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

the face and feet don't look like the ones on Gorilla costumes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the face and feet don't look like the ones on Gorilla costumes..

Patterson modified it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, when that photo first popped up in the news of the day it was huge and people were saying it was proof positive that Nessy was real, but then no one ever got another shot of it. Echo soundings never came up with anything, so the researchers all went home. no sooner than the scientists were gone sighting began to happen. Funny how that all happened, eh?

I think if I were to be in a position to devote a lot of time to hunting for something like a Bigfoot, you'd need to understand that every time you go out into the woods you aren't going to see one. I've had the good fortune in my younger days to hike and camp all over the US and in all those travels and adventures I have never once encountered a Bigfoot or found foot prints of one and while I'd like to think finding one would be cool, there is a down side. I might well just crap my pants and run like a girl. Or crap my pants and faint.....in which case I might well find myself captured and used as a "snoo-snoo" toy.

The way mankind is moving forward I do not think it will be too many more decades before we have the planet covered, it simply comes down to Biff is going to run out of places to hide. Which is how I feel Nessie was finally conquered. After the sonar beams, most people seemed rather satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morris' wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit. Morris offered no evidence apart from testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.

In 2012, Ed Edmunds, the owner of Distortions Unlimited in Greeley, Colorado credited Phil Morris and his wife with "creating" the Bigfoot myth on the TV series, Making Monsters, adding that "Phil got tired of people still believing in Bigfoot that he goes around debunking it."

Link

That is not quite true, Morris reproduced the suit, which even today the BFRO still says cannot be done.

LINK to crappy BFRO article

And there is little doubt Patterson asked him for alteration instructions, he asked Harvey Anderson the same thing exactly.

I have a hard time believing Ed over Phil as Ed's claim is very loose, and was made during a TV episode. Verne Langdon seems to back Phils story, as do other aspects, do any aspects support Ed's version of events? It's just a sentence on a TV show isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find it interesting that Patterson filmed bigfoot on the first day of his trip, within hours of setting out on horseback.

That is more incredible than all of Bob and Phils claims tied together and folded over. IMHO.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not quite true, Morris reproduced the suit, which even today the BFRO still says cannot be done.

Well, yes it is true, no evidence has been produced by Morris that backs up his claim.

And there is little doubt Patterson asked him for alteration instructions, he asked Harvey Anderson the same thing exactly.

This is called putting the cart before the horse. You have to first prove there was a transaction and dialogue between the 2 parties before such speculation can be entertained.

I have a hard time believing Ed over Phil as Ed's claim is very loose, and was made during a TV episode. Verne Langdon seems to back Phils story, as do other aspects, do any aspects support Ed's version of events? It's just a sentence on a TV show isn't it?

Until some concrete evidence somes forward, I'm going with the skeptic stance here and say "show me the body(s)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo Stardrive! It's all just so much water under the bridge, but it makes for great social media.

As far as actually find a Bigfoot, it doesn't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do is capture Bigfoot... teach him sign language, and ask that SOB if he's ever been to Bluff Creek.

Step one: Capture a bigfoot... Still working on this one...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes it is true, no evidence has been produced by Morris that backs up his claim.

Considering he produced a suit that matches Patterson's, I think he has as much evidence as anyone does on Patty. He can make you a whole new one. Despite what the BFRO says.

This is called putting the cart before the horse. You have to first prove there was a transaction and dialogue between the 2 parties before such speculation can be entertained.

Why is that? Do you feel someone who wants Patterson's claim to be true, seeming as Patterson is dead, is more plausible than someone who was actually there, and can provide details? What about circumstantial evidence like Patterson having a shed full of leather-working tools and his fascination with Sandersons success?

I have proof in that Phillip Morris testifies this is the case, you do not believe him, therefore isn't the onus on you to provide the proof that he is not telling the truth? He has reproduced the "impossible" suit.

Until some concrete evidence somes forward, I'm going with the skeptic stance here and say "show me the body(s)".

3790698201_9e0bf39317.jpeg

Cannot be done remember.

arms_comparison.jpg

You can pick that suit up and put it on, it does not come much more physical than that, there be your body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an easier time believing in Sasquatch being caught on film by Patterson than CNN pretending to film on location in Iraq....I don't think it's a hoax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an easier time believing in Sasquatch being caught on film by Patterson than CNN pretending to film on location in Iraq....I don't think it's a hoax...

Why don't you think it's a hoax? Could I talk you into sharing the expertise expended that helped draw this conclusion?

I like Fox news myself.

Fox-News-black-bra.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Patterson admit it was a hoax before he died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Didn't Patterson admit it was a hoax before he died?

