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 -

The Patterson bigfoot film, was it a costume?


Dradan

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

48 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      32
    • No
      16


Recommended Posts

2 hours 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.

Actually the company I work for does a lot of business with native tribes in WA, OR, north CA, ID, and MT. A few years ago, shortly before his untimely passing (funeral ceremony performed by local chiefs of Sahalish and Suquamish tribes, and he was white to give some perspective of the trust and respect level) our top tribal producer was in CA not far from where the footage was shot renewing some inland marine coverage and he told me that the locals are all believers and some who live in more remote areas have frequent encounters ranging from sightings to calls to prints to marked trees. He said  they don’t report these things because this has been a fact of life for them for untold generations and they coexist with them because of mutual respect. He gave me the impression that they don’t encourage people searching and are not huge fans of the towns people that profit from the merchandising. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

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.

Did not experience that with the cheap suit in college.

You are not going to get a "lap of a pair of jeans" when someone is wearing a diaper inside of the sit. Patty has a diaper butt.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book in Question is:

Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist.  That is not the cover art.  I have an original copy.  Self published in 1966 by Franklin Press Yakima WA.  

Under Acknowledgements:  "Illustrations by the author are based on descriptions given him by those who have actually seen the man-animal about which this book is written."

The picture Myles posted is on page 111, referenced as the "The Old Lady", is one of many drawings of the Albert Ostman event. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One aspect that is never mentioned is the G in the PGF.  I believe at the time Bob Gimlin was a known tracker and it is difficult to believe that Roger Patterson, knowing Bob, would think he could fool Bob with fake feet.  I can't speak to the casts.  But Bob Gimlin would have seen the actual prints after being freshly laid and would have been able to recognize a fake print (and probably a man in a suit) fairly quickly.  My understanding is he was not part of nor involved in the inital activity by Patterson and DeAtley of the film, marketing showings and such.  Seems he would not have much of a reason to cover a hoax and actually could stand to gain quite a bit financially from a debunker story.  Everyone is gone now, wouldn't hurt a thing.  So it seems he believes what he saw.

Locomotion - It is logical that bipedal species would locomotor (if that's a word) in a similar fashion having evolved to move as efficiently as possible given their specific body types.  Just google videos of various quadrupedal African felids striding.  So the locomotion should look natural and real/fluid.

A suit - who knows, that is why the debate still rages after 52 years.  One interesting point brought to my attention was the head turn.  The head turn exibits Gorilla type motion because of where the spine would enter the skull.  The spine is in this position, forcing the jaw wider and lower, because of the way a gorilla walks and the skull structure with large sagital crest and accompanying muscles.  In order for a gorilla to turn its head around as we see in the PGF, at a certain point it contacts the shoulder forcing an upper chest rotation to continue to looking farther around.  This can be seen on videos.  This argument stated that a fully bi-pedal animal would not have a need for the spine to be in that "gorilla" position but instead should be as in humans who do not need to rotate the upper chest to look that far around.  Personally i feel too many assumptions are made here as we have no good data to reference, but i like the argument because it was a sound criticism. 

Now throw on that monkey suit with some padding for effect, put on some homemade 2x6 feet about half a size bigger than your foot at least and head on out to the woods, start walking like that and turn around like that and then keep walking.  See if you trip, fall down or not and how many takes you need to get it right like in the film.  Anyone ever tried to turn around while striding like that in snow shoes?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

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

And would not have even one person arguing it was a real gorilla for 50 years or even an hour. I don’t know if it’s real or not but in all the years since it came out there hasn’t been one other film or picture that has people debating it’s reality like this nor has anyone made a costume that’s fooled anyone regardless of technical advances in the field of monster costumes. It’s a bit like the arguments about faking the moon landings. Despite all the special effects advancements the look and feel of footage of men walking on the moon has never been duplicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Did not experience that with the cheap suit in college.

You are not going to get a "lap of a pair of jeans" when someone is wearing a diaper inside of the sit. Patty has a diaper butt.

