The Patterson-Gimlin film again.

[Nordmann61]

If the bigfoot Patterson and Gimlin filmed in Bluff Creek was a hoax, it is one of the best hoaxes of all time.

In case, the ape-suit is among the best ever made, far ahead of the monster-suits we can see in horror movies from the sixties, as good as the best today in fact.

The muscles can be seen flowing under the furry skin, indicating conciderable weight, and very good knowledge of anatomy.

The creature in the film is estimated to be about 6 feet 8 inches tall, and if it is a suit, it must weight in at 40-60 pounds at least, a heavy load to bring many miles into a remote forrest.

According to Wikipedia:

"The footage was filmed alongside Bluff Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River, about 25 logging-road miles northwest ofOrleans, California, in Del Norte County. The film site is roughly 38 miles south of Oregon and 18 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.^[2] For decades, the exact location of the site was lost, primarily because of re-growth of foliage in the streambed after the flood of 1964. It was rediscovered in 2011".

If one man was behind this hoax, would he choose a remote place like Bluff Creek for showing off his masterful ape-suit?

At a remote site like Bluff Creek, he would possibly have waited for several days or weeks for someone to show up, like campers, hikers, loggers or hunters.

And many would bring guns like rifles so deep into forrested areas, there are mountain lions in this parts of California, so wearing a monster-suit in a forrest is not a very good idea, you cannot really blame someone if they shoot, especiallly surprised at close range.

Would it not be much more likely a hoaxer with a masterfully made ape-suit like this would show it off for instance at a hiker trail close to populated areas, where he can be sure it will be people every day, who would see him?

It is temtping to say if this is a hoax, most likely Patterson and Gimlin was a part of it. But Patterson passed a polygraph test, and people who knew them said they did not like to fool, trick or do pranks on others.

According to Wikipedia:

"Several university based studies and professional evaluations have concluded the subject cannot possibly be a man in an ape suit".

This keeps me facinated about the possibility of an unknown creature living in the vast forrested area of North-America, Russia and Central. Asia.

Even if I would like to see Bigfoots for real, a part of me hope they never get caught, it is like a secret I would not like seen be taken from mother nature hands by us humans.

Cheers.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Nordmann61

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You must be looking at different footage to me if you can see muscles flowing under the fur, because the footage I've seen is classic 60s blurry.

[Nordmann61]

You must be looking at different footage to me if you can see muscles flowing under the fur, because the footage I've seen is classic 60s blurry.

.

The Patterson-Gimlin film film have been processed with image enhancement technology, and here you can see muscle flowing under the furry skin, especially on the thighs and arms.

Cheers.

[Vlawde]

Yeah, the video was cleared up and stabilized. It does look like muscles, but still, could just be the way it appears. I'm still on the fence with this video. Just seems with the preponderance of cameras/cell phone cameras since this video was show we'd have a whole lot more photos/videos of the big guy

[+OverSword]

It's authentic.

[Imaginarynumber1]

It's authentic.

An authentic hoax.

Man is given a loan to go into the woods and film a bigfoot movie and what does he find? Hmmm....

[Podo]

The Patterson video is something I'm on the fence about. There's a lot of evidence against it, but there's also a lot of evidence for it. I dunno. I don't feel super strong about it, either way, but I find it intriguing.

[JesseCuster]

If one man was behind this hoax, would he choose a remote place like Bluff Creek for showing off his masterful ape-suit?

Does anyone seriously think that "one man" was behind the Patterson-Gimlin film? It;s been a while I admit since I read into this famous piece of video footae, but I understand that whatever the truth is behind the video, that no-one attributes it to a single individual? The name itself, attributing it to Robert Patterson and Bob Gimlin should surely give you a clue that at least two mean were involved in shooting the video. Edited February 24, 2016 by JesseCuster

[Malalhaialayxz]

I consider it rather convincing. The way the ape moves seems rather fluid, but, on the other hand, it also turns to look at the camera and seems completely unfazed that someone is filming it, so, even if i find it interesting and probably plausible, i prefer to hold my horses.

[Myles]

An authentic hoax.

Man is given a loan to go into the woods and film a bigfoot movie and what does he find? Hmmm....

Yep. I'm not going to look up the links because they have been posted countless other times, but Patterson also had a sasquatch drawing he did before this video which looked exactly the same.

Also, I don't think female mammals have hairy boobies.

