited incessantly in the sas sighting reports I’ve read; the creature’s needing to turn the body to look to the sides or rear is commonly cited as well.”:

    Yes, I am aware that the SAS’s ability to flex their neck in relation to body is limited. However I do recall my visit several decades ago at the Bronx Zoo where I took several pictures of the outdoor Gorilla compound. One of them was sitting on the hunches chewing a banana looking up and observing the spectators as we were doing the same. It was quiet apparent to me this individual, with ease, was able to turn its head left and right scanning the crowd above. That’s without any body movement in attempt to follow the head. Most importantly there appeared a fluid connection between the head, neck and the body which was glaringly missing in the Patterson’s clip.

    Now then there’s a question what stopped patterson from pursuing this creature further? OK I can understand the reluctance to confront it head on. But still it could have been pursued at a safe distance. They were armed with reasonable assurance of self defense. You figure a creature as heavy as this Patty would leave plenty of tracks and broken branches to follow after. Things these big or shall I say huge just don’t vanish before you after a brief encounter.

    Now to turn the other cheek. I do believe the real SAS is a 4th dimensional creature. As many have said, it is an animal from another time that somehow found a doorway through our own. And they are not the only one who have access to from this doorway given the multitude of other weird, prehistoric creatures witnessed by people around the world.

40. gridbug responds: April 15th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    I too noticed the strange “fold” in the upper right thigh, and the more I scrutinize it the more it troubles me. It looks like the way fabric sort of bunches up. I don’t know enough about the muscular system (re: the argument that the fold might be a herniated muscle) but it’s noticeable enough to give me pause, and I’ve always been a firm believer in the authenticity of this film.

    The non-flexible glutes are also something to be considered. Even if they were solid muscle (hence no jiggling) wouldn’t we still see some sort of movement?

    That being said, I think there’s way too much circumstantial evidence that proves that something is indeed out there. And if this is a costume, it’s a 40 year old work of art that Hollywood big shots have yet to equal, let alone top.

    Filed under: I WANT TO BELIEVE.
    

41. DWA responds: April 15th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Quick ones:

    Mystery_man: yep, others may be shyer. But they’re stupider, too, I think. The species is very good at avoiding us, and not too hepped up about the occasional mistake.
    Folks on the Fold: if forty years’ worth of analysis hasn’t made a big deal of that, I won’t neither. I want to know HOW THE HOAX WAS DONE. If no one can tell me, then for now it ain’t no hoax.

    “…if this is a costume, it’s a 40 year old work of art that Hollywood big shots have yet to equal, let alone top. ”

    Thanks, gridbug. Couldna said it better meself.

42. DWA responds: April 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Oh, and for treeclaw:

    Don’t think one can make too much of any single aspect of the P/G subject. My point was only that turning the body to look to the sides might tend to indicate authenticity more than it would fakery, particularly with the other aspects of movement appearing as natural and unforced as they do.

    As to the relative ability to do this compared to other apes: not having a specimen to study yet, can’t comment on that.

43. wildmanmarty responds: April 16th, 2007 at 1:04 am

    I will only add that whenever someone even hints at a “creature from the fourth dimension”, you have lost all credibility in my eyes.

44. dogu4 responds: April 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Uh…The 4th dimension is time, so we all are “creatures from the 4th dimension”, just as we are also creatures in the first 3 dimensions. Each dimension has some unique characteristics and it seems the 4th is limited, at least in the macroscopic scale in which we live, as to the direction it might travel.

    People who speak of the 4th dimension as if it were some otherworldly, unverifiable and inherently more mysterious than the other dimensions identify themselves as intelligent folk who’ve chosen not to do much investigation about this critical aspect of their belief and maybe have spent a bit too much time watching bad sci-fi and would benefit a bit more by applying that unused portion of the brain to detecting the really amazing stuff we have all around us, rather than making stuff up and then using the mystery to fit it into the oh so convenient model worked up by a guy who’s in all likelihood very interested in what’s in your pocket.

45. swnoel responds: April 16th, 2007 at 11:41 am

    I don’t see any proof that the P/G film wasn’t anything but a hoax.

