hey everyone, welcome to my attempt to debunk the patterson footage, sure i believe in bigfoot's and yeti's and yowies and anything else, but i dont like the patterson footage. why, because iv watched it quite a fre times now and seen pictures ever since i was a kid, and this is the picture i find to be the one that makes me think its fake

as you can see the bottom of bigfoots foot looks a whole lot like fabric to me then anything else, its smooth doesnt seem to have any toes most likely the wrong colour, why would bigfoot not have toes while monkeys and apes have them and they are meant to be further back in the line of evolution.

heres a link to a video where i took the picture from, its also been shown in magazines in the past but i cant find any with it.

Youtube Bigfoot Footage

comments please.

The problem I have with it is that its just to good to be true..what are the chances anyone would be able to see big foot non-chalantly taking a stroll in his hoodz....I wish we knew for sure if it was real or not..

I thought this was already proven to be a hoax? I remember watching a special about this on tv and Patterson himself admitted to dressing up while 2 of his buddies shot the footage.

somethingnice60 i think your right, i just found this article, Bigfoot Hoax, well looks like its been debunked. Thankyou

but this just leads to further questions, i realised this was fake years ago probably in the year 2000 or before it, why didnt the "scientists" that looked closley at it notice the feet?! what do they do all day lol. and who knows how many others figured out other stuff to suggest it was fake as well.

the feet are the one thing that has always prevented me from taking the footage seriously. Every time I watch it the feet just bug me, they're too flat, too much like shoes of some kind. Alot of people still believe it's the real deal though.

The heels flop around a great deal too. There was quite some controversy about that for a while. I think you have to want to believe this one. The supporting evidence is just not all that crash hot.

Agreed. Despite its obvious flaws, I think people just like to talk it up as genuine for the sake of having something to fall back on. The Patterson footage tends to come up alot in discussions I've had with people on Bigfoot, but I think it's because while people can say it's fake, other people can reply with "well, there's still a chance it's real." It's quite obvious it's fake, but lots of Bigfoot enthusiasts will continue to reference it.

Actually, now that you mention it, all fields seem to have a mascot don't they

Lake Monsters = Nessie
UFO's = Roswell
Bigfoot = Patty Film creature
Sea Monsters = Caddy
Living Dino = Mokele Mbembe

We now need a Chuppa Mascot and a Mothman Mascot.

PS. Mothy is the Mascot for Humanoid Flying Harbingers of doom isn't he. That just leaves Chuppa now.

Wrong. Patterson went to his grave defending the film footage. Bob Heironimous is not a reliable witness, and there's no evidence he was ever involved in the foray into the woods on that fateful day. How simple is it for someone to claim, after the fact, and after the main character is deceased?

The creature was walking up Bluff Creek, through firm, moist sand. The lighter colored soles of its feet are no doubt caused by the sand particles clinging to its soles. Surely you've experienced this same phenomenon?

While I commend your efforts and research, the conclusion you've drawn, that there's no toes visible in the footage, please consider your source. You're comparing footage copied how many times? The degradation of the film quality from video transfer from the original film footage, to being broadcast on someone's television, to capturing it either on video, dvd, or hard drive, leaves several generations removed from the original. Not good science, my friend.

I'm perusing my copy of Dr. Jeff Meldrum's Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science, and gazing at a photo captured from the original film footage. There are definitely discernible toes (five) and heel.

I might suggest if you're serious about the Patterson-Gimlin footage, perhaps obtain a copy of this fine book.

Well just as many reputable scientists have analyzed the footage and say that they can see muscle movement. That the skin is attached to the muscle. Not the way a suit would be. It is most certainly not a proven hoax.

The thing that bothers me the most about the footage is that it has "breasts." I cannot understand why a fake suit back then would be made that anatomically correct, as a female. Would a couple of guys really think to make it that way?

not. he take his secret to grave.
and that guy (forgot the name) who claiming he's behind the suit are just LIAR.
i'm not bigfoot believer, but this vid sure still not proven to be hoax

im gonna have to agree with Incorrigible1
that film has been copied so many times
no tellin if the feet are fake or not
u gotta pay more attention to things like that
and also the bigfoot suit they made looks nothing like the one in the film
try comparing that

The picture is way too blurred to make out any real detail, especially at high magnification. From what I can see, the lighter area shown is only part of the foot. The toes are probably still on the ground hidden by something. I still do not believe the Patterson is fake. It is too hard to believe that a few people could create something with little money that is better than anything Hollywood could have created at the time with million dollar budgets.