And that’s my issue with it too. Like I said I’m not convinced this film is real just giving my impressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, freetoroam said:

.

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

 

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

So why can't he produce another suit similar to the one in the pg film?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jusdafacts said:

Locomotion - It is logical that bipedal species would locomotor (if that's a word) in a similar fashion having evolved to move as efficiently as possible given their specific body types.  Just google videos of various quadrupedal African felids striding.  So the locomotion should look natural and real/fluid.

We evolved to be bi-pedal because the savanna we moved to had no trees to climb up. We needed to run fast. A forest dwelling ape would have no need for it. He would stay on his knuckles so he can maneuver better in the forest. 

2 hours ago, jusdafacts said:

This argument stated that a fully bi-pedal animal would not have a need for the spine to be in that "gorilla" position but instead should be as in humans who do not need to rotate the upper chest to look that far around.

Our spines have nothing to do with our hips.  Which are different from gorillas. Hence the way we look around. Our spines never caught up with our hips and are still designed for knuckle walking like a gorilla. Hence all the bad backs. 

A bipedal animal needs bipedal hips and would look around like we do. It has nothing to do with the spine. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

piney an indian did field research and doesnt believe bf exists.

last i looked and pgf played out for me long ago the top make up minds of today believe the suit is a helmet, mask, the torso with arms is like a girls one piece swimsuit, the legs are like waders, it zips up the front, diaper butt codpiece.

Janos Prohaska, he was a go to from the 40s until 74 for ape suit actor when he sadly died in a plane crash in 74, he was in a bf doc saying patty looked real to him, of course it did, you are the go to name for ape actors and this one comes out looking as good or better dont kill your bread and butter and admit its a suit, his reasons were down right lame like, the make up job would take a long time, um no, just like you do someone puts on a suit in 10 minutes tops he also said where will you find a big man, hum, perhaps living 2 doors down from b gimlin.

he was in for example gilligans island and its very obvious a man in a monkey suit, yet the suit is better than the pgf creature.

why hasnt a suit just like patty been created, well that is a great question, i will skip by suits like used in 2001 space oddessey, 76 kingkong, rick bakers works, chewbacca, jack links mascot, harry henderson...whew, yeah i know some are modern but all have tall money behind them, and all look far better than patty, one has to look at any suit to compare in the same situation, a moving subject, moving cameraman low end camera wrong speed setting, grainny, blurry poor focus etc, many suits compared under those conditions would just look better....

12233539_847618465336266_905768904_n.jpg.06349d1678d45e0d4b60fd65361113b5.jpg12212489_847618488669597_513976392_n.jpg.3053d439bdf271540cb896892cd38f4f.jpg20190224_221141-415x285.png.bf69127fa439b62a295d5d3e4474997c.png

a known suit, better looking than patty.

gilmin was a tracker and didnt spend the rest of the day following patty into the woods...very odd.

gilmin was involved with documentaries he wasnt duped if this was a hoax he was a part of it, his best buddy dying of cancer needs a lotto win and his friend doesnt spill it, seems a great motivation, and gimlin is having a ball doing the "paid" apperences last i saw,

im not sure the pgf debate will ever be solved only 2 people i know of gimlin and pattersons widows word uts faked would be enough without the suit and after all this time the suit is likely laying next to hoffa,

so if they pass away sticking to the side its real then it might stay unproven,

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, the13bats said:

gilmin was a tracker and didnt spend the rest of the day following patty into the woods...very odd.

Yeah right!

I would of had my nose to the ground until I caught the thing. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would point out Baboons as non bipedal savannah dwelling primates.  The physically larger the primate the less it brachiates

have a look at the ranger Congo gorilla picture. You can see the gorilla neck rang of motion is limited by the shoulder.  That is what this professor was talking about. He argued it was a suit and they mimicked a gorillas head neck. Patterson draws the creature with humped shoulders a discernible neck and distinctly flat head. 

