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 9
skookum

The Patterson Bigfoot suit

303 posts in this topic

Just something that has come to mind.

I have been watching a load of Monster movies from the 1960's/1970's. Just for fun and I mean it is a laugh to see how ridiculous Monster costumes and special effects look today.

They made me think. If the Patterson footage is faked as we are told, why does it look so much more realistic than anything Hollywood was kicking out at the time?

I can only assume it was made in far more detail than things used on the film sets. Why spend so much time and money on a short clip, surely the revenue to pay for such an item would have been far less than a well budgeted movie.

It is one of those things where I have accepted over the years it is fake, but the more I look at it especially now it is enhanced, the detail and features are just amazing. Far beyond what they would have known would have been visible on camera equipment used in that era.

So were they incredible forward thinking and made very intricate detail knowing in 30 years time it could be analysed digitally with computer software? Or could it be that it may not have been possible or even feasible to make something like that at the time making it a real creature of some kind?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought about this before but you would think Hollywood would do a much better job than a prankster.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of things that made me wonder too. If it was a suit, made by a prankster, then why make it female? In the sixties and with no other models of other pranks to go by you'd think they would have gone with a male or a gender neutral type of suit. But, they put boobs on it. Then too, the suit that was used has never been brought out, there have been some that looked a lot like it but didn't have the boobs. Then the one thing that I've always wondered is why no one seems to ever show the other part of the footage where they show the tracks made by the "creature". I've only seen it shown once.

It's not so much proof of anything however it does sort of make me wonder.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PG film is a real head scratcher, that's for sure. Even me, being skeptical as I am of Bigfoot, am not completely sure if the film is a hoax or not.

There have been numerous people over the years that have claimed that they were the person in the Bigfoot suit. Of course, with nothing to back of their claim there's really no way of knowing if any of them really were or not. There have also been debates on the way the creature walks. Many people say that the way the Bigfoot walks in the film is impossible for a human in a costume to replicate. Another thing that befuddles me is the amount of detail on the suit. Why go through so much trouble for just a small amount of film?

There are just so many factors regarding the PG film. I doubt we'll ever know the true story behind it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit that was used in the famous film clip. He seemed to be quite credible when he was interviewed, and he was an extremely talented costume-designer who worked in the industry for years. I once believed that the clip likely was legitimate. Morris pretty much convinced me that it wasn't.

Clip Used Bigfoot Costume?

http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never thought about this before but you would think Hollywood would do a much better job than a prankster.

Maybe they did. What if it was a Hollywood-assisted prank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I been saying for years also why make it female.there is no hoax.

Plus the real film is locked up what they show are copy's from copy's and more copy's

The more copy's are made the worst it gets.there was a show that patter sons wife gave the guy

The real film and they made a high def copy it was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Maybe they did. What if it was a Hollywood-assisted prank?

But with any hoax the more people involved eventually somebody speaks out and exposes it.

The most successful hoax picture I would say was the infamous Loch Ness head on a toy submarine. Very few people involved (2 or 3 max) so it stayed safely un-exposed for many years.

If we bring in Hollywood assistance then the number of people aware of it would rise dramatically. It also goes back to the question, why was so much time and effort put into a suit for a hoax but they couldn't re-create anything nearly as convincing for the Movies.

Bill Munns a very well respected costume, model and robotic maker did an extensive analysis of the footage. He was around in the era this suit was supposedly created. He concluded that he was pretty sure the materials that would have been required to make it, were most likely not available then. He couldn't get a human stature to fit the model on film either. Bill also corrected lense types and sizes used for the film. This put question marks over other peoples research claiming the figure was smaller. When he obtained the correct data he concluded the size of the person wearing the suit would have been 7'4" to 7'6".

http://www.billmunns...uregallery.com/

I was very impressed by his analysis and the techniques he used to expose the detail. He believes it was either masterfully made to a specification he didn't believe was available at the time or there is a creature of some kind in the video (he never says Big foot).

I find Bill to be one, if not the best costume and model maker around. I am inclined to believe his analysis.

I see the Phillip Morris re-creation. It does have remarkable similarities. However he has re-created it with materials and techniques available today, not with what was available back then. The chap in the suit in his film still cannot pull off the posture even if he can the walk.

But I am not a Big foot believer so it leaves me in such an awkward position.

Edited by skookum
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with any hoax the more people involved eventually somebody speaks out and exposes it.

They have. You simply choose not to believe them.