Because the film has been copied many times it must be true?
That seems a bit light on for proof of an unknown primate.

The BBC Bigfoot looks more realistic to some. I have no doubt if it was not publicised who the creator was, it would enjoy the same legendary status.



Read more on the above here
Check the tables in particular. Bob Heironimous may not be a reliable witness, but there is a great deal of collaborative evidence to his version of the story. It seems unlikeley that all those confirming events of his story are lying as well can they. Harvey Anderson's testimony is pretty damning, and the glint from his glass eye in the film seems to also verify his version of events. Don't think Ol Footy has a glass eye. It seems a real long stretch to say this film is real because nobody has made another as good so far. That's pretty slim evidence considering what is available to the contrary. Primatologists and Anthropologists from various institutions were shown the footage (and most today have seen it), yet less than half a dozen (that I know of) out of possible thousands of them have found it compelling.

I think comparing it to Hollywood at that time is a mistake. As far as I know, Hollywood didn't ever try to make a bigfoot like creature in their films (except for Planet of the Apes but those were more like monkeys than anything else). I'm sure if the people in Hollywood wanted to make a convincing bigfoot, they could.

Also, even if this was real, then where are all the other bigfoots? How come no one has ever found a dead body or conclusive dung/fur? Also, there would have to be a couple hundred bigfoots in order to keep their population going for a few generations and you would need 900-1000 bigfoots to keep the population going for ever. And don't tell me that they are very elusive and good at hiding. What about all of the expeditions people make every year. Every tv show and expedition I have seen so far always gives inconclusive results which just makes me believe even more that bigfoot is not really out there.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m284..._26/ai_83585957 is a nice article.

After reading "The Museum of Hoaxes" (www.museumofhoaxes.com) account of the Patterson footage there seems to be a bit too much of a coincidence going on in the entire undertaking of it. I don't agree with Chamber's involvement in it, but the entire situation reeks of hoax a bit too much for me to be comfortable stating any significant claims on it.

If people have evidence to the contrary, go ahead and show it.

-Madcap

I think Chuppa is a lost cause, unless you count coyotes or dogs with mange

Hehe, true but he will not be lacking company when we do organise a Mascot! In appropriate company too LOL. Might make discussions easier, so like Nessie and Champ, we do not get two sightings mixed up!

We Just need a prominenet single Chuppa to tag!

We could make this a new Poll - name the Chuppa Mascot, no doubt we would get some interesting replies here.

Comparing it to Hollywood at the time is very important. They never, for any reason, made a prothsetic suit of the caliber people claim was used in the film. I am not just talking about Bigfoot costumes. ANY costume. Look at Yoda years later. Biggest budget film of the times and that was the best they could do.
As far as the population goes. Yes they would need a certain base population. But do you realize how much open land we still have in the US and Canada? We know of black bears and grizzlys. Just try and go out and find one! If the expedition that was on TV this past Halloween is any indication of the type of expeditions out looking for them it is no wonder nobody has found one. Running around the woods talking on radios, smoking cigarettes, and shining flashlights everywhere. You would be lucky to see a squirrel like that. The finding the body question has been covered so many times it is a surprise you mentioned it. Good luck finding a dead anything in the woods. Dear, bear, whatever. Being skeptical is one thing. But at least try to think things through first.

I dunno where I should put my bet on. The footage, although pretty convincing to me, somehow lacks of something I can describe in words. I dunno, there's just something very wrong about the creature on the footage. I dunno, I just haven't found it 100% genuine.

