The Best Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage
Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 20th, 2007
In one month, it will have been 40 years since Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had their incredible encounter with an apparently female Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, California, on October 20, 1967. The resulting footage is the best piece of evidence we have for a population of unknown, bipedal primates - most often known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot - that lives, allegedly, in the wilderness areas of North America.
Why do I think the encounter’s resulting footage is authentic?
I feel it brings forth many forms of evidence:
1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.
2. There are contemporary sightings, from the 1950s, here.
3. In this specific incident, the animal was seen.
4. It was smelled.
5. It was sensed by the horses.
6. A trackway of at least ten prints was found, the tracks casted and preserved - via film and in a physical state - for others to analyze. Such examinations reveal flexible, animate feet for this cryptid, known locally as a Bigfoot (and referred to as Sasquatch farther north, in Canada).
7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.
For me, all of the above combine into the virtual and visible vortex of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.
- Similar Phenomena:
I agree, Loren, that the footage is authentic.
Loren,
Thanks for the post and for choosing that wonderful comparison between the original footage and the BBC re-creation more than thirty years later. Thirty years of innovative leaps in make up and special effects in the film and tv industries; and still nothing comes close to resembling the subject of the Patterson film (except, perhaps, Chewbacca — what a wookie! — some ten years later; and even with what become Industrial Light and Magic behind him, Chewie still moves like a human). That alone screams volumes.
Can’t say there’ve been quite as many leaps, special-effects-wise in the last 10 years, just to clarify.
After viewing photos and video of this film for over 35 years. I still get a feeling that I can’t describe and one that I don’t get veiwing any other supposed film and photographic evidence. When I couple this with the absurd attempts to recreate a film of the encounter I find this to be the best reasoning for me to beleive in the film’s authenticity.
I agree, Loren.
I believe the film is a legitimate visual recording of an unlisted North American species, a bigfoot.
I stand accused, tried and convicted of having said here, at least once, that P/G’s time has passed.
Of course, I was wrong then and I’m wrong now.
Each new generation of zoologists - that is, any of them that have an ounce of the questing and questioning spirit essential to the best science in them - will be challenged by this film.
It’s not only never been debunked; no one has ever come close to explaining how it could have been faked.
It stands unsullied on top of the hill. And sooner or later, it’s gonna gather enough snow to start rolling downhill to an answer.
Yes, that is a nice comparison shot… I think Patty is real too; For some of the reasons Loren mentioned, but it’s mostly intuitive…I just don’t sense a human there. I also can break down many aspects of the anatomy and find it very hard to reconcile with the state of costume making of that time or a human being inside that incredibly muscular and BUSTY thing, moving in a way no-one ever thought to in a movie that I’m aware of and I own over 600 movies most of them old SCi-Fi.. Today we have Rick Baker among others who could probably do something remarkable…and maybe very close, but it would be such an expensive thing, probably costing hundreds of thousands if not a million $ that it’s pretty laughable to think Patterson and Gimlin had that type of dough back then and only came up with a few seconds of film on such an investment! It just doesn’t follow. In the late 80’s Baker did put out a fairly decent Bigfoot for Harry and the Hendersons; that made Chewy look silly, but Patty makes Harry look silly in turn. She’s real, but a lot of folks just don’t want to deal with it. End of story.
Well said, Loren. Can’t wait for the day I can say “Told you so”.
That BBC recreation is awful. You’d think that eleven years after Harry and the Hendersons they could come up with something a little more convincing.
I’m not sure that the comparison to the BBC “recreation” is legitimate - they did a crappy job, plain and simple, and to use that one example to say that fakery is virtually impossible is a stretch.
The arm length on Patty is unremarkable - I think if she were standing upright the hands would fall above the knee and within a normal range for a human. I think what makes the BBC costumes arms look so short is the angle and the lousy costume - the length of the hair on the legs almost makes it look like a satyr.
The other problem I have with Patty is her butt - in the most recent image stabilizations it looks like they don’t move in relation to the thighs; in fact there’s a crease where the right thigh actually moves under the right cheek.
I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy - 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.
Just my 2 cents.
As usual interesting reading. Looks like I remain the lone dissent: I still don’t buy it. The face looks covered with a hat-like wig & beard like facial mask. There appears to be a symmetrical circling around the nose and eyes. From recollection of the actual video it walked rather akwardly in human fashion.
Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!
Evaluating this film on its own, I think it looks authentic. But, after putting it in the greater context that demands that this large primate be able to make it through the harsh winters of North America, logic trumps this film.
Tropical Asia, maybe. North America? I doubt it.
Still, this site is great, and would love to get a great big “I told you so” from Loren someday.
showme: bears live in the temperate zone, the tropics and the Arctic.
And one species of monkey lives where the winters regularly bring snow.
There’s no model anywhere that says an ape can’t do this.
And this is why I keep saying: RSR! Sighting reports describe an animal very well adapted to living in places where it snows a lot.
“Logic” doesn’t say anything about this animal. Unless one refers to the evidence, to which logic says: Quite plausible.
Did Roger Patterson ever try drawing what he filmed? If so, I’d like to see it side-by-side with a still from the film. I tried to found out for myself, but was only able to find these three pictures (This is the source for the first and last images) I also found an interesting sculpture of his (notice how it compares the the cover of his book. Also, I believe the mask at the bottom is the “Patty mask made from a modified Tor Johnson mask” that’s mentioned in the thread).
Also, am I the only one who thinks its odd that the horses supposedly got spooked by Patty’s scent and yet were still willing to follow its tracks soon after?
I have discussed this topic so many times on this site before, that I will refrain too much from rehashing my views here but I do have two cents to throw in. In essence, I am an open minded skeptic on this footage. There are many compelling reasons why I feel it may be real, and there are some that lead me in the other direction as well.
To me, one of the latter is the glaring absence of any other footage of this quality, indeed anything even approaching it. While that may seem to be in the film’s defense, I think it is odd that not a single person except Patterson would have ever captured any comparable footage, or anything even close. Now before other posters chime in and give me reasons why the lack of footage might be, I have heard most of them before and I can only say that 40 years is a very long time. In that time, nothing like this has been put forward. I find it odd that a large animal that is apparently able to be properly filmed in its native habitat once would not have been adequately filmed at least a few other times and thus leaving us with one clip of footage upon which to base countless theories and extrapolate sasquatch movement and phenotype. One clip for as long as this huge creature has been out there seems strange especially considering that groups have gone out searching just as Patterson did and turned up merely tantalizing signs of sasquatch, or nothing at all.
This is not reason enough for me to dismiss this video by a long shot, and as I said there are lots of things that to me point to this being a real creature. I do not mean to detract from the pros of the film that Loren and others have mentioned and those are all very valid. Indeed there are possible reasons for the lack of video footage, as filming even known creatures in their natural habitat is no easy task and the fleeting factors of filming this elusive creature may just not have come together as they did on the fateful day this footage was taken. It’s not enough to make me disregard this video, but it is one of the things that makes me step back from all the praise and think.
I am hoping that new footage of a comparable quality will turn up and allow us to cross reference the two.
Loren
This is the best you got, 40 years on? Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd that the evidence hasn’t gotten better since the Johnson administration?
A few comments on the aspects of the P/G film that impress Loren:
“1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of higher primate, locally called Oh-Mah.”
This is irrelevent; nearly any area of North American wilderness (especially in the Pacific Northwest) will have some variation of stories of a Native American wildman myth attached to it.
“4. It was smelled.
5. It was sensed by the horses.”
These have never been proven, but let’s assume they are true. I’m curious to know how Loren is certain that what Patterson and Gimlin smelled was indeed a Bigfoot, and not some other foul odor that are common in wilderness areas. And how does Loren know that the horses sensed a Bigfoot? Do horses only rear in the presence of a Bigfoot? Of course not.. any number of things can cause a horse to rear or act oddly. This is hardly good supporting proof of the authenticity of the film.
