Its been a while but i saw a docomentry about big foot and how they maked the film.

The patterson film was a fake and even when the bigfoot turned around to the cammera, it was a person.
Because they even had a fake log lol.


Cant remmeber that doco.

can anyone give me a name?

There have been several documentaries seeking to disprove the Patterson film, but none have offered the knock-out blow. The Patterson film is still very much in play, and far from disproven.

As for Bigfoot being real or not -- the jury is still out. But even one of the world's greatest primotologists -- Dr. Jane Goodall -- believes that Bigfoot is real, and will be proven to be real some day.

The guy who wore the suit came forward a little while ago.




No she doesn't. She WANTS them to exist.






Here's the relevant parts of the interview. She's clearly not speaking from any scientific standpoint on evidence.

http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp

i believe in this creature......it might exist and would probably have a greater intelligence than all known creatures except for man..............

He could not prove in any way such was the case. If it were that way, the authenticity would no longer be questionable...

You have a certain point about Jane Goodall, but not a total point.

As to the guy who came forward about the so-called suit -- his credibility is extremely shakey, and there are many holes in his story.

EDIT: It's ironic that all those who so quickly swallowed the "Bigfoot Suit Confessor" theory were actually the most gullible of all. In fact, several people came forward to claim they were the Patterson suit creators -- all were hoping for money from tabloid journalists.

For more on this, go here: http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

No question. The guy that came forward and claimed he was wearing a suit is just one of many. He had no evidence to bolster his claim. Where's the suit? Why did they make it female? Why hasn't anyone come close to recreating footage that good? In this day and age, with the technology and creativity of professional special effects people, they have not even come close to footage--footage filmed decades ago--that realistic. This is one reason why I believe the Patterson footage to be authentic. Then again ... who knows.

Respectfully,

Sean

But so are Patterson and Gimlin!


When all the scientific evidence and theory indicate that the likelyhood of the creature is virtually impossible, the logical conclusion is that the film is a fake.

If you saw a film of a lepruchan dissappear into thin air, would you logically conclude that the film was real? Or would you logically conclude that since teleportation is not possible today, and there is no evidence at all for the existance of a mythical elf-like creature, therefore the film must be fake.


You think the footage is good? It's blurry, shakey, there's no sense of scale...these things were a must in the 1960's, when the technology didn't exist to fake things better. Therefore, film of hoaxes, like loch ness and bigfoot, had to be shakey and blurry, otherwise you would see the truth.

As for the so called analysis and enhancement of the film, I worked for 5+ years as a professional photographer. You can not enhance what is not there, and an analog image, such as film, does not hide detail that can be brought out. That detail can only be inferred and created. So the cases of enhancing the film are nonsense.

Why did they make it female? Doesn't that strike you as odd, N?

Respectfully,

Sean

A little, yes. Maybe the extra bulk helped hide the suit's seems or distort the form of the wearer? Maybe it was a group of hicks that thought it would be funny to add teets to the suit.

It's also odd that a creature supposedly so wary of humans walks slowly away instead of runs. They were on horseback, and claim to have tracked the animal, yet couldn't get anything more? They couldn't track a supposedly HUGE ape through the woods on horseback? That's even more odd.

That had to be a triple D cup! Why didn't they follow it? Good question, N. I think it was a combination of shock, awe and fear. I probably would have soiled myself and passed out! And the creature did move off at a good clip . Maybe it simply did not see the men as threats. Who knows. Good questions by all though. Always an interesting topic.

Kindly,

Sean

Yet they were still able to work a 35mm camera?



Sure, that's possible. But why stay hidden then?


If it was real, no matter how shocked and awed I was, I would have given the camera to Gimlin. He would have rode home and come back with a team of dogs or at the very least some other people who could track. I would have followed the animal on horseback and then on foot if necessary. this would have been HUGE and certainly big enough to justify spending a few days out in the woods tracking.

This thing is supposedly HUGE and covered with hair...yet nobody has been able to track one. Why? Because there's nothing to track. Logic says that if they brought hounds up there they would have ran right back to patterson's house and treed him. Or they would have ran back to town and treed the guy in the suit.

