im tired of people saying the patterson film is a fake, but they have no problem believing the moon landings are real. scientists declare its possible to fake a 8 foot 700 pound creature walking, but they say video footage of an alleged moon landing must be true. in the realm of science, footage is not concrete evidence. it is possible to fake a moon landing, but scientists deny it

Ok Im not sure if the patterson footage is fake or not,but I have something to say about the way your thinking.

Its not the footage itself,Its where it came from. The Patterson film is just some guy(although he may have had a good reputation). The moon landings are from freaking NASA! The difference is in which one gets more respect from more people.

So very true. If a scientist says he saw Bigfoot then people are quick to believe him even if he's lying

Even though I don't believe Neil Armstrong was the first person ever to set foot on the moon, I have seen some shows debunking the Patterson film and them actually interviewing the guy who was supposably the bigfoot in the footage. Its been along time since I last saw that but I remember the hosts actually comparing how both bigfoot from the footage and the man walked and it was exactly the same. Wish I remember what show I saw that on.

you should try to find that maybe on youtube or something cause i wanna see it

that guy is paid by MIB to claiming he is the man inside the bigfoot suit.
is conspiracy to debunk the vid

I saw that same thing, it was an episode of "Is It Real?" on the National Geographic channel. And I agree, it was shocking how exactly the same they both walked.

The British were not the first ones to set foot on North America (from another continent, there's Viking and Chinese evidence) and neither were the Americans the first to set foot on Australia (there's a Portuguese map of a big part of the Australian coast, way before that) so who's to say the Americans were the first to set foot on the moon? we will never really know unless the people who were there before (or beings) left evidence there, but I don't think the US would tell us if they found it

The best freakin video I could find of the Bigfoot on is it real is just like a trailer, so..
yeah, here's the link, doesn't show the dude walking though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHuHmA-wjq4

I use to belong to a bigfoot forum and there was a great thread started by a guy who works in special effects for the movies. He said even with todays knowledge they haven't been able to replicate the Patterson footage let alone back then with no budget.

A bit of ingenuity and you can pull it off with limited resources. But alas, due to working with the movies, the person is of course likely to be inclined to think budget = quality.

He also meant the way the leg muscles etc rippled, they still can't do that today let alone back then.

There was recently a fly around of the moon done with satellites by the UK, and the area where the moon landed was still there, flag, footprints and all, except the lander, so I doubt that it is faked.

OK, got this confused with another one at first... which footage was admitted by the descendants of the makers as fake?

And yeah, they apparently haven't been able to quite duplicate it yet.

The most convincing video I saw was a home video made by what sounds like a couple of kids. It stood upright, walking quite comfortably or so it appeared, and then it dropped to all fours looking far more like a gorilla than any human in a suit could. Looked way more natural than any other video I've ever seen, but it looks like they took it down off Youtube... probably too much ridicule, much like the other "bigfoot" spotters.

bob hermonius is a liar. hes a attention seeking man. if by some chance the patterson footage is a fake, the suit wouldnt look like the one bob hermonius had. his suit was a piece of crap. his walking didnt mimic the footage, the stride difference was huge. henner fahrenbach has proof of a man-ape, hair samples

Who is that?

Ya i have to agree with him whos that?

he was on sasquatch: legend meets science

he knows what hes talking bout. we dont look enough for bigfoot. its probably as secretive, since it only comes out at night.

The simple fact here is that Roger Patterson was know as a charlatan and a con man. He even stole the camera he shot the film on, borrowing it and promising to return it but never did. It is more his character that is on trial rather than his footage. He even has friend that claim they faked it, although it has been suggested that they are lying, doubt still remains over the footage. It is still the clearest footage of a sassy we currently have but theres a chance it still could be faked. The moon theories are a whole different kettle of fish.

Makaya....*exhales deeply*...Don't you think you've hammered your thoughts on The Patterson Film into the ground by now? It's widely understood why you feel the way you do, and we respect that, but every single thread you've ever started regarding 'Ol Footy has begun with "THE PATTERSON FILM!!!". You believe it's authentic, we get it, we're with ya, honest and for true, but not everyone feels the same way.

Given the nature with which people...supposedly...directly involved in the making/hoaxing/documenting of the film have either confirmed or denied a hoaxing at different points, how can you possibly expect anyone to go off of anything more than the reputations of those involved? Which, I'm sorry to say, is just as shaky as the "mountain" of evidence that exists to verify it.

there are a number of hair samples from the pacific nw that dont match any known animal

Farrenbach admits that his hair samples fall within known parameters for human hair, so the claim that they match no known animal is disingenuous.

