it was never proven to be fake if you check out these sites it will explain in detail how the hoax rumors started


http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751

Well, that's true. .. I've heard many credible people argue both sides of the story, so my hands are really up in the air. I, personally, don't really believe it. . .But I don't have proof either way, so I guess I could believe it were real if someone was able to give me a really good reason to. Did anyone see the thing on TLC where the ape expert said it moved like an ape, the way that it turned. . .something about how the shoulders turned with the head. . . that was a pretty good arguement. . .but then if it were a guy in a costume, the costume may have prevented him from turning just his head. . .I don't know. . .there's just so many things that could make it real, and so many things that could make it false.

Their is a sub forum just for this book over at bigfoot forums and greg long even posts from time to time. Shows all the inconsistencies and assumptions made in the book, you might want to check it out




Well said BTW Pilgrim_Shadow

Thanks , I'll head over for a gander.

That Pilgrim_Shadow is really on the ball isn't he. Very good posts all round, seen a few now, all very impressive. Good addition to UM.

All the evidence that I have seen is circumstantial, it is just one bloke who, after Patterson died, came forward saying that it was me in the suit, this wouldn't hold up in a court of law so why is everyone taking it as the truth. That man probably has the same track record that Patterson had, ie not a shinning member of the communtity, but everyone seems to believe him, so why not Patterson. It will be almost impossible to win over sceptics in instances like this because if you filmed a real Bigfoot and the footage was slightly out of focus, they would just say "well that could be anything", whereas if you shot crystal clear footage then they would automatically say "well that must be fake because the footage is to clear".

Fair enough, many claims of responsibility are unsupported by any evidence and some are no doubt false. However, if film footage is the best evidence that can be mustered for the existance of bigfoot, then you are right to believe that some skeptics will never be satasfied, for this is not sufficient evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

An example that James Randi once used would be this: suppose I were to say I have a donkey in my backyard, and as evidence, I show you a picture of a donkey. This is hardly an extraordinary claim, and in all likelihood, you will accept the photograph as proof. However, suppose I say I have a unicorn in my backyard, and I show you a picture of a unicorn. In all liklihood you will accuse me of having doctored my photo, and will demand to see the unicorn in person. It is an extraordinary claim, and thus a higher level of proof is required.

I humbly sumbit that film footage is not sufficient evidence for the existance of sasquatch, as there is no way to reproduce that footage in a controlled environment. If and when better evidence becomes availible, I will consider it on its own merits.

-Pilgrim

I know it's real

lol, me too!

AHA.

You are only saying that cause your the guy in the suit aren't you!!!

Got get up pretty early in the morning to catch me out.......................... ....... ... . .

Amazing how many conclusions are made which aren't based on facts. A lot of inaccurate info. has been given by some. A decent walkthrough of the Patterson business can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film



Something to keep in mind is, there are a few different hoax claims. John Landis saying Chambers made the suit and Bob H. where Philip Morris made it. It is a fact that atleast one or more are lying since they do not corroborate but contradict.

People lie to take credit, just as people lie in hoaxing.

Wasn't there a rumor floating around that the guy that did the costumes for the old "Planet of the Apes" movie did the patterson costume. . .and then that was discredited because the costumes for that movie were from the chest up or something. . .I'm not really sure, I saw it on the tv and I can't remember the details.

yeah and they guy who made the planet of the apes suits said that he didn't do it anyway.

Ok, that's what I thought. . .just checking. . .

I believe the Patterson footage to be of a genuine bigfoot creature. I base this on the fact that it looks very convincing to me, particularly for the year it was filmed. And one interesting point that adds to my belief is the fact that the bigfoot is female. Most people refer to bigfoot creatures as "he" (which is fair enough, so is King Kong, Godzilla, and most "monsters"). In 1967, western culture was even more patriarchal than it is now. If two midwestern cowboys were going to hoax a believable bigfoot in 1967, I find it virtually impossible to believe that they would have given it breasts.

As one who knew Ray Wallace and viewed one spool of his claimed 10,000 feet of bigfoot movies, let me say that I would seek independent verification for anything he claimed to have seen or done. I know way more about Ray than his family needs to be told. He was a man who enjoyed nurturing fantasies.

The "beast" in Ray's film moved just like Ray's brother Wilbur "Shorty" Wallace, had a tail that swung around stiffly like a broomstick in a sheath of fur, and in no credible way resembled the subject of Roger Patterson's footage.

John Green and I recreated the Patterson footage the following summer (1968), using still frames from the Patterson film and triangulation of objects in the field of view to establish where Patterson's camera was, showing me in regular street clothes walking along the course taken by Patterson's film subject. I had visited the site soon after getting back from the fall 1967 film showing at the University of British columbia. The tracks were quite visible then, although Bob Titmus had already made his illuminating series of plaster casts of the best track sequence. Traces of a couple of the deeper impressions still remained when Green and I were there.

We found that the film subject's head was not much higher than my own, but adjusting for its more bent-kneed gait, depper track impressions, and the greater forward lean from the hips we concluded it was several inches taller than my 6'5'' in boots. Subsequent comparisons and other studies revealed a radical difference from human norms in the relative length of arms and legs.