I've seen so much of this nonsense about "it could have never been done back then" and "no human could walk that way" and lo and behold some Discovery channel crew up and does it. Frankly there's way to much of this "there's no way XXX could do XXX" jumping to conclusion stuff in the paranormal.

As for the tits, the late 60s were still a very misogynistic time (ever watch Mad Men?) and, frankly, making the suit a female with visible breasts makes the whole thing even more titillating (ahem).

And regardless of how you feel about PG, the fact remains that after almost 50 years it's still the "best" video evidence of a bigfoot. Odd when you consider that in that time we've gone from a society where almost no one had a video camera to the vast majority of us having one in our pocket every waking second. We also have thousands of believers out looking for thing every single weekend of the year. And let's not forget trail cameras.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of things that made me wonder too. If it was a suit, made by a prankster, then why make it female? In the sixties and with no other models of other pranks to go by you'd think they would have gone with a male or a gender neutral type of suit. But, they put boobs on it. Then too, the suit that was used has never been brought out, there have been some that looked a lot like it but didn't have the boobs. Then the one thing that I've always wondered is why no one seems to ever show the other part of the footage where they show the tracks made by the "creature". I've only seen it shown once.

It's not so much proof of anything however it does sort of make me wonder.

I remember watching a show on Discovery, or maybe the History channel years ago that tried to debunk the video. One thing stuck out to me, was that they attempted to recreate the movement and walking patterns of Bigfoot with a young athlete and weren't able to do so. if I remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Planet of the Apes - 1968

[media=]

[/media]

Patterson film - 1967

The Makeup Man and the Monster:

John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit

In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967.

Whether Chambers created the suit or not, it is highly significant that so many makeup artists believe the film to be a hoax, and this fact will come as a shock to many Bigfoot researchers. As the first investigator to look into the allegations concerning Chambers, I have interviewed a number of the top makeup people in Hollywood, many of whom are quoted herein. Considering how many makeup people in Hollywood believe that John Chambers made the Patterson suit, it is amazing that it took this long for the case to come to our attention.

I first heard the rumor that John Chambers made the Patterson suit from anthropologist/cryptozoologist and Strange Magazine reader Alex Downs in 1992. Alex was working at the Smithsonian Institution for the summer and we spoke on several occasions. Alex told me then that he had heard about Chambers making the suit from author/producer Don Glut..........................................................................http://www.strangema...chambers17.html

Film Director John Landis Goes Public Concerning Makeup Master John Chambers' Involvement In The Famous Patterson Bigfoot Film

In 1971 Landis, then about 21 years old, directed, wrote and starred in the apeman comedy Schlock. Landis had his friend, makeup master John Chambers, act in the film as a National Guard Captain. Landis is wrong about the film stock -- it was 16mm, not 8mm -- but there is no reason that Landis should have known what the original format was.

Landis also believes that the costume was used in a David L. Wolper documentary. While this new information hardly constitutes proof, it does provide some corroboration for the Chambers/Patterson suit connection.

I have spoken with Scott Essman, the author of the extensive Chambers article in Cinefex, and asked him what he thinks of the notion that Chambers may have made the Patterson suit. "I have no doubt that Chambers did it," Essman replied.

"I have also heard from different sources that Chambers made the suit and supervised the filming." Scott Essman recalls asking Chambers whether he made the suit for the Patterson film and was in on the filming of it. Chambers answered along the lines of, "It could have been. I don't remember." The manner of Chambers' reply made Essman think that Chambers may have been trying to skirt the issue............................................http://www.strangema...ischambers.html

As I go back and read replies here I laugh.......Every single thing on this topic has been debunked ( including the so called " athlete ",. and how a person could not walk like that ) ........

This stupid cycle needs to end. How do you get people to read the facts?......How?

Google it......Hell, search it here. There is even a pic of the patterson film suit.....

BigFootFlyer.jpg

Costumes advertises the Bigfoot program that Philip Morris will appear on as part of TV Land's "Myths and Legends" series.

A Kalamazoo native says he played an unwitting role in an alleged hoax sighting of Bigfoot, a hoax explored tomorrow on TV Land.

It was 1967 when costume-maker Philip Morris got an unusual phone call from a guy asking about a gorilla costume. "We had been advertising our costumes in a lot of trade magazines, so I was used to getting phone calls, but this was different," said Morris, whose costume company Morris Costumes in Charlotte, N.C., is one of the largest in the nation.

