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

#16    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 26 May 2013 - 12:48 AM

Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimli film is realistic and better than anything Hollywood came up with at the time?

I'm no expert on the subject, but this is blatantly false to me.  The PG film is far too low-res to even comment on the fine detail of any suit that might have been worn by an actor in order to compare it with what appears in commercial movies.

Where's the 'detail' in this pic that would make someone think the suit worn by the actor is of such fine detail and quality that it exceeds that Hollywood was capable of at the time?

Posted Image

edit: I've read about 'enhancement' of the PG film, but I find it hard to believe that any sort of latter enhancement to the footage I've seen could extract anything particularly impressive, but I'm ready to be convinced by pics and accompanying argument.

Edited by Archimedes, 26 May 2013 - 12:51 AM.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#17    No Censorship

No Censorship

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 2,784 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

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.

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.

I'm in a weird position too. I want to be wrong. I really and truly do. That said, I believe Morris. He's convincing and credible. His old costumes still hold up to today's standards. He's great at what he does. He also sounds like an honest man. Why would he lie? He gets no real fame or fortune from it. He's an older man, and the vast majority of people don't even know who he is. He has no real dog in the hunt, so to speak. It disappoints me that my favorite cryptozoological clip probably is a fake and a hoax. I definitely wish that Morris would recant his story! It would make my day, but I believe Morris at this stage of the game. By the way, I think that Bigfoot exists because I know an older woman who saw one when she was a girl in the Appalachians.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#18    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 26 May 2013 - 10:53 AM

View PostSakari, on 25 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

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




How does it fit the description?  It was filmed far latter using old 8mm film with clips taken around 1970's to make it look authentic.  

I don't see any connection in that way to the Patterson film.

I can only conclude the Patterson was masterfully done, using techniques that made Hollywood films look way behind.

Do we have an approximation from Morris at the cost of this stunt?   I would imagine with camera equipment, logistics, actors, and of course this brilliant costume we would be talking a vast amount of money.  Most likely several thousands of dollars.

The short scenes in American Werewolf in London with the werewolf had a 6 figure price tag.

Even very short scenes like Hammer House of Horror were kicking out had extortionate costs.  Did Morris ever put a price on the work they, I can't seem to find it.

Edited by skookum, 26 May 2013 - 11:01 AM.

Posted Image

#19    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 26 May 2013 - 11:22 AM

skookum, your av is more real than Patterson's film. As soon as someone responsible for such a famous piece of film puts the hand up and admits it was a fake, that's it for me.

Not saying Bigfoot might not exist, just that it didn't exist on that piece of film.


#20    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 26 May 2013 - 12:24 PM

View PostArchimedes, on 26 May 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimli film is realistic and better than anything Hollywood came up with at the time?

I'm no expert on the subject, but this is blatantly false to me.  The PG film is far too low-res to even comment on the fine detail of any suit that might have been worn by an actor in order to compare it with what appears in commercial movies.

Where's the 'detail' in this pic that would make someone think the suit worn by the actor is of such fine detail and quality that it exceeds that Hollywood was capable of at the time?

Posted Image

edit: I've read about 'enhancement' of the PG film, but I find it hard to believe that any sort of latter enhancement to the footage I've seen could extract anything particularly impressive, but I'm ready to be convinced by pics and accompanying argument.

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters.  And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.

Edited by Rafterman, 26 May 2013 - 12:25 PM.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#21    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 26 May 2013 - 01:46 PM

View PostRafterman, on 26 May 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters.  And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.

I wouldn't say necessarily perfect, but amazing amount of details.  On the released film you can't really see anything much, hence why most just said it was a Gorilla suit.  But when enhanced the cheek muscles move, the mouth moves, the breasts swing in a very natural motion, muscles can be seen in the legs and arms etc etc.

Like people have pointed out, planet of the apes had moving motion in the facial muscles etc.  But that was because they had close up filming.  The Patterson suit was going to be filmed with shaky 8mm film. It is only recently with have been able to zoom in and pick out these details by enhancement.  

It shows very forward thinking in my mind, wouldn't you agree?

At the end of the day though.  The only thing that will make me totally believe in Big Foot, will be a body.

Edited by skookum, 26 May 2013 - 01:48 PM.

Posted Image

#22    JesseCuster

JesseCuster

    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 26 May 2013 - 02:15 PM

View PostRafterman, on 26 May 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters.  And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.
Yes, I think some people are seeing what they want to see.  I can't help but be extremely skeptical of people who talk about the amazing detail found in crappy photos and crappy video footage.

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an alien autopsy video.  One guy who was interviewed talked about the amazing detail, the realism, etc. and that it would have cost far too much for the special effects necessary to achieve such an amazing video (this despite the fact that it was a crummy looking video taken with a hand-held camcorder).  The next guy they interviewed was a special effects tech.  He took one look at it and immediately said that it was a latex model, the kind of which he could knock up in a week for a few hundred quid (or something like that).

I've seen it enough that I'm wary of 'experts' who extract suspicious amount of information and make declarative statements about evidence of dubious quality.   That combined with the very wide range of opinions of those who have examined the footage.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#23    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 26 May 2013 - 02:52 PM

View PostArchimedes, on 26 May 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Yes, I think some people are seeing what they want to see.  I can't help but be extremely skeptical of people who talk about the amazing detail found in crappy photos and crappy video footage.

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an alien autopsy video.  One guy who was interviewed talked about the amazing detail, the realism, etc. and that it would have cost far too much for the special effects necessary to achieve such an amazing video (this despite the fact that it was a crummy looking video taken with a hand-held camcorder).  The next guy they interviewed was a special effects tech.  He took one look at it and immediately said that it was a latex model, the kind of which he could knock up in a week for a few hundred quid (or something like that).

