Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

The Patterson Bigfoot suit


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#1    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:42 PM

Just something that has come to mind.

I have been watching a load of Monster movies from the 1960's/1970's.  Just for fun and I mean it is a laugh to see how ridiculous Monster costumes and special effects look today.


They made me think.  If the Patterson footage is faked as we are told, why does it look so much more realistic than anything Hollywood was kicking out at the time?

I can only assume it was made in far more detail than things used on the film sets.  Why spend so much time and money on a short clip, surely the revenue to pay for such an item would have been far less than a well budgeted movie.

It is one of those things where I have accepted over the years it is fake, but the more I look at it especially now it is enhanced, the detail and features are just amazing.  Far beyond what they would have known would have been visible on camera equipment used in that era.

So were they incredible forward thinking and made very intricate detail knowing in 30 years time it could be analysed digitally with computer software?  Or could it be that it may not have been possible or even feasible to make something like that at the time making it a real creature of some kind?

Posted Image

#2    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,465 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 25 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

Never thought about this before but you would think Hollywood would do a much better job than a prankster.


#3    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:37 AM

There are a number of things that made me wonder too. If it was a suit, made by a prankster, then why make it female? In the sixties and with no other models of other pranks to go by you'd think they would have gone with a male or a gender neutral type of suit. But, they put boobs on it. Then too, the suit that was used has never been brought out, there have been some that looked a lot like it but didn't have the boobs. Then the one thing that I've always wondered is why no one seems to ever show the other part of the footage where they show the tracks made by the "creature". I've only seen it shown once.

It's not so much proof of anything however it does sort of make me wonder.


#4    Domina Lucis

Domina Lucis

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere that has chocolate

  • "I'm not dead, so I'm obviously doing something right."

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:32 AM

The PG film is a real head scratcher, that's for sure. Even me, being skeptical as I am of Bigfoot, am not completely sure if the film is a hoax or not.

There have been numerous people over the years that have claimed that they were the person in the Bigfoot suit. Of course, with nothing to back of their claim there's really no way of knowing if any of them really were or not. There have also been debates on the way the creature walks. Many people say that the way the Bigfoot walks in the film is impossible for a human in a costume to replicate. Another thing that befuddles me is the amount of detail on the suit. Why go through so much trouble for just a small amount of film?

There are just so many factors regarding the PG film. I doubt we'll ever know the true story behind it.

Posted Image

Domina Lucis


#5    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,521 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:45 AM

Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit that was used in the famous film clip. He seemed to be quite credible when he was interviewed, and he was an extremely talented costume-designer who worked in the industry for years. I once believed that the clip likely was legitimate. Morris pretty much convinced me that it wasn't.

Clip Used Bigfoot Costume?
http://www.ourbigfoo...gfoot_suit.html

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#6    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,521 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's histories.

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:49 AM

View PostHilander, on 25 May 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

Never thought about this before but you would think Hollywood would do a much better job than a prankster.

Maybe they did. What if it was a Hollywood-assisted prank?

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#7    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,978 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:42 AM

This is what I been saying for years also why make it female.there is no hoax.
Plus the real film is locked up what they show are copy's from copy's and more copy's
The more copy's are made the worst it gets.there was a show that patter sons wife gave the guy
The real film and they made a high def copy it was cool.


#8    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:06 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 25 May 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Maybe they did. What if it was a Hollywood-assisted prank?

But with any hoax the more people involved eventually somebody speaks out and exposes it.

The most successful hoax picture I would say was the infamous Loch Ness head on a toy submarine.  Very few people involved (2 or 3 max) so it stayed safely un-exposed for many years.  

If we bring in Hollywood assistance then the number of people aware of it would rise dramatically.  It also goes back to the question, why was so much time and effort put into a suit for a hoax but they couldn't re-create anything nearly as convincing for the Movies.

Bill Munns a very well respected costume, model and robotic maker did an extensive analysis of the footage.  He was around in the era this suit was supposedly created.  He concluded that he was pretty sure the materials that would have been required to make it, were most likely not available then.  He couldn't get a human stature to fit the model on film either.  Bill also corrected lense types and sizes used for the film.  This put question marks over other peoples research claiming the figure was smaller.  When he obtained the correct data he concluded the size of the person wearing the suit would have been 7'4" to 7'6".

http://www.billmunns...uregallery.com/

I was very impressed by his analysis and the techniques he used to expose the detail.  He believes it was either masterfully made to a specification he didn't believe was available at the time or there is a creature of some kind in the video (he never says Big foot).

I find Bill to be one, if not the best costume and model maker around.  I am inclined to believe his analysis.  

I see the Phillip Morris re-creation.  It does have remarkable similarities.  However he has re-created it with materials and techniques available today, not with what was available back then.   The chap in the suit in his film still cannot pull off the posture even if he can the walk.

But I am not a Big foot believer so it leaves me in such an awkward position.

Edited by skookum, 25 May 2013 - 08:33 AM.

