Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ultimatium

The Patterson bigfoot film, was it a costume?

Do you think the bigfoot in the patterson film is a man in a suit?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the bigfoot in the patterson film is a man in a suit?

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      15


280 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ultimatium
Posted (edited)

With a reputation as the most controversial film ever made of bigfoot, the patterson gimlin film has been subject of debate by skeptics and bigfoot believers ever since it was filmed in 1967.

The primary argument against the films credibility, is that its nothing more than a man wearing a cheap fursuit. Bigfoot believers, however, suggests that this is much more than a man in a fursuit, arguing that the creatures gait is unlike that of a human, and that its muscles can be seen flexing as the creature is walking on the film.

Was it a costume?

We are going to take a look at some of the scientific research regarding the film in this thread.

PGF+F364.jpg

The famous film of bigfoot, shot in 1967 by roger patterson.

In 1957, a group of construction workers working near bluff creek noticed large human like footprints left in a remote area surrounded by wilderness. Patterson, who was working on a documentary about bigfoot, heard the roumors and set out to find the creature who had left the tracks. Just as he was about to run out of film, he caught a mysterious creature standing on the opposite site of the creek. It immediately began walking away, only looking back a few times. Patterson tracked the creature on horseback for miles, but eventually lost sight of it.

So, what are the expert opinions on the film?

Grover krantz, a scientist who started out as a skeptic, was one of the first to argue that the film was authentic, primarily because of the unusual walk or stride of the creature in the film. He also argues that some of these footprints could not be hoaxed, because of the anatomic details found on some of the casts. Jeff meldrum, a professor of anatomy argues that some of the footprints are real, mainly because they share some of the same characteristics, such as the dermal ridge patterns being more similar to either an ape or a gorilla. Phillip Morris, a costume maker, claims that he was the one who made the famous costume, and that Bob Heironimus is the one who is wearing his suit on the film.

What do you think? Is it a man in a suit, or is the film genuine? If its not a guy in a suit, then what did patterson capture on film in 1967?

Edited by Aldves
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agishe
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Aldves said:

Is it a man in a suit, or is the film genuine? If its not a guy in a suit, then what did patterson capture on film in 1967?

60814488_2302155140043681_13574525888862

Position of attention?

Waiting for the "Action!" command?

Edited by Agishe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Patterson+film+stablized_2b6ee5_5485209.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Aldves said:

and that its muscles can be seen flexing as the creature is walking on the film.

Yes, muscle flexing makes it seem real. And the movement of the eye suggests it is a real eye, and because the eye is so big in comparison to the head, the eye is very likely not to be that of a human.

The "suit":   Typically, every time you see a pic of an alleged BF, it appears to have "fur" on its frame.  Look closely at this figure and it looks like it is hair.  that is convincing. And since the hair is so sparse, we are able to see muscle flexing. 

Seems real to me..  75% sold on it

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
2 hours ago, Aldves said:

The primary argument against the films credibility, is that its nothing more than a man wearing a cheap fursuit.

I'd argue that, most of toing and froing on the internet is this, exactly this, but there are much more significant objections to the film's authenticity than this. The biggest of which is the problem of the film having been taken early Friday afternoon, and being ready for screening on Sunday. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

There is no muscle flexing in the film. That's all wishful thinking. It's a man in a suit walking like a man walks. Well, like Bob Heironimus walks.

The hair on the suit, ask Morris about that part.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

I have always been torn by this film..I voted man in an ape suit but I really do not know one way or the other....One of the things is that it just does not walk like any ape I have ever seen. And wild animals when scared will generally run not walk from danger....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

and bob wasnt the only one who walks the walk, old grover krantz would do it then it would dawn on him hes shooting himself in the foot showing a man can walk like the creature, so he says, " i didnt do it very long"

the long list of reasons the film is fake is well been stated, but any documentary or article will prove beyond any doubt "their" opinion,

what happened was patterson got very, very lucky he hit a lotto,  but he didnt film an unknown creature.

beatdeadhorse5.gif.b78190b3abc5e93cbc5f4038dddc565f.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
Quote

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film.

https://www.relativelyinteresting.com/heres-what-the-bigfoot-patterson-gimlin-film-looks-like-when-its-stabilized/

.

6 hours ago, Aldves said:

arguing that the creatures gait is unlike that of a human, and that its muscles can be seen flexing as the creature is walking on the film.

Just looking at the film below you can clearly see it is a mans walk and there are no flexing muscles.

 

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Patterson+film+stablized_2b6ee5_5485209.