“7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analyses of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probable unknown living primate, and not an elaborate or casual hoax.”
Sigh. Come on… you know as well as I do that no one has “verified” that the P/G film is “authentic,” nor of a “probable unknown living primate.” Assertions are fine, but let’s stick to the facts…
There’s one thing I can never really stop thinking about from the first time I read it, even though it isn’t evidence from the film itself. This is that, from the moment it was clear that great numbers of people weren’t believing it, Patterson and Gimlin had “nothing to lose, and probably a lot to GAIN,” from confessing to a hoax, and explaining how they did it. Certainly if they were after money more than anything else, this would have been the next thing to do. But of course, Patterson never did this, and Gimlin hasn’t done it in all this time. Again, this isn’t evidence in the same sense, but it seems impossible to ignore it.
There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.
“I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”
The arms say a lot..good to see the two pics side by each…
hard to believe to is bogus for the simple reason that the perps stood to make a fortune and no one ..did they ?
sluggo
# gridbug responds: September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
There’s an underlying “something” about the Patterson film that just feels right, and has yet to be surpassed by modern makeup effect technology. The gait, the posture, the body mass, the glance over the shoulder… it’s just too correct to be a falsification. It’s not often that a snippet of film can produce wonder and shivers at the same time.
“I was only a boy when I first saw the scene. It scared me then, and it scares me now…”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree completely with gridbug’s post.
On an instinctual level, this creature “feels” real.
Mr. Radford - If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.
Or put another way. I still don’t see enough evidence to prove that Patty is the real McCoy. Just the same, good work Loren. I do enjoy reading your articles, thanks!
And I don’t see any evidence that proves Patty is a fake, like the suit. Don’t you think that if the person that had the suit for this video, specially after all these years. They would come forward and say, look, the P/G video is a hoax. Patty is fake, here is the suit I wore. Or here is the suit that was worn.
That would be the best evidence for proof that she is fake. But has anybody come forward with a suit ? No, because one doesn’t exist. You’d have to have some huge thigh muscle for it show through a suit like Patty’s does. Unless it was your birthday suit. Like Patty’s is. So that is one major factor why I think te video is real. Besides the fact that, well, Patty just doesn’t look like a person in a suit. Well, maybe she does. Like I said, it’s her birthday suit though.
And I too live for the day, when I get to say, I told you so, to so many people that laugh at me about this subject!
The closed minded Butt Heads!
MadMatt32171 wrote:
“I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy - 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.”
So do it. Get your camera. Get your big guy. Get your monkey suit. Make it tight. And just do it. Film it. Compare.
Or better, let us compare.
Words don’t mean JACK, dude.
Knock yourself out.
I think what you’re gonna get is gonna be downright laughable because the film is the real deal.
Loren has expressed his view here, and I respect that–he’s been working in this field for a long time and one can’t fault him for taking a stance on the Patterson bigfoot; perhaps one should, after all, say “yes” or “no” to things like this, and not stand on fences. Nevertheless, no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot bring myself to get off this particular fence and take a dive into the “yes” or “no” side. The Patterson film simply does not constitute “evidence” to me. Furthermore, I am resolute that it should not constitute evidence to anyone. It is not a physical artifact of a “bigfoot” (such as a body, or hair sample, or scat, etc.) but is, rather, mere images on celluloid–and film, as we know, CAN be faked. Yes, there are circumstances where a film of this kind could be reasonably judged authentic… but here they do not apply. What we have, with the Patterson film, is a living thing–incongruous with what we know about established biology and zoology–filmed very briefly and at a distance, witnessed by only two men. What can be said about it definitively? Very little. But clearly it is quite possible and plausible for two men to cook up a scheme (involving a third to wear the suit) to fake a sighting such as this, and to carry it out. That circumstantially the film resists easy dismissal on this ground does not, in itself, constitute proof that the subject of the film is real.
Now, here I do not at all refer to Mr. Coleman, whom I believe to be a scrupulously honest, careful, and professional sort… but the fact is that I never cease to be appalled at the hyperbole which is freely tossed around about this subject by others in the field and particularly by people who write in to this forum. It is simply not true, as asserted in one of the postings above, that “no one has even come close to explaining how it could have been faked.” In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked; Patterson may have constructed a suit or had one constructed, may have enlisted someone to wear the suit, and then filmed the well-choreographed sequence we have today. That it might have been a difficult undertaking for Patterson may or may not be the case; but at any rate that, as I said, does not constitute proof that Patterson couldn’t have done it. And as long as the possibility exists that he could, it’s utterly wrong to blithely dismiss this possibility simply because we want to believe. Were bigfoot in legend–and more importantly in the film–a twenty foot tall monstrosity with six arms and three heads (or some such configuration) we could of course much more reasonably dismiss the possibility of a hoax in this case. But bigfoot is none of these things. The bigfoot in Patterson’s film is well within the range of a man-sized creature, moving very much like a man (something which in itself speaks against the likelihood that this is a real, non-human animal) and is therefore more likely to be a man in a suit than an unknown primate or what have you.
Notice I say “likely.” Here I sit on the fence. I do not say and have never said that I believe Patterson’s film to be a fake; I merely say it could have been, and reasonably so… and as such it does not equal evidence to me.
Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.
Great post! I still believe that the P-G footage is authentic, and one of the best clues we currently have towards the existence of bigfoot.
IMO, especially for its time, the creature is way too detailed and realistic to be a hoax. Just looking at the shape, anatomy, musculature, etc. I can’t see that being a costume. The fur and musculature sits firmly upon the figure rather than seeming like a separate suit over another body. The face, while its far away and blurred, looks to be much more detailed than an old costume as well.
I also disagree with the idea that ‘why are P-G the only people who ever had such an encounter’…
We have animals we find today that no one has ever seen at all despite exploring the territory. So who’s to say an elusive, intelligent-seeming humanoid can’t go unseen?
Heck- I still find bugs in my own small backyard that I have never seen before (despite a lifelong interest in insects and digging up my yard and through the grass/bushes for the past almost 3 decades.
Just b/c something was only seen once, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Things that were never seen at all are there right under our noses. Some creatures are just better at hiding.
Who knows what deep caves bigfoots may live in? I’ve been in bear caves…. and guess what- no bears in sight! Where are they? I dunno, but I do know they exist.
There’s one park I go to nearby that has an extremely high population of deer for the small size of a park it is. I almost never see even 1 deer there.
Because even when there is a huge abundance of animals, they somehow still remain hidden even when you are looking for them.
I know you can’t compare deer to bigfoots, but it’s the same concept of how well creatures can remain hidden:
An animal so overpopulated (deer) can remain unseen while you’re trying to find them.
So why is it so odd that something rare, elusive, and (supposedly) very intelligent, wouldn’t know how to keep out of view of people even while they are searching for it?
rbhess wrote:
“In fact it’s quite easy to explain how it could have been faked…”
True enough.
It’s very easy to explain how it could have been faked, but very difficult to explain how it could have been faked without overlooking important details, using a great deal of hyperbole yourself, as well as imagination to the extreme.
So far, all explanations have bordered on ridiculous, and in light of the facts in this case, have really just made not much sense.
The fact that NO ONE has been able to replicate the film is VERY relevant, because it serves toward demonstrating the difficulty involved in staging such an event, especially in 1967, in a rough, debris-strewn creekbed, in a non-stop piece of film.
rbhess also wrote:
“Those that [sic] demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.”
Geez. Do you people just look at yourselves in the mirror everyday and say to yourself, “I must be condescending. I must be condescending. I must be condescending….”
Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.
Challenging someone to carry out their boastful and brash words, is not at all indicative that anyone needs a lesson in the scientific method. I rather think you probably need to take a remedial course in “Playground Etiquette 101.”
From “showme”:
Oh this was sad to see someone say this.
One of the most adaptive great apes, the naked ape Homo sapiens has been able to live in a wide variety of climates, far beyond the tropics. Who is to not say that the wide-ranging Sasquatch have not also evolved thusly?
And, of course, more than humans have lived in temperate climates, as the fossil records shows varied examples. One of the best known, of course, is Dryopithecus who lived in temperate Europe. Indeed, the name Dryopithecus means “oak-tree ape,” for some Dryopithecus were found with oak tree stumps and oak leaves.
hey loren, totaly agree with you & everyone above replys the p/g film does look authentic & the best piece of evidence about the sasquatch pheanomena yet the conterversy continues about it but i guess that how stuff happens. thanks.
40 years and still the P-G film can create a lot of controversy. That’s a good thing.
The film may be real (as I stated on ther thread I’m 30-40% convinced myself), but still more evidence is needed.
And another video won’t suffice either I’m afraid, not in this era of computer simulations at least.
But another video or photograph migth still be beneficial because it would convince more people to put more effort and funds into finding these creatures, use more sophisticated technology, like IP cameras on top of trees or something.
Maybe a very good photograph could convince a Bill Gates or a Paul Allen to give a couple millions into what could be the greatest biological discovery of all time.
How much money you think it could take to find Sasquatch? 1 million? 10?
And I think that even if we DO find one of these creatures, there won’t be a “told you so” from the P-G film supporters, since there would STILL be people doubting the authenticity of the film.
I was 19 when this footage was taken, it seems as real to me today as it seemed then.
You have to be self absorbed to be able to think you know just what can adapt where. Nature has a way. Look at a penguin or a seal in a zoo, do they look like they should or could be swimming around and under ice, or living in cold climates. What would make a bigfoot less adaptable than a moose or elk? We now know that some dinosaurs lived in cold climates.
Loren correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a study done of this film by Disney studios in the late 60’s or early 70’s specifically asking what it would cost to replicate this film. Wasn’t that cost in the vicinity of $50,000 then. Probably a couple more zeros than Patterson had.
“Mr. Radford - If this video is a fake, how come no one has been able to come CLOSE to replicating it in the last 40 years. Many, many have tried, and without fail they all look like a man in a suit.”
The burden of proof is on the claimants to prove it is real, not on critics to prove it is fake. Besides that, it’s bad logic: You seem to be saying that a lack of definitive evidence proving the film is a fake means that it must be real…this makes no sense.
For all those who demand to know where the suit is (after 40 years), or where the proof that the film is faked is: As cryptofolks are fond of saying, “absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.” That applies to Bigfoot, and also to proof that the film is a fake.
Humans have adapted to colder climates because they can alter their circumstances by wearing clothing and using fire. We are not “naked apes” anymore when the temperature drops. Have any claims for clothing or firemaking ever been made concerning Sasquatch?
I’m intrigued by the fossil evidence of Dryopithecus in Europe, but do we know exactly how cold it was back then?
Sergio: You’re right - Words don’t mean JACK, and your saying that P_G is “the real deal” doesn’t make it so. But don’t worry- should I ever have the time or inclination to fake a BigFoot video, I’ll let you have the first crack at it.
AtomicMrEmonster: That Tor Johnson/Patty mask is a dead ringer- what’s its history? Was this done as an experiment to prove that a mask could have been made, or did it turn up as a result of research. I followed the link to the thread but couldn’t find any mention of it there.
I’m convinced that if I took a big enough guy - 6′5″, 325 (and I do know some people that big) and put him in a tight fitting monkey suit, the results on film would be pretty close to P-G.
Whatever. Well then convince me & the rest of us. For one, the $ issue. If you are like the rest of us, I don’t think you have the $ to come close to making a suit that look’s as good as your supposed Patty suit. Not only that. 6′5 & 325 just isn’t gonna do it my man. I’d guess that Patty is (or was) (Hope she is still with us) well over 4 hundred pounds. So honestly, I doubt you can make a video that comes even close to this one. It’s hard to duplicate the real thing. As so many have found out. I don’t know, maybe you can. So I say go for it, Get yourself a 325 pounder 6′5 fellow and make us a REAL GOOD video. And even if that was accomplished, it doesn’t prove the P/G film is fake. Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be. Doesn’t Exist!
Remember folks, this is not a “forum” but a “comments” section.
If you start arguing via personalized interchanges and begin flaming, you will see those comments of yours disappear.
Thank you for keeping it to the points of the blog and not taking it off-topic or personalizing it.
“Pretty much the only proof the P/G film is fake for me would be a suit, that could be authenticated to the time through analysis. It has never been brought forth & never will be.”
Again with the faulty logic! Does anyone else see just how ridiculous this burden of proof is? All that this person (and many others I’ve spoken to) needs to have the film be real is that the suit not materialize! So if what’s left of the suit is rotting away in a Spokane garbage dump, or if someone simply took a few minutes to burn the suit to destroy evidence of the hoax, then that automatically makes the film real…. “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”… remember?
Attention all Bigfoot hoaxers: As long as you destroy any definitive evidence of your hoax, people will assume your hoax must be the real thing!
I’ve always thought this footage was legit. When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate. Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.
“When you factor in what it would have cost to pull off such an elaborate hoax, it only strengthens the argument in favor of the film being legitimate.”
Really? How do you know how much it would have cost to create the P/G film? Do you have a real estimate, or just a wild guess? Seems to me it could have been as little as a few hundred dollars…
“Perhaps if these anomalies where looked at as “real until proven fake” instead of the opposite-we could advance our knowledge so much more.”
This is a fascinating suggestion… anomalies should be considered real until proven fake. So we should assume that dragons, fairies, sea serpents, ghosts, and anything else that anyone considers “anomalous” are actual events. That is exactly the opposite of science.
How, exactly, will that “advance our knowledge so much more”?
Those that demand that anyone must prove it to be a fake–or demand that skeptics must duplicate it in order to substantiate their skepticism–well, those people simply do not understand science and how it works. And I counsel them to go back and take some kind of remedial course somewhere on the scientific method, or at least go read a good book about it.
One doesn’t need science to know that no suit has ever been brought forth. And I honestly think that if one existed, it would of been brought forth by now.
I have read the majority of the comments here.
I will put in my 2 cents.
a) This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away. The posterior tells the tale. I would like all the readership here to get a copy of that book. Order one either via Hancock Publishing House up in Washington state, via Amazon, or even via interlibrary loan. Get the book, read it. Look at the stills.
b) Ape suits that are well done are not difficult to make (that is, ones that don’t “have a zipper showing”). I don’t have the URL link off hand, but there is a website forum on-line, all about the P-G film , and has many images (film stills) of ape costumes from the 1940s and 1950s (that is, ten to 25 years earlier) from a variety of wild creature and monster-type movies that look very veracious (and there is no zipper to be seen, and now usage of prosthetic extenders for arms, none of that). So attempting to use the BBC’s “mock-umentary” effort (you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget, and this still shown in this thread is from another BBC production suffering from such a fiscal malady) is bogus. I hope that one of the readers here can supply that specific URL link to the discussion forum showing the film stills, etc. from other “ape” films. That particular website is very enlightening, very instructive.
c) Ape suits do not need to be exceptionally complex to be viewed (especially in a long shot, as the P-G film is) as decently “real.”
