Is the Patterson Bigfoot footage genuine ?

This will be a formal debate in which two members will debate for and against whether or not the famous Patterson/Gimlin footage shows a genuine 'Bigfoot'. The two participants will take it in turns to each make up to 5 posts in this thread to put their arguements across, aswell as an optional introductory opening paragraph and conclusion.

Participants are allowed to quote from their oponent to discuss points made by that person. Quoting from other sources is also permitted in moderation, as long a link/source reference is included. Using large amounts of quoted material however is not allowed.

Please also note that only the two participants of this debate and the debate organiser will be permitted to post to this thread while the debate is running. If anyone else posts to the thread, that post will be removed.

The two members who will be taking part in this debate are Druidus and Stillcrazy.

We tossed a coin in order to decide which side of the arguement each participant is supporting. The result is that Stillcrazy will be arguing against the Patterson footage being genuine, and Druidus will be arguing for why the Patterson footage is genuine.

To start off, both participants are allowed to post an introductory opening paragraph, however you may skip this if you wish. Once the introductory posts have been made, the participants can take it in turns to post in the debate. An optional conclusion can also be posted right at the end. There is no set time limit for this debate, participants can take as long as they need for each post.

Thank you again to you both for taking part, and good luck.

Opening statement:

The Patterson film is a hoax, a very well concocted hoax to be sure, but a hoax all the same.

Opening statement:

The Patterson footage is not a hoax. If it was a costume it would be easily duplicated, but many people have tried to make duplicates, including the BBC, but all have failed.

Big foot, the myth of the film.


The historical aspect of big foot did not start with the Patterson film, the American version started in 1957 when construction workers, building a logging road into the area ‘found’ large footprints in the soft soil of the area. This was reported t the local newspapers by Jerry, a bulldozer operator who had in his possesion a plaster cast of a large footprint. This story set off Patterson on the search for big foot.

Luckily, I don’t have to disprove that big foot exsist. If I did, I would more than likely be run out of my home here in southern Oregon. I only have to disprove the validity of the film.

The first thing to examine is the story of Patterson and Gimlin. As stated in the their story.
“In the early afternoon of October 20, 1967 Patterson and Gimlin spotted a female Bigfoot down on the creek gravel sandbar. Patterson's horse reared in alarm at the sight of the creature, bringing both horse and rider to the ground, Patterson pinned below. Being an experienced horseman, he quickly disengaged himself and grabbed his camera. While running toward the creature, Patterson took 24 feet of colour film footage.”
Source

The first thing I noted was that Patterson was thrown from and pinned under his horse. This is interesting in that the creature, who has remained very ellusive until now, did not move quick enough to avoid being filmed. But that aside, the question is where did Patterson have the camera? If it was held in his hand, it would be very likely that it would have been dropped during the fall. Kodak cameras were not built for this type of shock, and if it did hit the ground, more than likely would have malfunctioned.

If the camera was in a saddlebag or other storage device on the horse, it seems that it would take a bit of time to calm the horse and retrieve the camera. Again, this delay would have allowed the camera shy big foot to make a easy escape. At best, only a very short shot of the animal would have been possible.

The next question that comes up is the time of year. First why October, normaly the weather is very cool and chances of storms are greater. Men from Yakima Washington would have known this. But our big foot duo lucked out as Northern California was having a unusual warm season that year. The tempature in the area was a balmy 62 degrees. But there is a problem here, again with the month. According to the account, Patterson and Gimlin spotted big foot in the early afternoon. According to still photos of the movie, it would have had to been right at noon as the sun was directly overhead. All the shadows that can be seen are directly under objects. Now for the biggest problem with the time frame. The month of October. The sun is never directly overhead at any time in October in this part of northern California. There would have been a shadow cast not only by big foot, but also by surrounding objects. It was filmed earlier in the year.

The other aspect is what the locals said about the habits of the local big foot.

