http://www.lorencoleman.com/is_bigfoot_dead.html

I dont know if anyone has brought this up but look at the buldge on the creatures leg i dont think back then they could have made a coatume that good . I was watch debunker show on Disc. channle where they surveyed alot of tody movie costume makers and they said they could even have made a costume that detailed.

It's already been said that they couldn't. Many have tried and failed. Read all the replys.

I have always found it odd that supporters assume the bulge on the leg was intentional. All we really know about it is that we can see a slight bulge on the leg in the movie (let's set aside the argument that one can see anything if one looks long enough). Yes, one expert said it was identical to X injury, however I would submit that a similar bump anywhere in the area of a major muscle group, or even anywhere on the body, could be easily and irrefutably (considering the quality of the video) be identified as any host of similar physical ailments. I find it just as likely that the bump is nothing more than a piece of costume padding that migrated from its intended position down the leg of the suit.

Agreed, aquatus.

Here is the bulge on Patty' leg! There is a big discussion on this on the bff which I will paste here for all to read!




And here is the thread which discusses the hip bulge!


Patty's hip bulge

Now if you look closely at the animated Gif's I provided in the above post you can clearly see the bulge in the hip, which I think is a bone(particular bone discussed in the "Patty's hip bulge link").

Look at the first picture that Justin posted. Doesn't it look like there is section cut out of a costume for his eyes. Also bigfoots hands look unnatural. Am i the first person to notice this.

I think the footage is definatly real

I've seen other "cleaned-up" versions of the Patterson film showing the bulge a bit more blatantly, however, in the clips you have included here, the bulge doesn't even seem to be singular. It seems to be a corner of the entire butt-plate (The pillow pad used to stuff the posterior on these large costumes).

Look at the thigh muscle tighten up on the last two photos, definately some muscle definition.

And also her hand, if you watch the entire video of patty walking along that bluff you will see that the hand opens and closes. That would be alot of work to produce if it was a costume having extended arms that open and close set on a costume(Just a little unrealistic to go through that much work to me).

And these costumes? What! Have you seen costumes like these before and if so where? Cause so far nothing has even come close to being even similar.

Edited to note: The bone in particular that is being discussed over on the bff is the Trochanter, read a few post of the link I provided(and will provide again for those that dont backtrack) and you will see what exactly is being discuseed and if it even could be the Trochanter.


bigfoot Trochanter

What you call muscle definition, I think of as the costume tightening around the padding (due to the walking motion of the wearer).

As for the hand clenching and unclenching, it isn't all that much work. The arms aren't even all that radically extended. I've seen all the proportion arguments and all the diagrams and whatnot from people convinced that they have mathematically proven that a man couldn't be inside that costume, and nothing that I have seen has shown me any reason to believe that the costume is anywhere outside the range of human variety that could be found in any random group of 100 people. If the fingers were individually wiggling, that would definitely catch my interest, but as it is, I'm not even convinced the movement of the hands is actual, but rather an effect of perspective (much like the alleged "Eyebrow Twitch" that some claim to be visible). What little movement I gather is there could only be described as a clench, at best, which is hardly beyond the range of a costume glove (or any kind of glove, for that matter).

Now, in regards to the quality of the costume, yes, it is most definitely not the work of an amateur. I personally have little trouble believing that it came from a professional costume-maker, one with a budget intended for movies, who was willing to lend a friend a hand. That Patterson was able to get it, by hook or by crook (or by the crooked charm that made him a successful con-man), is not at all beyond the realm of possibility.

look just beneath the figure in both these shots

Ok first off thanks Aquatus1 for your interesting perspective and analysis!

And second what are we looking for just beneath the creature?

And third why are you posting a pic of a skunk ape that Vince Doerr got while out on a routine call?

If you are trying to show that something on this creature resembles something on PATTY you are gonna need to explain 'WHAT' you want us to look at.


Ok I just came across this link on the bff and it discusses basically everything we are discussing here!


Here is the link to the thread in the bff where they are discussing bob and roger. They are even just starting to get into the bulge on the hip, very interesting stuff.