I am no fan of belief. It does not serve inquiry well. The same goes for disbelief, which is actually a belief in the non-truth or nonexistence of something. No-one should inquire or investigate in order to believe. Human knowledge is a very fluid thing, evidenced by the enormous scrapheap of discarded "science" down through the ages. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand nature and the universe in all their intricacies, we just needn't be so silly as to grasp any evolving concept and form it into a belief.

It is easy to be an armchair commentator and make pronouncements about the Patterson film's veracity without having made a respectable effort to assemble facts, measurements, or qualifying expertise. Let me suggest this: If it is worthy of your commentary, pro or con, it should be worthy of a little study and preparation, weighing the best arguments of both sides. What am I saying? I'm a dolt ;-) This is the blogosphere.

Sorry, repeat post. Don't know how to delete it.

I was wondering if you were 'that' Jim McClarin when I saw your name. You and John did an excellent job with that video and I think it is one of the most telling pieces of evidence to support the authenticity of the creature in the Patterson'Gimlin film. Compared to your 6'5" frame Patty looked absolutely huge. Great Job!

B.M.Nunnelly
www.kentuckybigfoot.com

When I was going to college in Washington state, I met some of Roger Patterson's kids. And they said that their father never admitted on his deathbed to hoaxing the film. And went to his death believing he had filmed a bigfoot. And the kids said that will their father made about $50,000 from a nationwide tour showing the film. Next to all of the money was spent in further attempts to film another animal.

Also, if Patterson had admitted that it was a hoax - then why is Bob Gimlin, the other person with Patterson during the filming, still to this day saying that the film depicted what he saw. Surely if Patterson said it was a hoax, then Gimlin would remain silent on the subject.

I belived its real when i read this

www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

Oh i thought it would turn into a link

Turned it into an hyperlink for you to make it easier for others: Link

Ya know...



It's the shaking of the leg fat that makes that more real to me, than anything. A costume would have to be tightly fitted and have fin fabric to show such wobbly chick fat.



I'm really not sure what i think. Somthing so large couldn't go so unoticed in a country so populated.... could it?

This was proven to be fake....and a human inside

Sorry War_Machine, but there is no proof of it being a hoax. And as far as some person in the suit, the person who says he was in the suit has changed his story so many times it is hard to keep track.

HAJiME, people do not have any idea how wooded a good part of North America is. There are parts of the area that sees few if any hunters and hikers on a monthly or even yearly basis. Just in Washington State alone, there are 51 airplanes that are missing in the Cascade Mountain region. Some dating back to WW-II. Plus there are other missing aircraft in the Olympics and in Eastern Washington. Just last year they found wreckage of a WW-II plane, 60 years after it went down.

And it is not just airplanes that are lost. One 30 mile radius in the southern Origon Cascades has had 4 people go missing in the past couple of years. Each year an estimated that 200-300 people go missing and are not found in the thick woods of the American West.

There are a number of National Parks and Wilderness Areas in the American West. let alone other areas accross the nation, that are off limits to hunters. Hikers by and large stay on the trails. Since gold mining has been curtailed, the number of prospectors going off into the woods is very small now compared to the 1890's. Now the people who go way off trail are marijuna growers and meth
cookers - and they aren't talking about what they see.

If you do not have mountains "in your back yard" it is hard to believe that things can go on without being noticed. But there are woods, swamps and other unhospitable areas that can and has hide airplanes, people and who knows what else.

It's SO true... unless you've experienced the forests of the Pacific Northwest (and other areas too, but the NW is in many ways very unique) it's really hard to comprehend how dense and downright dangerous they can be. They are nothing short of expansive. It would be darn easy to just disappear never to be found again.

Frankly, I'm not sure I actually believe in footie (although my grandmother had a very strange experience I've written about on another thread) ... but I can absolutely see how something unknown and seldom seen could live in the woods of the PNW and only be seen rarely, and the remains of a dead one never found.

I'm awear of the variety of American Geography, what concerns me is that expiditions go looking for things in deeper, darker places on earth than US woodland and usually find what they are looking for. I supose you could argue that Bigfoot isn't taken seriously enough to send out enough expeditions.

Bigfoot is a cryptid for a long time i've dismissed as a boring, obvious fake. But now i'm becoming more and more interested.

Ya know, in all honesty, what made me turn round and think that maybe it was worth opening my eyes a bit more to bigfoot and other such bipedal ape-things... Was when my primary facination crossed boarders. Anybody here heard of or even ridden Disney's Expedition Everest at Animal Kingdom?

Didn't you know ? It was proven to be a very hairy lady with an allergy to waxing.....

It's understandable that you'd think that there's more dark and strange places that western forests, but you'd be somewhat wrong. This is a photo taken in an area in Washington state that's not too far (maybe 15 miles) from a bustling suburban area. Think of thousands of inaccessable square miles of more tightly dense forests than this.... and you'd have Footie's stomping grounds.



Photograph thanks go to Highline Community College.

On the link to the video on this site I posted a long comment on all the things that show how fake it is. It's pretty obvious.