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

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!

Whatever......you and others apparently need to broaden your minds, yours is severely lacking imagination and subjectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever......you and others apparently need to broaden your minds, yours is severely lacking imagination and subjectivity.

Awwww - come on. I was just having a bit of fun. I'd love for Bigfoot to be real. That would be SO cool. I'm being totally genuine when I say it. At this point however there are just way, way too many things in the way for me to believe that Bigfoot is real. possible - sure. Likely - not.

Like QuiteContrary said in another thread regarding cryptids. Bigfoot is THE pre-eminent cryptid because of its supernatural ability to appear and cause sightings but effectively do none of the other things that real animals do - namely leave behind evidence of eating, habitation, breeding, dying, injury, predation, migration, or any other animal activity that would connect it to the web of life. Its not a lack of my imagination that causes this to be true.

One could easily state that it could be your over-active imagination that allows you to believe in something that leaves behind no evidence. I mean no offense when I say that. I can see this issue from your perspective - I used to be a stalwart believer in this stuff. Can you see this issue from my perspective?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Sorry Night Walker,

I disagree with your maps. The majority of bigfoot sightings in Ontario occur much further to the north of my area. The areas you've shown in your bigfoot sightings ranges (and if factual) is dubious. Bigfoot areas and sightings have mostly taken place several 100's of kilometers north of where I am. Trust me, there are no major forested areas anywhere near me and any that would encompass more than a few square miles, in patches. The majority of Ontarians live within a 150km northerly distance from the USA border. Most of Ontario, a province almost 1/3 as large as Europe and approximately the size of California, Texas and Florida combined, is just too vast once you get above the 48th parallel. That''s where any sasquatch would reside, not down in the GTA or anywhere in that vicinity.

And again, I myself don't have the luxury to just put everything aside to start scouring the northern regions of Ontario on a hope and prayer, looking for bigfoot. Those who do this type of research must have more money and resources than I do but again, it doesn't mean that I or any of us in this area believe all the sightings and encounters are legitimate sightings either.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that almost 50 years later, this is still the best "bigfoot" film out there - especially given that these things supposedly live everywhere (hence breeding populations needed across all of North America), more people are spending time outdoors than in recent years, and pretty much everyone has a camera/video camera on their person (many high definition).

Meanwhile the internet is replete with crystal clear HD video of other very rare species.

Personally, the background of both Patterson and Gimlin is enough to make me seriously question the movie.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that almost 50 years later, this is still the best "bigfoot" film out there - especially given that these things supposedly live everywhere (hence breeding populations needed across all of North America), more people are spending time outdoors than in recent years, and pretty much everyone has a camera/video camera on their person (many high definition).

Meanwhile the internet is replete with crystal clear HD video of other very rare species.

Personally, the background of both Patterson and Gimlin is enough to make me seriously question the movie.

I agree, first it was the real deal, then Gimlin claimed it had been a fake then he said he was misquoted, thern a couple guys came forward claiming to be the guy in the suit but none of them came produce the suit or a receipt from where they rented it. However, there is one compeling part of that movie that is rarely ever shown and that is the footprints which are photographed later in the movie. They clearly show them making deeper prints than that of the horse, but for some reason that section is hardly ever shown or refered to by anyone. To me, that was the only thing that made me wonder if it wasn't the real deal.

And again, I myself don't have the luxury to just put everything aside to start scouring the northern regions of Ontario on a hope and prayer, looking for Bigfoot. Those who do this type of research must have more money and resources than I do but again, it doesn't mean that I or any of us in this area believe all the sightings and encounters are legitimate sightings either.

I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting you drop everything and begin your life's work looking for Bigfoot. I certainly can't do it, much as I would like, however I can get out on occasion and hike around areas where one has been report once or twice a year. However, if all you do is surf the web then pretty much you're going to find dyed in the wool, card carrying believers who are both shocked and upset that you'd dare to question their beliefs. Then you find a board like this one where we have skeptics and those, like myself who are open to the possibility, but we haven't lost our skepticism and look deeper for the truth.

Nothing personal, but if all you want is for a bunch of guys to all give you a hardy high five and a "Great Job Buddy!", then you really need to look else where. This group is honest and rather blunt on what we see, and yes we do have a few that get a little demanding, but no website is perfect. I hope you chose to stay, but if not then good hunting to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe it, always have always will.....so there! :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man in a monkey suit........wheres the big mystery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

While I am in no way claiming that the video is factual, I cannot find one reference to either Patterson nor Gimlin confessing a hoax. Patterson maintained to his death that it was authentic and Gimlin has never stated that it was hoaxed, at least not that I can find anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a fake, they even said it was a fake

Can you provide evidence of this please?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is no harm in examining the P-G film one more time. I must say, I am no longer a supporter of it being real, as I've seen and read way too much to indicate it is a hoax. I will admit however that there are plenty of reasons to think it real. I just think the "Cons" vastly overwhelm the "Pros".