Being a blind believer is one thing, but lets not use Star Wars examples to often. If someone wanted to make that costume then they could.
I would love for bigfoot to be real, but I can't accept that these populations have been living all over the world (Russia, China, US and many other countries) and we have yet to find any proof except a questionable short piece of footage from a very questionable character.

every is open to there own opinion
i jus think its hard to tell seeing as how this film
has been copied many times

Don't compare Yoda to Bigfoot. My argument is that no one in Hollywood at that time tried to make a bigfoot like costume so we will never know what Hollywood could have done. And I would also argue that making a yoda costume is harder than making a bigfoot costume. Bigfoot has brown fur while yoda has green skin; making realistic brown fur is easier than making realistic green skin.

not all bigfoots have brown fur some have been seen with black

ok fine, but my argument still stands: brown and black fur is easier to make look realistic then green skin.

ya i agree with you 100 percent

I can't tell if the footage is real or not but I don't like the circumstances around the footage.
from what I saw once on TV Patterson rented a movie camera for the week to get footage of a big foot
the day before he had to return the movie camera he saw a Bigfoot about an hour from his home. I try to keep an open mind on things but I just can't get passed the odds of that happening

That's BS. Gorilla suits have been around since the '20s. Go check out the "fakable" thread. I posted endless pics. There were big companies that only made gorilla suits in hollywood (Hollywood Gorilla Suits being a famous one). PotA won the special effects oscar for the facial expressions and make up not the hairy parts of the suits. The PG film is a suit. It creases like a suit where the leg meets the buttocks (no creature has creases there) which should be one of the tighter most muscular parts of the body, there's a line all the way around the waist, primates have flat breasts not odd conical ones too low on their chest, no sand would adhere that completely to the bottom of a bare foot, etc. It would have been easy to procur a suit or parts of a suit or make a suit. Patterson is a know liar who was in debt and needed to find bigfoot to pay off his debts.

That is NOW not then. Who cares what people can do now. It is irrelevant. Harry and the Hendersons used state of the art prothsetics and even then did not look real. Those gorilla suits back in to 40's look NOTHING like the Patterson film. Quit looking at still pictures and watch one of those movies. They are not real looking in the least. If you are going to try and make a point at least TRY to be intelligent about it.

I am not a blind believer. I am very skeptical actually. My point stands because NOBODY has come up with a valid point. If such a costume could be made with materials of the late 1960's, go ahead and give it a try. Let's see how you do. Any garage made suit will look as phony as all the other ones that have come since the Patterson film. I seriously doubt that such a costume could be made that could fool trained primatologists and anatomists. I used Star Wars as an example because of all the new technololgy thet THEY CREATED for the film. They invenbted that stuff as they went. It was the best tech of the time. You can make fun all you want, because we are laughing right back at you. Some people have actually watched the film and made thier own conclusions based on thier own knowledge of known animals. Domebody years ago claimed to have been resposible for all the footprints that were found. A lot of people believed him because they didn't want to believe such an animal could exist. They never looked at the evidence either. No one man or even a large group of people could be responsible for all the footprints found. Somebody said the film was a hoax and everybody who didn't want to believe followed the leader and said that proves it. The Patterson film has been subjected to 40 years of REAL experts and none of them have been able to disprove it. I do not think for a second that some armchair detective looking at a single still from the film can accomplish what even NASA couldn't.

go easy on him capeo its his first time.

jasonch1112, Capeo is highly intellegent and right now he is probably cracking the secret to FTL travel so please do not side track him.

But Capeo, there is merit in the argument that compared to what COULD be produced by professionals, the patterson footage is a cut above. I think if PAtterson could have reproduced that again, he would have made tons of more money than he may have made exploiting his footage, thats just the logic approach. You have to give the video some merit, even if you are suspicious of the timing and motive. Its a single shot with no cut overs on the film, its in daylight which is a hoaxers worst enemy. If your trying to trick people you get the elements to help you along. You film at dusk or dawn, on a cloudy day where the sunshine won't highlight you.

I saw a documentary a while ago that showed Bob Heironimous walking down the street. Even without any further evidence it convinced me that even if he was not the one in the suit, the gait used by the supposed Bigfoot is NOT beyond the ability of a human.

People just look at the film as someone already said it has breast why would someone ad breast to a suit. No one would that point alone should be talked about.

Why not? If you want an anatomically correct suit or animal, you could add them.