d) Wasn’t there already articles about a guy claiming to be the person who was in the suit? What about that? Why not have a thread about that facet? He was even on some TV program, and underwent a polygraph. The polygraph examination indicated he was not lying. Wasn’t there a Mark Chorvinsky (please excuse if I have the wrong person–an editor with Strange magazine) article about the guy in the suit also?
e) This P-G film is NOT the only footage of Sasquatch out there. I am exceptionally puzzled as to why NO ONE in this thread is talking about the video footage on the back end of DVD “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”….I don’t have it right in front of me, but there is a very extended video clip by a park ranger of one of these creatures walking in front of a pine tree, and later on, attempting to hide behind a thicket, and later, on, appears to pick up something animate and small and walks off…THAT is a real sasquatch video. THAT has more weight (yes, it is also not very clear, but it’s real, from my viewing of it)…that videotape has more verismillitude than this P-G film. (There is also another video at the back of the DVD as well of a running Sasquatch, perhaps. That one I have reservations about. But this 1994 clip, if memory serves, looks like what the “atmospherics” would be of videotaping creatures out in the wild, in the woods.)
f) I think there is a grave peril, Loren, when you hang your hat on this P-G film footage. Because if it is proven to be fake, beyond a reasonable doubt, less interested bystanders will tell you, “Hey, you said this was real. And it’s fake. Let’s go, Mabel.” See what I am saying? Cyrptozoology cannot afford to “bless” questionable footage as being REAL and AUTHENTICATED (truly, the P-G film footage has not been shown to be, in either labeling). Let’s move forward, and get some real, true, outrageously grand central footage.
g) You talk about the footprints at the site allegedly left by Patty. How much examination of these prints has there been? I dimly recall reading that there were several rains between the “event” and the actual filming of some of those prints, when Patterson went back to film them (I hope that I am recalling that correctly). (I am attempting to say that the footprints from the P-G event weren’t fresh.)
h) What I will say, is that the P-G film is a catalyst for further research. That is what I will agree to, and stand on as a position on this topic, a viewpoint that I can 100% whole-heartedly support.
And here we go, off for 100 posts again!
One thing that needs no proof, because we prove it over and over again, right here: if this was a hoax, there has never been another anywhere near its league. Not one that’s ever been sniffed out, anyway. Sheer genius, to do it with less than a minute of film. Sound like Patterson to you?
1. One of the funniest things about the sasquatch is all the lame attempts to explain why “no one ever sees one.” MANY, MANY people see these animals. RSR!
2. If any other animal can adapt to a cold climate, there is nothing that says or even implies that the sas can’t. He doesn’t need fire, any more than bear or moose do. How in the world can anyone say there’s any scientific evidence that apes can’t live in the cold? Everything else does: there are fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, all the way down to protozoans that can do it. (Some can even live frozen.) There were elephants that did, and rhinoceroses that did. What, apes are the sole exception? The sas’s size is one item in its favor; its ability to routinely catch and eat many things other animals (like bears) can’t is another. I could go on, but why? It’s silly. If the sas exists, voila! we have a snow ape to go with our snow monkey. Eureka!
3. What skeptics need to get over - and can’t - is the General Implausibility Theorem. There is nothing anywhere in the scientific canon that pronounces the sasquatch impossible, implausible or even unlikely. Show me why you think it can’t exist, or even why it is unlikely that it does, and I will show you - easily - why you are wrong. No one has met this challenge yet, so don’t waste your time.
4. If you showed a scientist from a far galaxy every life form on earth - except us and the sas - and told him to pick which of the two latter was the most plausible based on what he now knew, the alien would pick the sas, every single time. WE are the science-fiction fantasy that can’t exist. Yet here we are.
5. Here it is. No one who knows about this animal even what I know considers it either (a) unlikely or (b) nonexistent. Not if he’s smart enough to understand what he knows.
Period.
And yes, I’m a skeptic on the sas. Which, if you say you are, should really give you pause. You’re not a skeptic; you are a closed-eyed, feverishly-praying nonbeliever.
Sorry. I deal in facts; and there it is. Facts.
and rl_esteves:
Exactly right. Patterson-Gimlin can elicit only one rational response: That’s an unknown animal. Until we prove it isn’t.
Too many people, including scientists, when faced with the unknown, forget how science is supposed to work. The thinking that suppresses and stymies knowledge is NOT how science works! Not when it’s working.
P/G is evidence. When science is working properly, evidence is FOLLOWED UP TO A CONCLUSION.
I agree with Loren, my own views:
The object moves fluidly in the terrain, it is comfortable and confident as it moves along a dry riverbed and up into the trees. I have yet to see a person in a suit do this, unless they have practiced for weeks to do it in a movie. Until I see an amateur pull off this kind of confident motion in a hoax video, I remain convinced of the film’s authenticity on this alone.
The object matches thousands of eyewitness descriptions. Barrel body. Very long arms. Conical head. Fur covered chest. On and on. And to top it off, the object is very female, a feature that is seldom reported but when reported, again MATCHES The video. Why would they make a female suit? MUCH harder to pull off, and so few sightings are female. No, they would have gone with the modified male gorilla suit job.
I disagree with the poster on here that states that a human could anatomically fit in that shape. I would like to see that demonstrated. Every demonstration I have seen proves the opposite.
i think the footage is fake, but I still think there may be bigfoot out there. maybe an unpopular opinion here, but never the less, i am entitled to it. to me, it looks like a person in a suit, even examining the close-ups, it still doesn’t convince me. patterson was a con artist, thats well documented. The P/G Bigfoot doesn’t move like an animal thats been hiding in the wild for all these years, even giant gorillas move with great fluidity and stealth. The P/G Bigfoot looks nothing like that.
greenmartian2007: it does nothing for your stance against Loren that you commit the same sins of which you accuse him, in spades.
1. “This P-G film is not real. As in showing a real Sasquatch. The film stills mentioned prior to in Christopher Murphy’s book (discussed by me in another thread) blow this all away.”
Only two things I need to say to this. (a) The stills you mention don’t blow anything away but the notion that this critter can be easily blown away. Unless you have info to which we are not privy - like details - and are prepared to share that with us. The “posterior” item you discuss was lonog ago dismissed as the red herring it is. I own the book of which you speak. Makes a good case for the animal. And says: P/G is a real, unknown critter. (b) “Didn’t they confirm the existence of this animal last year? Come on, Mabel.” Grave peril there, gm.
2. Your comments in b) and c) of your post. I have seen two, count ‘em two, pieces of video sas evidence that I have not immediately dismissed as either fake or blobsquatch. P/G is one. An ape suit that can convince me that ain’t human is something against which I’d be willing to bet, if you gotta put a human in it, and make him look natural. People in ape suits have universally looked, in my experience, precisely like people in ape suits. P/G looks nothing like any ape suit I have ever seen; and all ape suits, in fundamental respects, look alike. (Human proportions, for one thing, a dead giveaway. A human walking in them, yet another.)
3. Your comments in d) of your post. I deal only in facts and evidence and here’s a fact: no one has made a claim to involvement in a P/G hoax whose testimony wasn’t ludicrous on its face. Period.
4. How can you say what you say in h) after everything else you said? If it is fake, exactly what is it catalyzing? Further research in Really Good Fake Suits?
(You may see the skeletal beginnings of this post above. Keystroke glitch.)
When Sergio says:
“Look, when somebody boasts that they can simply replicate the footage by just putting a big guy in a tight monkey suit and filming him walk through a creekbed, then they need to do it; don’t talk about about, don’t write about it, just do it, if it’s that easy.”
He hits the nail right on the head.
See, this is the skeptics’ problem: thinking they can get away with outlandish claims that MUST be proven for the skeptic to have a position a thinking person is obliged to respect.