So you think it is more difficult to fake a fuzzy image of somethign walking?

The moon landings come from NASA, are trusted and fully believed.

The Patterson film, while interesting, comes from one man, in the middle of nowhere, filming something that can't be made out in perfect clarity, with no other corroborating evidence.

You can't prove a species is a man-ape from hair samples. It just appears to be hair and according to OSU it was indistinguishable from human hair.

well i dont believe a 8ft 700 pund ape could exist........how come we have never found a body.........its been a long time some of them should have died by now if they were real...........

As far as that goes, when was the last time you found a grizzly bears body dead in the woods?

well apparently he lives in nyc so that might be hard to do

I think there are a lot of decent arguements about the moon landing having been faked the first time, but beyond that first time I think it'd be naive to say we never managed to get there.

As for the Patterson film, the Museum of Hoaxes has a very good arguement for the possibility of it being faked. I haven't heard very compelling arguements for it being a viable film, and the fact that no hard evidence has come up since then... Leaves a bit to be desired.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen the Patterson film successfully duplicated. Oh, I saw some poor rendition, six months ago, or so, but that was a far cry from the dynamic, forceful, breast-swinging creature I've witnessed within the Patterson film.

I'm not willing to give absolute, 100% credence to the Patterson film, but in 40 years time, couldn't someone have duplicated it? I've not seen it duplicated yet, thank you! JMHO.

It wouldn't be hard to fake the patterson film - put a decent disguise on a tall person and film him.... Why is it considered so hard to fake? If you know the movements that you want the actor to make, those are easily replicated. The visuals themselevs are somewhat fuzzy. And there is no other evidence that it happened...

Although the Patterson film leaves a deep impression to me, because I noticed the muscular movements and the neck muscle the creature look areound is rather convincing, I still put some doubt about the footage. Even if it's real, we'll never know, because Patterson lied more than often, which makes it rather hard to be a credible evidence...

he's saying if it's so easy to fake why hasn't it been properly duplicated yet?

It has been duplicated but the duplications don't look anything as good as the Peterson video so they are swept under the rug.

I thought this was a bit funny though

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=21...h&plindex=0

Ah you really know your history, don't you.

Would the debunkers of the Patterson film please explain how someone with limited funds like Patterson produce better special effects than a Hollywood movie of the same era could with millions of dollars? Besides, there was a huge Bigfoot flap back then. The woods were loaded with yahoos running around with high powered rifles trying to be the first to bag a Sasquatch. Who would be stupid enough to spend a ton of money on a costumeand risk being shot wearing it in the woods and not make any money off of it. I believe Patterson admitted to making a little money from the film but nowhere near enough to offset the expense and risk neccesary to fake it.

The Patterson film was a fake. All that stuff about them not being able to replicate it is bull. The BBC replicated it near-exactly.

Link, please.

thats not true i watched the same documentary on tv called "is it real?"
wen he pulled out the costume he says he wore, it looked nothing like the one shown on the footage video
he jus says he wore it to get attention nothing more
i believe its more than wat ppl make it out to be

When did the BBC show this????? The POINT is that they couldn't do it with the technology AT THE TIME it was made! Who cares what people did RECENTLY! We are talking like 40 years ago!

I believe the Patterson video is a fake. He even admitted putting on the costume and having 2 friends shoot the video. And it can definitely be faked. You have to remember that video cameras back then were crappy and so the suit isn't going to look perfectly like it did 40 years ago. And how did they not have the technology back then? All you need is a really good suit and a video camera.

Actually, many people can corroborate that Patterson was indeed a habitual liar. The Hermonius admission is corroborated by others. Regardless of which one you believe, the supporting evidence does not support your hypothesis.
Does it not strike you strange that Patterson actually hired the camera to shoot a BF doco, and that he had offered repayment by selling of the film? The filming session was never going to fail regardless of what was in the woods.




Bit disrepectful to question the Moon landing there makaya. Surely MID has proven this beyond doubt to you. People died bring this information to mankind. Blow some money on a super powerful telescope. The missions left mirrors on the moon. Interesting fact :- there is also three golf balls on the moon. Alan Shepard being the first to hit a ball on another planet. He hit two and dropped one.

I dunno, it seems a pretty long claim that the film cannot be reproduced. I find it very hard to believe.

