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 -

Experts use AI and Computer vision to determine if the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film is real


jethrofloyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Legend has it a humanoid creature covered in fur inhabits the forested areas along the west coast of the northern US and although stories of this mythical monster have been told since the 1800s, no one has been able to prove its existence.

The closest and most compelling evidence of Bigfoot was captured in 1967, when Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson shot footage of a furry figure walking through Bluff Creek in Northern California

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10273369/The-Proof-analyzes-famous-1967-Bigfoot-film-determine-real-hoax.html

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A circus bear dressed in costume would be too obvious

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2021 at 2:34 AM, papageorge1 said:

Again and again, the scientific analysis seems to show that this is not a man in an ape costume but a real creature.

No it doesn't.

It's the same people speaking crap like they always have.

Australapithecus? You've got the be fricken kidding me. That's nearly as bad as your interdimensional garbage. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let’s accept this evidence as proof that the PG film is of a real as-yet-unidentified beastie. 
How the smeg has it never been seen since? No other footage? No other trace evidence? It’s an area frequented by hunters (both of game and of ‘squatch), and yet no other footage? No bodies? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay, let’s accept this evidence as proof that the PG film is of a real as-yet-unidentified beastie. 
How the smeg has it never been seen since? No other footage? No other trace evidence? It’s an area frequented by hunters (both of game and of ‘squatch), and yet no other footage? No bodies? 

The . . .  footage was filmed in the same neck of the woods that would have been grizzly habitat if they hadn't been wiped out 50 years earlier.  Funny that; grizzlies all gone, not one footie harvested.

Where's the monkey?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 10:39 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

 No other footage? No other trace evidence?

It says that there are even better bigfoot footage than the PGF in the possession of some private collectors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 7:39 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Okay, let’s accept this evidence as proof that the PG film is of a real as-yet-unidentified beastie. 
How the smeg has it never been seen since? No other footage? No other trace evidence? It’s an area frequented by hunters (both of game and of ‘squatch), and yet no other footage? No bodies? 

Clearly they avoid all human contact except in cases of romance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

So only comments from Meldrum and no one else? Hard pass.

Yeah, the presence of The Boy Who Cried Bigfoot does put me a little bit Ill-at-ease over the veracity of the research, but if it’s valid science so should be repeatable. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Clearly they avoid all human contact except in cases of romance.

Wisely. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know I have a feeling there are animals we haven’t discovered deep in the forest. Animals that have adapted to their environment and figured out how to survive without being seen by humans. Rather they are an ancient race of humans or modern humans  wearing an ape suit we will find out one day. Now is not the time for anyone to be pulling pranks someone will get shot. But like others have said with all the technology we got now and we have very few photos or videos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bah, Humbug!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a great article but ok,

"They also analyze how its body moves, which they say would not be possible in a manmade suit "

They also claim the Patty weighed 700-800 lbs. Does anyone think Patterson had a man in a suit that big?


They also mention other items of interest to me that I knew about like the muscle flex in the thigh which could not be a suit. And other too.

I think it's real. a footie

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one would like to hear what someone other than Meldrum thinks.

I wonder why no other experts or professors in anatomy and/or anthropology don't investigate this. Where are their studies? What are their conclusions?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Trelane said:

I for one would like to hear what someone other than Meldrum thinks.

I wonder why no other experts or professors in anatomy and/or anthropology don't investigate this. Where are their studies? What are their conclusions?

totally agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2021 at 1:58 PM, Trelane said:

I for one would like to hear what someone other than Meldrum thinks.

I wonder why no other experts or professors in anatomy and/or anthropology don't investigate this. Where are their studies? What are their conclusions?

They can't be bothered.  Just like Meldrum can't be bothered publishing his work in a recognised and properly peer reviewed journal.  Strangely, he has published OTHER work in science journals, yet somehow, inexplicably, his bull****e on BF is always published in a book, so he can escape most scrutiny.   Gosh, could it be that he knows even his own fiction versus non-fiction?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Napier / Prominent primate expert (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program)

''I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus.''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

John Napier / Prominent primate expert (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program)

''I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter.

Forgive me for not checking, but is that a joke?  If so, ha..  If not, and that guy called himself either a scientist or researcher, I have some questions for him.. sadly he has passed on, but I already know most of the answers.

Q.1  Why would a zipper be visible, if it was even a 'medium quality' suit?  Do we get a good view of every part of the costume from all sides?

Q.2  What is the resolution of the imagery, and is that sufficient to show a zipper?  (Show your math)

Q.3.  Did Napier at one point say "the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind.", but then in a later book "there was nothing in this film which would prove conclusively that this was a hoax."?

Q.4  Given the answers to 1, 2 and 3, why on earth should anyone take Napier seriously, or roll him out as a 'reference'?