They say it’s easy, and in 40 years no one has come within 50 miles of beginning to get really far away from it.
It gets pretty tiresome to see the same old urban-ignoramus arguments-against, particularly when spewed by people alleging credentials. I don’t care if you are a scientist or not. I can tell out of which orifice you are speaking on this topic, pretty much instantly.
Try me. You are getting SO old. Try thinking. It’s sort of standard on this site.
Sheesh. Fort was RIGHT!
MadMatt32171:
The mask was made a few years ago using materials available in the 60’s. Back in 2005, a guy by the name “Dfoot” built such a mask for a Halloween Bigfoot dummy. The total cost of the dummy was about $250! The pictures of the dummy are gone, but the comments about it were very positive. The mask was made by taking a Don Post Tor Johnson mask, attaching a mouth (and, apparently, chin) cut from a Don Post “Bongo the Chimp” mask to it, and then building up some details and adding hair to it. Dfoot claimed that this naturally created the “dent” seen on Patty’s face (His comments make it seem to have been prior to when the mask got its details built up;I think the picture on the bottom right is the “unfinished mask with a fake eye”).
Here is a picture of a “Bongo the Chimp” mask; I haven’t found a picture of a Don Post Caveman mask yet. I’ve found several Don Post Tor Johnson masks, but I’m not sure when they were made or which style they are (thicker, high quality masks-I’m not sure of the date or maker, but this shows what I’m talking about-and thin, less sculpted versions for the cheap crowd/kids-as seen in pharmacies in October).
This 1964 ad for what seems to be these types of masks for $30.00, whereas this ad advertises $8.95 masks. This site claims that this is a 60’s Tor Mask and that it sold for $8.95. Here are some other $8.95 masks. To me, the price implies that this could be one of the “thin, cheap” masks. Searching this site’s gallery section found several masks, one is said to be a 90’s redesign and the others aren’t dated (and often have custom paint jobs). Also, a Don Post gorilla suit cost $450 and up in 1964. I’m not saying Patterson used a Don Post ape suit, I’m merely showing how much a good premade ape suit went for then.
This could explain Patty’s supposedly short hairs. Patterson would need hair for the mask, hands, and feet and, if he didn’t/couldn’t buy more fake fur, he could’ve cut the long hairs on the suit in half and used the clippings on them.
mystery_man:
Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).
I haven’t seen these yet and don’t know how accurate they are, but I figured that people here would be interested:
The movie “Phantom of the Rue Morgue” supposedly has a gorilla suit with a Patty-esque body.
I’ve heard that the cotton batting muscles used for George Reeves’ costume on the old Superman TV series moved with his body.
Apparently, there’s a scene in “Watchers Reborn” where a monster has to turn its entire torso around, a la Patty.
I’ve also heard that the workprint footage from the Star Trek pilot episode “The Cage” contains a scene with moving leg muscles being seen on an “Anthropoid Ape” costume worn by Janos Prohaska. It seems to be on the Star Trek Volume 3 DVD boxset, but I’m not 100% sure.
AtomicMrEmonster- What I meant was that there is a lack of purportedly REAL footage that is as good as the PG footage seems to be to everyone. If there was such footage available, then why is the PG footage considered the “best evidence” and has been pored over for all of these years? There is nothing seriously approaching it because if there was, it would be getting discussion time here right along with this one. Thanks for the info on Patty- esque footage though!
GreenMartian- I did not say that PG is the ONLY film of a supposed sasquatch, just that it is the only one that seems to be strikingly clear enough and of such good quality to be considered such fantastic evidence of the creature and therefore so widely embraced as real. If the clip you mentioned was so mind blowing, then why is it not discussed over and over again on forums such as this? Extraordinary claims like sasquatch are going to require extraordinary footage to make people consider it. There is not much competition with the PG film as being the definitive video evidence and this somewhat bothers me as I mentioned in my post way above. This point actually raises my skepticism about the authenticity of the film.
A lot of people seems to think that the fact that it hasn’t been reproduced and hasn’t seen much competition is a reason why it could be a real creature. Maybe. But I also think it is suspicious that no other footage like this would be produced from time to time if the creature was real. We have less clear clips out there that could be real, but nothing like PG, and that just doesn’t sit well with me. Perhaps Patterson was just incredibly lucky, at the right place, and the right time to get this footage, but with all those searching for sasquatch this hasn’t happened again to such effect? Ever? I think that maybe there is also as much a chance that a lot of factors could have fallen into place to produce an amazing hoax as well, and the possibilities have been discussed here before.
I would be more inclined to believe that this footage was definitively real if we had other comparable clips with just as much realism and a still had a lack of anyone able to reproduce them. If there was absence of any suit brought forward and these sorts of amazing clips popped up more often, that would be more indicative to me as a likely real creature even in the absence of physical evidence. But what we have is this one clip and I cannot accept it as any sort of irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot. Highly compelling? Yes. Proof? No.
Is the PG footage a once in a life time shot of a real, giant hairy hominid? I think it is possible. Is it a fluke and Patterson managed to pull of a once in a lifetime hoax? I think that is possible too, in my opinion. In the end I do not take the lack of success of anyone able to reproduce it as proof of this being authentic footage. And so, I remain on the fence.
About the footage - Hum, I could argue both sides. Things can remain hidden. I have been hiking in Iowa for many years - plenty of wildlife around here. I have never seen any bones laying around.
Yesterday a pheasant and I almost scared each other to death! I guess they like to hide in long grass.
“”(you do know that the BBC does everything on a shoe-string budget,”"
Complete nonsense. In fact, BBC documentary programes are famed for not doing things on the cheap. As a BBC licence payer, I can tell you that the BBC are reknowned for extravagant spending.
The X Creatures series certainly wasn’t done on the cheap. In the Bigfoot episode alone they actually took the time, trouble and expense to visit various out of the way scenes of past encounters and sightings. These ranged from northern California to British Columbia. I don’t know of many (any?) other Bigfoot documentaries that actualy took the time and trouble to get to these out of the way locations (from example the location of Glenn Thomas’ rock pile sighting in Oregon to Mike McDonald’s BC Fraser River sighting). They could have done it on the cheap and not bothered to visit ANY of these locations.
The BBC obviously bit off more than they could chew regarding a Patty replica. It quite plainly became obvious to them during the making of this documentary that a true replica would be either impossible or cost an extortionate amount of money…..far more than was initially realised. Only then did they cut their losses. The rest of the programme was by no means ‘done on a shoe-string budget’.
One more thing. It wasn’t a ‘BBC suit’. The X Creatures suit actually came from the award winning Optic Nerve studios, run by John Vulich. This is even more interesting.
I think a lot of people are ‘missing the point’ about the P/G footage, particularly the skeptics. It’s not the looks alone that make it very impressive but moreso the MOVEMENT of the subject. The argument that “well it’s only because the footage is not pin sharp” is almost irrelevant. We do not need it to be pin sharp to establish it’s locomotion/movement.
The subject in the P/G footage moves in such a fluid, natural and totally comfortable manner that no man in any kind of apeman or bigfoot costume has ever been capable of doing. If you watch all of them, from t.v documentaries to commercials to movies the actors in the suits never ever convey a feeling of natural and fluid body movements, nevermind out and out gaits. The subject in the P/G footage is TOTALLY UNIQUE in this respect. There has NEVER been anything even close to it.
Now if this were a suit then it was obviously a heavily padded, cumbersome and restrictive suit, not just in the upper body and arms but also in the legs and feet, yet the subject moves with no trouble whatsoever and walks and looks perfectly at home on a dried up uneven riverbed.
I defy ANY actor in any suit to walk in such a cumbersome costume with huge fake feet on along a dried up riverbed and make it look natural, fluid and convincing.
