Age old mystery, was the Paterson film faked. Personally I don't think it was fakedFilm right here

Ah, yes. We've had some long and drawn-out discussions upon this subject!

Some will tell you Patterson was a scheming con-man, some fervently believe he captured the Holy Grail. I'll say this: If it's a fake, an unemployed cowboy crafted something the most talented Hollywood costume designer at the time couldn't.

I don't know the answer, but prefer to allow for mystery in my life. And so, if I had to choose today, I'd say I hope Patty still roams the Northern California woods!

It was a fake sorry
The guy who was in the monkey suit admitted to it.

And he's so uber-believable.

Next, we'll have the inevitable posting claiming Patterson made a death-bed confession.

The amount of times that's been "conclusively solved," and the amount of people that have come out and admitted they were behind it in some way are probably into triple figures by now. There must be ten different guys who supposedly made the costume.

I hate the dogmatic acceptance that comes with a confession.

The vid is obviously fake.The "mysterious creature" walks just like an old geizer going out for a stroll,and defenitly not like any kind of great-ape.I seriously can't see why ppl belive that film.

Why are you so inclined to prove that the "thing" in this tape is just a random person in a monkey suit? Open your mind a little buddy, I've always been borderline with this footage. Not sure if its real not sure if its fake.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree completely. It's not "obviously fake." Personally, I'm not so quick to dismiss the film. If it's fake, it's remarkable in its scope.

If it's so obviously fake, it should be no problem for you to produce a reasonable facsimile, eh?

There are things going on in the footage that haven't been duplicated since. Muscle and scapula movement. A compliant gait that's at best extremely difficult for a human to emulate.

My mind is open to Bigfoot.There's great probability that they exist.I tend to give eye-witnesses the benefit of the doubt.But that video however,i believe to be fake.Also i didn't quickly dismiss it.I've watched it closely dozens of times and talked to alot and alot of ppl about wat they think.My opinions isn't based solely on well,my opinion .Not saying that Bigfoot doesn't exist,just that the one in that video doesn't exist.It was a clever hoax.

You do realize that the Heironimus who "admitted" to being in it, was not old at all. And the gait is definitely not the look of an old person anyways.

Patterson film? Never heard of it. Is it new?

Lol ur avatar???

I guess we're thinking of a different person.The one i'm thinking of is very old now,and has the exact same gait(except a bit less limber now).They even tested it.I'll see if i can get his name.

I totally agree that the Patterson film was a fake. I mean, it is so easy to make muscles and bones move under a fake gorilla suit. I mean its so obvious that there were 10 guys packed into the suit so they could all say they were the Bigfoot. Seriously, open your mind and think about for about 5 minutes.

I explained before that i HAVE thought it over,numerous times.Maybe you should open your eyes and read for about five minutes.

Touche

nope this was not a fake
the man admitted that it was a fake that was in the suit
but patterson admitted in his journal as well, he and his friends did this to get the media off of them
really, tho it made it alot worse. but eventually it wore off

I understand completely.

What the hell did you just say?

yeh, explain again can you, you contradicted yourself just a wee bit methinks

personally I think the vid could be real. Yes, lots of people have "admitted" it was faked or claimed to have been involved in it but too my knowledge even the best costume makers of today have failed to reproduce a suit that appears as real as the one in the video. Also, the muscle movement under the skin wouldn't been seen if it was a suit as the guy who's wearing it's muscles wouldn't show through the suit and fur. Also, how often do you come across a guy the same height, build and weight as a bigfoot. surely they'd be celebrated as something unusal just for that!

As for the size (height) of the Patterson creature, that seems within adult male human norms. I've seen a couple studies, or attempts, to measure the height of Patty. The most recent, by what seems to be logical comparisons, the creature is not over seven feet tall. For what it's worth.

I remain undecided, about "Patty." If pushed toward a precipice, and had to choose or fall, I'd lean toward "not a man in a suit." You, like Yorgmeistere, might differ. I appreciate the honest evaluation Yorg provided.

they should of made it run!