Not being cheecky, but...

I too was wondering when the Americans discovered Oz?

Although I do not possess the patience to search the BBC archive, here is some links on that story Sadly Google is not being imediately forthcoming with a link.

Cryptomundo Article on the BBC Footage

Shooting the Bigfoot

BFRO Take]

The first and second links have pictures of the re-created bigfoot.

Alright, you're simply wrong about all of this. The "he" you're speaking of is Bob Heironimous, not a reliable source.

If it can definitely be faked, it's been forty years now. Isn't that ample time to have been reproduced?

"Video cameras back then were crappy." Sheesh! I don't believe there were ANY video cameras in 1967. It was FILM, and far superior to any video footage available to the average citizen.

"All you need is a really good suit.........." Planet of the Apes was released a year later. It won an Oscar, the Academy Award, for its costumes. A freaking Oscar! Those costumes didn't reveal the supple musculature movement of the thigh revealed in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, in fact they don't hold a candle to the footage shot by some redneck cowboys on a shoestring budget.

the pacific northwest area is MONSTROUS. im not surprised we havent found one yet bc

1. we dont look for bigfoot

2. scavengers eat off the flesh, and the bones decompose into the ground

3. their are many caves in which a dieing animal would go to

4. bigfoot is a intelligent species, primates are the smartest species on the planet, and the most secretive species too

Mountainous evidence if ever I was presented with it. Now that we have "hair samples from the Paciffic Northwest that don't match any known animal", there's no doubt in my mind that a 7-8' 500-700ibs. primate is living..breeding...and honing it's ninja-skills, only to be spotted by various hunters with flaps on they're flannel red 'n black checkered hats....oh, and by a woman taking out her garbage in Salem.

Do you really understand what that statement...if it is indeed correct...means? It means it matches nothing....which means you/we know exactly that, nothing, so how do you go from knowing nothing to 'Ol Footy? Huh?......Cause you want to, that's why.

Can't say I have been there. Looks nice in pictures.
That does not cover why there are reports from nearly every country though does it.



You are kidding right? There are entire organisations dedicated to this very purpose in many countries. Many take it as a personal pursuit, heck, I even wander to areas that have had reports for a looksee.



We find bones of all other species, why not this one?
Why no Fossil record?



And that can be the best place for preservation of some materials. I am pretty sure it was Magatherium that left skins in caves so fresh that it was thougt the species was still extant in some parts of the world. In certain circles it still mainains it's "cryptid status" as The Mapinguari.

Caves weather from the elements remember.

We find many other bones in these caves, why not this one species?



That's true, and coupled with the many reports, this is a phenomena worth investigation. Much corroborative evidence exists, but there is little to varify validity of this particular film. Evidence points away from it for me, and still, the biggest thing for me is, why do all the organisation not dive on these sightings imediately? Why is there not 100 cameras in the woods where the Jacob pictures were shot. Why has the Gimlin creature's area not had a webcam on it for the last 20 years? One must ask if it is the creature or the mystery that exists altogether. One must consider what is more beneficial to find in the interest of the involved organisations. This is reasonable doubt.
I think the reproduction issue is a false claim. I have seen some pretty realistic and complex costumes of more detailed creatures. I'd say it is more likely nobody is willing to part with the time and money. The BBC recreation was as realistic from what I saw, just different. Obviously the costume's creator wanted to make a good Bigfoot, not a Gimlin one. If the origin of the BBC footage was not publically broadcast imediately, ten to one millions would jump on this film as well claiming it ultimate evidence. I really would like to find another primate does exist, Homo Florensis is the only verified find though. Even though dead for at least 12,000 years, we still have evidence. Gotta carry my grain of salt there.



So it could be a cross bred dog then?

The costumes in Planet of the Apes (the 1968 movie) were meant to look like monkeys, not bigfoot. I'm sure people can make a good convincing costume. Perhaps you are underestimating what people can fake.

Now you've resorted to using present tense regarding costumes! Crom and Mitra, this was forty years ago. Hey, we're discussing the Patterson-Gimlin footage, not what could be produced now. I'm sure they can make a good convincing suit now, too. Will it show the muscle flexation, will it allow for the far beyond human length arms?

OK, the point is this: The Patterson footage has not been duplicated. Forty years and counting, show me anything to compare.

Incorrigible1 has got a point you cant duplicate the orginal that would be tough
also planet of the apes was recent not 40 years ago so of course we can make a convicing suit today