[Atuke]

Where is the problem that Roger went looking for a Sasquatch and found one? Gimlin and Patterson were in the Six Rivers area for weeks before stumbling upon her. This has been rehashed a thousand fold so no need to start this debate now. And we do not know for certain if human relics had hairy breasts. And Patty is most certainly an ancient human relic, not an undiscovered great ape such as a Mountain gorilla etc.

Anyway the latest stabilizations are simply amazing, and show an astoundingly crazy looking creature. Very chilling.

[Gaden]

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

[psyche101]

Edited February 25, 2016 by psyche101

[Atuke]

Confirmed liar. This is old news. The guy can't even recall the county let alone the location of the incident. He was involved with a documentary Roger was making at an earlier time but not the incident at Bluff Creek.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Atuke

[psyche101]

Confirmed liar. This is old news. The guy can't even recall the county let alone the location of the incident. He was involved with a documentary Roger was making at an earlier time but not the incident at Bluff Creek.

He had nothing to do with the film, just the suit, as did Harvey Anderson, who gave Patterson ideas and before he passed, Verne Langdon swore there was a confession in Genie magazine, but I could not get a copy of this issue he cited from backorder down here, I asked if any US locals could help out, but no takers.

[Atuke]

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

Junk writing by someone who never knew Mr Patterson and who chooses to trash him. Have you never missed a payment on a bill or not returned a RedBox on time? Please, something better than that junk publication.

[Atuke]

He had nothing to do with the film, just the suit, as did Harvey Anderson, who gave Patterson ideas and before he passed, Verne Langdon swore there was a confession in Genie magazine, but I could not get a copy of this issue he cited from backorder down here, I asked if any US locals could help out, but no takers.

Patterson never gave a death bed confession. And I suppose these same people would call Bob Gimlin a liar to his face. Bob H had nothing to do with this at Bluff Creek. If you want to discuss possibly a third party such as Ray Wallace being involved without Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin knowing what they were filming then that is a plausible argument. But the Bob H. involvement and all the phoney suits and stories and fake cobfessions over the years are crazier than the actual event.

[psyche101]

Junk writing by someone who never knew Mr Patterson and who chooses to trash him. Have you never missed a payment on a bill or not returned a RedBox on time? Please, something better than that junk publication.

He wrote bad checks, plagiarized other works, and ripped off Bob Heironimus. Seems like a con man to me.

[psyche101]

Patterson never gave a death bed confession.

Actually he did, just not the one people think he did. He pretended to be Gimlin on the Talk Circuit and took money pretending to be him, and he apologised to Gimlin on his deathbed for screwing him over.

And I suppose these same people would call Bob Gimlin a liar to his face.

Some do, some feel he was none the wiser himself. He is largely insignificant with regards to the film.

Bob H had nothing to do with this at Bluff Creek.

He wore the suit, I know you do not believe that, but it is the best answer.

If you want to discuss possibly a third party such as Ray Wallace being involved without Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin knowing what they were filming then that is a plausible argument.

I have no doubt Ray Wallace heavily inspired Patterson, and helped his story with his own escapades, as I say, Gimlin is insignificant, he really does not matter with regards to the film at all, he is just a bystander with no particular sway in any direction.

But the Bob H. involvement and all the phoney suits and stories and fake cobfessions over the years are crazier than the actual event.

No, I just cannot see how you come to that conclusion. I know all the arguments against Bob, and they are mostly emotional - he looks like a liar, check out the video, you can just tell he is lying, - fact is, his claim is the only one that does cover all bases and does explain the incident well. Nobody else has. It is even hard to believe that anyone would retain faith in this tall tale to this day. There is simply no reason to believe that the Patterson creature was anything more than a man in a suit.

Meh, people like a mystery, refuse Bob H's testimony and you have a mystery. Nothing more than that.

Edited February 25, 2016 by psyche101

[GoldenRabbit]

Didnt the bloke in the monkey suit come out and confess to this years ago.

[Atuke]

Actually he did, just not the one people think he did. He pretended to be Gimlin on the Talk Circuit and took money pretending to be him, and he apologised to Gimlin on his deathbed for screwing him over.

Some do, some feel he was none the wiser himself. He is largely insignificant with regards to the film.

He wore the suit, I know you do not believe that, but it is the best answer.

I have no doubt Ray Wallace heavily inspired Patterson, and helped his story with his own escapades, as I say, Gimlin is insignificant, he really does not matter with regards to the film at all, he is just a bystander with no particular sway in any direction.