    We do have witnesses admitting that it was a hoax including the actual wearer of the suit.

    In 40 years since this film, we have absolutely no scientific evidence that this animal existed ever in NA.

    No bones, body, pictures, no anything that can be considered as irrefutable scientific evidence.

    Why is that?

    The more I watch this film, the more I see a man in a suit, including all the abnormalities that have been described by many.

    Until some earth shattering proof becomes available… I’ll consider the film a very good hoax.

46. DWA responds: April 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    swnoel:

    A lot to respond to here, but I’ll simply say this: that statement about witnesses admitting it was a hoax is quite misleading. In each case it’s been a person with an obvious ax to grind and an obvious desire for fifteen minutes of fame, giving a story that not only clashes with the facts but gives no idea of how a hoax that was as elaborate as this one would have to be could possibly have been pulled off.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve seen lots of hoaxed stuff. None of it even approaches this league.

    “Scientific evidence” means simply “evidence that mainstream science will accept.” It’s largely mainstream science’s fault that the mountain of evidence for this animal has remained largely unaddressed.

    And yes, the assertion that P/G is a hoax must be backed by serious evidence to be taken seriously. So far: not one scrap. Against lots of analysis by experts that points to it being genuine.

    Summing up: based on the evidence, the assertion that P/G was hoaxed is, simply, irrational.

47. wildmanmarty responds: April 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    3rd dimension, 4th dimension, etc. As this is a site devoted to cryptozoology and mostly Bigfoot/Sasquatch, I prefer to stick to that topic and not venture off into debates, definitions or theoretical discussions of various spacial dimensions. I would like to stick to earthbound topics and viewpoints of Bigfoot.

48. swnoel responds: April 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    DWA:

    Unless you have proof that the people involved are lying… I would suggest that it would be irrational to believe this film to be anything but a hoax.

    When it comes to scientific evidence, it’s irrelevant what one believes, the evidence usually speaks for itself.

    As far as anyone trying to duplicate this film… who has attempted this with any degree of seriousness?

    The answer is …no one.

    Is there a possibility that the film is of a genuine animal… yes, but I would suggest that because of the lack of substantiated evidence and all evidence pointing to a hoax, one would need to be prudent into jumping into conclusion that this is a real animal.

49. Ceroill responds: April 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Well, unfortunately, swnoel, if you come down definitely on either side of this thing you have to say someone is lying. Either Patterson and Gimlin, or the guy who has said he wore the suit. I don’t see any hard evidence of either, so I prefer to remain undecided either way.

50. DWA responds: April 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    Ceroill: you’re obviously right, and I just as obviously agree with you.

    Swnoel: what you’re doing is understandable, because it’s a mistake people commonly make when it comes to the sasquatch. They forget what “rational” means.

    Rational opinions are backed by evidence; irrational ones aren’t. Belief that the P/G film is a hoax is not only not backed by a shred of evidence - nor by any reasonable explanation how it could have been done - it flies in the face of everything our eyes have told us about people in ape suits: they look forced, uncomfortable, silly. This looks none of those. It’s like believing in the Easter Bunny to call this a hoax; there’s simply nothing to back that up.

    It might not count as evidence. But you yourself say something very, very telling: “As far as anyone trying to duplicate this film… who has attempted this with any degree of seriousness? The answer is …no one.” It’s safe to say that if no one has done it yet, no one will. Because everyone - especially the ones in the industry who say through their hats it was hoaxed - knows what level of seriousness would be required. There is no way on earth anyone who could do this now would not do it. They don’t….because (it is rational to believe) they can’t. The evidence shows how extremely difficult it would be to do. I’d go into it, but you’d be reading until May.

    I have proof of nothing. But I have loads of evidence that that’s a real animal…and none of a hoax. I make no conclusion. But if you asked me to put money down, and I were crazy enough to do it, I know what number it would go on.