Posted Image

#9    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:16 PM

View Postskookum, on 25 May 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

But with any hoax the more people involved eventually somebody speaks out and exposes it.

They have.  You simply choose not to believe them.

I've seen so much of this nonsense about "it could have never been done back then" and "no human could walk that way" and lo and behold some Discovery channel crew up and does it.  Frankly there's way to much of this "there's no way XXX could do XXX" jumping to conclusion stuff in the paranormal.

As for the tits, the late 60s were still a very misogynistic time (ever watch Mad Men?) and, frankly, making the suit a female with visible breasts makes the whole thing even more titillating (ahem).

And regardless of how you feel about PG, the fact remains that after almost 50 years it's still the "best" video evidence of a bigfoot.  Odd when you consider that in that time we've gone from a society where almost no one had a video camera to the vast majority of us having one in our pocket every waking second.  We also have thousands of believers out looking for thing every single weekend of the year.  And let's not forget trail cameras.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#10    BlueBomber

BlueBomber

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 236 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:58 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 25 May 2013 - 01:37 AM, said:

There are a number of things that made me wonder too. If it was a suit, made by a prankster, then why make it female? In the sixties and with no other models of other pranks to go by you'd think they would have gone with a male or a gender neutral type of suit. But, they put boobs on it. Then too, the suit that was used has never been brought out, there have been some that looked a lot like it but didn't have the boobs. Then the one thing that I've always wondered is why no one seems to ever show the other part of the footage where they show the tracks made by the "creature". I've only seen it shown once.

It's not so much proof of anything however it does sort of make me wonder.
I remember watching a show on Discovery, or maybe the History channel years ago that tried to debunk the video. One thing stuck out to me, was that they attempted to recreate the movement and walking patterns of Bigfoot with a young athlete and weren't able to do so. if I remember correctly.

A skeptical believer.

#11    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,580 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:27 PM

Planet of the Apes - 1968











Patterson film - 1967




The Makeup Man and the Monster:
John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit




In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967.
Whether Chambers created the suit or not, it is highly significant that so many makeup artists believe the film to be a hoax, and this fact will come as a shock to many Bigfoot researchers. As the first investigator to look into the allegations concerning Chambers, I have interviewed a number of the top makeup people in Hollywood, many of whom are quoted herein. Considering how many makeup people in Hollywood believe that John Chambers made the Patterson suit, it is amazing that it took this long for the case to come to our attention.
I first heard the rumor that John Chambers made the Patterson suit from anthropologist/cryptozoologist and Strange Magazine reader Alex Downs in 1992. Alex was working at the Smithsonian Institution for the summer and we spoke on several occasions. Alex told me then that he had heard about Chambers making the suit from author/producer Don Glut..........................................................................http://www.strangema...chambers17.html



Film Director John Landis Goes Public Concerning Makeup Master John Chambers' Involvement In The Famous Patterson Bigfoot Film


In 1971 Landis, then about 21 years old, directed, wrote and starred in the apeman comedy Schlock. Landis had his friend, makeup master John Chambers, act in the film as a National Guard Captain. Landis is wrong about the film stock -- it was 16mm, not 8mm -- but there is no reason that Landis should have known what the original format was.
Landis also believes that the costume was used in a David L. Wolper documentary. While this new information hardly constitutes proof, it does provide some corroboration for the Chambers/Patterson suit connection.
I have spoken with Scott Essman, the author of the extensive Chambers article in Cinefex, and asked him what he thinks of the notion that Chambers may have made the Patterson suit. "I have no doubt that Chambers did it," Essman replied.
"I have also heard from different sources that Chambers made the suit and supervised the filming." Scott Essman recalls asking Chambers whether he made the suit for the Patterson film and was in on the filming of it. Chambers answered along the lines of, "It could have been. I don't remember." The manner of Chambers' reply made Essman think that Chambers may have been trying to skirt the issue............................................http://www.strangema...ischambers.html









As I go back and read replies here I laugh.......Every single thing on this topic has been debunked ( including the so called " athlete ",. and how a person could not walk like that ) ........

This stupid cycle needs to end. How do you get people to read the facts?......How?

Google it......Hell, search it here. There is even a pic of the patterson film suit.....











Posted Image





Costumes advertises the Bigfoot program that Philip Morris will appear on as part of TV Land's "Myths and Legends" series.
A Kalamazoo native says he played an unwitting role in an alleged hoax sighting of Bigfoot, a hoax explored tomorrow on TV Land.
It was 1967 when costume-maker Philip Morris got an unusual phone call from a guy asking about a gorilla costume. "We had been advertising our costumes in a lot of trade magazines, so I was used to getting phone calls, but this was different," said Morris, whose costume company Morris Costumes in Charlotte, N.C., is one of the largest in the nation.
"The man on the phone, who said his name was Roger Patterson, wanted to buy a gorilla suit and asked if it looked like a real gorilla," said Morris, a Kalamazoo Central graduate. "I told him that it looked like a Hollywood gorilla, but he said he wanted something that looked more like a Neanderthal. What he wanted was Bigfoot."








