Don't forget it's California in 1967, the camera was high on LSD and hallucinating!

Damn it,why did they have to put my class picture on the internet!

I think that the patterson film and pictures are all real, ive seen the close ups of these pictures on tv one day. if u look real close at these pics in a zoom version the big foot actullay has breast like a female. And the vido in slow motion, u can actually see the skin move on the creature, it dosen't look mucyh like costume at all.W.E

Why does the face appear like this when facing the camera, and much more ape like when viewed from the side? I promise it morphs from ape face to nearly human face and back as the head turns. Watch the Davis gif and see. Davis even freezes the image briefly on each different face, but has offered no explanations that I can find. You can see it in the original film too.

Regardless of whether this tape is real or not, I seriously doubt that Hollywood wouldn't be able to reproduce the creature in the film. They can make convincing space ships, aliens, etc., but can't reproduce a blurry ape-like creature? Come on.

I for one am leaning on the side of the Patterson film being real, but I don't know for sure. It's either real or it's like big_redd_wolf said, it's Andre the Giant roaming the countryside in need of wax...

I'm not sure about you, but if I blew a pic of my face up like, it would certainly look that blurry and large, but um, I don't hair on my ridiculously large forehead, and my lips and nostrils are not that unproportional to the rest of my face. I also don't have quite that extreme of a 'conehead' either. I'm interested to see your 1x1cm pic blown up. It sure sounds like something worth seeing.

All I know is that the face, if not altered, would be way too big to belong to any human. Unless of Course Andre the Giant was running around in the middle of the woods and forgot to wax... It convinces me well enough.

So far no one has been able to recreate the footage or prove it to be a fake. As for peeps not having the skill... John Chambers and others have stated that they couldn't make as convincing an image as the one that appears on the footage.

gorilla suit and go running though the woods no matter how much she might have been drinking.

I think the thing that gives the film credibility is the close ups that show this thing has breasts. Looks like at least DD's. That pretty much means that if someone put on a suit more than likely it wasn't a guy.I don't know about you all. But I sure don't know any woman that would put on a heavy

take a 1cm X 1cm blurry mugshot of yourself and blow it up. i can say for certain you'll end up looking like bigfoot too. i believe theres somekind of undiscovered primate out there but this patterson 'bigfoot' is not it.

Patterson also didnt remember what speed he filmed it in, which makes the difference to the walk which every one says is to much like an ape to copy; but this was filmed the year before planet of the apes was and there were many workshops around to teach people how to walk like apes

The reason no replicas been made is due to the fact that the only people to try havnt had the skill to make one, there are too many problems with the patterson/gimlin film for it to be real. If things dont make sense its generally because its not true.

I agree. Everyone says "Oh people have admitted to making the costume and wearing it" yet they have never found the original suite, nor can a replica be made. I agree that people are making up opinion-based facts and need to do a little more research.

the guys from hollywood tryed to do a costume similar to the one in Patterson film but they didn't succeed = how can the Patterson film be a fake?

This film was released one year before the original Planet of the Apes, before several King Kong and Mighty Joe Young movies, why wouldnt this costume desiger take advantage of these opportunities. Bob Heironimus, who claims he was in the suit, who refuses to recreate the walk on film, who claimed he threw away the suit, then had a fake suit claiming he found the original, then admitted he had it made recently, if you want to believe him go for it, he desperately needs someone to,

This footage has not been proven to be hoaxed. It is apparent why you are just a "laborer in the entertainment field." There have been no "Hollywood special effects people" as you call them, to come forward. Stan Winston, designer of the Predator costume, and Morton Haack, designer of the original Planet of the Apes costumes, have both expressed their intrigue and awe in this footage, and both state that it would have been impossible to recreate.

Someone needs to sharpen the image

Its a fake end of. One of the blokes who did it admited to it recently

its too hard to see it could be anything its hard to say for sure but the tapes have been said to be true so who knows

Sorry, new to posting so didn't know the limits, the stride is extremely human. The human stride is a savannah adaptation, not a deep woods adaptation, so the creature's stride is inappropriate to it's main habitat.

Actually this footage has been fairly thoroughly debunked. Several Hollywood special effects/makeup people who were active at the time have been assigned credit for participating in the creation of the "look" of the Patterson creature. As a laborer in the entertainment field, I know just how easy it is to create a convincing facial hoax. The real telling detail is in what couldn't be effectively disguised...the creature's stride. Take a close look at how the creature walks, it's extremely h...

the bad thing about this video is that alot of experts now say that this footage is to old to study it....theres the new footage out by bobby clarke which A CURRENT AFFAIR is showing for free on there site but that one is worst that this footage....all u see on the bobby clarke footage is a blurry very blurry moving object.

I think it's odd when people make such dismissive comments about things they know little to nothing about. For the last 2 commenters, you are, of course, allowed your opinions, even when they're uneducated. But this nearly 40 yr. old footage has yet to be disproved. Primatologists agree there is no way this video could be a human because of it's muscle placement/ movement and the general way it moves. It's smart to be skeptical, but do so without name calling or making up your own opinion-based 'facts'...

I agree with Alien of the south, I think its fake. well it has been around for ages you would've thought it would be dead now... who knows, only the people who make up the lies.

Oh, and don't be fools people, it was a great hoax with a great costume...its just mythology has shrouded it's origins, and everyone blows stuff out of proportions, it's FAKE, face the facts.

Those plunger lips of his are definitely not going to get the ladies.

I got to get a life!!!!

LOOKS LIKE HE HAS A HANGOVER ,TOO MUCH KOKANEE

Almost so handsome as I am!!!

looks kind of stinky.... you think he stinks?

Well this sure doesn't look like a guy in a suit, but it's way to fuzzy to tell what it is.

What I'm wondering is why didnt it look like this when I zoomed in on it (the picture)? It was all pixely and I couldn't make out anything. But yeah, this definately isn't some dude in a costume.

remember not all mammals faces are totally covered with hair. especially around the eyes and lips area. and look how the neck and the head flow into 'each other naturally. a costume wud seem to have overlapping fur. this doesn't do that.

When they match up the purportions to a real human the face would have to be a lot smaller, so (and this is the first time I've seen this close-up) it looks pretty probable that its a real picture, the more I see these pictures the more I'm convinced the patterson film might be real, besides for the fact that they were LOOKING for bigfoot at the time, it seems like a real video!

It's my ex-husband. I know that scowl anywhere.

what ever it is is, it sure does have a large nose and lips! :)

If some facial features appear human it's because the creature is probably the closest relative to humans, even closer than chimpanzees, if the footage is genuine which I believe it is. Ever notice the muscle movement under the fur and the perfectly natural movement and stride in the footage? This is the most convincing evidence for the existence of bigfoot, and I for one believe.

There are points to this picture where I can say "oh yeah, I see it, such as the over extended forehead. But when I look at the lips... I don't know. They have such a well defined line to them and look human.

This is not a human face. All apes faces are hairless.

See how the face has an openning in it, looks like a humans face to me.