The Patterson bigfoot film, was it a costume?

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, Aldves said:

Theres one really big problem with that argument.

The surgeons photo has been debunked because people were able to replicate the hoax using the same materials they had available back in those days. Adrian shine made a plastic toy submarine and demonstrated just how easily it would be to hoax a picture like that.

With the patterson film, however, we are still waiting for someone to craft a similar suit using the same materials, while shooting a film that also looks similar. Nobody has done that, even 40 years later.

No one hs to debunk anything. The issue is that the material presented needs to be supported.

Just as the supporters claim to see muscle flexing and all of the other BS they claim about the video, they do not accept any replication. So what? It looks like a guy in a suit. It walks like a guy in a suit.

There is no need to "still waiting for someone to craft a similar suit using the same materials"

No matter if there if there was someone who wasted considerable time and effort to duplicate this hoax there would always be people denying it was a hoax..

[the13bats]

9

Quote

 P and G both gave many contradictory accounts of "what happened,"

um, no kidding, just one of countless obvious issues with the case.

no suit like that can be made, yes it can, no it cant.

people who see muscle movements,

like with stories of flattened, no bent no he didnt say bent it was flattened stirrup.  i do wonder did he snap a picture of it?

both men claiming to be trackers etc in documentaries, then house trainers then etc etc etc.

the real story of the film possessing,

how about the fake gimlin patterson would bring to lectures...

and the member who recalls seeing a soundtrack version wasnt lying, i believe them they likely did see it or rather heard it, sure the film was silent but like i said any documentary could have added a soundtrack for dramatic effect, no need to be snide about it, their opinions are as valid as yours or mine.

yeah, facts, opinions, theories  make for an odd slurry when it comes to the PGF, some will say its a fact its a real creature and the next will say its a fact its fake, a hoax.

what are "facts" to one might be "opinion" to the next and vice versa.

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by the13bats
fixed

[Minimalists]

Anyone know who William Roe is? It's said Patterson's film replicates to the letter Roe's encounter.... 

[the13bats]

47 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Anyone know who William Roe is? It's said Patterson's film replicates to the letter Roe's encounter.... 

drawing by roes daughter myrtle Walton, he was very careful about it being perfect, sure its patty-ish.

i never met roe but i found his story a mix of albert ostman and Ivan marx all very good at telling stories, then Patterson and his film that does have elements of the other guys tales, early advocates said the creatures descriptions matched and looked like patty because they were of course all real bigfoot,

for some reason the bigfoot with breasts was a big must have to some guys during that time perhaps like the European fascination with the so called "Hottentot Venus" in the 1700s.

seems bf encounters today are mostly similar to one another, "big and hairy, human but not human" etc.

i have no idea if patterson used roes and ostmans stories for guides but a bigfoot is gonna look like what people say bigfoot looks like. 

[+OverSword]

16 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Would horses be just as spooked by a man in a suit?  

Possibly, but if the guy in the suit was already with them that’s a lot less likely imo. You would think he would have been with them and changed into the suit and they would have had a discussion about where to walk and what to do and possibly even rehearsed it where the horses would have seen them.

[oldrover]

6 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Sorry to hear that, it's been my username for a long time.

It's a very minor thing really, it hasn't bothered me for years. 

I've also often raised the point about Patterson having to have a bigfoot cistune handy, for his bigfoot film. It'd sort of be an essential. 

I don't usually bother with bigfoot but I do like the PG film as it's a classic  hoax, nostalgia really. I think weakest part of it is the backstory. As in the part most vulnerable to scrutiny. Obviously, the fact that it suppisedly shows a bigfoot not withstanding. 

Edited May 25, 2019 by oldrover

[+OverSword]

6 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

To the guy claiming this footage had sound, you're 100% incorrect. No sound, no footage of scared horses.

No. You’re wrong. The sound version was also YouTube years ago but like many copyrighted videos/movies is no longer there. As far as no scared horses watch the video again. When the alleged Sasquatch first shows up the footage is so shaky because they are filming from the back of a bucking horse. The footage gets steadier after the filmer dismounts.  

[+OverSword]

@Gilbert Syndrome after years and YEARS of threads on this website about this subject you are coming up with tons of “facts” nobody has ever posted before. How about some links?