We hear so much from arrogant FX personnel that it can be done. How about they actually SHOW us how it can be done instead of TELLING us how it can be done??????
The top creature suit makers of the time…Janos Prohaska and John Chambers went on record to state the subject in the P/G footage was better than anything they could have come up with and that’s all we ever need to know.
AtomicMrEMonster wrote:
“”Try looking up the Harley Hoffman video on Youtube; it’s got some Patty-esque features (no neck, “moving muscles,” and seemingly short hair).”"
Oh come off it. That’s only in view for a second or two but even that is enough to see it’s a fake. The costume isn’t even tight fitting, the hair is longer than the P/G subject, the head is far too big in comparison to the width of the shoulders (a dead easy suit giveaway) etc etc etc.
Why don’t we see it clearly, even at a distance? Because the movements would give the game away to even the gullible….that’s why.
Patterson ‘broke all the rules’ that hoaxers stick to yet his film lives on while the hoaxes don’t.
My “gut” feeling is it is a real creature. Since neither Patterson or Gimlin made money from their “alleged” stunt it seems they filmed something unknown.
MadMatt32171 wrote:
“The arm length on Patty is unremarkable - I think if she were standing upright the hands would fall above the knee and within a normal range for a human.”
===========
That’s a common error. It’s not that Patty’s arms hang lower on her thighs that makes them “long,” it’s that they’re long in relation to her height. That’s because her legs are short in relation to her height, so both her arms and torso are relatively longer.
Roger: correct.
Of course, lots of eyewitnesses report really long arms, period. “To the knees” is frequently reported, and even somewhat below in some cases.
But this serves to raise another funny thing about skeptics. They seem to expect every sas to look exactly like Patty! Not gonna happen. Another frequent report is “it didn’t look like the animal in that film.” Well, no. It was a different individual. Selective pressures drive individual differences, which are further driven by random snapcracklepops in genetic coding. It does seem from what I’ve seen and read of other species, that primates - apes in particular - are less persnickety about appearance in choosing mates, perhaps because brainpower is so much more important to primate survival than size, streamlining, number of antler points, etc. So one would expect, I’d think, a wider range of individual appearances among the sas than one would see in other North American species.
But as most skeptics seem either unschooled in relevant disciplines, or unable to apply that knowledge to this case because of conscious or unconscious bias, I guess it’s understandable.
a) The film is not real, and I have provided at least two subject matter branches for that–one, film stills taken from the P-G film, that show definite problems in the morphology presentation of the suit that indicate fakery; two, I also mention that there is both information via print (Strange magazine article, as well as the TV program of the polygraph) that the guy who said he was in the suit, said he was in that suit. Deal with those issues, if you so choose.
b) I am not a “True Believer” in this film. It is not a matter of faith to me. I personally feel that if this film is shown to be a hoax, then so be it. I think that there is enough problems with not only the film, but also the milieu of the film that it should be set aside.
c) I do think that there is a possibility that Sasquatch exists. But it is not proven with this film. It is proven with the foot casts that show ridge detail, vocalizations that have been taped, that type of thing.
DWA, have you obtained a copy of Christopher Murphy’s book, and actually looked at the stills I have mentioned (on a fairly recent thread here, about posteriors)? If you haven’t please do.
AtomicMrEMonster said (#13):
“its odd that the horses supposedly got spooked by Patty’s scent and yet were still willing to follow its tracks soon after”
========================
I’m just speaking from a recollection of what I’ve read, but I’m pretty sure that the odor, if there was any prior to the sighting, was faint, and that it didn’t bother the horses much, if at all, prior to rounding the house-high root-ball that concealed Patty. It was the sight of that creature at close distance –30 feet or so–that did 90% of the frightening–in conjunction, perhaps, with a linking of the odor to the sight. The odor was most noticeable, according to P&G, when they followed the creature across the creek.
Only two of the horses bolted. By the time they’d been chased down, half a mile away, and brought back to the site, at least 20 minutes had passed, and the odor had mostly dissipated, according to P&G.
CrimsonFox- Yes, an animal can remain hidden even when people are out looking for it. That is true enough, but remember that those animals that you are looking for HAVE been found at one point or other, and HAVE been filmed. They have left behind indisputable physical evidence and many creatures of fewer numbers than the sasquatch is thought to have are nevertheless catalogued by science. The odds are likely slim that you are going to find a revolutionary new type of bug while digging around your yard. It may be new to you, but it has likely been classified before.
Of course I don’t mean to imply that there are no new creatures out there to be discovered. That could not be further from the truth. But the thing is the sasquatch is NOT particularly elusive, apparently. It is NOT unseen. It has been seen by thousands. It has left footprints all over, and been filmed in countless low quality clips, and had its alleged calls tape recorded many times. To say that Bigfoot is a rarely seen, reclusive creature that is hidden away in the forest to only rarely be glimpsed to me is counter to what the large amount of circumstantial evidence seems to tell us. Yet for all of that, this one clip is all that we have to show as far as clear footage goes, and I find that odd.
This is not a new type of animal that is hidden away in the farthest, remote places of the world. It is seen near settlements, near roads, in campsites, yet no fully irrefutable evidence remains in its wake. It is not like the discovery of a new species of animal that has only just been seen for the first time. Sasquatch has been seen time and time again and even searched for by specially equipped groups.
Now I think that Bigfoot could exist, and that it’s feasible that a creature of that sort could adapt to and survive and remain hidden in the vast reaches of the North American wilderness. But it is not hidden and sometimes even seems downright bold or nonchalant in the presence of humans. Patty does not seem to be in any great hurry to run away from the naked humans. So if sasquatch is seen by so many and is so apparently nonchalant, then why no clear clips like this, but rather blobsquatch after blobsquatch? I am not trying to be unreasonable here, but as an open minded skeptic, these things honestly make me think and are things for which I have not seen satisfying answers.
What bothers me and keeps me on the fence is that despite these things, even with all of the sightings and encounters, no irrefutable evidence acceptable by mainstream science nor truly remarkable film other than PG has come forward. Science is going to need that kind of evidence as it has with the other animals we know of that might seem to be hidden to you on a hiking trip, yet are nevertheless recognized as real species by the world at large. Bigfoot is not beyond the burden of proof. This is not a creature that fits into the general knowledge of North American wildlife as we know it. A new type of wolf would be an amazing find, let alone an 8 foot, hairy, bipedal hominid new to science and unrepresented by any other type of animals known to exist today. Yes, some animals are accepted on videos alone, but they are often creatures that are already represented by similar species and do not particularly pose huge jumps to accept as real, or creatures definitively known to have existed before. Sasquatch does not really have that luxury. Extraordinary claims require…..
We need that evidence, and as much as I love the PG footage and am impressed by it, I think it unfortunately just isn’t enough. For those who want real, undeniable evidence to show the naysayers that they are wrong, I think it is probably imperative to move beyond this one forty year old clip and dig up something new to show the world.
AtomicMrEMonster wrote:
I saw that video yesterday too. As I wrote I’m 30-40% convinced of the P-G film, and I’m not saying I believe completely that this other video is real.
But I too, felt there were some strong ressemblances, in the posture of the creature, and also the type of hair.
I’ll say something in favor of the P-G film: those other ape suits that have been shown here, including the one used by the BBC, lack a very crucial factor to match Patty, and it’s not just the length of the hairs, but the sheen, the lustrous coat that seems to come from a live animal. Those other suits? you can plainly see that is fake hair, they have no luster, they don’t reflect the light of the sun. That is a very important thing in the P-G film and we shouldn’t overlook it.