Can you really believe that something that big, that hairy, doesn't leave enough scent for hounds to track? That it would be difficlut even for an experienced outdoorsperson to track? Another logic defying leap necesary to believe in bigfoot.


Look, myself, i wish bigfoot was real. It would knock us down a peg, it would be exciting, it would mean that there are still some points in the good old continental US where the wild truely rules and no man can claim as his dominion. It would make my dull world of weekday cubicle existance as a mouse riding button monkey that much easy to escape from and run out into the woods like I really want to. I really would like bigfoot to be real. But logically, the possibility is just so remote.....

Can't argue with you there, N. Hopefully one day we'll know for sure.

Kindly,

Sean

Hopefully, but I don't think we EVER will know. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove something does not exist. You only can fail to prove existance. So for as long as there is some remote shadow of doubt, even one single question, no matter how illogical or unlikely, people will believe in bigfoot. And what's the harm? It's fun. I have no problem with people believing in bigfoot. i just have a problem with statements contrary to logic and scientific theory.

If someone says that they believe in bigfoot, that's fine. If someone makes a specific claim that is contrary to science, then I decide to join in the fun. You don't have to prove a "belief." But you do have to be accurate when trying to use science to back up that belief, in my book anyway.

Some valid points here folks, but please remember something, the Patterson/Gimlin film is NOT the be-all end-all of the Sasquatch phenomena. Even if it is ever proven to be a fake, that doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. Just becasue the Surgeons Photo was debuked does that automatically mean that the Loch Ness creature deosn't exist? Patricia Cornwell (at least I think it was her) wrote a book naming Jack the Ripper, does that mean that that mystery has been solved? There's been a number of books written about who actually shot JFK, and they all say something different, does that make them ALL correct? It was just a tv show folks.

Now, as far as the P/G film goes. That film was shot in October 1967. Star Wars came out in what, 76 or 77? Looking at Chewbacca, you can tell its a guy in a suit, is the subject in the P/G film obviously a fake like Chewbacca?

Several people have come forward claiming to be the guy in the suit. All with their own suggestions of how it was done. There was also a rumor that John Chambers, the man responsible for the makeup effects in The Planet of the Apes was responsible for making the suit, yet he himself denies it. Now wherever the suit came from, if you were the guy who made it, and then the film comes out for the world to see, wouldn't you have said something? Wouldn't you claim this creation as your own, and then drag the suit out and show it to the world?

I understand what you folks are saying about the territory needed for such a creature to remain hidden, but, please remember, there are still alot of wild places left in this country. I recently went on a weekend trip to the Adirondacks. Where we were was at least 5 miles from any home. I've also been hunting in upstate NY, and its pretty wild and desolate up there as well. I think that there is still plenty of space left for these creatures to roam without being seen.
I've also been on an overnight to the Hockomock Swamp here in Massachusetts, and except for ATV traffic on the abandoned railbeds and power-lines, there wasn't a heck of alot of sign of human activity. These creatures dont need 5000 square miles of territory to exist in. All they need are small pockets of woods and wild areas.
There's a spot that I deer hunt in. All the deer that I've gotten out of this spot have been within earshot of two major highways. Alot of folks live near some sort of wooded area, and I'd be willing to bet that a good number of them have never even been in these areas. Like I said, you don't need a huge area, just an area without alot of human traffic.

3 reasons why the existence of a "bigfoot" creature is highly unlikely but the issue won't die.
1. The paucity of evidence.
2. The evidence that does exists (prints, films, pic) all suscetible to fabrication.
3. The inherent "I want to believe" mindset of the bulk of the advocates for "Bigfoot" instead of a "I want to know" mindset.

All very true, yet Bigfoot may still exist.

They guy who shot the film's credibilty was super shakey.


OR may not.

Or may not -- agreed.

But as for the guy who shot the Patterson film, he went to his deathbed claiming the film was real. He never recanted, despite years of withering ridicule.

I haven't heard about his "shakey" qualities, however. I guess I'll have to Google that.