Many large animals walk in 90 degree directions when encountering humans. The creature's reaction, in my own opinion, means little. It quickly walked away, and kept the men and horses in context.

yeh, alot of people claim the way it looks back over it's shoulder proves that its a guy in a suit, but surely any animal with survival instincts would be trying to keep a couple of guys with guns in sight as it ran off (they were on a hunting trip wern't they?).

any animal that has the ability to turn its neck or body around and continue to walk away would have done so. monkeys, small apes, etc. they all do it not just humans. also a lot of animals seem to walk away from humans instead of running when spotted just as the "bigfoot" did in the video. the best argument ive heard from skeptics is why he had a camera on a hunting trip and how fast he was able to maneuver to film . but who wouldn't want to film their hunt and one would be surprised how fast a person can get set to photograph something

i think i heard he had the camera out cos he wanted to film himself before the hunt, bit like an introduction sort of thing.

This "hunting trip" was one specifically seeking to photograph bigfoot. The trip wasn't one seeking game, it was out to try to film the creature. Patterson's horse reared and threw him in reaction to the bigfoot. Patterson retrieved the camera as quickly as he could and ran to get closer to the creature. He reportedly did request his friend, Bob Gimlin, to "cover me" with Gimlin's rifle. The rest is speculative, depending on one's opinion.

I continue to see posters here describe the footage as an obvious man in a suit. To those, I ask why similar footage hasn't been shot in the intervening forty years?

Heres where the logic breaks down in the Patterson story.

Patterson was supposedly broke, needed $$$$, so he set out with his buddy to track and get proof of the Bigfoot's existance and thereby make his fortune.

Lo and behold, in a clearing by a river, they see one! Patterson grabs his camera, and shoots 30 feet of film while his buddy 'covers' him with a rifle.

Now, 1). If Patterson was looking for riches by finding proof of Bigfoot....and

2) He was lucky enough to have one appear...

3) And he had a buddy, with a damn RIFLE right there!.... Why didn't they just SHOOT the thing, and have their undeniable PROOF, and thereby become WEALTHY AND FAMOUS????

ANSWER: Because Patterson had 2 buddies with him, one was in the BIGFOOT SUIT.

The End.

Where's the suit? The suit that reveals musculature and imparts the power to walk in an un-human manner? If it's a suit, why hasn't another been recreated that provides those details?

Look, I'm quite undecided. I don't "believe." But I've got eyes in my head, and see things impossible for a suit to provide. I've looked fairly long and hard into the Patterson footage. I wish I could simply declare "man in a suit." But I'm not convinced that's the fact of the matter.

I see nothing impossible in the supposed "impossible gait".And as for the height and weight,#1 the height was proved to be less then 7 feet,and #2, how do u tell the weight from a frickin video???!!!

Not the case.
Click to view attachment
On the left we have Bob H in a suit. On the right we have Patty. Bob is in a suit made of Dynel. That is what Phillip Morris always said the suit was made from. Good height and build match as well.
The "muscles" are opinion, not verified in any way. Mainstream science discounts a half-man half-ape being. It should be one or the other. Not Pan and Homo.
The claim that John Chambers made the suit is unfounded even though he was reportedly an acquaintance of Bob Gimlin and Ray Wallace. No doubt where suspicion and rumour crept in. Titmus made casts of the creature's prints and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map. Yet could not find the creature to this day.
Testimonies by Bob Heironimus are corroborated by many outside sources. How can this be if he is lying?
If one was to pull of a hoax of this magnitude, to avoid being found out, the first thing you would do is destroy the suit. No matter, Phillip Morris made another.

ill explain it again

After the events of the patterson film, the man in the ape suit told the media it was a fake
but, Patterson wrote in his journal that it was not fake, that they all planned that to get the paparazis off of him
one of Patterson's friends, took his journal to see if he was hiding something
and he gave it to the media

Don't bogart that joint, pass it over here.

hmm watch this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YktEWmLVTvM...feature=related

me too, even as a proponent of patty and sasquatch, i see the figure could be replicated. you would need under armor long sleeve shirt and very tight pants, then super glue short hair to it, and put it on a massive person.

Probably because if you look carefully, when it turns toward camera, there are breasts that move like real breasts do, and also there is visible flexing of thigh muscle. At the time this was shot, it's highly unlikely that a costume of this detail could have been made, much less such realistic attributes. I think the biggest cause for argument is that it's so old, and fuzzy. Let's face it...home movie cameras back them were crap=)

Also, when you next watch it, look at the chest when it turns toward camera...there are very believable breasts that move as it walks. I'm not sure if back then it was possible to fabricate that...nor do I think that a faker would bother to try=)

If you do a search you will find a whole thread on Patty's breasts started by the excellent footbeef.
General consensus was somewhat unbelievable from memory. Unless Patty has a plastic surgeon. Worth a read, quite some amusing comments made it into that thread. Making a suit at the time must be deemed plausible asfter Phillip Morris made a suit from Dynel (which he proposed patty's suit was made from right from the first time he saw the film) and he put the claimant Bob Heironimus in it. As a side by side comparison with the Patterson creature, it looks like this.
Click to view attachment
I believe this is a convincing re-creation, and made by the man who sayas he made the suit, worn by the man who says he wore the suit. (Patty is on the right as you look at it)

Hmmm i think it would be better to show "pattty" in the same position as the guy on the left,or vice versa,for the sake of comparison.Also Phillip should have put breasts on the suit,to match the video,IMHO.