51. wildmanmarty responds: April 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    In 1998, the BBC plunked down a reportedly large sum of money to demonstrate the “ease” (my word) of duplicating the Patterson film, with laughably pathetic results. So it has been attempted at least once and possibly other times that I am not aware of. I would think the the perpetrator of a failed re-creation would tend to shy away from the publicity. “Look folks, we just spent thousands of dollars to make this big guy in an elaborate monkey suit look and act like Patty, and well, it didn’t turn out as we had hoped”.

    You want to know what I think about DWA? I will tell you anyway. I think DWA makes consistently intelligent, informed comments AND from what I have seen so far, has an admirable tendency to stick to the posted subject. Just wanted to throw that in.

52. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 12:15 am

    wildmanmarty: I mention the BBC’s shot at it above. It fell so embarrassingly short that I guess I don’t consider it serious. But I can surmise they didn’t spend chump change on it.

    And thanks. At least I don’t think I’m a hoax, although I can turn my head to look over my shoulder too well to be Patty.

53. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Oh. And one more thing, while we’re on irrational scoffticism and Patty.

    Could we please stop embarrassing ourselves by trying to link Ray Wallace with the Patterson film?

    What does everyone know about Ray Wallace? Known hoaxer. Known embellisher. Known liar. Greatly motivated by attention, particularly with regard to Bigfoot.

    What does the evidence, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, tell us to believe about his assertion, tossed off the top of his head, that the guy who stole his thunder - by coming out of the woods with the animal he thought was a joke, on film - was led there by his advice?

    Another lie. Backed by, basically, no evidence.

    Stop linking Wallace (and Bob Hieronymous and John Chambers and anyone else in the suit industry who just tosses off comments, while we’re on it) to Patty.

    It only highlights that you have no case. And makes you look like a rube to boot.

    I can believe it could be a hoax - if anyone could ever show how. You don’t even have to do it; just explain it.

    No one has.

54. treeclaw responds: April 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am

    The SAS is not a “religion” for me so it matters not if people find my perspective credible or otherwise. We are discussing here a primitive creature who has the ability to appear and disappear with incredible ease. Some of you exect “earthly” explanations for the SAS. As you would expect everything to lead to a black and white conclusion neatly cataloged and explained from our library. Well believe it or not, we do not have it all figured out straight to a “dot”. There are many more things in this universe that we still do not understand nor comprehend. Keep an open mind and do not be easily beguiled.

55. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    treeclaw:

    some of us say it a little, um, more forcefully than others. But our position is basically this, broken down.

    1. The sas doesn’t seem to be that able to appear and disappear with incredible ease. Read sighting reports; the animal appears and disappears the way I’ve personally seen more than one jus’ plain ol’ wild critter do it.

    2. Many people see them. And get about as many pictures as they do of any other animal out there, which is, for the non-dedicated non-wildlfe photog non-Patterson, none.

    3. Science just doesn’t want to be bothered with it unless forensically testable evidence - which they define “live or dead sasquatch, bones, or fuhgedaboudit” - is dumped right at their lab door.

    4. This seems to be translated into incredible, otherworldly powers that sighting reports just don’t substantiate.

    I keep telling people who want to know what the best evidence for this animal is: READ SIGHTING REPORTS. As many as you can. It’s not the individual reports; it’s the overall pattern that suggests a species. The anecdotal evidence has virtually painted a picture of the species biology, physiology, diet and behavior patterns of the sasquatch - an occurrence that, if the animal isn’t real, beats odds longer than any lottery you ever played.

    There is a testable proposition out there. Has been for like ever. It’s a critter, probably an ape. Period.

    We could be wrong. It might be a shapeshifter, a wizard, a demon or the ghost of Carl Sagan. It’s just that there is no way currently available to test that kind of proposition.

    What we black and whiters are saying is this. Test the currently testable propositions first. If the sas is Not Of Our World, he’ll still be there waiting when we’re done.