Nope, that is just rumour. He did admit this film was his wife's legacy and that he knew he was dying of cancer. This was supposed to support her when he was gone. I'd say the rumour may have grown from that.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you think it's a hoax? Could I talk you into sharing the expertise expended that helped draw this conclusion?

I like Fox news myself.

Fox-News-black-bra.jpg

Best post on this topic..... :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering he produced a suit that matches Patterson's, I think he has as much evidence as anyone does on Patty. He can make you a whole new one. Despite what the BFRO says.

Seeing how he makes his living building costumes, I don't doubt for a second he can produce something very simililar. As far as evidence goes, it's only evidence that he can make a suit that looks similar to the subject in the PGF.

I have proof in that Phillip Morris testifies this is the case, you do not believe him, therefore isn't the onus on you to provide the proof that he is not telling the truth? He has reproduced the "impossible" suit.

You know as well as I do, testimony isn't proof.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I have not read this entire thread but I hope to soon, please forgive me for popping in and running, not much time.

When I fisrt saw the PG film, I thought - "A man in a monkey suit". And as the OP here suggests, no, the best of Hollywood set costumes in those days could not stretch, so says a Hollywood set director of many years. The stretch material only became available many years after the PG film was made. And he was referring directly to the stretching mammories of the creature when it turned it's head and swung. Can't be faked, not then. Those mamm's are real.

Also, if this was alleged to have been some 7.5 foot tall man, I would think he would feel somewhat insulted to have to pretend to be a female, no?

So why add stress to the entire situation by possibly insulting the tall man, and by giving yourself more work to do in the design of the costume? It makes no sense.

That *in my opinion*, is no "man in a monkey suite", it's a BF.

Let us not forget, yes, the gait of the creature is very resemblent of that of man, but that is because, as I now know, BF *is* a human.

I did intend some day to do a revisit of the PG film, now that the enhanced digital film is available. great stuff. Glad to see someone else surfaced it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a passing thought about Patty's breasts: females are usually smaller than males, so maybe the breasts were there to explain why Patty was shorter than Bigfoots are usually reported to be (if she was). That would be a useful dodge if Patty was really a normal-sized guy in a suit.

On the other hand, it's interesting that the only non-human apes whose females have breasts, bonobos, are also the only other (somewhat) bipedal ape species.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have to sort of wonder about the really large/tall ones you hear about a lot. Ten feet plus in height and such, personally anything that freaking large is going to get noticed regardless of how stealthy it might be. I think eight feet is a stretch, and I think it could be to shock and a little fear, surprise all rolled up into one. I recall guys reporting being attacked by 200 plus VC in Nam......then you point out that they were only a ten man squad and that 200 plus VC would have eaten their cookies.

I've never seen a Bigfoot so I have no idea what their actual height is.....however? Ten feet? They could have a great career in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Seeing how he makes his living building costumes, I don't doubt for a second he can produce something very simililar. As far as evidence goes, it's only evidence that he can make a suit that looks similar to the subject in the PGF.

Indeed he can, he can make one that looks just the same, in all dimensions from a 30 second film clip. He can recreate her, just as is claimed he can.

What we have is a subject in a film. All but a couple of fringe scientists can point out a dozen reasons why this is a man in a suit. All but one costume maker say it is a costume and they could do better. We have controversy because people believe in this incredibly small minority that is working on wild guesses. With regards to the film, 46 years of investigation has shown no trace of Bigfoot in the area ever again, nobody has filmed this again, nothing at all, but on the hoax side we have a man who says he wore the suit, we have a man who said he laid tracks all over the area, we have men who are not eyewitness testimony, but direct witnesses to Patterson's request for advice on said suit and we have "The Suit" recreated. It looks to me the suit has one heck of a lot more behind it than the sorry cries of "show me the suit" that support Patterson.

If Morris really wanted to scam this, he could just have made a suit and left it in the weather for 6 months, and then claimed it was the original, perhaps retrieved due to a bounced check. How would you prove that wrong? And the thing would be worth a small fortune to a collector. I know of a couple of Georgia Policeman that might be more than interested in it.

You know as well as I do, testimony isn't proof.

Eyewitness testimony is decidedly shaky, these people are direct witnesses. Harvey Anderson offerred a recollection of an actual conversation, not a recollection of something blurry in the woods at distance. I see a difference there myself.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read this entire thread but I hope to soon, please forgive me for popping in and running, not much time.

It really would be worth the time Earl, it is not all that long, half an hour would answer most of your questions.

When I fisrt saw the PG film, I thought - "A man in a monkey suit". And as the OP here suggests, no, the best of Hollywood set costumes in those days could not stretch, so says a Hollywood set director of many years. The stretch material only became available many years after the PG film was made. And he was referring directly to the stretching mammories of the creature when it turned it's head and swung. Can't be faked, not then. Those mamm's are real.