It is a fake, only the hopers will not accept it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

I have bad eye sight due to age but how can anyone tell there is no muscle flexing?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
34 minutes ago, the13bats said:

and bob wasnt the only one who walks the walk, old grover krantz would do it then it would dawn on him hes shooting himself in the foot showing a man can walk like the creature, so he says, " i didnt do it very long"

the long list of reasons the film is fake is well been stated, but any documentary or article will prove beyond any doubt "their" opinion,

what happened was patterson got very, very lucky he hit a lotto,  but he didnt film an unknown creature.

beatdeadhorse5.gif.b78190b3abc5e93cbc5f4038dddc565f.gif

I agree there. The only way to finally put this to bed is to prove the backstory is false, which you can do to 99.9% degree of certainty. But it makes no difference because well, there's that 0.01% of hope still left. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)

 

 

21 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I agree there. The only way to finally put this to bed is to prove the backstory is false, which you can do to 99.9% degree of certainty. But it makes no difference because well, there's that 0.01% of hope still left. 

i know, but my 0.01% doesnt use the pgf in any way, and as time passes and zero is found my small percent will fade away.

23 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

I have bad eye sight due to age but how can anyone tell there is no muscle flexing?

i believe the point isnt our eyesite but claims of things seen that simple are not there the resolution is too poor, you cant enhance to something not there to start with, a great example is that monsterquest self appointed film analyze guy who claimed to have the orginal film, no, only copies, he enlarges until its a blurry mess and claims a background dark object is the creatures mouth but hes careful not to show too much before ir after where ones sees that object in the back ground.

just for fun,

back when Bob Heironimus came forward, it dawn on me i had seen a picture of him, gimlin, patterson and others on horses, Bob Heironimus lived a few doors down from gimlim, gimlim would wear a long wig and dress like an indian for documentaries, hum, an actor?

what if it was gilmin in the suit?

i read gimlin admitting they used Heironimus horse  that day but no, Heironimus wasnt there, just his horse...:tu:

 

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
16 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

I have bad eye sight due to age but how can anyone tell there is no muscle flexing?

Because the film shows a man moving in a suit, you do not see any muscles flexing in the video.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
5 hours ago, OverSword said:

Patterson+film+stablized_2b6ee5_5485209.

Thanks for posting this.   This just makes it clear as day that this is a guy in a suit.   

Even with all the issues with the video, there is more that makes it fake to me.

Patterson rented (stole) a camera and on his first day out he captured this video which depicts the same bigfoot with hairy boobs as he put on his book the previous year.

image.png.3f95f5ffc9fa5e5b7595058d9e9dd8ce.png

image.png.85b3bec86ac2e02237688dc3a029b5ea.png

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Myles said:

Thanks for posting this.   This just makes it clear as day that this is a guy in a suit. 

I disagree.  Is the head and the torso one piece?  If so then how does it turn. If it's not then the neck wouldn't turn when the head does.  But it moves together as if it were real, IMO.

27 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Because the film shows a man moving in a suit, you do not see any muscles flexing in the video.

Really?  I see thigh muscles and muscles between upper neck and shoulder blades flexing.  Sorry people but can you imagine what a suit would do when the head turned like that?  If the head were a separate piece it would become very obvious at that point.  If the head were one piece with the upper torso you probably couldn't turn the head at all. The part I find unconvincing however is that it looks like it's wearing a fur diaper.  As far as this film goes I'm not 100% positive.  As far as the existence of the creature, I am an experiencer so I know it exists.  No I have not seen a Sasquatch.  What I have seen were Sasquatch prints where no faker would possibly bother to put them.  I don't blame anyone who disbelieves or even anyone who thinks I'm lying or mistaken.  If I had not seen what I have seen I don't think for one second that I would believe from what I've ever seen on TV or the web.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Really?  I see thigh muscles and muscles between upper neck and shoulder blades flexing

I see the suit moving as the man walks and swings his arms. How can you possibly see muscles flexing? 

As he turns round to look at his friend the suit turns too, hence the part between the neck and shoulder blades move too. There are no signs of muscles moving.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
25 minutes ago, Myles said:

Thanks for posting this.   This just makes it clear as day that this is a guy in a suit.   

Even with all the issues with the video, there is more that makes it fake to me.