Posted Image




Bigfoot! Huge, hairy, foul smelling, this legendary apelike animal continues to captivate the public’s imagination. This fascination hinges on a single piece of motion-picture film shot in northern California in 1967. For thirty-five years, Bigfoot believers have been convinced that this sixty-second piece of film proves the physical reality of Bigfoot.
But now comes a book that demolishes that belief, that produces final proof that the film footage is a hoax.
The Making of Bigfoot tells the amazing story of Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington. A part-time rodeo rider, chronically unemployed and dying of cancer, Patterson propelled himself into short-lived fame and fortune by exploiting his obsession with the Bigfoot subject and leveraging his expertise in manipulating and conning people to pull off one of the world’s great hoaxes.
Living within two hours of Patterson’s hometown, for three years paranormal investigator and author Greg Long interviewed more than forty witnesses in Yakima who knew Patterson intimately. The voices of these witnesses, combined with facts unearthed from newspaper archives, books, and court documents, tell the real story of Roger Patterson.
Both tragic and comical, a unique slice of Americana, The Making of Bigfoot captures the testimony of a colorful cast of characters who bring to life a man and a time in the 1960s when Bigfoot strode into the American imagination, and the world embraced a myth.

Edited by Sakari, 25 May 2013 - 05:36 PM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#12    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:46 PM

View PostRafterman, on 25 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

They have.  You simply choose not to believe them.

I've seen so much of this nonsense about "it could have never been done back then" and "no human could walk that way" and lo and behold some Discovery channel crew up and does it.  Frankly there's way to much of this "there's no way XXX could do XXX" jumping to conclusion stuff in the paranormal.

As for the tits, the late 60s were still a very misogynistic time (ever watch Mad Men?) and, frankly, making the suit a female with visible breasts makes the whole thing even more titillating (ahem).

And regardless of how you feel about PG, the fact remains that after almost 50 years it's still the "best" video evidence of a bigfoot.  Odd when you consider that in that time we've gone from a society where almost no one had a video camera to the vast majority of us having one in our pocket every waking second.  We also have thousands of believers out looking for thing every single weekend of the year.  And let's not forget trail cameras.

I agree lots of people have claimed this that and the other.  I am generally a non-bigfoot believer.

But the only films that look even loosely as effective as the Patterson film have come out far latter using documentary crews, enhanced re-enactments based on what they have seen.  None of them look vaguely as natural as the Patterson footage.  They look staged, the Patterson looks almost natural, like there is no director, trained cameramen etc.

In addition we also have to conclude that Bill Munns, a 35 year long career of costume and model building either doesn't really know his stuff or is a liar.

I am not sure why Planet of the Apes has popped up as a good design of a Hollywood ape costume.  I grew up with Planet of the Apes and is part of the reason I said why did Hollywood monsters look so fake.  It was a Bank holiday ritual to sit down after lunch and laugh at the man in the monkey mask wearing various colour leather jackets.
.

Edited by skookum, 25 May 2013 - 06:02 PM.

Posted Image

#13    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,580 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:54 PM

View Postskookum, on 25 May 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:


But the only films that look even loosely as effective as the Patterson film have come out far latter using documentary crews, enhanced re-enactments based on what they have seen.  None of them look vaguely as natural as the Patterson footage.  They look staged, the Patterson looks almost natural, like there is no director, trained cameramen etc.







Yes, and this was real also.......And fits your description of " real " to a T.




Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#14    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,904 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 26 May 2013 - 12:04 AM

If only all accounts could/would go through such scrutiny.
Imo,
Some (including  "experts in the field of Bf" who side with the PGF) accept far far less than this.
So, putting a stamp of approval on the PGF I don't find the least bit surprising, nor particularly credible, considering what else they (experts in the field of Bf, and others) approve as evidence, encounters, etc.

It all boils down to the same dodgy video and game of table tennis.

Anyone (todays PGF manipulators and researchers) can claim to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and convince others as well (It's a Squatch!) when no one can physically examine and handle the product. Ever buy a piece of crap off the TV or Internet? "But I thought..."

Be intrigued by the film? Fine. But to be convinced this is a living breathing Sasquatch? I'm not sure how or why. (Possibly beyond a newbie who hasn't given it much thought)

Edited by QuiteContrary, 26 May 2013 - 12:07 AM.


#15    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,580 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 26 May 2013 - 12:21 AM

View Postskookum, on 25 May 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

I am not sure why Planet of the Apes has popped up as a good design of a Hollywood ape costume.
.

Well, you are in a very small percentile.....

Those costumes were well ahead of their time, and won many awards.

They are also evidence when people say " in 1967 costumes were not even that good, we aint even got velcro yet ".....

If you think the grainy costume in the patterson film is better then if someone used something from the Planet of the Apes fx crew, you are nuts....

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users