I also think that showing the P-G film to be a hoax, in no way shows BF to not be real. No more then any of the ButchyKid Bigfoot videos would proove BF is real or imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, first it was the real deal, then Gimlin claimed it had been a fake then he said he was misquoted, thern a couple guys came forward claiming to be the guy in the suit but none of them came produce the suit or a receipt from where they rented it. However, there is one compeling part of that movie that is rarely ever shown and that is the footprints which are photographed later in the movie. They clearly show them making deeper prints than that of the horse, but for some reason that section is hardly ever shown or refered to by anyone. To me, that was the only thing that made me wonder if it wasn't the real deal.

That is how I've heard it too. Patterson and Gimlin both refused to admit it was a hoax. The main witness claiming it is a hoax is Bob Heironomus, who actually was there at Bluff Creek, if Patterson's videos can be believed. And he said that once they got to the area, that he put on a suit that Patterson had and the rest is history. I've disbelieved Bob H mostly, since he had his own history with wearing suits and stirring up trouble. But, what he says does have some smell of truth to it. Too many background facts fit in with his claim of a hoax, even if he is not the "Guy in the Suit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is how I've heard it too. Patterson and Gimlin both refused to admit it was a hoax. The main witness claiming it is a hoax is Bob Heironomus, who actually was there at Bluff Creek, if Patterson's videos can be believed. And he said that once they got to the area, that he put on a suit that Patterson had and the rest is history. I've disbelieved Bob H mostly, since he had his own history with wearing suits and stirring up trouble. But, what he says does have some smell of truth to it. Too many background facts fit in with his claim of a hoax, even if he is not the "Guy in the Suit".

Roger Patterson died shortly after the film was released in 1972 and it's mostly been Bob Gimlin who's been the main proponent. As I understand it Patterson was in favor of shooting the critter if they encountered it and supposedly Gimlin talked him out of it. What I saw made a good case for Patterson being duped by the two men, however......and this is a big however.......they ran out of film and had to reload. On the second can of film are the foot prints and they show a horse with rider walking beside them and you can clearly see the horse and rider don't make as deep an impression as the alleged Bigfoot. Patterson had a solid reputation and supposedly Gimlin had a bit of a shady past......how shady I don't know for sure.

Now there can be any number of reasons for that to happen, it was an area where a wash out had occurred and as anyone with any knowledge of being in such a place knows you can have soft and hard spots within mere feet of each other, however a horse with a rider has to weigh close to a ton and the hooves on a horse are significantly less as far as area is concerned.....but a horse has four hooves and a Biggy has two really large feet.....well, supposedly. Now, as just said, it could be just a lucky happenstance that the guy was walking in a softer area and the horse on firmer ground, but that I found compelling. Strangely, no one ever shows that footage and I know it exists because I saw it on a documentary about the alleged footage, which was very detailed.

Personally, I can't say one way or the other because........quite frankly, it could well be a man in a monkey suit, but it was either a really well thought out monkey suit......and it certainly appears to have large breasts giving the impression that it's a female. I'd be surprised if anyone in the sixties would have thought about it or even considered getting a female monkey suit......assuming one would be available.

I completely agree that there are things that sound completely plausible and have the ring of truth to them and yet there are some things I just can't accept because they could so easily be faked.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe it, always have always will.....so there! :passifier:

Bling Im with you I wanna believe that its real but usually the things I want dont come to fruition

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bling Im with you I wanna believe that its real but usually the things I want dont come to fruition

If it makes you guys feel better, I'm not a non-believer, I'm open to the possibility but that is based on the experiences of two people that I knew and know well and trust. I've been fooled enough in the past to maintain a very skeptical eye now, videos can be faked very easily, so can footprints and that doesn't include the number of times people have misidentified bear tracks or I should say double bear tracks for Bigfoot prints.

If I had the resources I'd love nothing more than to mount up a real expedition a couple times a year and spend some real time in an area that was active with sightings. I think it's not possible to simply pop in for a day or two and do a thorough, it just isn't possible. You have to really spend at least a couple weeks to possibly a month to really do a good job. Unfortunately, that requires a big old pile of money and unless I hit the lottery then I don't see it happening. However, I will take my vacations in areas where there have been sightings and who knows, I might get lucky......or not, but I'll be doing what i love anyway and that's spending time out in nature. So, it's all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And what do you think the budget set aside for the costume would be?