"The man on the phone, who said his name was Roger Patterson, wanted to buy a gorilla suit and asked if it looked like a real gorilla," said Morris, a Kalamazoo Central graduate. "I told him that it looked like a Hollywood gorilla, but he said he wanted something that looked more like a Neanderthal. What he wanted was Bigfoot."

51q8VAUw2YL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Bigfoot! Huge, hairy, foul smelling, this legendary apelike animal continues to captivate the public’s imagination. This fascination hinges on a single piece of motion-picture film shot in northern California in 1967. For thirty-five years, Bigfoot believers have been convinced that this sixty-second piece of film proves the physical reality of Bigfoot.

But now comes a book that demolishes that belief, that produces final proof that the film footage is a hoax.

The Making of Bigfoot tells the amazing story of Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington. A part-time rodeo rider, chronically unemployed and dying of cancer, Patterson propelled himself into short-lived fame and fortune by exploiting his obsession with the Bigfoot subject and leveraging his expertise in manipulating and conning people to pull off one of the world’s great hoaxes.

Living within two hours of Patterson’s hometown, for three years paranormal investigator and author Greg Long interviewed more than forty witnesses in Yakima who knew Patterson intimately. The voices of these witnesses, combined with facts unearthed from newspaper archives, books, and court documents, tell the real story of Roger Patterson.

Both tragic and comical, a unique slice of Americana, The Making of Bigfoot captures the testimony of a colorful cast of characters who bring to life a man and a time in the 1960s when Bigfoot strode into the American imagination, and the world embraced a myth.

Edited by Sakari
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They have. You simply choose not to believe them.

I've seen so much of this nonsense about "it could have never been done back then" and "no human could walk that way" and lo and behold some Discovery channel crew up and does it. Frankly there's way to much of this "there's no way XXX could do XXX" jumping to conclusion stuff in the paranormal.

As for the tits, the late 60s were still a very misogynistic time (ever watch Mad Men?) and, frankly, making the suit a female with visible breasts makes the whole thing even more titillating (ahem).

And regardless of how you feel about PG, the fact remains that after almost 50 years it's still the "best" video evidence of a bigfoot. Odd when you consider that in that time we've gone from a society where almost no one had a video camera to the vast majority of us having one in our pocket every waking second. We also have thousands of believers out looking for thing every single weekend of the year. And let's not forget trail cameras.

I agree lots of people have claimed this that and the other. I am generally a non-bigfoot believer.

But the only films that look even loosely as effective as the Patterson film have come out far latter using documentary crews, enhanced re-enactments based on what they have seen. None of them look vaguely as natural as the Patterson footage. They look staged, the Patterson looks almost natural, like there is no director, trained cameramen etc.

In addition we also have to conclude that Bill Munns, a 35 year long career of costume and model building either doesn't really know his stuff or is a liar.

I am not sure why Planet of the Apes has popped up as a good design of a Hollywood ape costume. I grew up with Planet of the Apes and is part of the reason I said why did Hollywood monsters look so fake. It was a Bank holiday ritual to sit down after lunch and laugh at the man in the monkey mask wearing various colour leather jackets.

.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the only films that look even loosely as effective as the Patterson film have come out far latter using documentary crews, enhanced re-enactments based on what they have seen. None of them look vaguely as natural as the Patterson footage. They look staged, the Patterson looks almost natural, like there is no director, trained cameramen etc.

Yes, and this was real also.......And fits your description of " real " to a T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If only all accounts could/would go through such scrutiny.

Imo,

Some (including "experts in the field of Bf" who side with the PGF) accept far far less than this.

So, putting a stamp of approval on the PGF I don't find the least bit surprising, nor particularly credible, considering what else they (experts in the field of Bf, and others) approve as evidence, encounters, etc.

It all boils down to the same dodgy video and game of table tennis.

Anyone (todays PGF manipulators and researchers) can claim to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and convince others as well (It's a Squatch!) when no one can physically examine and handle the product. Ever buy a piece of crap off the TV or Internet? "But I thought..."

Be intrigued by the film? Fine. But to be convinced this is a living breathing Sasquatch? I'm not sure how or why. (Possibly beyond a newbie who hasn't given it much thought)

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why Planet of the Apes has popped up as a good design of a Hollywood ape costume.

.

Well, you are in a very small percentile.....

Those costumes were well ahead of their time, and won many awards.

They are also evidence when people say " in 1967 costumes were not even that good, we aint even got velcro yet ".....