Patty info

And here is the link(first post in the thread I provided) with alot of information about that day at Bluff Creek.

The one quote that caught my eye was:

"Well, these young men had the sense to get their film carefully processed, under guard, a copy made, and the original locked up in a vault so that it could not be scratched, stolen or destroyed. Then they went to the one group of people who really know about "faking" things — especially like "King Kong," "apemen" and other phony monsters — namely, Universal Pictures in Hollywood. There they met Dale Sheets, head of the Documentary Film Department, and top technicians in what is called the Special Effects Department, who are the men who have actually made such things for the movies. They asked the technicians, in effect: "Look at this strip of film. fellows, and then tell its if you could reproduce that for us." "No," the experts answered. "Maybe if you allotted a couple of million bucks, we could try, but we'd have to invent a whole set of new, artificial muscles, get a gorilla's skin and train an actor to walk like that. It might he done, but offhand we'd say it would be nearly impossible

Many Bigfoot witnesses have described the creature they saw as moving in a similarly odd way--primarily, swinging its arms in an exaggerated fashion, and ambling off in an unconcerned, deliberate way. (Which is close to being "stiff.") And many Bigfoot witnesses (or "reporting persons," to use a more neutral term) have viewed the PG Film and declared that it resembled what they saw. (Unfortunately there are awkward disagreements about certain of the details in what they saw, such as the pointedness of the skull, the length of the hair (and other hair pattern matters), its bulkiness or slenderness, its eye-shine color, its odor (or not), etc.)


Patterson didn't have the camera in his hand when his horse reared, but rather in an unfastened saddlebag, with the lens cap off and the dials set properly for the sunlight that day, and focused on the middle distance. (Sanderson raised an eyebrow over this unnatural degree of preparedness.) All he had to do was grab it and run. And he wasn't exactly thrown (according to Gimlin), but sort of slid off in conjunction with trying to dismount when the horse reared. (Patterson may have been trying to magnify his heroics by claiming the horse rolled on him--something akin to the routine exaggeration one encounters in "fish stories.")

There's a selection of hair-raising hoaxes and cases of mistaken missing link identity, in which the knotty overlapping layers of confusion and deceit may never be fully unraveled. Monkey see, monkey do... is any of this monkey business really true?

Probably not.

http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/missingLinks.htm


The Patterson Film.

Being established in the "Bigfoot business," Patterson stood to profit from fabricating film footage of the creature. Bigfoot expert John Napier pointed out that the footprint casts were physiologically inconsistent with the height of the creature and the length of its stride as shown in the film.

The only known source of such a high quality of costume and makeup in 1967 was the movie special effects industry, and in fact there is strong evidence that this Bigfoot came from Hollywood.

Movie director John Landis stepped forward to verify what he said had been known among Hollywood make-up artists for years. "That famous piece of film of Bigfoot walking in the woods that was touted as the real thing was just a suit made by John Chambers," Landis said. The director said that Chambers had revealed this secret to him when they worked together on Beneath the Planet of the Apes in 1970.



http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/missingLinks.htm

ur wrong. saying it probaly doesnt exist is ur opinion. not a fact. it wasnt a fake. no suit has been shown to the public

the patterson film wasnt a hoax. no evidence saying its a hoax. experts agree its genuine

Ahhh, here is the other thread. Wherever Makaya325 is attached, they seem to travel in pairs.......

Pffft. There is no evidence either way. Pattersons dubious past has cost any value the film may have held. Over 30 years and still nobody can say beyond a shadow of a doubt - this is 100% genuine because......._
Twas shot the year I was born
Perhaps a modern day boy who cried Wolf. Shame he did, now we will never know.
Here is a good question, if the film is 100% genuine, and it does show a female bigfoot with a rupture in the leg, why has nobody returned for difinitive proof as the creature obviously lives somewhere around there? A female would suggest a family unit. Should be able to do a feature film by now if the sigting was indeed genuine.
What's the go there?

::

indirectly, it is likely their is a bigfoot. and science cant disprove it

Ahhhh

wouldn't you have to prove something before one can dis-prove it?????