“BIGFOOT, as the Bluff Creek people call the creature, apparently travels only at night.”

(Source: The Province; Monday, October 6, 1958)

What it boils down to, is that Patterson and Gimlin lucked out all the way. They not only see big foot on their first trip looking for him/her, a feat never duplicated, but also manage to get a good piece of film after being thrown from a horse, in the middle of the day, when the sun created an anomaly in it’s position to the earth.

Of course the camera was "likely" to be dropped if it was in his hand. However, it is even more likely that since a camera was so expensive at the time, he would have been wearing it on his neck. Would you hold a very expensive, fragile object in your hand on a horse that, if spooked may throw you off? It is not fathomable that he would have held it in his hand.

Have you ever had a question in your head that you felt simply had to be answered? Indeed, that is what overcame these men. They felt that they needed to find out, and so they set out to search.

It is important to note that the dead tree, closest to Gimlin and Patterson is the only clear reference point. The chances that misinterpretation of the angle of the shadow at the distance we are viewing in relation to the reference point is high, very high. The possibility of parallax error is extremely high. The leads to the possibility that the sun need not have been directly overhead.

If you look closely at the film, you can see that the elbow and the knee are positioned wrong in relation to a human's. No human could possibly walk in such a way and appear to be moving smoothly. The stride is simply to large to accomplish for a man of Gimlin's stature without stretching unnaturally.

The weight of the creature is speculated to be between 500 and 700 pounds. This is determined by the depth of the footprints the Bigfoot left. Now obviously, he is not deliberately pressing down with his feet in the video, or else he would look highly unnatural as he walked. Assuming that the person in the "suit" was 200 pounds, he must also have been carrying at least 300 pounds as he walked. An impossible feat, especially when considering he was walking as casually as he did.

You can easily see (with a clear video) the muscles moving underneat the skin of the creature. It is very visible when he turns to look at Patterson, and the torso shifts as well. It was possible to create such an effect at the time, but it would have been extremely difficult, compareable to shooting a deer from 600 yards with a shotgun.

Also, if it was a man in a suit, howcome no one has ever been able to reproduce it? The British Broadcasting Company tried and they failed miserably. They were the ones who put the most money into it. More money, I'm sure, then both Patterson and Gimlin had, even combined.

THe one aspect that keeps coming to mind when discussing the Patterson film is the suit. Many people have tried to duplicate it and have failed. One of the reasons for this failure is due to not asking the right folks. Many Hollywood make-up and special effects artist agree atht the Patterson Film is a special Ape suit and the likely builder is a man named John Chambers. Mr. Chambers has never claimed credit for the suit, nor does he need to. One of his best known films, Planet of the apes, came out in 1968. Considering the time it takes to design and manufacture special effects costumes, this suit may have been made as early as 1965. While it was probably a one of a kind, to test the gorilla scenes. THere are some very close simularities between the Patterson 'suit' and the Planet of the Apes costumes. many of the pre-production suits were sold to costume shops prior to the release of the film. It is the general feeling amonst Hollywood efeects men is that the suit is well within the abilities of Mr. Chambers.

As for the motion of the muscle and other 'natural' movement of the body is easy to explain. There is a device known as a 'water bag' that is worn around the wasist to give stomaches a larger apperaence and a natural movement. The muscles are a combination of foam rubber and parachute cord. The extended hands, are simply plaster extensions. Because you never see the hands move, other than swinging, there is no reason to articulate the fingers. It is interesting to note that some people claim the breast bulge is in reality a baby Big foot, nursing it's mother. I found this aspect interesting because the mother/female never moves her hands to protect the infant after she sees the interlopers. No a very maternal instinct.

The gait of the beast is also another question that is easy to answer. Mr. Patterson rented the 16mm camera just for this trip into the woods. He announced that this was his intention to capture a big foot on film. The Camera, according to most sources and stories, was a dual speed type. 24 frames per second, or a slower 16 fps. Mr. Patterson claims that he cannot remember the speed the camera was set to. At 24 FPS, the standard rate for 16mm film according to Kodak, would if you recorded at 16 fps and played on a standard projector, would slow the film slightly, every thing would look as it it were going just a bit slower than normal. Not by much, but enough to be noticable. This would account for the long gait.