If you think the grainy costume in the patterson film is better then if someone used something from the Planet of the Apes fx crew, you are nuts....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimli film is realistic and better than anything Hollywood came up with at the time?

I'm no expert on the subject, but this is blatantly false to me. The PG film is far too low-res to even comment on the fine detail of any suit that might have been worn by an actor in order to compare it with what appears in commercial movies.

Where's the 'detail' in this pic that would make someone think the suit worn by the actor is of such fine detail and quality that it exceeds that Hollywood was capable of at the time?

patterson_bigfoot.jpg

edit: I've read about 'enhancement' of the PG film, but I find it hard to believe that any sort of latter enhancement to the footage I've seen could extract anything particularly impressive, but I'm ready to be convinced by pics and accompanying argument.

Edited by Archimedes
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with any hoax the more people involved eventually somebody speaks out and exposes it.

The most successful hoax picture I would say was the infamous Loch Ness head on a toy submarine. Very few people involved (2 or 3 max) so it stayed safely un-exposed for many years.

If we bring in Hollywood assistance then the number of people aware of it would rise dramatically. It also goes back to the question, why was so much time and effort put into a suit for a hoax but they couldn't re-create anything nearly as convincing for the Movies.

Bill Munns a very well respected costume, model and robotic maker did an extensive analysis of the footage. He was around in the era this suit was supposedly created. He concluded that he was pretty sure the materials that would have been required to make it, were most likely not available then. He couldn't get a human stature to fit the model on film either. Bill also corrected lense types and sizes used for the film. This put question marks over other peoples research claiming the figure was smaller. When he obtained the correct data he concluded the size of the person wearing the suit would have been 7'4" to 7'6".

http://www.billmunns...uregallery.com/

I was very impressed by his analysis and the techniques he used to expose the detail. He believes it was either masterfully made to a specification he didn't believe was available at the time or there is a creature of some kind in the video (he never says Big foot).

I find Bill to be one, if not the best costume and model maker around. I am inclined to believe his analysis.

I see the Phillip Morris re-creation. It does have remarkable similarities. However he has re-created it with materials and techniques available today, not with what was available back then. The chap in the suit in his film still cannot pull off the posture even if he can the walk.

But I am not a Big foot believer so it leaves me in such an awkward position.

I'm in a weird position too. I want to be wrong. I really and truly do. That said, I believe Morris. He's convincing and credible. His old costumes still hold up to today's standards. He's great at what he does. He also sounds like an honest man. Why would he lie? He gets no real fame or fortune from it. He's an older man, and the vast majority of people don't even know who he is. He has no real dog in the hunt, so to speak. It disappoints me that my favorite cryptozoological clip probably is a fake and a hoax. I definitely wish that Morris would recant his story! It would make my day, but I believe Morris at this stage of the game. By the way, I think that Bigfoot exists because I know an older woman who saw one when she was a girl in the Appalachians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, and this was real also.......And fits your description of " real " to a T.

[media=]

[/media]

How does it fit the description? It was filmed far latter using old 8mm film with clips taken around 1970's to make it look authentic.

I don't see any connection in that way to the Patterson film.

I can only conclude the Patterson was masterfully done, using techniques that made Hollywood films look way behind.

Do we have an approximation from Morris at the cost of this stunt? I would imagine with camera equipment, logistics, actors, and of course this brilliant costume we would be talking a vast amount of money. Most likely several thousands of dollars.

The short scenes in American Werewolf in London with the werewolf had a 6 figure price tag.

Even very short scenes like Hammer House of Horror were kicking out had extortionate costs. Did Morris ever put a price on the work they, I can't seem to find it.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skookum, your av is more real than Patterson's film. As soon as someone responsible for such a famous piece of film puts the hand up and admits it was a fake, that's it for me.

Not saying Bigfoot might not exist, just that it didn't exist on that piece of film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimli film is realistic and better than anything Hollywood came up with at the time?

I'm no expert on the subject, but this is blatantly false to me. The PG film is far too low-res to even comment on the fine detail of any suit that might have been worn by an actor in order to compare it with what appears in commercial movies.

Where's the 'detail' in this pic that would make someone think the suit worn by the actor is of such fine detail and quality that it exceeds that Hollywood was capable of at the time?

patterson_bigfoot.jpg

edit: I've read about 'enhancement' of the PG film, but I find it hard to believe that any sort of latter enhancement to the footage I've seen could extract anything particularly impressive, but I'm ready to be convinced by pics and accompanying argument.