And this new video has some of that too. For about a second I admit; it’s way too short and it conspicously shows the creature amid the trees so you never have a complete shot of it (unlike the P-G, which IF a fake, was much bolder in its attempt to fool the audience)
So this brings me to a question to you fellow crypto-hobbyists: After 40 years, which other video evidence could be compared (or even trump) the P-G film from its position of Best Evidence? Any suggestions?
Greenmartian2007 wrote (#39):
“d) Wasn’t there already articles about a guy claiming to be the person who was in the suit? What about that? Why not have a thread about that facet? He was even on some TV program, and underwent a polygraph. The polygraph examination indicated he was not lying.”
***********************
The long answer to this question would be immense. I’ve read several books on polygraphs and have only a fuzzy sense of how it’ll shape up when I’m done. The short answer is that:
1. Patterson passed a lie detector test–and it was administered under independent auspices.
2. CIA-spy Aldrich passed a lie detector test. And so did 5 of 6 of Travis Walton’s supporting witnesses to his purported UFO abduction.
3. Few countries other than the US employ lie detectors–even their spy agencies make little use of them. If they were reliable, that would hardly be the case.
4. The National Academy issued a book-length evaluation (which I’ve bought but only dipped into) that found them to be unreliable.
5. The guy in the suit refers to his 2nd examiners as the “world famous expert, Dr. Ed Gelb.” He administered the test on national TV (on his show, “Lie Detector,”—now defunct). “Doc.” Gelb supposedly owes his doctorate to a notorious Missouri diploma mill, according to George W. Maschke. Here’s the link to his article, with the details.
6. There are simple ways to beat the lie detector, described in a 1991 paperback book from Paladin Press, “Deception Detection,” by Charles Clifton.
7. It’s standard procedure to allow polygraph test scrolls to be examined by other experts. But the supposed guy in the suit gave me a classic run-around when I attempted to have the output-scroll of his polygraph analyzed by another lie detector expert–a person recommended by the expert who’d administered the original exam, BTW, not some hired gun I’d recruited myself. The suit-guy told me, and my examiner, that he’d tell his lawyer to release the scroll to him, but the lawyer then refused to return the examiner’s calls.
———
Greenmartian2007 wrote (#39):
“Wasn’t there a Mark Chorvinsky (please excuse if I have the wrong person–an editor with Strange magazine) article about the guy in the suit also?”
***********************
No, the Chorvinsky article conflicts with the guy in the suit, because it describes a suit of a different character, made by a different person (John Chambers) than the person (Philip Morris) and suit endorsed by the current suit-claimant.
——–
Greenmartian2007 wrote (a few posts above):
“I also mention that there is … information … that the guy who said he was in the suit, said he was in that suit. Deal with those issues, if you so choose.”
***********************
Take a look at my Amazon-review, “A Tale of Two Suits,” of the book (“The Making of Bigfoot”) that presents the suit-guy’s case, at three page-downs.
That review was written 2.5 years ago. Since then I’ve expanded the number of points against him by 50%. If you want to read a thread containing most of my subsequent criticisms of his claims, start here.
The first post I’ve linked to contains this quotation from Michael Dennett:
“I think Roger Knights has raised some valid questions about Heironimus. He has examined every aspect of the Heironimus story as well as checking into his background. He has convinced me, at the very least, that Heironimus has not satisfactorily explained the questions Knights has put forward.”
Stay tuned, there’s more in the hopper.
AtomicMrEMonster (post #46, 9/20 at 9:19 PM) made reference to numerous inexpensive masks. This is a beautiful theory, but the ugly fact that kills it (pretty much) is that Patty’s lips & mouth open and close more than once in the latest enhanced / clarified versions of the PGF, such as those produced by Owen Caddy & MK Davis.
This is going nowhere. Those who believe in the film will believe. Those who don’t won’t. The P-G has never been independently corroborated and never will be, and the question of whether it was faked is unanswerable. For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on.
What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.
The comparison is really good. If is it known that horses detected something, it should be something unusual. Animals are a lot sensitive, not like us.
greenmartian2007: as to your comments.
a) I’m not the one who has to deal here. Experts in relevant subject fields have pronounced this a genuine animal. You need to address them, not me. Skeptics seem to continually ignore this inconvenient problem. They don’t seem to think they need to deal with expert testimony when it conflicts with the pat answers they’ve concocted in their heads. Despite your crack-of-doom pronouncement, the jury is still very, very much out as to the provenance of this film. (How in the world otherwise could we still be having this back and forth? After 40 YEARS?) Proponents have, however, done far more to convince me that it is real than skeptics have done to convince me that it is fake. And once again, no testimony has come from an alleged faker that has been worth the ink it took to print, much less the hot air it took to say. That is a fact, easily discernable by anyone who values evidence. It is not an opinion.
b) I don’t let True Believers - or Nonbelievers - soil this debate. I banish them at the door. It is all about evidence. So far, nothing has come from anyone sufficient to make me lean toward fakery as the source of the film. That’s not my fault; it’s theirs. And yes. If you say it is fake, you must say why, or you have no opinion worthy of my consideration. (Another inconvenient little problem skeptics choose to ignore.) If one is intelligent at all, it must cause one considerable intellectual discomfort not to be able to defend one’s position with a single fact. Proponents have done much in this wise; skeptics, less than nil.
c) This film can’t prove anything. No film can; this is the fundamental reason that science, virtually without exception, rejects the concept of photographic holotypes. (Yes, it’s happened. You can count them, I believe, on one hand.)
I have reviewed stills of the Patterson film for 40 years. It has always made me wonder what the heck that thing is - something that, for the record, every ape suit I have ever seen failed to do the instant I saw it.
Here’s my opinion: if you categorically believe the Patterson film fake, you are acting on the basis of conscious or unconscious bias or blind faith. You are not - you cannot be - dealing in facts.
And I take that back. The above is a FACT. It is not an opinion.
proriter wrote:
“For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on. What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.”
I don’t see that demonstrated here at all. I see people who seem to go to great lengths to try to debunk the film, or pronounce it a counterfeit, even in the face of contradictions and what makes sense.
I don’t WANT to “believe” in it; it is what it is: footage of an unidentified strange-looking figure that fits the description of a bigfoot. I happen to think, based on a whole list of reasons, that it’s real. I think it looks real and it has nothing to do with desires or needs.
Also, no one, that I can detect, seems to be hanging their hat on it. The blog had to do with Loren’s confidence in the validity of the film. Others agreed with him, for some of the same reasons and for different reasons.
The main point that always seems to get lost in all this is that if the film is indeed legitimate, well, the mystery ended, right there and then, in 1967. So, that makes the footage is quite relevant to the question of whether or not the creature exists. The fact that the footage has never been debunked nor replicated, in my mind, only lends to the likelihood of its legitimacy.
For the person who considers the matter of bigfoot’s existence out of the question, or even in all likelihood a myth, well of course it’s gotta be a fake; there is very little or no room for an alternative that is acceptable to such a mindset.
proriter:
“For my money, the film seems an awfully small nail to hang your hat on.”
Then don’t. God knows I don’t.
Here’s what the Patterson film is, and no, I didn’t say it, you did: a fascinating enigma that will forever challenge anyone with a brain who sees it. That’s what makes it so invaluable. Each succeeding generation of scientists and researchers has at least one and usually more than one Jane Goodall, George Schaller, John Bindernagel, Jeff Meldrum, Daris Swindler, or Darren Naish who looks at this and says: the people who categorically dismiss this film are wrong. I don’t know when the interest will snowball into a serious search by seriously funded professionals - something that, I don’t care what you hear or think, has never happened - but someday, it will. Intelligent people are funny like that.
“What is fascinating to me here is some people’s overwhelming want, or need, to believe in the P-G footage — an entirely different question from whether BF exists or not.”