It is likely a creature exists in some parts of the world that is either an unknown homnid, or resembles one. I grant that much only. Just what it is, which one is going to show up first and wether it turns out to be another form of Orangutang is yet to be determined. Can't say I am 100% convinced of a "Patty Style" bigfoot. Just seems too unlikely that for 40 years, nobody can find them. We can find little lobsters in the middle of the Ocean, small cat-like creatures that sneak around at night and Lemurs in Madagascar. We can't get one undeniable pice of media of something 8 foot tall right under our noses that stinks to high heaven? For 40 years? With how many people looking specifically for it, not to mention millions of campers/holiday makers and backpackers?? It just does not make sense.
The only 'evidence' is from a known con man. Not a strong case for the likleyhood of it being authentic.

hardly anyone investigates. they leave bigfoot alone. its rugged in bc. it is LIKELY something is their.

????
More remote than waters 2,300 meters (7,540 feet) deep at a site 1,500 kilometers (900 miles) south of Easter Island ???????

Aren't these things spotted all over the place, isn't there special groups that go out and try to capture evidence all year round, what does BFRO do? And, why not one shred of evidence - every Bigfoot that has ever died does not leave one bone?? We have found bones of minature creatures that lived millions of years ago. Not one Bigfoot has ever fallen into a lake and drowned, caught in a bushfire, fallen down a crevice - something, anything ???
Nothing hit by traffic, once again, millions of holiday makers/campers/backpackers even enthusiasts that follow real animals like bird watchers. If there was a bigfoot at Bluff Creek, someone would know by now.

Sounds more unlikely all the time. I really hope I am proved wrong, but seriously, the evidence just does not hold up. Maybe one of theses Malay Pendeks will show up.

I'm afraid I just don't believe that 3 blokes from a little town in rural America could have made a suit 30 odd years ago that still hold up to investigation today by people using digital photographic software, and if they did make this suit, where is it now, you certainly wouldn't throw it away would you! People are quick to de-bunk it because of a lack of evidence, but there is more evidence for it being real than the other way round, the only evidence of it being fake is some bloke who has had 30 years to copy the walk from the footage and others who are now making a fortune from saying "I was there when the tape was made", whereas the footage still stands up today as probable evidence that some other large ape roams the earth.

Exactly

Bingo .. Honestly their is more to bigfoot than just one video And as a believer it saddens me so many people are still wasting their time with it. Their is better "evidence" out their folks, than some 30 year old film that could be anything.

Their is just the same amount of evidence either way and will never be resolved I don't think, why don't we concentrate on other things that might one way or another ?

Seems to me that getting rid of the evidence is fairly high up on the priority list of con men.

Is it so strange that the suit is missing? Are any of the original Planet of the Ape costumes still around?

I would think that collectors would have some of the original costumes in collection etc. More evidence for Bigfoot/Yeti's are the stories that almost continually come out of Nepal and the Himalayas, where the local inhabitants see them regularly, and as these people don't sell their stories to papers or put them on the internet to get publicity makes me think they are telling the truth. Don't know if anyone from the UK saw that Michael Palin program a while back where he travelled through the mountain range but his guide said he had seen them a couple of times and he said it like it was no big deal, like it was a regular occurrence round there.

in the film, why is the bigfoots feet white?

Did you not already ask that question and get the answer of a possible padded sole?

I doubt these men themselves made any suit. It would have been made by a professional, perhaps a different country? The maker may still to this day be living in some village somwewhere completly oblivious to Bigfoot altogether. The thing is, we just do not know and cannot prove anything with this either way.
Of course you would throw it away, getting caught could cost money, not a very good business venture for a shyster like Patterson.
It has been 39 years - nearly 40 not 30. In that case, why not head on back down to Bluff Creek in the last 40 years and do a TV series with them?
The footage does not stand up to anything, or this debate would not be happening right now.
Even if it is for real, it will never gain full credibility becasue of Patterson and his dubious past.

I truly believe patterson's story and that the footage is 100% authentic.