56. mystery_man responds: April 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    DWA- I just want to make it clear that I never thought of the PG footage as a hoax as I think you can tell by my past posts here! I am very open minded in this area. In fact, I am open minded enough to see the strangness of a creature this indifferent to man that has remained undocumented. It is a connundrum in many ways for me. I know the arguments why this can be so and hold to many of them, but still find myself pondering this. Of course, there are ways that it could be avoiding us, and it is obviously an intelligent creature, but I have to bring up the hard questions sometimes. I am even known to go off on Devil’s advocate arguments to the point where I start to actually see some sense in them. That is one way that I remain a true skeptic, I like to see both sides of the coin. I am very open to the possibility of Bigfoot. However for me, there is no denying the strangeness of a creature that is so large, leisurly in the presence of humans, seen by so many people, leaving so much behind, yet not adequately documented. To me it is slightly bizarre. There are creatures that have been seen in the wild by far fewer people in far more remote areas that are well documented by both specimens and photographs and these photographs were not always easy to come by, but there they are. I am merely acknowledging the fact that although this does not mean Bigfoot does not exist, it is something that is odd and worth thinking about.

57. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am

    mystery_man: well, there you go. Bizarre it certainly is. When we finally document the sas, we’re gonna have a lot of explaining to do to that mirror.
    I have my own bugbears. No carcass and no bones and (I gotta admit) no shootings or roadkill. They most emphatically don’t disqualify the sas as real, and I’ve talked about why at great length; but they sure are problematical to explain. Most people with no experience in the outdoors or with animals simply cannot get past that; and biologists and wildlife photographers and other experts whose time in the field has yielded not a trace of a seven-foot ape have their own wall to scale.

    All I can say is: there it is. You gotta engage the skeptic in you to stay focused on the likely leads. Period.

58. mystery_man responds: April 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    DWA- Agreed.

59. treeclaw responds: April 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    1. The sas doesn’t seem to be that able to appear and disappear with incredible ease. Read sighting reports; the animal appears and disappears the way I’ve personally seen more than one jus’ plain ol’ wild critter do it.

    DWA: What I meant to say that of all the creatures known to “man” the SAS has been unusually successful in evading us. Ask any North American practicing field biologist what they think of studying SAS in their natural habitat. See the reaction that will get you. Or for that matter ask any wildlife tracking expert to help you track down a SAS. Even SAS “experts” are somewhat befuddled with SAS tracks which seem to appear and disappear without apparent source of direction. No ordinary 3rd dimensional creature is able to evade us so effectively and for so long as the SAS.

    2. Many people see them. And get about as many pictures as they do of any other animal out there, which is, for the non-dedicated non-wildlfe photog non-Patterson, none.

    Sorry, but I have yet to see just one picture, among all of them, which appears to be the real deal. Since we already disagree on Patterson’s clip I doubt we’ll have a meeting of minds around video evidence.

    3. Science just doesn’t want to be bothered with it unless forensically testable evidence - which they define “live or dead sasquatch, bones, or fuhgedaboudit” - is dumped right at their lab door.

    Given all the frauds mixed into this already controversial topic I’d give “science” the benefit of the doubt. The SAS is not a creature which can be stalked and studied by field biologist like the rest of the animal kingdom. It’s not just bones and artifacts which we cannot produce in evidence. Outside of first hand witnesses and a few foot tracks we have nothing else to present to science. I do believe if science was able to “touch” one of these SAS it would be a discovery on the magnitude of rediscovering a living Tyrannosaurus Rex.

    4. This seems to be translated into incredible, otherworldly powers that sighting reports just don’t substantiate.

    No there are no “powers” involved here. I do believe the SAS is a wild, prehistoric creature with about the intelligence of a chimpanzee. However I don’t think they are as smart or clever enough to elude us for this long. There has to be another explanation. Either the SAS just does not exist or they are creatures of the 4th dimension. Even the SAS may not be entirely in control of their entry/exit through this portal. The 4th dimension is not necessarily paranormal or supernatural. It’s simply a world we humans are unaware of. Think of all the weird creatures around the world people have witnessed but none could follow up on much less track it down.

    I’ll make a personal prediction: We will not find any real, verifiable evidence of the SAS using conventional tool methods. I am betting it’s not going to happen for at least another 50 years and probably much more.

60. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    treeclaw: I’ll make a personal prediction of my own. Actually, two.

    1. When science wants to find the sas, it will.

    2. If science never wants to, it probably never will, and if it does, it will be by literally having one dumped in its lap - by, say, an 18-wheeler.

    OK, free bonus prediction.

    3. When #2 happens, we’ll find out it’s a critter with no more connections beyond our dimensions than we have.

    WE are so powerful we make the sas appear invisible with just a snap of our ignora…sorry, fingers.

61. treeclaw responds: April 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    2. If science never wants to, it probably never will, and if it does, it will be by literally having one dumped in its lap - by, say, an 18-wheeler.

    Science did look at all the evidence brought to them: Which was not much in the first place. So basically you’re stating your absolute conviction in the existance of a 3rd dimension SAS. But you say it is up to Science to prove this. That’s like me saying I believe the tooth fairy is 100% real and awaiting discovery. But it is “science”’s problem to prove it.

    There have been many expeditions organized for the purpose of rooting out the SAS. They all failed miserably. Science is not about to embark on a wild goose chase after something that cannot be found.

62. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    treeclaw:

    I’ve devoted many dozens of posts, and tens of thousands of words, on this board to what I’ll sum up as follows: you’re wrong, word for word.

    Please don’t make me retype all of it again. Put “sasquatch evidence” in the search engine for this board, and read away.

    Just look for my posts; they’ll set ya straight.

    Some of us do our homework here.

63. DWA responds: April 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    treeclaw2:

    If that don’t suffice:

    1. Go to the BFRO website and read the FAQ thoroughly.

    2. Read sighting reports. (The BFRO and TBRC websites tend to have the most and the best.)

64. Chevychik responds: April 18th, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    Treeclaw: I don’t get your disbelief that this is real. It’s so real to me that it can’t be anything else. You can see her muscles moving under her hair and if you look close (as in some of the DVD’s that have covered this many times) you can see a large cyst on her right upper thigh. Or what is believed to be a cyst. It moves in and out of focus with her natural gait.

    Her gait is a bit more primate due to the knees moving inwards as she walks and the reason she has to move her whole body to look behind her is because her neck is short. Her conical shaped head is more common in LARGE bi-pedals based on size and weight and not because of gender. Some believe only male gorillas have conical (cone shaped) heads. It’s size related, not gender related. If mountain gorillas females got as large as their male counterparts, they would be cone shaped too.

    The more North (cold weather) you go the larger animals, perhaps hominids in this case, get. Bears included.

    Her gait is quite long if you do your research. Wasn’t it about 5 feet between steps? I can’t remember exactly, but many have tried to follow her steps in experiments but could only keep it up for a few steps then had to start hopping/jumping to the next one. She is only over 6 foot, but her girth is strong and large. Her movements are fluid and graceful considering her size.

    I have come to find her frightened and charming at the same time. Bless her heart……..she probably has a small one she’s concerned about.

    There’s some who believe there may be another “something” in the trees ahead of her. A watcher for protection maybe? But there hasn’t been any proof of that.

    I believe that what you are looking at is the most wonderful video of a true Sasquatch (a hominid). I do not believe they are gigantopithicus blackii anymore.

    What I see is a stick or some other item in her left hand that is dropped at some point. It almost looks like a penis in one frame, but I don’t believe it was because she is clearly female by her large breasts. (Another reason this is not a fake suit. No man would think about putting breasts on the fake suit they were going to wear.)

    I see a tumor or bump or cyst on her upper right thigh (this has been scrutinized closely) and she is powerful. There was no ability to make a suit of this caliber in the late 60’s and this has been confirmed by the most talented in Hollywood at that time. If you want to see how well they made monkey suits at that time, rent Planet of the Apes. Ridiculously fake.

    Her face is not primate and large hominids lived on this planet before us. She is a small gal for a Sasquatch, but she is a real gem.

65. snake responds: May 7th, 2007 at 12:01 am

    I’ve read that the moving musculature of the Patty creature was created by using water bags under the fur costume. But I believe the Patty creature is a living cryptid.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|