An the zipper problem. The reason you can't see one is because there was never a zipper. Amny Big foot 'experts' claim it can't be a costume because they can't see the zipper. Most Hollywood effects costumes don't have zippers but intead snaps. The reason is that it makes the costume move more natural than a zipper, plus they are easier to conceal. A snap is covered with an overlapping peice of material and in this case the hair combed over. No seams and no bunching when the actor moves in the costume. ( There is also a safety reason, snaps are easier to open in case of emergency, such as an actor suffering from heat exhaustion on a long shoot.

So at this time, best evidence points to a Hollywood special effect that hasn't been duplicated, because the duplicators are not Hollywood effects men/women. It doesn't matter how much money is spent on trying to duplicate the suit, what matters is the person's ability to do the duplication.

If the muscles are a combination of foam rubber and parachute cord then why do they move as the bigfoot walks? The ripple of the muscles suggest that they are real. How could your "plaster extensions" account for the elbow still being in proportion with the arm? If they were plaster extensions then the elbow would not be where it is.

The gait is not what I meant. Have you noticed that as bigfoot walks it always has it's legs bended? Humans, in contrast, always have one leg locked as we walk. There is no way a human could walk like that and appear normal.

The one thing that you have put forth that is impossible to counter is Mr. Chambers. But, indeed, he is only circumstantial evidence anyway. There is no way to prove or disprove that he did make the costume. He would not keep records of where his costumes went after they were sold and there is no way to know if indeed he did make the "costume".

I find it interesting, though, to note that you have not explained the problem with the weight needed to produce such footprints.

Are you familiar with "Gigantopithecus Blacki"? Gigantopithecus was an ape that lived in eastern Asia until 300 000 years ago. The fossils are very rare. So rare that we only have a few jaw bones and some teeth left of it. As an adult they were about ten feet tall, weighing in at 1000-1200 pounds. The largest ape ever. It is not hard to imagine that even before the ice age, before, even, humans did, they could have crossed the bering straight. At times the bering straight was open before the ice age.

Imagine a young Gigantopithecus. They would be shorter and weigh less than the adults. Easily within the range of 7-8 feet tall, 500-700 pounds. This may very well be bigfoot. Height range is good, and so is weight range. If it did come across the bering straight it would be faced with a daunting amount of North American bears and so would have migrated southerly, perhaps to lower North America or South America. Sightings of Bigfoot may occur up higher in North America today, simply because Gigantopithecus is migrating northward. It is logical that it move northward because of the space left by the declining bear population. It is known that historically bears and apes often don't get along in the same areas, usually with bears winning in cold areas (North America) and apes winning in warmer areas. The reason we do not have fossils of them is because they only recently moved northward and Central America does not have as good a fossil record as North America. Also, there may be some biological mechanisim that causes Gigantopithecus fossils to occur very rarely as seen by the sparse fossils in Asia.

That creature fits the specifications of the Patterson footage and therefore, I must say that I believe that bigfoot is Gigantopithecus Blacki.

