Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
JonathanVonErich

The Patterson Film

281 posts in this topic

Rumors circulated that the creature seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film was a suit designed by movie special effects expert John Chambers, who designed the ape costumes seen in many of the original Planet of the Apes films, and was reportedly an acquaintance of Bob Gimlin and Bigfoot researcher Ray Wallace.

Film director John Landis (who had earlier worked with Chambers on Beneath the Planet of the Apes) certainly helped spread such rumors, if he didn't invent them outright.[citation needed] Coleman and Clark cite a 1997 Sunday Telegraph story where Landis says, "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."[53] The allegation has also been attributed to makeup artist Rick Baker.[54]

Shortly after Landis's story was published, stimulated by inquiries from cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, Bigfoot researcher Roberta Short interviewed Chambers, who was living in a Los Angeles nursing home. Chambers asserted he did not know Patterson or Gimlin, was not involved in making the film, and had no knowledge of the Patterson-Gimlin film before its public exposure. Short states that Chambers added "that he was 'good' but he 'was not that good' to have fashioned anything nearly so convincing as the Bluff Creek Bigfoot."[55] Chambers also reportedly told Short he had once helped create a Bigfoot sculpture and speculated that this fact may have started or fueled the rumors that he was involved in the Patterson film.

Chambers' innovative Planet of the Apes make-up relied primarily on expressive masks, not on body suits, and whatever seams or "zippers" would have appeared on the Planet of the Apes suits were covered up by clothing. Clothing was also used to cover up certain folds and seams on the Ewok costumes in Return of the Jedi (1983). Even when the costumes became more elaborate in the 1970s, the titular creature in the 1976 film version of King Kong still had a clearly-defined separation between the body of the suit and the head mask. Folds in the material have appeared in every film in which there was human costumed as an ape up until Gorillas in the Mist (1988), and they can be identified as such either in close-up or at a distance.

According to Bigfoot researcher Mark Chorvinsky[citation needed], John Landis had told him that John Chambers had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Roger Patterson regarding the bigfoot suit.

I don't know if this can be true. Even today nobody can make a suit like the one in the Patterson film, in my opinion it can't be a suit, it's too realistic to be a costume. Today, with all the technology nobody have made a good looking Bigfoot costume who looks like the one in the Patterson film....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of the Patterson film....

Is it online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you are sarcastic...but yeah, you can watch it on Youtube...Your avatar is a shot from the film....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is an enhanced, digitized, version of the relevant part of the P-G film, plus a reasonable analysis by someone with a bit of expertise in the subjects of anatomy and anthropology.

I am loathe to succumb to the popular trend of rubbishing the film on the basis of the characters of the filmers and I find it possible that this might, in fact, be the real deal.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This rumour has been done to death, John Chambers himself dismissed it and admitted he could not have made such a suit that long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, everyone should watch the most recent episode of MonsterQuest entitled 'Critical Evidence'. In which they examine the best evidence for BF's existence including the P/G film: Which they found to be impossible to fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if chambers had of signed a non-disclosure contract with patterson,surely it would of been null and void once patterson passed away in the early 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Leonardo for the article... thanks Tarmac for the details....i think the Patterson film is real too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if you are sarcastic...but yeah, you can watch it on Youtube...Your avatar is a shot from the film....

Yeah, sorry, i was being a bit sarcastic!

That film has really been scrutinized and dissected, and yet it is still the most iconic of all of Cryptozoology!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rumors circulated that the creature seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film was a suit designed by movie special effects expert John Chambers, who designed the ape costumes seen in many of the original Planet of the Apes films, and was reportedly an acquaintance of Bob Gimlin and Bigfoot researcher Ray Wallace.

Film director John Landis (who had earlier worked with Chambers on Beneath the Planet of the Apes) certainly helped spread such rumors, if he didn't invent them outright.[citation needed] Coleman and Clark cite a 1997 Sunday Telegraph story where Landis says, "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."[53] The allegation has also been attributed to makeup artist Rick Baker.[54]

Shortly after Landis's story was published, stimulated by inquiries from cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, Bigfoot researcher Roberta Short interviewed Chambers, who was living in a Los Angeles nursing home. Chambers asserted he did not know Patterson or Gimlin, was not involved in making the film, and had no knowledge of the Patterson-Gimlin film before its public exposure. Short states that Chambers added "that he was 'good' but he 'was not that good' to have fashioned anything nearly so convincing as the Bluff Creek Bigfoot."[55] Chambers also reportedly told Short he had once helped create a Bigfoot sculpture and speculated that this fact may have started or fueled the rumors that he was involved in the Patterson film.