So? Are we all under this idea that every liar has a giant epifony shortly before death and recants all their lies?

Maybe he did and his family didn't want that to get out. Maybe he was hoaxed himself. Plus, why would you come out and admit that you created a hoax and a nationwide craze that won you fame and notoriety?

I'm willing to disregard everyone's statements about the film and take it for what it is on it's own merit...a blurry, shakey string of images that show an inderterminate figure walking across an indeterminate location with no sense of scale or distance.

Well, if they're so, maybe they've built an underground or underwater city where they live and hide whenever we're trying to search them!

I like the topic now and it gets intresting by the minute.
Keep those comments coming in guys

The most likely overarching reason for the scarcity of 'Bigfoot" sightings and films/photographs is that the guys wearing the suits are getting leery of being shot by someone out to make big bucks with a T.V. show...

But you're just making a bunch of wild speculations here, are you not?

Yes. but did you not read the rest of my post?


Besides, I don't base my non-acceptance of the bigfoot myth on speculation. I base it on science. To believe in bigfoot, you either have to be ignorant of the science, or choose to disregard it, or rationalize it away.

OR, you accept the overwhelming odds against bigfoot, yet you just want to believe anyway simply because you want it to be true. I can respect that. It's the denial of the science that makes the possibilty extremely remote that irks me.

Can someone set me straight here?


I was under the impression that several years ago, a man admitted in either his will or to his family on his deathbed, that he had created the famous video of bigfoot as a hoax.

Now, I don't know the bigfoot videos by name, so I am in NO WAY an expert in this area, so can someone explain to me why people still think Bigfoot exists?

If the guy that made the death bed confession about hoaxing the whole thing and starting the ''bigfoot'' craze.
Why are there sightings and reports long before the patterson film? In fact patterson cant remember what speed he shot the film on,,so the motions and the speed might be alot different. And is it possible that the thousands of sightings by honest people are all misidentified or '' eyes playing tricks'' on them?

No, this has never been verified. Again, many dubious claims have been made by press-seeking individuals to have been involved in the Patterson film, but none of their stories even remotely hold water. The man who did the filming himself went to his deathbed claiming it was real.

Furthermore: When I focus in on the Patterson film alone, and leaving out the broader body of information about Bigfoot -- and when I apply Occam's Razor -- I reach the conclusion that the film is real, and indeed shows a real Bigfoot.

Occam's Razor basically says that the simplist explanation is usually the correct one, and in the case of the Patterson film, the simplist explanation is that the film is real.

To argue that the film is fake violates Occam's Razor tremendously. All kinds of extravagant claims and Band-Aid supporting structures of logic must be errected to prove the film a hoax. It requires that someone at the time had to create a Bigfoot suit that was better in quality than any Hollwood special effects person could produce. It requires that, for some strange reason, they decided to make a female Bigfoot. It requires that the fakers somehow added tremendously accurate physiological features that would be required to represent a real creature of this kind -- such as the "football" shaped top of the head -- a muscular feature a beast of this make-up would need to handle its jaw structure -- it would require an actor who could mimic tantalizing closely the way such a creature would have to walk based on its physiology ...

... and that's just to name a few amazing elements of the film. There's just too much to explain away.

Of course, all this doesn't prove that the film was not a hoax -- but if you apply Occam's Razor -- the film is easily genuine, and by a mile.

if he was real, he wouldnt live for a very long time, u know.

Why not?

Of course a special effects outfit could produce such a suit, at least good enough to work in such a low quality film. What makes it non-replicable in your mind?

I would have thought that around fifty percent of bigfoots, were they to be real, would be females. Why is it such an unlikely thing for a hoaxer to do? They may have thought that a female would be less obvious a choice for a hoax and more likely to be accepted as real, as you yourself have accepted it.

The film is not good enough to determine with any great accuracy the physiology of the creature in the film. This still is about as good as it gets and the thing is hairy too, we have no idea of the depth and thickness of its hair for a start so how can we be making accurate claims about its physiology?