Please state why.

sorry, I have said this many times and there are many reasons why I feel this way. I don't really feel like getting into it right now, but I was just stating my opinion on the subject. My gut feeling is to believe Roger Patterson and even though he has a somewhat questionable past, I do believe the guy did nothing but record what really happened. There are also many different analysis on the subject and one of the main points is that the arms in the video are much to long to be that of a human in a suit. Now you could say that it is just the suit that makes them longer, but as you can see the arms move and swing naturally, which would not be possible if they were just extended longer. Also you can see muscles tightening(I can at lest and many others who have watched the film), and when the bigfoot turns in the video, the whole upper body moves, not just the head like a human. It also looks very natural when it moves like that. There are many other points in the film, but I will try and post some more later on. And while I do concede the fact that it may have been faked(I do not believe this for a minute though, just trying to be objective), I seriously doubt the Bob H. guy had anything at all to do with it and I believe that he is certainly not what you see in the Patterson footage. I guess i got into it anyway, lol.

^ Thanks, I am interested in all views. I may have seen your thoughts on this film in the past but I don't recall doing so.
Could you not make the arms marginally longer by the suit being bigger than the wearer (Eg slot arm just above armpit, carry shoulder 20 or so cms above the carriers shoulder, and extend the forearm.)
I thought the muscles tightening could be the suit, and moving the whole upper torso, as opposed to just a head, like other primates, suggests to me a suit as well. Restriction of the upper body part.

Have you heard the 'floppy foot' theory? If so, what is your view on that?

I am not sure, i may have, could you explain that to me? thanks. and on the arm lengthening, it is possible to extend the arms, but that would make it look unrealistic, in the video it looks very much like the arm is being controlled completely and the arm is whole(not hollow like there was nothing filling it up), i don't think that the way the arm moves like that could be faked by a human. I suppose it is possible to try and fake it in other was, but I doubt Roger Patterson would know how to, let alone do everything so perfectly to create if it was a hoax, the greatest one in history.

The floppy foot theory is also pointing toward a fake. When the bigfoot in the Patty film lifts its foot, it appears to 'slide' downwards and there appears to be a 'heel' extended out from the ankle. looks like shoes that are too big and flop back and down. I will try and find a close up showing this or a link.

After nearly forty years of secrecy, the real truth is finally revealed behind the famous Roger Patterson "Bigfoot" film - a hoax that has managed to fool scores of scientists and millions of people around the world.

In this riveting and historic book, author Greg Long reveals, for the first time, the identity of the man who actually wore the Bigfoot costume in the famous Patterson film! In addition to reading his exclusive, full confession, Long also presents the testimony of another equally important eyewitness: the man who made and then sold the "Bigfoot" suit to Roger Patterson, and later advised him on how to make the costume look more "authentic."

Other historic breakthroughs in THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT include the actual legal contract that Roger Patterson signed and then exclusive interview with a female investor who gave him money to create his "Bigfoot" film; exclusive testimony from the man who advised Patterson on how to improve the realism of his "Bigfoot tracks" to make them more believable; and the testimonies of dozens of eye-witnesses, including several exclusive, firsthand accounts from individuals who independently saw the "Bigfoot" costume suit after Patterson used it to fake the film.

Regardless of your opinion about the subject, THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT is a spell-binding account that will have you glued to each page. It is a classic gumshoe detective story, told in gripping first-person narrative - it's not only a fascinating story, but the facts it presents and the startling information it reveals are all true!

THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT exposes it all: the shadowy life of Roger Patterson, the clever perpetrator, and how he did it, as well as the never-before-heard stories of dozens of men and women in Yakima, Washington, who became the victims of Patterson's scams and lies, watched Patterson's scheming in action, and helped to "connect the dots" of one the most successful hoaxes of all time - one that continues to be marketed and falsely promoted even today.

Based on forty original interviews, newspaper archives, criminal records, court documents, and never-before-seen photographs, THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT is the most comprehensive examination of a truly American story, a unique slice of Americana in a small western town in the late 1960s, where one man's dream of discovery quickly turned into a quest driven by the lust for money on a contorted pathway of lies and corruption.

About the Author: Greg Long is a professional writer, investigative journalist, and editor who lives in Mill Creek, Washington. He has been researching and writing about "mysteries" and unexplained phenomena of the Pacific Northwest for twenty-five years. His work has been featured on radio and television, including the Discovery Channel.

that book itself is a hoax.