Chambers' innovative Planet of the Apes make-up relied primarily on expressive masks, not on body suits, and whatever seams or "zippers" would have appeared on the Planet of the Apes suits were covered up by clothing. Clothing was also used to cover up certain folds and seams on the Ewok costumes in Return of the Jedi (1983). Even when the costumes became more elaborate in the 1970s, the titular creature in the 1976 film version of King Kong still had a clearly-defined separation between the body of the suit and the head mask. Folds in the material have appeared in every film in which there was human costumed as an ape up until Gorillas in the Mist (1988), and they can be identified as such either in close-up or at a distance.

According to Bigfoot researcher Mark Chorvinsky[citation needed], John Landis had told him that John Chambers had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Roger Patterson regarding the bigfoot suit.

I don't know if this can be true. Even today nobody can make a suit like the one in the Patterson film, in my opinion it can't be a suit, it's too realistic to be a costume. Today, with all the technology nobody have made a good looking Bigfoot costume who looks like the one in the Patterson film....

Sigh

People should at least Google first - yes? The Landis angle has been regarded as incorrect for some time now. Phillip Morris made the suit. Patterson altered it.

Anyone who says the suit cannot be replicated is fill of hooey. Philip Morris put Bob Heironimus back into a replica suit that he made in 2002. Deals done.

The work of Charlie Gemora in the 50's and 60's exceeds the quality of the suit worn by Bob Heironimus in the now famous Patterson Gimlin film. Verne Langdon himself has offered the description of "crappy" with regards to the Patterson suit.

This angle is made up by hopefuls. Been shot down numerous times now. The suit is not at all impossible to replicate.

BigFootFlyer.jpg

Supervike - classic :lol: Cracked me up.

The real Bigfoot.

bigfoot.jpg

Every Sasquatch groupie should have a pair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh

People should at least Google first - yes? The Landis angle has been regarded as incorrect for some time now. Phillip Morris made the suit. Patterson altered it.

Anyone who says the suit cannot be replicated is fill of hooey. Philip Morris put Bob Heironimus back into a replica suit that he made in 2002. Deals done.

The work of Charlie Gemora in the 50's and 60's exceeds the quality of the suit worn by Bob Heironimus in the now famous Patterson Gimlin film. Verne Langdon himself has offered the description of "crappy" with regards to the Patterson suit.

This angle is made up by hopefuls. Been shot down numerous times now. The suit is not at all impossible to replicate.

Could you possibly find and post more examples of the work the two special effects experts you quote have produced, please Psyche, because the suit shown in your attached picture falls rather short of the standard of the alleged suit in the P-G film, imo.

Is there a link to a film of Mr Heironimous replicating the actual P-G footage in that suit? And has it been analysed by experts in anatomy, biomechanics, etc or is this claim of them making the suit just that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Could you possibly find and post more examples of the work the two special effects experts you quote have produced, please Psyche, because the suit shown in your attached picture falls rather short of the standard of the alleged suit in the P-G film, imo.

I have to disagree Leonardo, in this example, which features in particular do you feel fall "rather short"?

3790698201_d7498bf51a_o.gif

Considering how grainy the original is, the comparison seems rather close to me. Within the realms of being able to replicate the suit at the very least.

Charles Gemora 1950's.

mspicsign.jpg

Link #1

gmc1.jpg

Link #2

His most popular role was The Phantom of Rue Morgue.

ruemorgue_still3.jpg

Link #3

All of these examples were a decade or more in advance of the Patterson incident.

Charlie's mask apparatus.

mspicpersona.jpg

Link #4

Good read on the Gorilla Men of Hollywood.