Just because the SHOW had a large budget, doesn't mean they had a large budget for costuming. I know something like Blake's 7 was funded as if it was a police procedural - a large initial budget for costuming, relatively good one for location filming and so forth, assuming SMDM was budgeted for a prime-time adventure show, then it's location filming budget and guest cast budget would far outweigh it's budget for costuming, especially "one off" costumes, shows back in that day and age worked on the "what can we beg, borrow or steal from someone else?" principle as well, it could have just been something they had lying around the studio from something else.

Not knowing the realtive budgets of SMDM and Patterson, I can only say that Patterson would probably have had more money to spend on a single costume for a ten second piece of footage then a prime-time TV show because they only had to buy one thing rather then 45 minutes worth of things.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever......you and others apparently need to broaden your minds, yours is severely lacking imagination and subjectivity.

Don't ignore me, come on, your afraid to reply back because you know Im right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide evidence of this please?

type in google bbc bigfoot documentary

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to reign my imagination in actually, I'm always looking beyond what people present to me looking for other answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Night Walker,

I disagree with your maps. The majority of bigfoot sightings in Ontario occur much further to the north of my area. The areas you've shown in your bigfoot sightings ranges (and if factual) is dubious. Bigfoot areas and sightings have mostly taken place several 100's of kilometers north of where I am. Trust me, there are no major forested areas anywhere near me and any that would encompass more than a few square miles, in patches.

It's not my Bigfoot map. It is from the Ontario Sasquatch research group (http://www.ontariosasquatch.com/). They are the ones on the ground collecting reports in your local area. If you consider it to be dubious then you should take it up with them. Perhaps you can reason with them using your knowledge of and commitment to the PGF.

Personally, I don't but much stock in the map either. However, it does serve to illustrate that Bigfoot is where people are - untamed wilderness is optional. The Bigfoot phenomenon is not be about a giant undiscovered species. You hit the nail on the head in post #26 - Bigfoot (and the Patterson film) is all about "imagination and subjectivity"...

futuramabigfoot.jpg

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ignore me, come on, your afraid to reply back because you know Im right

You are right.

It was a hoax. A very good one but it was a hoax.

Doesn't mean that there isn't something out there in the Pacific North West that isn't human - no, I don't mean Honey Boo Boo.

But the Patterson film is not proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video's 45 years old and it just keeps getting rehatched over and over again.

The Bigfoot in the video has probably died of old age by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you guys feel better, I'm not a non-believer, I'm open to the possibility but that is based on the experiences of two people that I knew and know well and trust. I've been fooled enough in the past to maintain a very skeptical eye now, videos can be faked very easily, so can footprints and that doesn't include the number of times people have misidentified bear tracks or I should say double bear tracks for Bigfoot prints.

If I had the resources I'd love nothing more than to mount up a real expedition a couple times a year and spend some real time in an area that was active with sightings. I think it's not possible to simply pop in for a day or two and do a thorough, it just isn't possible. You have to really spend at least a couple weeks to possibly a month to really do a good job. Unfortunately, that requires a big old pile of money and unless I hit the lottery then I don't see it happening. However, I will take my vacations in areas where there have been sightings and who knows, I might get lucky......or not, but I'll be doing what i love anyway and that's spending time out in nature. So, it's all good.

I just think its really stupid to write something off as not existing, absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think its really stupid to write something off as not existing, absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence

Everytime I read a post in which someone has used this quaint little line, my brain throws up on itself.

Edited by orangepeaceful79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

type in google bbc bigfoot documentary

Was it X-Creatures? Cause they attempt to debunk it, but no where do Gimlin nor Patterson say it's a hoax. I'm just trying to find where one of the 2 of them had admitted it was a hoax.

In X-Creatures, they play an edited part of an interview where Gimlin was asked if it could have been a hoax that he didn't know about and he said that it is possible, because anything is. But they didn't play the rest of the interview. Just the part where he says it could have been a hoax and used that to say that Gimlin admitted it was a hoax.

Edit: For clarification, I am not saying that it is not a hoax, just that neither Patterson nor Gimlin ever said it was.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think its really stupid to write something off as not existing, absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence

So you are saying that fairies and unicorns and the Irish and bigfoot and werewolves are all real because we have no proof of them having ever existed?

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.