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
Bionic Bigfoot

The Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot film re-examined

90 posts in this topic

I've personally always believed that the Patterson/Gimlin footage was authentic. The way the creature walked and moved, the musculature visible underneath the hair, the breasts that were seen and the other physiological and anatomical details captured in this film, clearly shows that this wasn't a faked event created by a human in a costume.

Many posters will probably respond to this thread and claim that this footage has already been debunked as a hoax, but that would be completely untrue. This sighting has never been solved conclusively and that is fact.

In regards to the conclusions that are presented in these videos, I do find (at times) this person is grasping a bit to assert his conclusions. However and overall, this person's analysis of the subtle details that's he's taken the time to enhance, show very good detail enhancements that likely were overlooked by many in the original footage.

Another point of contention is this; it's incredulous and somewhat laughable that so many 'armchair' critics of the film weren't even born close to the time this footage was taken. This footage was captured in the late 60's and at that time, even the best Hollywood costumes created to replicate an ape or gorilla were extremely poor and limited. Today, we'd have a hard time duplicating the creature shown in this film with current costume, makeup and prosthetics. I find that many of those criticizing this film are too young and can't make an educated judgement. The younger generation can't relate to or get past the fact that CGI wasn't available then and that even elaborate and expensive costumes couldn't replicate what was seen in this footage in 1967.

Anyway, on to the videos and for anyone who hasn't seen these already:

[media=]

Although this footage is very old now, it's still some of the best evidence we have showing the creature's existence. I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove this case is a hoax. If this is indeed real footage of a sasquatch, then it is one of the most remarkable film evidence proving this creature's existence.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to attach/link videos in two's it seems.........

The next two videos:

[media=]

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, to me, it's too easy to fob off as a bloke in a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clip #6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clip #7

clip #8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, to me, it's too easy to fob off as a bloke in a suit.

Here's a bigfoot costume that was created and used nearly 10 years after the Patterson film and for TV. Even a child should be able to see the differences between a costume like this and what was seen in the Patterson/Gimlin footage.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ue0pnEDY-U&feature=share&list=PL6E8DD08AB77BF848[/media]

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

That's very convenient of them. We need more hoaxers like that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

It's never been conclusively proved to be a fake and who is "they"? Rather than listening to explanations by questionable sources, use your eyes man!

Makes me wonder actually if bigfoot debunkers have a predisposition for vision problems. LOL

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-re-re-re-re-re-re-examined you mean, surely.

p.s. and the above is no stutter. (only messin with ya, BBF)

Edited by Eldorado
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have to ask, what are they hoping to find in this two dozenth (not a word but seemed appropriate) examination that's been missed by everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have to ask, what are they hoping to find in this two dozenth (not a word but seemed appropriate) examination that's been missed by everyone else?

"They" are trying to dispel the myth that this film footage was ever debunked and by deconstructing each movement through enhanced video. Through more detailed analysis and closer scrutiny of the film, 'they" are providing further evidence that this film was most assuredly not a hoax.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a coatume created for a low budget TV serial versus one cuwtom made for hoaxing .... hmmm.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's never been conclusively proved to be a fake and who is "they"? Rather than listening to explanations by questionable sources, use your eyes man!

Makes me wonder actually if bigfoot debunkers have a predisposition for vision problems. LOL

Roger Patterson and Gimlin. it was a documentary on the bbc few years ago and talk about how they made the costume and the camera work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They" are trying to dispel the myth that this film footage was ever debunked and by deconstructing each movement through enhanced video. Through more detailed analysis and closer scrutiny of the film, 'they" are providing further evidence that this film was most assuredly not a hoax.

I get that, but seriously, what do "they" think has been missed in the past? This film has been digitized, re-digitized, stabilized, enhanced, double and triple enhanced, reverse imaged, and broken down into individual frame and I personally have seen several frame by frame motion analysis, even computer (stick-man) analysis and the bottom line is no two studies have come up with the same results yet. They can't even agree on how tall the creature is in the film.

So, again I ask, what exactly is it they think they're going to discover that's been missed after all these previous and rather detailed studies?

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you have to ask again, then I'm sorry but I can't help you understand the purpose. I'm sure others will appreciate the efforts that "M.K" went to in order to re-evaluate the footage and with newer techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've personally always believed that the Patterson/Gimlin footage was authentic.

But that is the thing - the only choices are to believe or not believe. One can't simply go out and look at the Bigfoots oneself. Once you believe then it becomes a matter of faith and faith allows folk to overlook the complete lack of confirming evidence and the culture of fakery that has built up around Bigfoot over the last 45 years (of which Patterson was a founding father along with the person he consulted prior to making the film - Ray Wallace).

I don't think anyone will ever be able to prove this case is a hoax.

It's never been conclusively proved to be a fake

And that is another thing - it is impossible to conclusively prove (ie beyond reasonable doubt) that something is fake or doesn't exist. Belief in Bigfoot is not about reason or even being reasonable - it is about belief/faith which eclipses doubt.

...who is "they"?

Although this footage is very old now, it's still some of the best evidence we have showing the creature's existence.

Who is "we"?

The way the creature walked and moved, the musculature visible underneath the hair, the breasts that were seen and the other physiological and anatomical details captured in this film, clearly shows that this wasn't a faked event created by a human in a costume.

Makes me wonder actually if bigfoot debunkers have a predisposition for vision problems. LOL

Pot meet kettle. When it comes to topics of belief and faith it is always the "others" who are in the wrong...