There is some controversy about Phillip Morris's involvement with regards to the building of the suit, although he did own a suit making company at the time. I have spoken with Verne Langdon and he has claimed that Phillip Morris forwarded an apology over the suit, which Verne ran as a full page ad in Gennie The Conjurers Magazine. He siad it will still be in the archives, alas I have no access to such and am half way across the world. Verne claims he was also approached about making the Minesotta Ice Man, he has an interesting thread on it over at the BFF.

Link - Verne Langdon's site

Gennie Magazine is still running, if anyone can help me with accessing the archives I would be much obliged.

Combined with the claims of Ray Wallace and supporting testimony of Bob's claims, I feel there is a very strong case.

Gait comparison

thum_82644935db696440a.jpg

Link #5

In todays world of special effects, I find the claim that such a suit still cannot be made a little hard to swallow. A good example would be the Cadbury drumming Gorilla.

PS. My apologies for the links, the pics do not seem to be coming through, not sure why.

blondevenuscomp.jpg

Is there a link to a film of Mr Heironimous replicating the actual P-G footage in that suit? And has it been analysed by experts in anatomy, biomechanics, etc or is this claim of them making the suit just that?

The entire experiment was set up by the history channel I believe. It would be hard to find a panel of experts to analyse it as such as by large the leading majority agree the PG film is a man in a suit. If you have access to the History Chanell, no doubt footage will be easy to obtain, but online for free is a big ask.

It should be rat least offer an indication, sorry, perhaps one of the link masters here can better the effort?

The claims was always just that - the claim, it was said it could not be done, yet I feel this is a decent replica. It cannot be identical as Patterson did the alterations himself. Only he knows the exact final formula that the modified version carried complete. However, I do feel this shows it can be done, and is not an impossibility. The quality is comparable, imo.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have to disagree Leonardo, in this example, which features in particular do you feel fall "rather short"?

That many of the links do not work, and those that do do not show any such suit in motion as the P-G film does, your last link to Bob Heironimous notwithstanding as this is (as you admitted) a poor attempt and only shows a few frames, rather than the full range of motion. In those few frames I can clearly see a quality difference between that attempt and what is seen in the P-G film.

In todays world of special effects, I find the claim that such a suit still cannot be made a little hard to swallow. A good example would be the Cadbury drumming Gorilla.

As has been noted many, many times in vaious threads, we are not talking about the special effects of today, but what was available in 1967. The first "Planet of the Apes" movie would be a suitable comparison, and it too, falls short of what we see in the P-G film (quite apart from the fact the 'apes' in PotA were wearing clothes!)

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That many of the links do not work, and those that do do not show any such suit in motion as the P-G film does, your last link to Bob Heironimous notwithstanding as this is (as you admitted) a poor attempt and only shows a few frames, rather than the full range of motion. In those few frames I can clearly see a quality difference between that attempt and what is seen in the P-G film.

Would you care to elaborate? I assume you have seen glaringly different aspects that could not possibly be replicated on the new suit?

Perhaps the first still might be a good place to make some notes to express this claim? It seems a pretty good comparison to me.

I did apologies for the links mate, I did not realize they would not work until I posted, never had a problem here before. I do not feel they are a good reason to say the 2002 effort is impossible to even compare to the PG film. I feel the stills also offer a great deal of insight. The original film is so grainy that no accurate definition can be obtained, it seems hard to say one cannot be the other. Surely you do not wish to see professional verification of perceived movements or features some claim exist in the PG film? Now that would be a big ask.

As has been noted many, many times in vaious threads, we are not talking about the special effects of today, but what was available in 1967. The first "Planet of the Apes" movie would be a suitable comparison, and it too, falls short of what we see in the P-G film (quite apart from the fact the 'apes' in PotA were wearing clothes!)

I do not feel the Rue Morgue example falls short of the capabilities. I know that Verne Langdon, who is a professional in the industry holds the same opinion. No offense, but he has the experience and the credentials necessary to make such a call in this industry. I hold his opinion in high regard.

This thread is not about the possibility in 1967, from the OP.

Even today nobody can make a suit like the one in the Patterson film

That claim is not valid.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That claim is not valid.

I agree, that claim is not valid. That does not imply the P-G film is a hoax, however.