Looking at the picture again, what is it exactly about this suit that could not be man made?

ill tell you this for a fact : their was no suit. their was no fake, it was bigfoot

Thats your opinion. You can never state that as a fact.

but you ever state any evidence that it does'nt exsist.you just assume that because there has not been one captured or any dead specimen found that it does'nt exsist.besides,how can people keep up a hoax passing from generation to generation over 500 years as is the case with bigfoot?????

Of course it could be man made. But that doesn't mean it is and is not the point. Then we must take into account the logistics. How would a couple of guys be able to afford to have this done by professionals? Because, I think we can agree that if this is a suit, it is very well done and is highly unlikely that it is home-made.

How would they have gotten into contact with the group who made them? (Remembering you can't just look something up on the internet)

Why would a professional be willing to do work without being able to take credit for it? (You always want to boost your resume and credentials) And if this were the case, I imagine extra incentives ($) would be necessary. Well then, where did they get the money? Any professional group or person that works in Hollywood (which is what some claim to be the source of the 'suit') would most likely not create a one-time specialty suit for a couple of guys in northern CA, for a suit they would not get credit for, unless they were getting VERY good compensation.

Shouldn't there be conclusive evidence and records of the design, production, and connections between Patterson and the suit makers? The fact that more than one group has come forward to claim responsibility for the suit really makes it difficult to clarify if any are or would turn out to be the actual makers.

Same as with dragons, fairies, vampires and sea monsters.

Santa comes to mind. It is most likely a modern day myth. Once again, I did say there is a possiblity. I just think it is unlikely in the US.

who says theres only one?

Some here don't find that the footage shows a female Bigfoot to be a big deal -- but think about it. Why go through the extra difficulty of creating a suit that shows breasts? Making a Bigfoot suit is a huge challenge in itself, but to go the extra mile to create realistic looking Bigfoot breasts on the suit? Come on.

I'm only speculating, of course, but this seems extremely unusual. Again -- Occam's Razor. The best explanation is that the film is real.

I know but I was really tackling IronGhost's statement that "[a] suit that was better in quality than any Hollwood special effects person could produce."

I believe this to not be true, it's an attempt at a knockout to the de-bunkers but it simply doesn't stand up. Of course somebody could make such a suit so I was dismissing or at least trying to diminish the importance of that piece of opinion.


I appreciate your comments on logistics and credit but I think there are people out there, lots of people in fact, that love to create mischief. People get their kicks out of all manner of things and some get theirs from being invloved in hoaxes. "There's now't queer as folk" as the saying goes...

You've been on a forum that debates questionable phenomena for over one thousand posts and you still think that that is an acceptable argument?

its been said more then once that no "man" could walk like the creature in the film
well heres a little video showing something diffrent with a side by side of the bigfoot film,,this is Bob Heironimus Side by Side with the Patty Film..they match up pretty damn close if you ask me..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ZN9S5IfBCQ&feature=related

on a side note living in the deep south,and spending a lot of time in the woods growing up,,its not hard for a animal to be 10, 15 feet away from you and never know it was there,,even if you went into the woods everyday and never see a animal you could always find signs of life,,bedding,poop,rubbing on trees brush being pushed down fur stuck to thorns something,,,,nothing spends anykind of time in the woods and not leave a sign it was there...if you follow a game trail long enough you will jump something,,,,a animal of that size would def. make a noticible trail someone somewhere should have bagged one by now...

i would be happy as heel for someone to catch one and proove them real,but the older i get the less i can believe they are real. its a campfire story,,,,,watch the video the big foot and bob have the same walk and same body shape they even hold their hands the same way,,,and as far as the guys going the extra mile making the female costume,,,maybe just maybe its a bad costume and they were trying to make it look like chest muscles and they just ended up sagging like boobs...

Bob Heironimus was a consumate liar, desperate to insert himself into the Paterson/Gimlin film footage. Oh, and by the way, the latest episode of MonsterQuest displayed a scientific team proving a human athlete couldn't have made the Paterson film.