BB - Has your belief in the authenticity of Patterson's film actually inspired you to search for the creature yourself or are you merely content to preach from the Book of Shod? Are you "open minded" enough to ever admit being a Bigfoot dupe? If so, what would it take?

(p.s. I don't believe I am being snarky - I genuinely am curious about the nature of your belief.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, but seriously, what do "they" think has been missed in the past? This film has been digitized, re-digitized, stabilized, enhanced, double and triple enhanced, reverse imaged, and broken down into individual frame and I personally have seen several frame by frame motion analysis, even computer (stick-man) analysis and the bottom line is no two studies have come up with the same results yet. They can't even agree on how tall the creature is in the film.

If "they" were truly serious about proving the authenticity of Patterson's film you'd think "they" would simply release the original footage for independent analysis.

Note: the original has never been sighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you have to ask again, then I'm sorry but I can't help you understand the purpose. I'm sure others will appreciate the efforts that "M.K" went to in order to re-evaluate the footage and with newer techniques.

Are you referring to M. K. "Bigfoot Massacre at Bluff Creek" Davis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB - Has your belief in the authenticity of Patterson's film actually inspired you to search for the creature yourself or are you merely content to preach from the Book of Shod? Are you "open minded" enough to ever admit being a Bigfoot dupe? If so, what would it take?

(p.s. I don't believe I am being snarky - I genuinely am curious about the nature of your belief.)

Unfortunately, I'm not able to get out into the 'field' to look for bigfoot. I live in an area of Ontario Canada that is very populated with no real forested areas. I am also one of the schmucks who has to work for a living and so I don't have the luxury to take weeks or months off to travel into the vast wilderness areas of North America. If I could, I probably would but with some trepidation too.

Doesn't mean I haven't done my homework and research to solidify my opinions and beliefs. :)

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a coatume created for a low budget TV serial versus one cuwtom made for hoaxing .... hmmm.

Not buying your comparison. I would think and bet that the TV series SMDM and BW had a bigger budget and more money at their disposal than Patterson and Gimlin for sure. And again, don't forget this event took place nearly 10 years prior to this television series.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I'm not able to get out into the 'field' to look for bigfoot. I live in an area of Ontario Canada that is very populated with no real forested areas. I am also one of the schmucks who has to work for a living and so I don't have the luxury to take weeks or months off to travel into the vast wilderness areas of North America. If I could, I probably would but with some trepidation too.

Doesn't mean I haven't done my homework and research to solidify my opinions and beliefs. :)

No disrespect intended but it doesn't mean that you have, either...

Below is a map displaying the population density of Ontario:

ontariopopulationdensit.jpg

http://www12.statcan...tes/m1o-eng.htm

Compare that with a map of Ontario detailing locations of documented Bigfoot sightings/track finds/vocalizations:

ontariobigfootmap.jpg

http://www.ontariosa...-map/4535347380

Note that the majority of documented Bigfoot encounters are actually in and around the densly populated corner of the province.

Many folk who go out in the field in order to search for Bigfoot are working schmucks (myself included). They/we do not need to take weeks or months off in order to do so - any amount of spare time will do. Finding definitive proof of Bigfoot would be a cash cow (as it remains for the Patterson family even though the film is far from definitive).

So do you have any valid reasons why you do not practice what you preach?

And please take the time to answer my other questions when you get the chance. We may be divided in our personal opinions of Bigfoot but are we not chasing the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I'm not able to get out into the 'field' to look for bigfoot. I live in an area of Ontario Canada that is very populated with no real forested areas. I am also one of the schmucks who has to work for a living and so I don't have the luxury to take weeks or months off to travel into the vast wilderness areas of North America. If I could, I probably would but with some trepidation too.

Doesn't mean I haven't done my homework and research to solidify my opinions and beliefs. :)

My dear fellow, most of us are in the same boat, the problem is that filmed images can be hoaxed so easily that, footprints made by humans and various other things that these just have to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. What you have to ask yourself, is a penetrating question like, why hasn't one been shot before now and brought out? Why has no one ever found a body or skeleton in the woods? Yes, skeletons of other creatures are encountered all the time. I've come across deer, bear and elk in my many hiking and camping trips, but never a Bigfoot. Granted I'm not the last word on that, but then too ask yourself if there's any record of large primates in the fossil record in North America and you'll soon discover the answer is, "No". All the a fore mentioned animals do have fossilized bones in those records.

While I believe MK Davis is sincere in his beliefs, I believe his objectivity is clouded by that belief, and I think yours might be as well and it's completely understandable because some of these old boys have gotten good at sounding all believable.......until you take a hard look at the evidence and realize there are other answers that fit as well.

Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that, but seriously, what do "they" think has been missed in the past? This film has been digitized, re-digitized, stabilized, enhanced, double and triple enhanced, reverse imaged, and broken down into individual frame and I personally have seen several frame by frame motion analysis, even computer (stick-man) analysis and the bottom line is no two studies have come up with the same results yet. They can't even agree on how tall the creature is in the film.

So, again I ask, what exactly is it they think they're going to discover that's been missed after all these previous and rather detailed studies?

All things like this are designed to do is to keep kicking the bigfoot can down the road so that websites like BFRO can sell more expeditions, t-shirts, and baseball caps. Gotta keep the (merchandising) dream alive!

1 person likes this

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.