Would you care to elaborate? I assume you have seen glaringly different aspects that could not possibly be replicated on the new suit?

Perhaps the first still might be a good place to make some notes to express this claim? It seems a pretty good comparison to me.

It would be better if they were the same still from each film, but I can see these differences:

* The leg dimensions. In the first still the lower leg is noticeably thinner and has no calf muscle definition as is apparent in the second (original) still.

* The arms also have differing dimensions. The first still has noticeably 'fluffy' arms - the fake fur does not lie like real fur does. It appears to me the arms are also too short, but I would have to compare like stills to be more certain of that.

* The head has a thinner profile and a higher crest relative to the size of the head. The smaller crest in the second is consistent with the figure being female.

* The fur on the fake suit looks far too consistent in length and texture, whereas the fur on the original film appears to be more consistent with a real animal.

I would like to see both higher quality shots (of each film) and the comparison of each in full-motion, as I feel the stills lack information that might be apparent in a motion pciture.

I do not feel the Rue Morgue example falls short of the capabilities. I know that Verne Langdon, who is a professional in the industry holds the same opinion. No offense, but he has the experience and the credentials necessary to make such a call in this industry. I hold his opinion in high regard.

I have not seen the film, but the still provided offers no indication as to the relative quality of the suit. For certain, the lengthiness of the fake fur on that suit could hide much. In the P-G film, the fur is of not nearly the same length and I feel this is a poor comparison to make.

Also, I was not an afficionado of 'creature' films back in the day, but I did see a few. While I would heistate to question Mr Langdon's claim, I do wonder why, if such technology was available to the special-effects wizards in the late 1960's, that they didn't use it in their various films? All those that I did see were fairly obvious that the 'creature' was indeed a man in a suit.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche, go watch that latest MonsterQuest. I've hear this exact argument from you before and listened to it, at least listen to what I'm basing a lot of my argument on. Fair's fair, right?

Critical Evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tarmac Chris, do you know if that episode of monsterquest is available on dvd ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarmac Chris, do you know if that episode of monsterquest is available on dvd ???

I would doubt it, it only aired about 2 weeks ago.

You might still be able to catch it at MonsterQuest/History channel homepage (maybe only if you live in the USA/NA though).

I linked the entire episode on youtube in my last post though, watch it for free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thank you Chris.... Right now i'm on amazon.com and i'm happy to see that Season 1, 2 and 3 are available on Dvd for a very good price....i'm gonna buy season 1 next week, can't wait to see it !!! thanks again, i am now a new fan of monsterquest and i can't wait for the show about Mothman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno man, that's a lot of cash to spend on something you can find online easily enough. Unless you're looking to support the industry, which is commendable. But these shows very rarely find anything 100% conclusive, so don't expect jaw dropping results every episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is an enhanced, digitized, version of the relevant part of the P-G film, plus a reasonable analysis by someone with a bit of expertise in the subjects of anatomy and anthropology.

I am loathe to succumb to the popular trend of rubbishing the film on the basis of the characters of the filmers and I find it possible that this might, in fact, be the real deal.

+1 here. Nice post. The technology required to produce that piece most likely didn't exist in 67 - and if it did - the price would be way too high for a busted cowboy with little or no financial resources. That and the associated footprints from the filmed creature which can be examined even today - my vote is most likely authentic.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, i saw the list of episode for the first seson and it's a pretty good list...in your opinion what is the best episode of season 1 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, looking at a list I'll tell you the episodes I found interesting or memorable. If I remember details I'll include them without giving anything away.

Season 1.

America's Loch Ness Monster - has some very interesting pieces of evidence, particularly the echolocation specialist.

Sasquatch Attack - interesting DNA evidence, as well as some drama later on

Giant Squid Found - like it says in the name, there is a good chance they actually videotaped a live giant squid

Rods - not a critter, but a well explained episode

The Real Hobbit - an interesting look into both the environment and surroundings of a very possible creature.

All the episodes such as Giganto, Swamp Beast, Stalin's Ape Man, Bigfoot etc follow the same basic routine, but if you're interested in Bigfoot these will suit you nicely. It's not a bad looking season actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Error.

Edited by Tarmac_Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.