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, Gilbert Syndrome said:

Sorry to hear that, it's been my username for a long time. 

Here's a great video from Jeff Pruitt, stuntman and FX worker:

 

That’s a good one. Too bad there’s no sound. Do you know what show that came from? If like to see the whole thing 

[Swede]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

No. You’re wrong. The sound version was also YouTube years ago but like many copyrighted videos/movies is no longer there. As far as no scared horses watch the video again. When the alleged Sasquatch first shows up the footage is so shaky because they are filming from the back of a bucking horse. The footage gets steadier after the filmer dismounts.  

1) The camera purportedly utilized was a heavy, bulky, hand-crank Kodak 16 mm Cine 100:

https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/kodak-cine-100/

2) It would appear that sound capabilities may have only been incorporated after the film was processed:

http://the-eye.eu/public/Books/Manuals/kodak_k-100.pdf

Further investigation into the actual details of the model utilized would be of interest.

.

[Piney]

19 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Would horses be just as spooked by a man in a suit?  

Hell yeah! Any strange sight. I had a gun broke cowhorse come apart on me the first time it saw/heard a propane forklift. 

[lightly]

I notice the soles of the being's "feet" are white..or very light...any other exposed "skin" appears to be dark?  He struts like my cousin Floyd.

Edited May 25, 2019 by lightly
". "

[Don Caesar]

I would be most disappointed if that chest was fake.

[the13bats]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

No. You’re wrong. The sound version was also YouTube years ago but like many copyrighted videos/movies is no longer there. As far as no scared horses watch the video again. When the alleged Sasquatch first shows up the footage is so shaky because they are filming from the back of a bucking horse. The footage gets steadier after the filmer dismounts.  

i see countless copyrighted stuff posted everywhere,

i still believe both are right, the film was shot silent, any soundtrack was added, and if it was in docs and youtube its out there or someone somewhere discussing the soundtrack, its evidence... for those who need to prove anything..post your links...for now i believe oversword heard a soundtrack just not made at the actual filming, and im good with that

 

of course the feet are bright white and flat they are costume soles.

 

[+OverSword]

@the13bats yeah I’m convinced the sound was added. As far as copyrighted videos it depends on if the owner has it taken down. A good example is Jimi Hendrix Woodstock performance. A few years ago you could see it in it’s entirety but his estate had it removed. 

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

I notice the soles of the being's "feet" are white..or very light...any other exposed "skin" appears to be dark?  He struts like my cousin Floyd.

Would it be wrong to point out that humans with dark skin have pale palms and soles of their feet?

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Would it be wrong to point out that humans with dark skin have pale palms and soles of their feet?

True! In the summer I have my Cheetah hands. Furry knuckles and all. 

[the13bats]

44 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Would it be wrong to point out that humans with dark skin have pale palms and soles of their feet?

nope, its true but pattys feet dont look like feet like dick smith make up guru said, he would do fancy painting on them....

[the13bats]

58 minutes ago, OverSword said:

@the13bats yeah I’m convinced the sound was added. As far as copyrighted videos it depends on if the owner has it taken down. A good example is Jimi Hendrix Woodstock performance. A few years ago you could see it in it’s entirety but his estate had it removed. 

my point wasnt if you heard a version with sound but rather it doesnt matter much at this point with this case, during my 40 plus years of interest in this one i have seen theories come and go, facts to one are opinion to the next,

after all this time no one has proven their case, like with bigfoot existing for most only a living one, a dead one or parts will be enough for true proof it exists.

in a way the film is harder to prove either way,

i like to joke that even if gimlin put on the suit and did the hooky pooky while pattersons window showed the bloopers and out take reels some dear true believers even then would yell "cover up" , 

[+DieChecker]

On 5/23/2019 at 7:10 AM, Aldves said:

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?

Over the many years here on UM, I've come to the conclusion that the much greater preponderance of evidence points at it being a suit. I'm not sure if it was Bob H., but surely Bob heard about it, and maybe years latter thought to try to get even for some old debt. Sounds like something my dad might do. 

I don't know that I believe Philip Morris either. I believe he had plenty to gain by making a claim that, at that point, had no one who could dispute it. His description of the suit was vastly different from Bob H.