Im sorry but iv,e never been able to get into the whole Bigfoot thing,
and of course they could recreate it if they really wanted to

Evidently easier said than done.................

I'm neutral.I'm open to the idea,but i can't say it exists.I'd love to have some good,hard evidence of whether bigfoot is real or not,thus i think that it would be better if the 2 pictures were in the same position,because it would be easier to compare them,and thus come to a better conclusion.Also if Phillip Morris put breasts on the suit,like he says he did in the video,then it would prove that he could

Its merely a question of finding the people with the correct expertise, and I agree both pictures should be side by side

i think bigfoot might be one of those people that grow hair everywhere
like the dog faced boy
Hypertrichosis, congenital generalized Hypertrichosis or werewolf syndrome is a medical term referring to a condition of excessive body hair

either that or a dude in a suit
if i had a bigfoot suit
i'd run around in the woods
and make fake bigfoot videos
in fact
i think i might

Why are so many people saying this can't be a man in a monkey suit, when in fact it looks precisely like a man in a monkey suit.
When you compare this & the guys dressed as monkeys at the beginning of 2001 space oddessy, they would each get an oscar, & this guy would get the golden rasbury award.

P.S. He wouldn't look anymore like a man in a monkey suit if he was wearing a toolbelt & smoking a cigarette.

Patterson, a broke character with a very scetchy background steals a camera to go shoot a bigfoot video.
- right there I would guess he would come back with a fake video

The boobs
- they are hairy boobs with hairy nipples. Any other animals have those?

The muscle movement
- It seems a bit of a stretch. Why does the rear end not have any movement at all. It looks like a load of padding

You honestly think this comparison is not very convincing? They are a very similar position just mirror reverse.

It's convincing,don't get me wrong,but there are a few "questionable"things about it.
#1:There are no breasts on the left image,if there were then that would prove that Phillip Morris could have made them on the original.As such we can't prove it.
#2:They're not in the same position,making it harder to compare them both as far as "muscles" and appendage length and such.
#3:The suit in the left image appears to not have much of a neck,while the one on the right does.Also the one on the right has a much more barrel-shaped body then the left.These differences may just be caused by the differing stance,but hey,that's another reason they should be in the same position.

I'm not saying the film is real(as i said earlier in this thread,i believe the Patterson film to be fake),just saying there are flaws in your comparison.

I wish the dude in the suit had the same arm extended, in the comparison, as Patty. I think the suit dude's arms are shorter, but a little hard to say from that comparison.

Exactly my point.

Enough hard evidence does exist. Check the threads and follow the links to the many studies on actual residents of the PNW. For Biff to exist, he must have a population of about 20, eat 100 pine needles a year and bones must disolve on contact with dirt. It was also said the suit cannot be re-created. If you think this is not a convincing facsimile, you just want to believe. It is certainly possible to re-create the suit going on this example. The suit also sports a helmet as described by Bob Heironimus to a T. And - the suit does indeed have bewbs. Check this shot. Topless Biff.

Click to view attachment

Bleh. Hey, you started this bewb thing up again..............

Have you read the whole article from the Fortean times? It has several angles, and the process of putting the suit on in pictures. The helmet is most convincing. The hands are also more detailed than I would have expected.
The main point of the comparison was to prove that the suit could be re-created. It is amazing that it is so close considering the large amount of Alterations that Roger Patterson made with Phillip Morris's direction. The alterations were all advised by phone. Morris can only re-create what he believe Patterson did to his suit, and as such, it is a match. This shows the suit can be re-created, when so many say that it cannot to this day. BTW, this article ran in a January 2005 issue. Morris has been saying for years it was made from Dynel, and that it was his work. This picture proves that the feat was cretainly possible as Morris used materials available in the time period. I believe the debate of "it could not be done at the time" is stalemated by this picture effectively.