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters. And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.

Edited by Rafterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters. And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.

I wouldn't say necessarily perfect, but amazing amount of details. On the released film you can't really see anything much, hence why most just said it was a Gorilla suit. But when enhanced the cheek muscles move, the mouth moves, the breasts swing in a very natural motion, muscles can be seen in the legs and arms etc etc.

Like people have pointed out, planet of the apes had moving motion in the facial muscles etc. But that was because they had close up filming. The Patterson suit was going to be filmed with shaky 8mm film. It is only recently with have been able to zoom in and pick out these details by enhancement.

It shows very forward thinking in my mind, wouldn't you agree?

At the end of the day though. The only thing that will make me totally believe in Big Foot, will be a body.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

I'm still wondering why this is considered so perfect by so many bigfooters. And frankly, all of the enhanced stuff where they talk about muscle movement, etc. always struck me as nothing more than pareidolia.

Yes, I think some people are seeing what they want to see. I can't help but be extremely skeptical of people who talk about the amazing detail found in crappy photos and crappy video footage.

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an alien autopsy video. One guy who was interviewed talked about the amazing detail, the realism, etc. and that it would have cost far too much for the special effects necessary to achieve such an amazing video (this despite the fact that it was a crummy looking video taken with a hand-held camcorder). The next guy they interviewed was a special effects tech. He took one look at it and immediately said that it was a latex model, the kind of which he could knock up in a week for a few hundred quid (or something like that).

I've seen it enough that I'm wary of 'experts' who extract suspicious amount of information and make declarative statements about evidence of dubious quality. That combined with the very wide range of opinions of those who have examined the footage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, I think some people are seeing what they want to see. I can't help but be extremely skeptical of people who talk about the amazing detail found in crappy photos and crappy video footage.

I'm reminded of a documentary I watched about an alien autopsy video. One guy who was interviewed talked about the amazing detail, the realism, etc. and that it would have cost far too much for the special effects necessary to achieve such an amazing video (this despite the fact that it was a crummy looking video taken with a hand-held camcorder). The next guy they interviewed was a special effects tech. He took one look at it and immediately said that it was a latex model, the kind of which he could knock up in a week for a few hundred quid (or something like that).

I've seen it enough that I'm wary of 'experts' who extract suspicious amount of information and make declarative statements about evidence of dubious quality. That combined with the very wide range of opinions of those who have examined the footage.

I do remember the expert with the autopsy regarding the money side. He was talking about the techniques and special effects available funny enough around the Hammer House time. That sort of time he predicted would have been about the earliest that certain materials were being used. He said if it was created around that time it would have been several hundred thousand dollars worth of effect in today's money.

As we know now it was much later and could be achieved cheaply with widely available materials.

That was sort of my point of the whole thread. There is absolutely no doubt we can do this today, the suit can be simply produced today probably at a reasonable cost, hence why so many replicas. I also have no doubt with a large amount or work, skill and determination it probably was possibly in 1967. But the cost of doing it would most likely have been massively greater.

Interesting on this one they have noticed what looks like a Hernia on the muscle on the right leg. Quite a long video but towards the end they point it out and show how the apparent muscle hernia moves.

In the bottom one (excuse the pun), I don't know if it is my imagination but I am sure I can see the backside muscles tense and relax as it walks.

[media=]

Like I say I am not trying to tell anyone it is not a hoax and its a real creature. But I am looking at the pictures, videos and details found before I concretely make up my mind to dismiss it. As much as I accept there are people who will never except it isn't genuine, there are also those who will give up the moment they hear hoax.

Edited by skookum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The evidence just isn't there, in favour of Bigfoot.

I used to love watching videos of alleged sightings. Now I live in the real world.

A video just won't cut it. Neither will the words of those who claim to have had encounters.

People lie. As long as there are liars, the myth shall live on.

Oh and by the way. I think Roger Patterson was a good liar. Not sure about Gimlin though. He may not have known RP was setting up a hoax.

Edited by danbell06
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit that was used in the famous film clip. He seemed to be quite credible when he was interviewed, and he was an extremely talented costume-designer who worked in the industry for years. I once believed that the clip likely was legitimate. Morris pretty much convinced me that it wasn't.

Clip Used Bigfoot Costume?

http://www.ourbigfoo...gfoot_suit.html

If not before, this has to be IT for the Patterson hoax.

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 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.