As always, I don't believe the Paterson film conclusively proves BF's existence, but the film has survived 40 years without being disproved.

i dont know if Bob Heironimus was a consumate liar or not,i just know in the link i posted bob and the bigfoot in the film walk almost exactly alike,,,they even have show him walking doing that turn back look..did you watch the video?? they show them side by side.


i didnt see the monsterquest what was the proof they showed that a person couldnt walk like that,,,in a short youtube video they show a person could and does..side by side with the bigfoot vid........

Hmnm, scientific investigation upon MonsterQuest, or various videos on youtube. Sorry, I tend to take one of these choices much more believable than the other.

even tho im a huge fan of the smartass answer,,,,you didnt answer any of my questions,,did you watch the video link i posted they show bob and the big foot step for step,,,real simple to watch and see they have the same swagger hold their heads the same and move the same,,my question to you was wht evedence did monsterquest show that a man cant move like that,,,when there is video proof that at least one man does,,,,and it just so happens to be the man accused of being in the suit for that video...haha and how can you just dissmiss a video on youtube,but believe a video from the 60s that would have been posted on youtube if it was around back then..just watch the vid and give you opinion on it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ZN9S5IfBCQ&feature=related

Excellent video and very useful too.

You do realize that monsterquest is a TV show for entertainment purposes.
Also Patterson was a very shady character who was in debt. Oh yeah he rented that camera to do a bigfoot movie as well.

Are you serious? You think that the conclusion that the film is fake violates Occam's Razor? Hardly. Occam's razor states, to paraphrase, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."


The simplist solution is that it is a man in a suit! NOT that it is a mythical creature who's existance is extremely doubtful given the principles of biology. The simplest, most logical solution is that it is a man in a suit. To conclude otherwise violates the razor, not the other way around.

As for the latest "monster quest," I watched it last night. What a joke. Indentations in the ground being claimed as footprints and body prints...ridiculous. And we're supposed to believe that a body covered in hair didn't leave any hair behind, despite wallowing in a mud puddle? And of course they didn't photograph any bigfeet....they don't exist. But elk do. And that's what they got. These gullible people found indentations in the ground and a broken branch, and came to the conclusion....that is was BIGFOOT? Are they serious? How weak does your grasp of logic and reality have to be to come to those conclusions?

And again, as stated by someone earlier who spends time in the woods- something that big would have been tracked by hounds by now. We are expected to believe that all these people see a bigfoot, yet no pack of hounds has ever tracked one? Insanity. And that woman who claims to have had an encounter with one while in her tent...because something pushed against the tent wall and moved her tarp? Her conclusion is it was bigfoot? How ridiculous. She should start with the LIKELY conclusion, that it was a bear. Bears are known to play with backpacker's shelters. She didn't even look outside, yet she's convinced she had a "bigfoot" encounter. What a tool.

And the veternarian who claims to have had one because he heard two sticks being tapped together? He's IN THE WOODS AT NIGHT. There are sticks all over--they are called branches. he hears two sticks tapped together and he concludes....BIGFOOT? Are you serious? Really? REALLY? Laughable. And again, violation of occam's razor.




What's amazing to me is how badly people want to believe that film is "real." It's blurry. Very blurry. And unsteady. But people still look at that blurry image and claim that nobody could make a suit that well. Are you freaking kidding me? Nobody can make a suit that looks like a hairy, blurry blob? How much reason do you have to leave behind to take that position? No human could walk that way? Are you serious? That's laughable. ESPECIALLY based on a grainy, blurry film shot from an indeterminate angle. Come on people, if you believe in bigfoot, just admit that you believe because you want to believe despite the odds. I can accept that. But stop pretending that there's any real evidence or logic in your favor.

and as a further aside, "monster quest" never, not once, presents the other side. They clearly set out to show only data that gives their audience something to be interested in and a false conclusion.

yea myles i understand its entertainment,but they could give a reason why they believe a man couldnt walk like "bigfoot" in the film clip,,i was just asking for what proof they have a man couldnt walk like that...i hear that all the time,,then some guy comes along and makes a simple video with a catchy song that SCREAMS bull......