No, I just cannot see how you come to that conclusion. I know all the arguments against Bob, and they are mostly emotional - he looks like a liar, check out the video, you can just tell he is lying, - fact is, his claim is the only one that does cover all bases and does explain the incident well. Nobody else has. It is even hard to believe that anyone would retain faith in this tall tale to this day. There is simply no reason to believe that the Patterson creature was anything more than a man in a suit.

Meh, people like a mystery, refuse Bob H's testimony and you have a mystery. Nothing more than that.

An apology to Gimlin on his deathbed isn't a confessional to anything. Yes Patterson used someone saying. He was Gimlim on the film circuit whilst Gimlin wasn't present. Yes he was making money off of his discovery. Who wouldn't. This was the late 60s without any form of communication or social media of today. Who wouldn't do that. And at the time the film looked rediculous, esp with old style film projection. So the man skeptics are calling a con-man was promoting anyway he could before he died. I don't blame him.

Bob H. did wear a suit. That's all well documented. It was for the Sasquatch documentary. But he wasn't the creature depicted in the Bluff Creek film.

And lastly Bob Gimlin is a major figure in all of this. He's the last man alive to see this creature, the only somewhat believable evidence of Sasquatch. Gimlin was several dozen yards away from Patty and could smell her and see the whites of her eyes...his words. I met the man. He is not a liar.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I love the Tinfoil Brigade, Deathbed Confessions are utterly convincing and reliable unless they're confessing something you don't want to hear.

[Atuke]

I love the Tinfoil Brigade, Deathbed Confessions are utterly convincing and reliable unless they're confessing something you don't want to hear.

If you research, Patterson didn't give any kind of deathbed confessional, but stood by what he saw or thought the saw. For all his flaws, he believed he saw and filmed a creature. He did however apologize to Gimlin for using his name and his likeness for money he earned on the film circuit. Gimlin forgave him.

[psyche101]

An apology to Gimlin on his deathbed isn't a confessional to anything. Yes Patterson used someone saying. He was Gimlim on the film circuit whilst Gimlin wasn't present. Yes he was making money off of his discovery. Who wouldn't. This was the late 60s without any form of communication or social media of today. Who wouldn't do that. And at the time the film looked rediculous, esp with old style film projection. So the man skeptics are calling a con-man was promoting anyway he could before he died. I don't blame him.

Yes it is a confession, a confession that he ripped of a friend, like a low down con man would.

I did say it wasn't the one people thought it was.

Who would not do that? Any person with integrity, how many other people can you document who did the same?

What has social media got to do with it? I heard about the film as a child all the way down under. We survived just fine before social media.

Bob H. did wear a suit. That's all well documented. It was for the Sasquatch documentary. But he wasn't the creature depicted in the Bluff Creek film.

You cannot prove he was not in the Bluff creek film, because it is the best answer that exists. The documentary produced a suit that well matches the original claim, which many have said is impossible.

There cannot be an argument that Bigfoot exists based of this film, it has been too many years without further evidence to consider it anything but a hoax. If that creature was anything but a man in a suit, we would know by now, that much is certain.

And lastly Bob Gimlin is a major figure in all of this. He's the last man alive to see this creature, the only somewhat believable evidence of Sasquatch. Gimlin was several dozen yards away from Patty and could smell her and see the whites of her eyes...his words. I met the man. He is not a liar.

Nah, hs is completely insignificant, he did not believe Bigfoot existed, but allows for the creature in the film, he said nothing when Patterson paraded as him, he is just a nobody that wanders the Bigfoot circuit aimlessly and cannot shed light on this particular aspect either way. It is obvious that he is just hanging out to scrape up any spare bucks that might find their way to him. He is not a liar, he is nothing, he makes no difference to the subject.

Edited February 25, 2016 by psyche101

[psyche101]

If you research, Patterson didn't give any kind of deathbed confessional, but stood by what he saw or thought the saw. For all his flaws, he believed he saw and filmed a creature. He did however apologize to Gimlin for using his name and his likeness for money he earned on the film circuit. Gimlin forgave him.

I do not entirely dismiss the theory that Patterson did believe a Bigfoot existed. It seems to me that if that was the case, he would mostly likely fake one just to be "the first" to make this discovery and write himself into the history books. He was after all well aware that he was dying, and even mentioned the the film was "his wife's legacy to live by when he was gone" We may never know the man's thoughts, but we do know the film is a fake.

Edited February 25, 2016 by psyche101