Bwahahaha.
Sorry, that seemed such a knee jerk reaction I found it amusing.

The guy seems pretty credible, his quallies stack up, here is a read on the subject.

Rense Article

Well in that case that means there are two theories about who made the suit because I saw a program on Sky, think it was presented by Danny Wallace, where he interviewed the guy who was supposed to be in the suit, the one who copied the walk, and he said that Patterson, himself and another man made the suit in one of their sheds, they even went to the shed and looked inside it! I also think that its a bit suspicious that he only came forward saying it was him in the suit after Patterson died and he went to his grave saying it was real, so it either was real or they were playing a prank on him, which I doubt.

If you look closely at the arms you can see muscle movement in the arms, that would be hidden in a suit.

If cryptozoology ever hopes to be taken seriously by the scientific community they must abandon the Patterson video as proof of bigfoot. So much doubt has been cast over the film that it cannot be considered strong evidence of anything.

To begin with, Patterson himself has a reputation for being, shall we say, less than on the up-and-up. His intention on the day in question was, unabashedly, to collect footage for a bigfoot documentary, and sale of the footage has earned him a tidy sum, giving him financial incentive for a hoax. He himself chose the route that led to the sighting. The creature is seen from a distance for only a few seconds, enough to rule out misidentification but not enough to determine if it is a genuine animal or a man in a suit. Finally, there have been numerous and credible stories and confessions - some false, others possibly true - indicating that the film was hoaxed.

There are, of course, also arguments for authenticity - claims that the creature's size and gait rule out a human being, for instance. However, such arguments are irrelevant against the mountain of circumstantial evidence against the film. Whether it is real or not, the fact that it cannot be definitively proven to be authentic nullifies its value as evidence. One cannot base a claim off of evidence which is known or strongly suspected to be faulty. Put simply: it doesn't prove anything, and is therefore useless. To continue to cite the film as anything other than an interesting curio is bad science.

-Pilgrim

their is no suit!!! and no evidence. what patterson filmed was a ape!!! ok
people try to debunk it, but fail. forensics study it and say its genuine. biomechanics were too primitive back then

YOU DONT KNOW THAT, SO DON'T SAY THAT CRAP MAKAYA!!!!

You could say you dont think its a suit, but you dont know anything for sure

ok sory i lost my patience, but im annoyed by these people who say their the guy in the suit, but they have no evidence. if u have the so called "suit" show it.

That's about it. I have always held this view.
Mayaka says it cannot be debunked. If it could be proven genuine, this debate would not be happening. 40 years. Give it a rest. The film is worthless. If it is a BF, Patterson destoryed the credibility of the film with his reputation, that cannot be repaired, his dubious dealings follow him in death.

If it could have been proven genuine, it would have happened by now. There has to be better evidence than this about, if this is the best evidence to date in 40 years do you really think this creature actually exists?

Anybody read that book?, looks like an interesting read.

Might be a good one for you to read Mayaka always pays to have both sides of the story

I'm afraid you've failed to grasp my point, which is that REGARDLESS of whether the film is authentic or not (and, for the record, I think the authenticity is highly debatable), there is so much controversy surrounding it that it can no longer be considered good evidence. There mere fact that this thread exists is proof of that fact. To build a case for such a creature on such a shaky foundation would be foolish. Cryptozoologists must accept the fact that this film has been discredited; perhaps not thoughroughly (again, a debatable position), but enough. It is time to find better evidence.

To cling blindly to whatever evidence one has is not the mark of science. Evidence is discredited all the time, far less thouroughly than this film, and is abandoned. A responsible scientist will present only evidence which is, to the best of their knowledge, universally accepted. A conclusion drawn from faulty data is itself unreliable, and a conclusion drawn from data which is percieved to be faulty will be percieved to be unreliable. As I said before, the film proves nothing, and is worthless in any form of scientific debate.

-Pilgrim

I am one that really believes that the film is authentic, but I also agree that much better evidence is needed to prove that Bigfoot is really out there.