I've seen it enough that I'm wary of 'experts' who extract suspicious amount of information and make declarative statements about evidence of dubious quality.   That combined with the very wide range of opinions of those who have examined the footage.

I do remember the expert with the autopsy regarding the money side.  He was talking about the techniques and special effects available funny enough around the Hammer House time. That sort of time he predicted would have been about the earliest that certain materials were being used.  He said if it was created around that time it would have been several hundred thousand dollars worth of effect in today's money.

As we know now it was much later and could be achieved cheaply with widely available materials.

That was sort of my point of the whole thread.  There is absolutely no doubt we can do this today, the suit can be simply produced today probably at a reasonable cost, hence why so many replicas.  I also have no doubt with a large amount or work, skill and determination it probably was possibly in 1967.  But the cost of doing it would most likely have been massively greater.

Interesting on this one they have noticed what looks like a Hernia on the muscle on the right leg.  Quite a long video but towards the end they point it out and show how the apparent muscle hernia moves.



In the bottom one (excuse the pun), I don't know if it is my imagination but I am sure I can see the backside muscles tense and relax as it walks.




Like I say I am not trying to tell anyone it is not a hoax and its a real creature.  But I am looking at the pictures, videos and details found before I concretely make up my mind to dismiss it. As much as I accept there are people who will never except it isn't genuine, there are also those who will give up the moment they hear hoax.

Edited by skookum, 26 May 2013 - 03:28 PM.

Posted Image

#24    danbell06

danbell06

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 322 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

  • BNAG.... < That's Bang out of order!

Posted 26 May 2013 - 06:32 PM

The evidence just isn't there, in favour of Bigfoot.
I used to love watching videos of alleged sightings. Now I live in the real world.
A video just won't cut it. Neither will the words of those who claim to have had encounters.
People lie. As long as there are liars, the myth shall live on.

Oh and by the way. I think Roger Patterson was a good liar. Not sure about Gimlin though. He may not have known RP was setting up a hoax.

Edited by danbell06, 26 May 2013 - 06:35 PM.

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Posted Image

#25    DBunker

DBunker

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • I prefer to know, not just to believe.

Posted 26 May 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 25 May 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

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

If not before, this has to be IT for the Patterson hoax.

Now that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element. James S. Robbins

#26    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,459 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 - 11:49 PM

Quote

Philip Morris has been telling this story ever since Roger Patterson passed on, but many do not
believe him and even become angered with his story.  
He equates the re-telling of the story to
Bigfoot enthusiasts as trying to tell a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.




Love that, so true.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

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


#27    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 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 27 May 2013 - 05:55 AM

Ok....

The Suit.....the suit.....the suit........ Guys? The suit doesn't mean a thing at this point unless you have the actual suit with pictures before and after of them getting ready to make a hoax. Wow, here's a replica of the original suit that I sold because i was too stupid to realize the significance of the hoax I was helping to perpetrate. I can make a replica of the suit........now. So can any of you, NOW......it's just so much water under the bridge and doesn't matter any more than a pee hole in the snow.

All this mental masuration over something someone put together after the fact..........ya'll do realize that if this was a bigfoot witness doing the same thing in the form of a recreation ..........years....here, let me say that again, YEARS after the fact ya'll would have laughed at this poor sucker like he was a madman. However, now because it's a claiming he made the original suit.......that he sold......years ago......no idea whom he sold it to.......but he's made another and lo and behold, it carries weight with ya'll.

Seriously? Really? C'mon guy, ya'll need to share some of whatever ya'll are doing that can make you have selective objectivity like that.


#28    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 May 2013 - 06:39 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 25 May 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

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

Video does not exist.


That is not the suit Morris made in the photos at the link. That is the Leroy Blevin's recreation which is made to illustrate the gait, not reproduce the suit. And he does reproduce the gait.


This is the suit Morris made in 2002 with the original Patty beside it.


Posted Image

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#29    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:07 AM

View Postskookum, on 24 May 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

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?


See the chimp? It's a suit by Charles Gemora in 1932.

LINK

Suits and special effects are quite different things.

Bill Munns seems a good guy, and he entered a good rebuttal, but I definitely see holes in it and enough to note he is biased toward a Bigfoot costume. Like the time a meme can spend in a costume, costume control, he exaggerates these items greatly to make his hypothesis fit better. But is does not at all discount the use of a suit on any basis other than a personal one. I spoke to a bloke called Verne Langdon and he reckons the proof that Patty is a suit lies in an old copy of Genie The Conjurours Magazine, where Morris wrote an apology to him about the suit, but I expended too much time trying to chase the article, if anyone wants to, you just might get the solid proof that Patty is a hoax.

Edited by Saru, 27 May 2013 - 09:54 AM.
Removed copyrighted image

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#30    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,390 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 27 May 2013 - 07:12 AM

View Postskookum, on 26 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

I wouldn't say necessarily perfect, but amazing amount of details.  On the released film you can't really see anything much, hence why most just said it was a Gorilla suit.  But when enhanced the cheek muscles move, the mouth moves, the breasts swing in a very natural motion, muscles can be seen in the legs and arms etc etc.

Like people have pointed out, planet of the apes had moving motion in the facial muscles etc.  But that was because they had close up filming.  The Patterson suit was going to be filmed with shaky 8mm film. It is only recently with have been able to zoom in and pick out these details by enhancement.  

It shows very forward thinking in my mind, wouldn't you agree?

At the end of the day though.  The only thing that will make me totally believe in Big Foot, will be a body.

The details are indeed just paredolia as has been suggested. the same method can be used to debunk the film, that is in the eye of the beholder.

People thought John Chambers made the suits because he made the Planet of the Apes costumes. Someone said "That has to be Chambers work" and the rumour stuck, but it was never true.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users