If anyone else wishes to answer those questions for John Napier, or justify his self proclaimed view that he was a Bigfoot 'expert' when he never had a Bigfoot to study, and clearly had no idea about film resolution, or even simple basic logic...  please do.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 8:23 AM, jethrofloyd said:

Legend has it a humanoid creature covered in fur inhabits the forested areas along the west coast of the northern US and although stories of this mythical monster have been told since the 1800s, no one has been able to prove its existence.

The closest and most compelling evidence of Bigfoot was captured in 1967, when Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson shot footage of a furry figure walking through Bluff Creek in Northern California

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10273369/The-Proof-analyzes-famous-1967-Bigfoot-film-determine-real-hoax.html

I watched the episode when it first aired a few weeks ago.  It was more compelling than the article.  I like the series and think they’ve done a good job with the show.  The AI enhancements showed other features not discussed in the article.  Good find, good thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2022 at 7:13 PM, jethrofloyd said:

John Napier / Prominent primate expert (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program)

''I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus.''

John Napier / Prominent primate expert (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program) also said:

"There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis."

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

Posted (edited)
After decades the debate remains unsettled,
PGF man in monkey suit or unknown creature only seen in that one video.
 
Sure some "scientists" have made grandiose claims what they were able to extract from the PGF,
The novice, the die hard believer gets starry eyed and forgets that no one knows a few important key elements like the alleged creatures distance from the camera the angles they were at their speeds of movement and even Patterson admitted at one point he didnt even know for sure what speed the camera was set at, look up how important krantz said camera speed was.
Many unproven claims made by a few scientists are not based on science at all but rather their personal agendas.  
 
A couple names that come up are the late G Krantz and J meldrum both sadly have been heard to base a huge percent in their belief in bigfoot on the unproven PGF.
 
Keep in mind bigfoot is a huge money maker and for these guys why should a person like meldrum post his theories for peer review and have them shredded when a book and lecture tour gets him a big cga-ching and ego stroke.
 
These profiteers off bigfoot make fist pounding claims it cant be a man in suit, tagging it with their opinions like a man wouldnt fit in the suit, a man can not walk like the creature a suit like that couldnt have been made in 68 and even claims of seeing things like muscle movement under the fur etc,
None of those claims are based in science and all have been debunked by actual scientists, 
 
I now will present from the turn of the century the dancing pig,
 
 
As you see no way a human could fit in this costume if it were a costume, no way a human could move like that, and here you really can see skin and muscle movement, facial expression, eyes, mouth, tongue movement and they sure didnt have the ability or materials available to create such a costume at the turn of the century.
 
So if i follow the "science" of those like meldrum this film can only be a 6' mutant pig who loves to dance and show off. 
 
Edited by the13bats
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2022 at 1:26 PM, the13bats said:

These profiteers off bigfoot make fist pounding claims it cant be a man in suit, tagging it with their opinions like a man wouldnt fit in the suit, a man can not walk like the creature a suit like that couldnt have been made in 68

It is often said that the 1968 (!) film ''2001:A Space Odyssey'' did not get the Oscar for costume/makeup for these:
2001-a-space-odyssey-dawn-of-man-apes-e1394058016602.png.a2f465625e6152aba5728c3e118de75a.png
from https://thewordoftom.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/scenes-of-an-epic-nature-my-top-6-movie-scenes/

..because everyone thought they were real animals (a couple were!)   The Oscar went to Planet of the Apes, and frankly, I think those apes look amateurish compared to the ''2001'' efforts   Add a bit more padding and long fur, and hey presto - Bigfoot.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 11:44 PM, ChrLzs said:

It is often said that the 1968 (!) film ''2001:A Space Odyssey'' did not get the Oscar for costume/makeup for these:
2001-a-space-odyssey-dawn-of-man-apes-e1394058016602.png.a2f465625e6152aba5728c3e118de75a.png
from https://thewordoftom.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/scenes-of-an-epic-nature-my-top-6-movie-scenes/

..because everyone thought they were real animals (a couple were!)   The Oscar went to Planet of the Apes, and frankly, I think those apes look amateurish compared to the ''2001'' efforts   Add a bit more padding and long fur, and hey presto - Bigfoot.

Exactly correct!

Johnny chambers did POTAs and at the time was considered top shelf but was also under a fairly tight budget, and his apes did have a "mask like" cheap look to me, still far better than the PGF suit.

2001 was stunning, i do not know about costs but no efforts were spared on the moonwatchers, just imagine had patterson used a moonwatcher suit.

https://hollywoodmoviecostumesandprops.blogspot.com/2013/02/moonwatcher-mask-and-costume-from-2001.html?m=1

That whole argument about it couldnt have been a suit because they couldnt have made one like it then has always been empty and lame, meldrum harps it heavy so yeah :rolleyes:

The other thing many people have never seen a non enlarged version of the PGF which the alleged creature only takes up a very tiny % of the frame so when these yahoos claim to blow up, inlarge or rather enhance the film and make silly claims of seeing muscle movements, facial expressions etc we know they are based in pushing a personal belief and nothing based in science, since the resolution wasnt there to show detail to start with.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.