I’m always fascinated, as you are, by people who pull on three-sixty blinders and click their heels together three times while chanting: P/G IS FAKE, P/G IS FAKE, P/G IS FAKE.
Oh. You were talking about the OTHER true believers. Um, them too.
Lyndon:
I’m glad that you don’t think it’s real. Sadly, there are people out there who do.
In regards to your reference to Janos Prohaska, you might want to go to Youtube and search for a video called “Hollywood Magic” that was uploaded by “darkwinglh.” In it, Mr. Prohaska goes into detail on why he doesn’t think Patty was a costume, his main reason being that it would be “too hard” to make since it would take a long time to glue on all the hair. Amazingly, he follows that up with an estimate of the amount of time it would take! His only other argument is that it looks real to him.
You should also look up “Godzilla Numa Numa” by “Godzilla2themaxx.” Notice how the actor in the suit moves quite smoothly (and quickly) in the video. Although Godzilla was portrayed as being kinda slow-moving during the early Godzilla movies, this changed during the 70’s. Why? Because Godzilla movies were being released with showings at a children’s film festival called the “Champion Festival” in mind. This resulted in cutting corners and less of a focus on realism in favor of action (although some of the 60’s movies did have some intentionally silly stuff in them). Granted, I don’t know the weights of the various suits (other than that they were heavy) or the exact size of the actor(s) in them and the sizing doesn’t always match up to Patty, but it shows that people can move quite well in heavy costumes.
I could be remembering this wrong, but I once read that monster costumes like that made it so that movements that seem exaggerated and goofy-looking without the suit would look (relatively) slower and more natural due to the suit. Also worthy of note is this article, which details how they made design changes to the suit used in “Godzilla: Final Wars” to increase movement by using different materials, slimming some features, and making the dorsal plates smaller. Patty lacks a tail or dorsal plates. Also notice how large Godzilla’s “slimmer” legs and thighs are…
Roger Knights:
Thanks for the imput. However, I’m having trouble seeing how an odor can be “faint” and yet be smelled from the distance away that you give. I’m also not that familiar with horses, so I don’t know if they have a “range” of how far away something has to be to spook them. I’ve heard many variations on the story that I have no idea which one to view as the “right one.”
Also, a moving mouth doesn’t rule out a mask. There are several ways to make a mask with a moving mouth ranging from the very complicated to the very simple. This is a complicated one, designed to make the face look inhuman. Obviously, a Patty suit couldn’t require something like that. Dfoot touched on how it could have been done here. He noted other masks that could’ve been cannibalized to make the details for a Patty mask here (It also notes that for the open-mouthed version, he was unable to obtain a vintage Don Post caveman mask and had to make due with a similar-looking modern one).
Here’s fun experiment to try: This is a “Ghastly Geezer” mask; I got mine at a CVS for about $5 a few years back and my younger brother discovered that he could make the mouth move by positioning/moving his chin inside the mask’s chin. I note this because the mask was not seemingly designed to be a “moving mouth mask” (It certainly wasn’t advertized on the packaging) and because my chin doesn’t fill out the mask’s chin enough and I’d need a prosthetic of some sort to pull off the same effect.
mystery_man:
Thanks for the compliment. Although I know that using them makes my posts take longer than normal to show up, I feel that it’s important to give visual examples whenever possible.
Oh, and thanks for clearing up what you meant about other footage “approaching the quality” of the film. I agree with you on that and I’m glad you liked my information . The only Patty-looking visual material that I’m aware of is a “pregnant Bigfoot on a log” picture. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, check out this picture (which may or may not be colorized)and this article (which has smaller, black and white versions). Although I disagree with the article about the possibility of Wallace being involved in the P/G footage, I do find it disturbing that he was able to pull off a similar costume.
red_pill_junkie:
Some have theorized that actual animal hair was used in the creation of the suit and I think I’ve read others saying that something about the light reflecting off the hair indicates that it’s a fake to them, so I can’t say what the deal is here. However, you’re right about that detail needing to be factored into a serious recreation attempt.
I am a little more understanding of the skeptical point of view than some here seem to be. I feel that it is important to point out that there are few skeptics that flat out deny Bigfoot’s possible existence. In fact, I’ve found many (myself included) are quite open to the idea of sasquatch being out there. Likewise, there are skeptics of the PG footage that do not outright say that it is a 100% hoax.
To me it is not the biological possibility of Bigfoot existing that is on trial here, but rather the lack of hard, independently verifiable evidence that is required in any scientific field to back up wondrous claims or indeed any new theory as to how the world works. Sure Bigfoot COULD be out there, indeed there is circumstantial evidence to support it, but we need more to show this is the case beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don’t think science is out to get sasquatch, trying to prove Bigfoot DOESN’T exist as much as ask that we prove it DOES. Isn’t that what the end goal of cryptozoology is, to bring these hidden creatures to light and to understand what they are, their place in this world? So to me many skeptics do not shun sasquatch, but in fact feel that Bigfoot may indeed exist. They are not necessarily against or denying the notion, but for them it is far from proven, certainly not by a 40 year old film clip. I disagree with skeptics that dismiss possible avenues of research, but Bigfoot is typically not an impossibility for them.
I think that most people here will agree that it is highly likely that if Bigfoot exists, then it is a physical, zoological phenomena of the natural world rather than a supernatural entity and in that sense it should be studied and verified by the same processes by which scientists study the rest of how this universe works. That requires incontrovertible evidence and application of the scientific method. I think even steadfast proponents of Bigfoot must be aware of this to some extent. Marvels of the past, sometimes seemingly magical at the time yet now taken for granted, have had light shed on them through the powerful tool of science and have all inevitably, sometimes painfully, undergone this sort of scientific process. That process needs good evidence to make it move forward. If even a small amount of unassailable evidence that was concrete and unclouded by opinions or assumptions was presented to the scientific community, I think we would see an increase in research in this area. What biologist WOULDN’T want to be in on such a groundbreaking find? Let’s get that evidence.
I think one the problems that arises and causes an unfortunate lack of cooperation in getting to the bottom of this mystery between those that believe and those that are not convinced is the standard of evidence which is acceptable to them and which lines of questioning are feasible. Yes, many things point to the idea that sasquatch COULD exist, but science needs more than that, and doesn’t have the luxury of getting funding or bringing up these sorts of claims to their peers without some darn good substantiation. Skeptics often bring forth possibilities that point against sasquatch and a need for strict evidence that may not sit well with those that are convinced that sasquatch and the PG footage is real and to me that causes unnecessary flaming at times. But I do not think it’s a bad thing to want this marvel to be brought up to the scrutiny of science as have marvels of the past. I agree with the sentiment that if sasquatch is real, which it may be, then we should work to prove it in a scientific manner becoming of accepted science. Any strange video clip like this of a spectacular animal like sasquatch would have to follow the same rules, it is what is demanded by science.
The PG film is amazing and to me makes a compelling case for Bigfoot, but why are some proponents so willing to write off or get irritated at skeptical ideas or their desire for something more than a film clip? How is a desire to scientifically gathering the tangible evidence possibly something to get angry about? I for one am all for seeing the phenomena from different angles. I feel it is not an offense or attack to challenge proponent ideas, but rather should be a chance to exchange views, see other possibilities and try to come to some sort of consensus. This consensus may never be reached with the PG footage due to a lack of any concrete evidence to show without a doubt that Patty is a real creature, coupled with some people’s steadfast determination that it is. However, I really think that proponents and skeptics are striving towards the same goal, to illuminate this mystery once and for all.
AtomicMrEmonster- Although your posts take a little while to pop up, they are worth it for the visual material presented and the reasonable, alternative skeptical take they provide. Since I read every single post in it’s entirety and make sure I catch up on ev