After a careful study of the film, for the hundredth time this week, I must admit I don’t see the same things that the ‘Experts’ see. It has been reported that the muscles move when the man is walking. In many cases of Hollywood effects, foam rubber and parachute cord are fastened at the ankles and knees, and again at the knees to the hips. When the person wearing a suit that is designed to show muscle movement, as the actor walks, the cord pulls the foam rubber tight then releases it. This effect demonstrates flexation of the muscles.
As for the stride of the person inside the costume, it has been noted that a normal man does not walk in that fashion. This is true. But prior to the release of the movie ‘Planet Of The Apes’ there were several ‘schools’ in operation at the time that their sole purpose was to teach people how to walk like chimps and gorillas. It is not that far of a reach that someone would have attended some of these classes and learned the basics. With practice, the stride would come natural to them. Another possibility is that the actor in the suit, in order to make it more realistic for the hoax, practiced the gait in order to perfect the walk. Remembering that this hoax was not a spur of the moment idea, but carefully planned encounter. The plaster or possibly foam hand extensions are not out of proportion to the size of a man. If measured from the shoulder to the elbow, then from the elbow to the wrist, the size matches a human arm. (Shoulder to finger tip) It’s only from the wrist to the tips of the fingers that there is a length problem. It makes it appear that the arm length is too long to be human.

In regards to the footprints: It is interesting to note that the area that ‘big foot’ traveled left deep impressions. This area hadn’t had any rain in seven days. And in fact had two days in the high 70s. One day prior to this dry spell, the area only received .02 inches of rain. This area of the U.S. dries very quickly in these temperatures and with direct sunlight. This would have left the creek bed very dry and less prone to good foot impressions.
But I refer back to my original theory that the film was shot earlier than October as the sun is in the wrong position and cast direct overhead shadows.

Gigantopithecus Blacki, is an interesting aspect of the big foot tale. But again, without historical and scientific data to make an informed decision one way or another. There is also some contention about the actual size of this animal. Because no other bones have been found, it is just a guess. A well educated guess, but a guess none the less. But this brings me to a point of: Where are the big foot artifacts here in the northwest? Unless this animal lives to be very, very old, there should be some remains of deceased animals.

In the Patterson film, there is some slight giggling of the camera. Patterson claimed that he ran after the animal. However, there is not enough giggle to warrant a man running at any speed. 16mm cameras were very sensitive to movement, and a photographer moving even at a fast walk on level ground would cause a very blurred picture. Here Patterson claims to have run after the animal through a area of uneven terrain, with only a slight movement of the camera. What it ends up being, is a man who claims to have gone hunting for big foot with a camera and is either so inept at it’s operation, or clever enough to make it difficult for investigators to prove it real or a hoax. There are just too many problems with the film itself and the story on how it was taken.

What we have not touched on here is the motive for the hoax. Both Gimlin and Patterson have made a fair amount of money off this film. They invested a great deal of time and effort into this major production that lasted only a half a minute. Too much time on film, and it would be easy to prove a hoax, too little time would mean too many questions. But there is the aspect of the missing film at the beginning of the scene. In the current version, we only see big foot going from left to right. In the original version, before editing, the beast goes from right to the left then there are a few blank frames, then the creature goes to the right. Then there is the question of why the film ran out. 16mm generally come with at least 10 minutes of film time. At 16 FPS he should have had at least 15 minutes of film. To date, only one person has come forward and stated the in no uncertain terms that he was the actor inside a gorilla suit. Bob Heironimus is as far as I know, the only quasi-credible person to make this claim. There are others who have claimed to have had seen the suit, but again, it boils down to whom you want to believe. Mr. Patterson’s reputation is also in question. As many that knew him, claim he was a con man of considerable talent.
As a final note in regards to the footprints of big foot: Why is it that no experienced tracker or scent dog has ever been able to track a big foot to its lair? At the claimed 600 to 1000 pounds of weight, and deep impressions, surely some one with even a basic tracking ability, should be able to follow a big foot some considerable distance.

I am going to forfeit this debate to Druidus. I have entered a stage in my physical therapy that is not allowing me to operate my company and dedicate as much time as I would like to the Forum. I am by no means leaving, I just won't be posting as often.

Druidus, Great debate

If I happen to run into big foot, I'll tell him HI for ya.

Damn!!!

I'm sorry I was unable to post often enough, if I had been able to you might have been able to post. I am having many technical difficulties and it was my fault. I would like to forfeit to stillcrazy instead, as it is my fault.

Thanks for the great debate stillcrazy, hope the therapy goes well!