Patterson rented (stole) a camera and on his first day out he captured this video which depicts the same bigfoot with hairy boobs as he put on his book the previous year.

image.png.3f95f5ffc9fa5e5b7595058d9e9dd8ce.png

image.png.85b3bec86ac2e02237688dc3a029b5ea.png

 

right, the boobs thing bugs a lot of people,

patterson was arrested for the camera theft.

seems davis made that gif you like but when it was made it was to show the creature as real but it had the reverse effect and a lot of believers in the pgf jumped like a rat from a sinking ship, it screams man in fur suit, with silly diaper butt. its a fun enigma here, people see what they want to see.

a few people one really good ( belvin ? ) made suits, not to copy the video but rather show any movement is fake hair, padding, etc, one used only stuff you could get back them and is a bf believer he just thinks the film is a ridiculous fake,

my biggest point is and i say believe in bigfoot all you want but think twice about betting the farm the pgf is a real creature or basing your belief on this film, like i dont base opinions on eye witness or tracks both are too weak and faulty.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
46 minutes ago, Myles said:

Thanks for posting this.   This just makes it clear as day that this is a guy in a suit.   

Even with all the issues with the video, there is more that makes it fake to me.

Patterson rented (stole) a camera and on his first day out he captured this video which depicts the same bigfoot with hairy boobs as he put on his book the previous year.

image.png.3f95f5ffc9fa5e5b7595058d9e9dd8ce.png

image.png.85b3bec86ac2e02237688dc3a029b5ea.png

 

I did not know that! :mellow: That contributes to the unreality for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
52 minutes ago, the13bats said:

i know, but my 0.01% doesnt use the pgf in any way, and as time passes and zero is found my small percent will fade away.

I put that badly, I meant those who choose to believe in the film will cling to the 0.01%. Personally I'm at absolute zero with bigfoot. And every other cryptid. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
17 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I see the suit moving as the man walks and swings his arms. How can you possibly see muscles flexing? 

As he turns round to look at his friend the suit turns too, hence the part between the neck and shoulder blades move too. There are no signs of muscles moving.

I don't see that because IMO if the suit were loose enough for that kind of movement then you would see somethin similar to what happens in a lap of a pair of jeans when you sit down when the head turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
5 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I put that badly, I meant those who choose to believe in the film will cling to the 0.01%. Personally I'm at absolute zero with bigfoot. And every other cryptid. 

im not sure why i keep, for now that 0.01% even when i type it i think nope, bf isnt a real creature just a real human construct,

i guess my 0.01% is more i think it would be fun if it did exist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimatium
7 hours ago, OverSword said:

Patterson+film+stablized_2b6ee5_5485209.

I have been watching it a few times on a big monitor by now. Its really hard for me to tell what it is. Its either a guy in a masterfully tailored suit, or its one of the last few sasquatches who had been living in that area before it was colonized by humans.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, Aldves said:

I have been watching it a few times on a big monitor by now. Its really hard for me to tell what it is. Its either a guy in a masterfully tailored suit, or its one of the last few sasquatches who had been living in that area before it was colonized by humans.

i guess if it was the last one it likely passed away by now if not still being only one that would explain that while in this pgf it wasnt skittish or camera shy even with the amount of people hunting it and cameras clicking have exploded in numbers nothing like this has been captured on flim since, and no prints matching what patterson claimed it left and he took casts of have been seen either.

i dont really find the suit materful i dont believe it was any better than ones of the day like seen in gilligans island, the difference is, a grainy, out of focus distant double moving image captured on a camera filmed at unknown yet likely wrong speed in the perfect way and angles, a heck of a lot of luck,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

heres a full version,

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

I disagree.  Is the head and the torso one piece?  If so then how does it turn. If it's not then the neck wouldn't turn when the head does.  But it moves together as if it were real, IMO.

Really?  I see thigh muscles and muscles between upper neck and shoulder blades flexing.  Sorry people but can you imagine what a suit would do when the head turned like that?  If the head were a separate piece it would become very obvious at that point.  If the head were one piece with the upper torso you probably couldn't turn the head at all. The part I find unconvincing however is that it looks like it's wearing a fur diaper.  As far as this film goes I'm not 100% positive.  As far as the existence of the creature, I am an experiencer so I know it exists.  No I have not seen a Sasquatch.  What I have seen were Sasquatch prints where no faker would possibly bother to put them.  I don't blame anyone who disbelieves or even anyone who thinks I'm lying or mistaken.  If I had not seen what I have seen I don't think for one second that I would believe from what I've ever seen on TV or the web.

I see nothing you are suggesting. I see a suit moving like I see someone in clothes. I see no thigh muscles. I see no shoulder blades flexing.

In college we rented a gorilla suit and it was a cheap one and had none of the problems you suggest.

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.