I don’t know why Gimlin didn’t track it. Fear maybe.  I think very few do.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jusdafacts said:

I would point out Baboons as non bipedal savannah dwelling primates.  The physically larger the primate the less it brachiates

They are not hominidae. They also weren't cat food.  Gorillas don't brachiate but from experience as a tracker low to the ground has it's advantages. 

4 minutes ago, jusdafacts said:

I don’t know why Gimlin didn’t track it. Fear maybe.  I think very few do.  

When you have to run down big cats, bears, rustlers, and cons on the run a big monkey shouldn't bother you.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the silly season's in full bloom. Ha anyone heard from TIGHAR yet?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that savannah theory has problems. Evolution would not be that exclusive.  

I believe Gorillas are semi-bracchiators spending more time off the ground when younger until their size becomes a limitation to that. Not like chimps which are true semi b’s

i agree about tracking, but chimps hunt and I don’t believe they track in the way you are thinking. large animals such as bears find an advantage to standing. Maybe for primates outside of the jungle enviro this is also possibly the case  

I brought up Gimlin because everyone trashes the pfg based on the character flaws of Patterson, But Gimlin does not appear to have that same history. Simply looking at more angles.  

About tracking I don’t know what his answer would be now. Seems people actively hunting BF today are ready to track  but people, even hunters, surprised by its presence don’t.

This is my first time posting and I think this is hijacking the thread maybe.  So I’ll leave it at that  I have been reading both your posts for a while now and its usually interesting.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

And would not have even one person arguing it was a real gorilla for 50 years or even an hour. I don’t know if it’s real or not but in all the years since it came out there hasn’t been one other film or picture that has people debating it’s reality like this nor has anyone made a costume that’s fooled anyone regardless of technical advances in the field of monster costumes. It’s a bit like the arguments about faking the moon landings. Despite all the special effects advancements the look and feel of footage of men walking on the moon has never been duplicated. 

The issue is that all of the things you claim a suit would do did not happen with the cheap suit we rented.

That's the issue and not whether some people claimed the film they shot was real or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, the13bats said:

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.

The film was shot in 1967. They didnt have the best materials available back in those days. BBC tried to copy the suit, but the result didnt look anything like the bigfoot in the patterson film, even though they had better materials available. Im not saying its bigfoot, but if its a suit, its really well made for its time being.

packham1[1].jpg

The suit featured in the BBC documentary called the x-creatures.

Edited by Aldves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Aldves said:

The film was shot in 1967. They didnt have the best materials available back in those days. BBC tried to copy the suit, but the result didnt look anything like the bigfoot in the patterson film, even though they had better materials available. Im not saying its bigfoot, but if its a suit, its really well made for its time being.

packham1[1].jpg

The suit featured in the BBC documentary called the x-creatures.

They may not have had tje best materials, but the PG isn't the best film quality either. Whereas the BBC were using high end cameras of the day.

In any case, the quality of the suit in the PG film is wholly subjective. Some people see rippling muscles, others even see eye movement, I see a man in a crap suit. I see nothing about it that seta it apart from any other bf film. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC documentary which tried to replicate the pg film didn't try did they? The distribution of hair is not close. The close is different. The diaper butt isn't there.

I think that was a trivial effort on the part of the people making that test and they probably used an off the shelf costume.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a man in a suit, it was a women in a suit by the size of the booty.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The BBC documentary which tried to replicate the pg film didn't try did they? The distribution of hair is not close. The close is different. The diaper butt isn't there.

I think that was a trivial effort on the part of the people making that test and they probably used an off the shelf costume.

They did a terrible job to say the least. I agree, you can easily tell its a costume, simply by looking at the fur from the suit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm baffled by people who say "look at the muscles!" because I can see no such thing. And the mention of the eyes earlier in this thread makes me think people are seeing a better quality video than what I've been shown.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was a man in a suit how come that person has never come forward? Apparently Patterson and Gimlin did not know the difference or did they and just did not say anything all these years..I am aware one of them has passed on...

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1955 William Roe encounter with a female sasquatch with visible breasts should not be forgotten, as it was likely the inspiration behind the PGF.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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.