No, you are wrong, suits were made even better much earlier than this. It's a myth. The only suit designer to say it could be real is Bill Munns, the best in the business, such as Chambers say they could have done the suit much better themselves.

No they are not real. I have spent considerable time investigating this field, and I feel in this instance my hard work has finally paid of. Although it was pretty rewarding as I went along.

Also, if this was alleged to have been some 7.5 foot tall man, I would think he would feel somewhat insulted to have to pretend to be a female, no?

No, Bob was a known prankster and had worn suits to the town pub before to make people laugh, he was the town joker. And Patterson siad he would get $1,000.00 for the prank, but never paid up.

So why add stress to the entire situation by possibly insulting the tall man, and by giving yourself more work to do in the design of the costume? It makes no sense.

It makes sense when you look at one of Patterson's favourite subjects - Bigfoot. When Ivan Sanderson managed quite some success with his article in Argosy, Patterson became inspired, and released a pamphlet/booklet of his own. It did not quite get te publics attention as Sanderson did, so he went bigger and better, and eventually did the film. Only 12 years earlier, a man called William Roe claimed to have seen Bigfoot, and he gave quite a detailed description. His Bigfoot drawing looked like this:

WilliamRoeDrawing.jpg

Going by his heavy set description, this seems to be Patterson's inspiration.

That *in my opinion*, is no "man in a monkey suite", it's a BF.

1416ume_zps8fb44e0b.jpeg

Let us not forget, yes, the gait of the creature is very resemblent of that of man, but that is because, as I now know, BF *is* a human.

BF is human? I agree, Hobosapiens.

I did intend some day to do a revisit of the PG film, now that the enhanced digital film is available. great stuff. Glad to see someone else surfaced it.

How conversant are you with analogue film and it capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Personally, I have to sort of wonder about the really large/tall ones you hear about a lot. Ten feet plus in height and such, personally anything that freaking large is going to get noticed regardless of how stealthy it might be. I think eight feet is a stretch, and I think it could be to shock and a little fear, surprise all rolled up into one. I recall guys reporting being attacked by 200 plus VC in Nam......then you point out that they were only a ten man squad and that 200 plus VC would have eaten their cookies.

I've never seen a Bigfoot so I have no idea what their actual height is.....however? Ten feet? They could have a great career in the NBA.

Meganthropus is a good indicator as to the limits of human design.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a passing thought about Patty's breasts: females are usually smaller than males, so maybe the breasts were there to explain why Patty was shorter than Bigfoots are usually reported to be (if she was). That would be a useful dodge if Patty was really a normal-sized guy in a suit.

On the other hand, it's interesting that the only non-human apes whose females have breasts, bonobos, are also the only other (somewhat) bipedal ape species.

Afre they boobs though?

“The possible presence of hypertrophied laryngeal pouches has also been discussed a few times in the literature on Sasquatch (Krantz 1999, Meldrum 2006). If Sasquatch is a non-human ape, the presence of enlarged air sacs would be expected. Furthermore, it’s been suggested that the loud vocalisations inferred by some to be created by Sasquatches indicate the presence of giant, orangutan-like air sacs in this animal. Grover Krantz even considered the idea that the large, human-like breasts of ‘Patty’ – the subject of the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film – might be partially inflated air sacs, but noted that this was more unlikely than the idea that they really are breasts (Krantz 1999).”

The specific quotation Naish is referring to from Krantz, in essence, is this one:

“Many years ago I suggested another possible explanation for those prominent bulges; they might be laryngeal air sacs of enormous size, and about half inflated in this film….If the Sasquatch had an exaggerated version of these pouches, they just might extend anteriorly and some distance down the chest. These could be inflated, then abruptly deflated (perhaps by pressing down on it with the hands) while exhaling a lungfull of air at the same time. Such a volume of air passing the vocal cords could help account for the extremely loud sounds they are reported to make. Actually I do not find this to be as likely an explanation as that they are breasts. I just think it is a good practice to look at every reasonable possibility – with this and any other phenomena.” – page 119 in Grover S. Krantz’s Big Footprints (Boulder: Johnson Books, 1992) andBigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (Surrey, BC/Blaine, WA: Hancock House, 1999).

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best post on this topic..... :tu:

I have a feeling we would get along very well mate :D If ever I get over your way, it would be good to catch up for an ale or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meganthropus is a good indicator as to the limits of human design.

Yeah, but I just can't imagine something as large as Bigfoots are supposed to be can stay hidden so well. Back in the day, the guys who did really well in Nam were all smaller. Big guys like me all too often wound up stopping bullets, the smaller guys were usually quicker, quieter, more agile and could sneak up on just about anyone. Hell, you could hear me breath 4 meters away.

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 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.