Patterson made no attempt to hide anything he did. People were well aware of what he had done and was working on. Don't you think if it was a hoax then he would have been smart enough to have someone else film so it wouldn't be tied to someone who had a history with BF? I think that fact that he was wiling to come forward with the video and put his reputation on the line is proof that he wasn't in on it if it was a hoax. Also, go back and watch some monster movies from the late 60's. They were not really doing anything that looks half as real as whats in the Patterson vide...

Kitco, NO, No, No... Patterson actually wrote a book . Abominable Snowman of America- In it he had drawings of a Sasquatch that he made, interestingly they was a Femal Sasquatch. This book came out years before the video was filmed. Also the Honey Island Swamp Monster down in Louisianna had a video, it was filmed in 62-63 long before the patty film. Also the Michigan Ice Monster that toured in the carnival shows was just before and during this same timeline. There are lots of interesting facts out there concerning the existence of Sasquatch, some people choose to overlook.

the patterson footage was before they even knew what bigfoot looked like, so how could they make a costume that looked like one?

I know humans aren't that good at designing

I don't think 2 ranchers could actually design that costume or anything close to it.

Who in the hell is the bbc? And until there is an "apeman" on "display" at a zoo or a muesum it will always be cryptozoology

those people from bbc have way too much time on their hands

the bbc recreation is the one that looks wrong, ive seen both. the walking is different to me. if there were trying to say a man can walk like the 67 film , i disagree. from my view, everyone has the right do see it differently.

the patterson film looks real to me, the special effects of 1967 were terrible, thats why i believe the patterson film, the bbc recreation is what looks fake.

lol gj gonzo and may i add that that was beautifuly put

You've missed the point of the recreation completely. It was NOT to see if they could recreate the costume. They can, anyone can, given access to the make up and costume resources of "Planet of the Apes" make up and prosthetic designer John Chambers, the Rick Baker of his day. In fact the costume the BBC used is far too detailed, as the 'face' on Chambers' costume is never shown clearly - it's a fuzzy blob on even the best frames of Patterson's film. No, the BBC recreation was designed to rather ingeniously debunk this fake by using the original camera and len...

at least, i think.

crypto-dude, this was filmed by the bbc, they were trying to recreate the stride, body figure and movement, if possible.

I agree with you 100% crypto. This looks NOTHING like the creature in the Patterson video. I think that Patterson caught the real deal.

There's actually several things wrong with this: Wrong color, short arms, short legs, long oarnge hair, and a couple others I'm forgetting. No wonder he failed myserably