I do also remember seeing the pictures and film of Bob H with Gimlin and Patterson on horses. And read that indeed Gimlin and Patterson were riding Bob's horses at the time.

Plus Patterson had already been caught faking footprints, and still had the foot casts he used to do so. He wanted to find bigfoot and make a video more then anything, and when he set out, just a mile or so down the trail, he found one. Coincidence? Maybe, but probably not.

[lightly]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Would it be wrong to point out that humans with dark skin have pale palms and soles of their feet?

Nope,it would be right of you...I sorta forgot.  But he still walks like my cousin Floyd.

[oldrover]

16 hours ago, OverSword said:

As far as no scared horses watch the video again. When the alleged Sasquatch first shows up the footage is so shaky because they are filming from the back of a bucking horse. The footage gets steadier after the filmer dismounts.  

There you are giving a different vesion of events to Patterson. He was very clear that he only started filming after he dismounted. Check this if you don't believe me. 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

20 hours ago, the13bats said:

9

um, no kidding, just one of countless obvious issues with the case.

no suit like that can be made, yes it can, no it cant.

people who see muscle movements,

like with stories of flattened, no bent no he didnt say bent it was flattened stirrup.  i do wonder did he snap a picture of it?

both men claiming to be trackers etc in documentaries, then house trainers then etc etc etc.

the real story of the film possessing,

how about the fake gimlin patterson would bring to lectures...

and the member who recalls seeing a soundtrack version wasnt lying, i believe them they likely did see it or rather heard it, sure the film was silent but like i said any documentary could have added a soundtrack for dramatic effect, no need to be snide about it, their opinions are as valid as yours or mine.

yeah, facts, opinions, theories  make for an odd slurry when it comes to the PGF, some will say its a fact its a real creature and the next will say its a fact its fake, a hoax.

what are "facts" to one might be "opinion" to the next and vice versa.

I think you've all got me mistaken. I'm not saying you've never seen a documentary with added sound effects, what I'm saying is this wasn't a part of the actual footage, it was quite obviously added for dramatic effect. The PGF doesn't have any sound. I'm not being "snide" lol, I'm telling you how it is. It amazed me how little actual valid information I was reading about in this thread, I'm not here to stick my thumb up and give out badges for effort. No, see, there's facts, and there's opinions, and what I've posted thus far is fact, which you can all look into for yourselves, but apparently have not bothered to. 

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

18 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Anyone know who William Roe is? It's said Patterson's film replicates to the letter Roe's encounter.... 

William Roe was a bloke who loved a tall tale. He apparently was abducted by a family of Squatches while sleeping, taken to their cave, where there was a father, a mother and two children, a boy and a girl, how lovely. He escaped by throwing his snuff at them. The image of the female Bigfoot which looks unsurprisingly like Patty is taken from Roger's book, which had a segment that depicted the Roe encounter. Do you all know that Roger also essentially stole some of the art featured in his book? Roger was obsessed with the Roe tale, and he basically wanted to put it on film, and he did, and here we all are, yet some people apparently still think it's the real deal, and I find that hilarious. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Gilbert Syndrome

[Gilbert Syndrome]

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

No. You’re wrong. The sound version was also YouTube years ago but like many copyrighted videos/movies is no longer there. As far as no scared horses watch the video again. When the alleged Sasquatch first shows up the footage is so shaky because they are filming from the back of a bucking horse. The footage gets steadier after the filmer dismounts.  

Again, you're mistaking a program that you've seen which has used sound effects for dramatic effect with there actually being a version of the PGF with added audio, which there isn't. 

As far as the "horses being spooked" segment, it didn't happen. What you're seeing is Roger shaking the camera as though he's taming wild horses upon the sight of this hilarious beast. 

Let's take a look at P&G's different versions of that story:

In one account Gimlin claims - "Well the horse was kinda spooked, y'know? Roger jumped from the horse and stumbled, the horse kinda fell on top of him in the scuffle to get down."

Then...

"He jumped off the horse and ran after her to shoot the footage, the horses didn't act worried, just normal."

Forgetful, eh? 

Surely they'd remember whether a horse fell on top of Roger or not, I mean, it's not something you'd be confused about. 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by Gilbert Syndrome