Of course you could...but why would someone make it that much more difficult on themselves? It shouldn't be overlooked.

Maybe they had plenty of left-over material?

Another idea :-

It could have been an accident in the making? Accidentally overstuffed a breast, perhaps even streched it and decided then the subject would be female? Once the idea was stumbled on it might be added for authenticity. A Lark even?

Just a possibility thrown in.

IF you really want to do a good job convincing the scientific community that bigfoot really exists, then you need to be as anatomically correct as possible. Remember that both skeptics and believers alike will closely examine the footage to determine whether or not it is authentic, so whoever makes it needs to put extra care into it.

Then why has no other pic of Bigfoot had breast. I will tell you why because people who try to fake something don't put that much thought into it. And you have to put this in the context of the year this happened and location could some rancher make something that looked that good that Hollywood at the time could not make.

Just a thought, but maybe that's why they did it. I mean, you can't have a population of bigfoots without a female right? and all we ever see are photos of male ones because, as you said, people don't put enough thought into their hoaxes. Least this way, creating a female bigfoot would give people something to talk about (such as, why would someone pulling a hoax go to so much effort) and also give the possibility of a bigfoot population a bit of a leg to stand on.

Are there any credible pictures clear enough to determine this? Most seem to be Blobsquatces.

Peole who fake things don't put much thought into it? WHat do you base that on? Some people go to great lengths to concoct hoaxes. Look at Pildown Man.

It seems a long shot to base the existance of an unknown primate's existance on the unlikelyhood of creating a suit in a film shot by a shonky fellow who was out to shoot a bigfoot documentary. And funnily enough, he did.

I also thought the 1968 version of Planet of the Apes was pretty good.

actually, there's a pic of female bigfoot, carrying bigfoot baby. can't remember where, but im sure its in this forum too. sure this pic have bad quality

oooh let me know if you find it. I could use a laugh

It's not even a good costume in the Patterson video. There were better 30 years before that as someone posted. If the only arguement you have is that noone has bothered to make another video that looks exactly like it (although I believe some have), then you should stay away from the detective business because you draw conclusions based on sketchy evidence. Why do you not take into account Pattersons: reputation, history, work history, aquaintences and the situation he was in?

ok how come on the documentary when they tried to redo the bigfoot scene the costume they
supposebly used looked nothing like the video
also they way he walked was way different than the 1 on the video

There is a lot of ego floating around here fore no apperent reason. If this is so fakable and it so easy to do with materials found only in the sixties, then somebody produce it. All you that are saying its a fake couldn't fake a mock wound at a first aid trial so what makes you think you could reproduce footage like this. Its laughable, 'clearly its fake' is not actually a counter arguement to ANYTHING. They tried to reproduce this the guys who say they were part of the original and geuss what it sucked big time. Not even close to looking the same. And what does that tell us about their version? Well to any logic talented person it means that they are liars, period, they are also in it for the money. Until I see a comparible footage made on super 8mm with materials used that can only be found pre-1967 im afraid the patterson footage trumps all.

yes but do you remeber on the documentary where they tried to reanact the orginal footage?
they didnt come close to what it looks like
the suit looked different and his strides looked different and if they were in it for the money
then why didnt he try to make the reanactment look like the orginal?

thats what im saying too, if it was SOOOOO EASY why is there a different?

Nobody is going to bother trying to duplicate it exactly. Why should they? There's nothing in the film that says this isn't a guy in a suit. Nobody with any credibility is going to go through great lengths to try. The gait has been shown to be human. It's also a ridiculously bad and inefficient gait that no animal would use but a person trying to walk funny (or being forced to walk funny due to the thickness of the suit) would. The suit has no buttocks definition, creases at the top of the leg and a line around the waist. There's little to see on the front of the suit due to the high contrast of the 16mm and shadow. Suits like it have been around for decades before the film and are well within the realm of making at home if one had the inclination and the desperate need that Patterson had.

I dispute what you say Capeo because there is no way you could know what the physiology of an animal like this would be. Who says it has to have creases here or a certain gait to their walk. A body has never been found so IF it exists we have no true model of what it would be. Thats the root of the problem. There can be no more clarity unless someone can reproduce this film.